text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'Stephen Hawking’s discovery of black hole evaporation had the remarkable consequence that information is destroyed by a black hole, which can only be accommodated by modifying the laws of quantum mechanics. Different attempts to evade the information loss paradox were subsequently suggested, apparently without a satisfactory resolution of the paradox. On the other hand, the attempting to include non-unitarity into quantum mechanics might lead to laws predicting observable consequences such as nonlocality or violation of energy-momentum conservation; but it may be possibly to circumvent these obstacles. Recent developments seem to require a different view on quantum gravity and suggest that ideas about locality in physics and Hawking’s semi-classical approximation are misleading. An accurate description may show unitary evolution and no information loss after all.'
author:
- |
Steffen Gielen[^1]\
\
D.A.M.T.P.,\
Cambridge University,\
Wilberforce Road,\
Cambridge CB3 0WA,\
U.K.
title: '[**[Does black-hole evaporation imply that physics is non-unitary, and if so, what must the laws of physics look like? An Essay.]{}**]{}'
---
Introduction
============
Stephen Hawking’s discovery that black holes radiate thermally has extremely striking consequences: It allows evolution of pure quantum states into mixed quantum states. The conclusion that has to be drawn from this “information loss paradox" is that our present laws of quantum mechanics are insufficient for describing a process such as the formation and subsequent evaporation of a black hole, and that the possibility of non-unitary time evolution has to be introduced for an adequate description. Hawking’s discovery and its consequences are explained in more detail in section two.\
\
However, since the framework of quantum mechanics seems to rest on unitarity, most physicists will tend to look for possible ways to get around such a drastic modification. These attempts are based on the fact that Hawking’s calculation was done in an approximation where quantum fluctuations of the spacetime geometry are neglected, and so one might expect quantum effects to become important in an accurate description. It will be shown in section three that it seems impossible to find a consistent description in which pure states will always remain pure.\
\
In section four I shall analyse the question what non-unitary laws of physics could possibly look like in more detail. Inevitable violations of energy or momentum conservation, locality and causality, or Lorentz covariance were found in some models that allow non-unitarity in quantum mechanics. It also seems that Noether’s theorem is inapplicable when time evolution of quantum states is non-unitary. Other authors came to different conclusions and were apparently able to construct models without these pathologies. I will discuss whether any satisfactory resolution of the debate has been reached.\
\
Stephen Hawking, who started the whole discussion, had his own viewpoint on how one should think about dynamic processes in curved spacetimes, due to the difficulties with defining local observables and time evolution in quantum gravity. He rejected a local description of quantum gravity, and the global description of quantum gravity led him to conclude that information loss was not a problem and that evolution in quantum mechanics was fully unitary.\
There are other general arguments why nonlocal effects should become apparent in processes involving quantum gravity, possibly restoring unitarity, and why the arguments apparently ruling out unitary evolution may not be applicable to black-hole evaporation. These more recent ideas will be discussed in section five.\
\
In section six, the results will be summarised, with an outlook to future developments. The appendix contains a few calculations in detail that have been left out of the main part of this essay, and also a short introduction to the path integral approach to quantum gravity.\
\
I will use Planck units, so that $G=c=\hbar=1$. Also, there is no Boltzmann’s constant.
Carter-Penrose Diagrams
-----------------------
Throughout this essay, Carter-Penrose diagrams will be used to illustrate the causal relations in a given spacetime. These diagrams are conventional in relativity, but perhaps less well known in general. To construct such a diagram, as first done by Carter in [@carter], one chooses a (1+1)-dimensional submanifold of the spacetime. Since we will always basically consider an evaporating Schwarzschild black hole with spherical symmetry, we will choose a submanifold $\theta=\varphi={\rm const}$. One then goes to different coordinates which are of finite range, e.g. by the transformation $t=\tan T$ for time. Of course, now the metric will become infinite as these new coordinates approach their upper and lower limits. By applying a conformal transformation to metric, one can obtain a metric which is regular even as these limits are approached, so that it is possible to attach a “boundary" to the spacetime. In the previous example, this boundary would consist of $T=\pm\frac{\pi}{2}$.\
\
While a conformal transformation changes scales and distances, it leaves the causal relations in the spacetime invariant, since the light cones of a metric $g$ and the rescaled version $\Omega^2 g$ are identical. Since any two-dimensional metric is conformal to a flat metric, by an appropriate choice of coordinates one can achieve that the rescaled metric is flat. Then a diagram of the (1+1)-dimensional new spacetime with its boundaries illustrates the causal relations of the original spacetime; at each point of this diagram one can draw light cones at 45 degrees which give the directions of light rays. The boundary “points" (two-spheres in the four-dimensional spacetime) $\imath^+$ and $\imath^-$ are called “future timelike infinity" and “past timelike infinity"; timelike geodesics of the original spacetime can be extended to begin or end in these points in the new compact spacetime. Similarly, spacelike geodesics end in “spacelike infinity" $\imath^0$. Light rays always begin and end in “past null infinity" $\mathcal{J}^-$ and “future null infinity" $\mathcal{J}^+$, respectively.\
\
It is conventional to draw wiggly lines for singularities and solid lines for event horizons and boundaries of spacetime. I use a dotted line for $r=0$ which corresponds to the origin in spherical polar coordinates, and is not to be confused with a boundary of spacetime. In Fig. 1, a light ray reaching $r=0$ would just be “reflected" out to positive values of $r$ again. Spacelike infinity $\imath^0$ corresponds to $r=\infty$. The area covered by collapsing matter in Fig. 1 does not have any physical significance – since scales change under conformal transformations, one could transform it into a different shape or area. However, the event horizon is always at 45 degrees. A particle that has passed it can not escape on a timelike curve which always has to be at less than 45 degrees to the vertical. In Fig. 4, the “baby universe" can be reached by going through the singularity of the black hole.
From Black Hole Evaporation to Non-Unitary Laws of Physics
==========================================================
Hawking Radiation and Information Loss
--------------------------------------
By doing an analysis of quantum field theory at the event horizon, Stephen Hawking discovered in 1973 that a black hole emits radiation exactly like a blackbody at the Hawking temperature $$T=\frac{\kappa}{2\pi},$$ where $\kappa$ is the surface gravity of the black hole [@hawking75]. For a Schwarzschild black hole, the total flux of radiation emitted per time is proportional to $M^2$, so that the time for a black hole to completely evaporate is proportional to $M^3$, where $M$ is the black hole mass.\
\
As a heuristic, but demonstrative, picture of this process, one might think of pair creation just outside the event horizon caused by vacuum fluctuations, so that one particle can escape to infinity while the other one falls into the hole, this one having negative energy so that total energy is conserved [@hawking75]. Although this particle appears to have negative energy relative to infinity, it can exist as a real particle with timelike momentum vector because the Killing vector which represents time translations is spacelike inside the horizon.\
\
Hawking derived this famous result in a “semi-classical" approximation; he used quantum field theory on a curved background with a spacetime satisfying the classical Einstein equations. On a length scale as small as Planck size, quantum fluctuations of the metric itself are generally expected to cause the calculation to break down.\
The notable fact about Hawking radiation is that it is exactly thermal and thus completely independent of the detailed structure of anything that collapsed to form the black hole. This is plausible since according to the uniqueness theorems (“no-hair theorems") of general relativity, the geometry outside a black hole is characterised only by the parameters mass, charge, and angular momentum.
![Carter-Penrose diagram for gravitational collapse followed by evaporation of the black hole [@hawking75]](figure1.eps)
\
\
This is the origin of the information loss paradox [@preskill]: A black hole will continue evaporating until it has disappeared, leaving only thermal radiation. In particular, a system that is in a pure quantum state might collapse to form a black hole; after the process of black hole formation and evaporation is completed, this system has evolved into a mixed state, which means that non-unitary evolution has occurred, in conflict with the laws of quantum mechanics. This is the paradox that will be discussed in this essay.\
\
Firstly, what does “information loss" mean in this context? Given a quantum system in a pure state, there exist [*non-degenerate*]{} observables so that a measurement on the system will give a unique predictable result [@page]. (Of course, this is not true for general observables.) This is a property of pure states; for a mixed state there are no such observables. In this sense, complete information exists only for pure states. Looking at the von Neumann entropy $$S=-{\mbox{tr }}(\rho\cdot\log\rho),$$ $S=0$ if and only if $\rho$ represents a pure state, since then the only eigenvalues of $\rho$ are one and zero. Information loss (or loss of quantum coherence) is then defined as an increase in the entropy $S$, which is exactly what happens in black hole evaporation. For any unitary operator $U$ $$S(U\rho U^{\dagger})=S(\rho),$$ since $S$ only depends on the eigenvalues of $\rho$ which are unaffected by a unitary change of basis. Therefore, a pure state will always remain pure under unitary evolution.
Modification of Quantum Mechanics
---------------------------------
It is well-known that already in ordinary quantum mechanics all measurements and the time evolution of systems can be described entirely by density matrices. Hawking proposed that a modification of quantum mechanics should be based on density matrices in order to allow a description of mixed states [@hawking76]. Time evolution between negative and positive infinity is then described by a superscattering operator $\slashed{S}$, so that $$\rho_{out}=\slashed{S}\cdot\rho_{in},$$ where $\slashed{S}$ is an operator preserving hermiticity, positivity and normalisation, replacing the usual $S$ matrix. For $\rho$ representing a pure state one obtains from ${\mbox{$|\psi\rangle$}}_{out}=S{\mbox{$|\psi\rangle$}}_{in}$ $$\rho_{out}=S\rho_{in}S^{\dagger}\quad\Rightarrow\;\slashed{S}\rho=S\rho S^{\dagger}.$$ According to [@hawking84], this factorisation requires the axiom of asymptotic completeness, the assumption that asymptotic states in the infinite past or future provide a basis for the full Hilbert space. [@hawking84] rejected the axiom for curved spacetimes and considered $\slashed{S}$ as the fundamental operator determining the dynamics of a system.\
$\slashed{S}$ may be a non-unitary operator, but reconstruction of the initial from the final state may be possible, as $\slashed{S}$ can be invertible [@page].[^2]\
\
Banks, Peskin and Susskind [@banks] now assumed that there is, at least after some coarse-grained averaging, a linear differential equation describing dynamics local in time $$\dot{\rho}=\slashed{H}\cdot\rho.$$ It is this starting point that will have to be reconsidered later. By choosing a complete orthonormal set of hermitian matrices $Q^{\alpha}$ with $Q^0=1$, they rewrote this as[^3] $$\dot{\rho}=-i[H,\rho]-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta\neq 0}h_{\alpha\beta}\left(Q^{\beta}Q^{\alpha}\rho+\rho Q^{\beta}Q^{\alpha} -2Q^{\alpha}\rho Q^{\beta}\right),$$ which is known as the [*Lindblad equation*]{} [@lindblad]. It is a Markovian master equation describing dissipative processes where quantum coherence is lost; obviously $\frac{d}{dt}(\mbox{tr }\rho)=\;{\mbox{tr }}\dot{\rho}=0$.\
An interesting question is which properties have to be satisfied by the couplings and operators to preserve the positivity of $\rho$; it will be discussed in section four.
Attempts to Evade Information Loss
==================================
Before a well-defined and accepted fundamental theory of physics is essentially modified, one should first try to analyse all possible alternatives to this modification. This is even more the case if this modification might lead to serious conflicts with other fundamental principles of physics.\
John Preskill [@preskill] reviewed several approaches to the problem and gave arguments why all of these are no viable alternatives to information loss as reasoned by Hawking. They will be presented in this section.
Could Information Come Out With the Radiation?
----------------------------------------------
The most obvious - and pragmatic - approach asserts that quantum effects could encode information in the outgoing radiation: The radiation could appear thermal initially, but be in fact correlated with the radiation emitted at later times. Complete knowledge of all quanta emitted during the process would then suffice to recover the initial information, and no evolution of pure into mixed states would have to occur. The analogy given by [@preskill; @hawking05] is that of an encyclopaedia thrown into the sun; the contained information is lost in practice by all means, but a complete measurement of all radiation emitted would [*in principle*]{} allow reconstruction of the encyclopaedia. The goal of this approach, of course, would be to describe the complete evolution by a unitary $S$ matrix.\
\
There is a relatively simple argument (apparently first given by Susskind) why this viewpoint violates causality: One can draw a spacelike surface $\Sigma$ that crosses the horizon, most of the outgoing radiation, and the collapsing body well inside the horizon. Now assume the outgoing radiation is described by a pure state, so that unitarity is preserved (see fig. 2), then the initial pure quantum state evolves into a tensor product $${\mbox{$|i\rangle$}}\rightarrow{\mbox{$|i\rangle$}}_{in}\otimes{\mbox{$|i\rangle$}}_{out}.$$ But if two different states ${\mbox{$|i_1\rangle$}}$ and ${\mbox{$|i_2\rangle$}}$ evolve in this fashion, their superposition must evolve as $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left({\mbox{$|i_1\rangle$}}+{\mbox{$|i_2\rangle$}}\right)\rightarrow\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left({\mbox{$|i_1\rangle$}}_{in}\otimes{\mbox{$|i_1\rangle$}}_{out}+{\mbox{$|i_2\rangle$}}_{in}\otimes{\mbox{$|i_2\rangle$}}_{out}\right),$$ which is only of the form ${\mbox{$|a\rangle$}}\otimes{\mbox{$|b\rangle$}}$ if either ${\mbox{$|i_1\rangle$}}_{out}$ and ${\mbox{$|i_2\rangle$}}_{out}$ or ${\mbox{$|i_1\rangle$}}_{in}$ and ${\mbox{$|i_2\rangle$}}_{in}$ represent the same state. Since the first case is ruled out, that means that all information gets stripped away from the infalling body as it crosses the horizon.
\
\
Indeed, the only possible way for information about a collapsing body to be encoded into radiation emitted at the event horizon that does not lead to a severe violation of causality is a mechanism that “keeps" all information at or near the horizon.\
Any relativist would immediately dismiss this as a violation of the equivalence principle, as an infalling observer does not observe an event horizon and nothing peculiar should happen to him.\
\
When presenting this argument, Page tried to argue that in quantum gravity the causal structure might be different from the classical picture, so that it may be impossible to say that $\Sigma$ is definitely spacelike (it must be nearly null classically) and a tensor product structure can not be assumed [@page]. But even if one accepts this argument and can explain why this encoding of information does not appear in Hawking’s derivation, one still only has the choice between acausal propagation and the existence of some “bleaching" mechanism.
(Almost) Stable Black Hole Remnants?
------------------------------------
It is reasonable to expect that the semi-classical calculation breaks down when the black hole has almost radiated away, at least when it has shrunk down to Planck size. One can assume that a black hole never radiates away completely because quantum effects stop the process, so that a stable remnant of (presumably) Planck size remains. This remnant would then retain all information about the collapsing matter that formed the black hole, making it forever inaccessible. The description of the outgoing radiation by a mixed state would result from tracing over this inaccessible system.\
\
At first glance, this seems to be a viable possibility. However it might be hard to imagine a Planck size object containing an arbitrarily large amount of information, and it is here where problems start: The theory now contains an infinite number of different species of Planck size objects. In a process like the evaporation of a large black hole, which could be described by an “effective field theory", there would be an amplitude for production of any of these species of Planck size objects, presumably of order of the Boltzmann factor $\exp(-\frac{M_{Pl}}{T_{BH}})$ - tiny for any large black hole, but still non-zero. If there is an infinite number of species, the total amplitude for remnant production would still be infinite, and one would expect an infinite luminosity. It might be argued that form factors suppress the creation of black hole remnants [@preskill; @page], or that an “effective field theory" description does not have to be adequate in a quantum gravity process, as Unruh and Wald pointed out in a different context [@unruh].\
\
There is a second, possibly more convincing, argument against the existence of such remnants: The Hawking-Bekenstein entropy $S$ of a black hole is proportional to its surface area and thus to its mass squared. The postulated black hole remnants would therefore have a small entropy, completely uncorrelated with their information content, which could be arbitrarily large. To quote [@preskill], “the beautiful edifice of black hole thermodynamics then seems like an inexplicable accident". The black hole entropy could in no way be interpreted as describing a number of internal states.
\
\
Giddings proposed that a black hole might stop radiating away at a mass large compared to $M_{Pl}$, depending on its information content, so that there could be arbitrarily large stable remnants for initially arbitrarily large black holes [@giddings]. Although this would solve the two problems, Preskill and Page dismissed this proposal because it means that the semi-classical calculation supposedly breaks down at arbitrarily low spacetime curvature at the event horizon [@preskill; @page]. It does not provide a serious alternative.\
\
As a second, alternative possibility, it is also conceivable that all information might be encoded in the radiation emitted in the final stage of evaporation, when the black hole is of Planck size; black hole remnants would not be stable but decay. It would be natural to expect decaying rather than absolutely stable remnants, for there is no conservation law preventing their decay [@page].\
Since there is little energy left for a large amount of information to be transmitted, the remnant will take a long time to decay [@preskill]: If $M$ was the mass of black hole when it started evaporating, in the final stage there will be of order $S\sim M^2$ quanta needed to encode all the information. But the available energy is of order one, so every quantum will have an energy of order $M^{-2}$ and therefore a wavelength of order $M^2$. If these quanta are emitted “one at a time", the total time will be of order $M^4$. According to [@page], other authors even assumed an exponentially long time; in any case, given that the time for evaporation is of order $M^3$, there would be arbitrarily long-lived black hole remnants. One faces the same problems as if they were absolutely stable.
Different Approaches
--------------------
The two approaches discussed so far are the alternatives to information loss most commonly found in all work on the subject. A few other ideas are also pursued:\
\
Firstly, anyone who believes in unitary evolution is challenged to explain how a black hole can record detailed information about any body that formed it. Hawking radiation is thermal in semi-classical theory because a black hole has no “hair". However, Bowick et al. showed that there may be additional charges carried by a black hole, referred to as “quantum hair" [@preskill; @stringcrap]. These are “axion charges" that could supposedly be “detected by strings" in an effect analogous to the Aharonov-Bohm effect [@anovbohm].\
It is very hard to imagine that the existence of these charges might resolve the information loss paradox. As [@preskill] explained, one would need an infinite number of exactly conserved charges, arising from an infinite number of unbroken gauge symmetries, in order to record all information about an infalling body. This huge number of additional conservation laws should have significance for low-energy physics, where such charges have never been observed.\
In [@stringcrap] the postulated existence of such charges was only used to state that a black hole can not completely evaporate since it will retain a large amount of charge for which there will be no decay channel.[^4] This is just a version of the proposal of stable remnants.\
\
A second viewpoint was widely discussed by Page and also by Preskill [@preskill; @page]: The Lindblad equation is commonly used to describe open quantum systems, like a system that is in contact with a thermal bath. The apparent loss of quantum coherence then stems from the fact that only part of the complete system is accessible in measurements. One can therefore view the universe as an open system from which information can leave. Indeed this is the explanation originally offered by Hawking [@hawking88], who stated that “any reasonable theory of quantum gravity will allow closed universes to branch off from our nearly flat region of spacetime." A “superobserver" who could measure the state of the whole “multiverse" would observe unitary evolution [@preskill]. This viewpoint, however, merely serves as an explanation for why evolution of pure into mixed states might be observed.\
Page even discussed the possibility of a universe that is open in both directions, so that states can come from and go to “baby universes". This general case would yield unpredictable mixed states. However, according to Hawking it is only possible for information to leave, not enter our universe.\
Exciting as ideas about a “multiverse" may seem to be, they are disheartening because they do not explain what exactly happens inside a black hole [@preskill]. At least they provide a picture in which information is never “destroyed".
\
\
Finally, one might also think about more drastic modifications of quantum mechanics, such as nonlinear evolution or the replacement of density matrices by something more fundamental [@page]. These seem to be far-fetched to most physicists; furthermore, it is unclear how these proposals could help to resolve the paradox.
Conclusion
----------
Various conceivable alternatives to information loss have been scrutinised, and all of them are plagued with serious inconsistencies. If one does not believe in a force at the event horizon that strips all information away from an infalling body, assumes that the classical picture of causality for a black hole is not completely overthrown by quantum effects, and likes to attach a possible interpretation to black hole entropy, then there seems to be no way to get around information loss.\
\
One may choose to interpret information loss by “baby universes" where information can go to from our universe, or one might adopt the (more radical?) viewpoint that information is simply destroyed by a black hole singularity - it seems impossible to describe a process such as the formation and evaporation of a black hole without invoking non-unitarity in quantum mechanics.
Non-Unitary Laws of Physics?
============================
The relevant question is now whether or not it is possible to construct a sensible and consistent theory of quantum mechanics, starting from Hawking’s original proposals [@hawking76], that allows evolution from pure into mixed states and is not in conflict with other principles that are assumed valid. In their attempt to launch an attack on Hawking’s ideas, Banks, Peskin and Susskind showed that assuming that there exists a differential equation that describes the evolution of $\rho$ which is local in time, the most general evolution equation is given by the Lindblad equation [@banks]. The following discussion assumes the Lindblad equation in some form as the master equation describing non-unitary physics.
What Must Non-Unitary Laws of Physics Look Like?
------------------------------------------------
The Lindblad equation has the general form $$\dot{\rho}=-i[H,\rho]-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta\neq 0}h_{\alpha\beta}\left(Q^{\beta}Q^{\alpha}\rho+\rho Q^{\beta}Q^{\alpha} -2Q^{\alpha}\rho Q^{\beta}\right),$$ which preserves the trace and hermiticity of $\rho$, given that $H$ and all $Q^{\alpha}$ are hermitian operators and $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is a hermitian matrix. The equation also needs to preserve positivity, i.e. the requirement that all (real) eigenvalues of $\rho$ be non-negative.\
As shown in [@banks], this is the case if $h_{\alpha\beta}$ has only non-negative eigenvalues: Diagonalise the hermitian matrix $h_{\alpha\beta}$, which can be done by a unitary transformation $u$, so that $$h_{\alpha\beta}=\sum_{\lambda}u_{\alpha\lambda}h_{\lambda}u^*_{\beta\lambda}.$$ This means that $$\sum_{\alpha\beta}h_{\alpha\beta}Q^{\alpha}Q^{\beta}=\sum_{\lambda}h_{\lambda}Q^{\lambda}Q^{\lambda\dagger},$$ identifying $Q^{\lambda}=\sum_{\alpha}u_{\alpha\lambda}Q^{\alpha}$. $\rho$ may also be diagonalised, so that its diagonal elements are its eigenvalues $p_i$. Now assume that one of the eigenvalues of $\rho$, say $p_1$, becomes zero; then in the evolution equation all terms but the last vanish, since $\rho_{j1}=\rho_{1j}=0$ for all $j$, so that $$\frac{d}{dt}p_1=\dot{\rho}_{11}=\sum_{\alpha\beta}h_{\alpha\beta}(Q^{\alpha}\rho Q^{\beta})_{11}=
\sum_{\alpha\beta i}h_{\alpha\beta}(Q^{\alpha}_{1i}p_i Q^{\beta}_{i1})=
\sum_{\alpha\beta i\lambda}u_{\alpha\lambda}h_{\lambda}u^*_{\beta\lambda}(Q^{\alpha}_{1i}p_i Q^{\beta}_{i1})$$ $$=\sum_{i\lambda}h_{\lambda}\left(\sum_{\alpha} u_{\alpha\lambda}Q^{\alpha}_{1i}\right)p_i\left(\sum_{\beta} u^*_{\beta\lambda}Q^{\beta}_{i1}\right)=\sum_{i\lambda}h_{\lambda}Q^{\lambda}_{1i}p_i Q^{\lambda\dagger}_{i1}=\sum_{i\lambda}h_{\lambda}|Q_{1i}^{\lambda}|^2 p_i\ge 0$$ given that $h_{\lambda}\ge 0$ for all $\lambda$. By a similar calculation the authors of [@banks] also showed that entropy increases, i.e. $$\frac{d}{dt}\;{\mbox{tr }}(-\rho\cdot\log\rho)\ge 0,$$ if $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is a real (and therefore symmetric) matrix. However they stated that “we do not know what conditions are necessary \[...\]" to have an equation that preserves positivity and increases entropy, and that one may construct examples where $h_{\alpha\beta}$ need not be real and positive. In spite of this they assumed that $h_{\alpha\beta}$ was in fact real and positive from this point on.\
\
A constraint on the Lindblad operators $Q^{\alpha}$ comes from the requirement of energy-momentum conservation that Hawking proposed as an additional axiom. Conservation of $H$ in the dynamics means that (assuming $H$ is time-independent) for any $k$, $${\mbox{tr }}(H^k\dot{\rho})=0.$$ Now one can see that $${\mbox{tr }}(H^k\dot{\rho})=\;{\mbox{tr }}\left\{-iH^k[H,\rho]-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta\neq 0}h_{\alpha\beta}H^k\left(Q^{\beta}Q^{\alpha}\rho+\rho Q^{\beta}Q^{\alpha} -2Q^{\alpha}\rho Q^{\beta}\right)\right\}$$ $$=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta\neq 0}h_{\alpha\beta}\;{\mbox{tr }}\left\{Q^{\alpha}Q^{\beta}\rho H^k + Q^{\alpha}Q^{\beta}H^k\rho-2Q^{\alpha} H^k Q^{\beta}\rho\right\}.$$ As proved in [@liu], if $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is real and positive, this only vanishes for general $\rho$ if $H$ commutes with all operators $Q^{\alpha}$. This is a severe constraint on the operators that could possibly appear in the Lindblad equation.\
Srednicki concluded that the only candidates for $Q^{\alpha}$ are the Hamiltonian, the total momentum operator $\vec{P}$ or a global conserved charge [@srednicki].
Possible Consequences of These Modifications
--------------------------------------------
Assuming certain conditions on the operators and couplings, several authors have proposed models to analyse possible observable differences from a unitary quantum theory. Several possible problems were encountered.\
\
First of all, Banks et al. used the above constraint on the operators $Q^{\alpha}$ already as an argument for why energy conservation is violated, as they apparently assumed that one can not satisfy the constraint [@banks]. They also claimed that either momentum conservation or locality would be violated by a non-unitary evolution law: A time-dependent Hamiltonian describing randomly fluctuating sources $$H(t)=H_0+\sum_{\alpha} j_{\alpha}(t) Q^{\alpha}$$ will, in conventional quantum mechanics, lead to an evolution of the density matrix according to $\dot{\rho}(t)=-i[H(t),\rho(t)]$. Integration gives $$\rho(\epsilon)-\rho(0) =-i\int\limits_0^{\epsilon} dt' [H_0+j_{\alpha}(t')Q^{\alpha},\rho(t')]$$ $$=-i\int\limits_0^{\epsilon} dt' [H_0+j_{\alpha}(t')Q^{\alpha},\rho(0)]-\int\limits_0^{\epsilon} dt' \int\limits_0^{t'} dt'' [H_0+j_{\alpha}(t')Q^{\alpha},[H_0+j_{\beta}(t'')Q^{\beta},\rho(0)]]+\ldots,$$ and if the sources are assumed to satisfy $$\langle j_{\alpha}(t)j_{\beta}(t')\rangle=h_{\alpha\beta}\delta(t-t'),$$ one obtains after averaging over the sources ($\langle j_{\alpha}(t)\rangle=0$) [^5] $$\frac{1}{\epsilon}\left(\rho(\epsilon)-\rho(0)\right)=-i[H_0,\rho(0)]-\frac{1}{2} h_{\alpha\beta}[Q^{\alpha},[Q^{\beta},\rho(0)]]+O(\epsilon).$$ In the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, this resembles the Lindblad equation if the matrix $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is symmetric, which is an additional requirement on which this argument crucially depends. Now Banks et al. argued that quantum mechanics with a random source breaks energy conservation. In field theory, momentum would also not be conserved if the sources were truly random because of lack of translational invariance. To preserve momentum conservation, one would need correlations between spacelike separated points with a range reciprocal to the size of momenta being added or subtracted, so that either locality or momentum conservation would have to be violated.\
To put this more precisely, they proposed a Lindblad-type equation generalised to quantum field theory: $$\dot{\rho}=-i\left[\int d^3 x\;H(\vec{x}),\rho\right]-\frac{1}{2}\int d^3 x\, d^3 y\;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{x}-\vec{y})\left(\left\{Q^{\beta}(\vec{y})Q^{\alpha}(\vec{x}),\rho\right\}-2Q^{\alpha}(\vec{x})\rho Q^{\beta}(\vec{y})\right).$$ The second term now induces nonlocal correlations including operators at different points, and the range of these correlations is given by the decay of the functions $h_{\alpha\beta}$ as $|\vec{x}-\vec{y}|$ becomes large. By expressing all quantities in terms of their Fourier transforms, one can write the second term as an integral over momentum space[^6] $$-\frac{1}{2}\int \frac{d^3 p}{(2\pi)^3}\;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{p})\left(\left\{Q^{\dagger\beta}(-\vec{p})Q^{\alpha}(\vec{p}),\rho\right\}-2Q^{\alpha}(\vec{p})\rho Q^{\dagger\beta}(-\vec{p})\right),$$ where the operators $Q^{\alpha}(\vec{p})$ lead to violations of momentum conservation of order $|\vec{p}|$. To make this plausible, imagine that $Q(\vec{x})=\phi(\vec{x})$, where $\phi$ is a scalar field; the Fourier modes would then be just creation and annihilation operators, adding or subtracting momentum. The total magnitude of these violations is given by the decay of $h_{\alpha\beta}$ in momentum space. If $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is localized at small values of $|\vec{p}|$, there will be long-range nonlocal correlations; on the other hand, if $h_{\alpha\beta}$ falls off quickly in position space, it will be spread out in momentum space. This is reminiscent of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation which can also be viewed as a “Fourier argument" of this type.\
In quantum field theory, correlation functions of operators fall off at least exponentially for large spacelike separations, i.e. there are constants $C$ and $\mu$ such that at equal times $$\left|{\mbox{tr }}(A(\vec{x})B(\vec{y})\rho_0)\right|<Ce^{-\mu|\vec{x}-\vec{y}|},$$ where $\rho_0$ essentially represents the vacuum, cf. $\langle A(x) B(y)\rangle \equiv {\mbox{$\langle 0|A(x)B(y)|0\rangle$}}$ in quantum field theory. Banks et al. showed that while such a condition is preserved by the usual evolution law, it may be violated by a modified non-unitary evolution equation.[^7]\
\
The arguments of [@banks] were challenged by Srednicki [@srednicki]: Nonlocal effects induced by non-unitarity would cause wave packets to spread out more dramatically than in conventional quantum mechanics. By explicit calculation of simple examples in quantum mechanics, such as coherent states of the harmonic oscillator, [@srednicki] showed that such an effect exists but it is not dramatic and decreases with time, so that no violation of locality occurs. Results in quantum field theory can be assumed to be similar. Energy and momentum conservation are guaranteed by choosing the operators $Q^{\alpha}$ appropriately as global operators commuting with the four-momentum operators $P^{\mu}\equiv(H,\vec{P})$, whereas Banks et al. had considered only local operators.\
\
However, Srednicki saw a different possible problem: The Lindblad equation might violate the “weakest possible" form of Lorentz covariance, which basically means that $P^{\mu}$ transforms as a four-vector under Lorentz transformations. Assuming that all $Q^{\alpha}$ must commute with $P^{\mu}$, the fact that a product of two $Q^{\alpha}$ must transform like $H$ in order to give covariance means that $h_{\alpha\beta}$ must be purely off-diagonal (since there is no “square root of $H$") and so have a negative eigenvalue leading to non-positivity of $\rho$.\
This argument is not entirely watertight, since one can find examples where $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is not positive, with energy, momentum and angular momentum still conserved even though the respective operators do not commute with the $Q^{\alpha}$. Jun Liu, indeed, gave an example with these properties that also preserves positivity of $\rho$ [@liu]: Let $H=b^{\dagger}b$, where $b$ is a fermion operator obeying $\{b,b\}=0$ and $\{b^{\dagger},b\}=1$, then take $Q_1=b^{\dagger}+b,\;Q_2=i(b^{\dagger}-b),\;Q_3=2b^{\dagger}b$ and $h_{11}=-h_{22}=-h_{33}=g$, so that the evolution law becomes $$\dot{\rho}=-i[H,\rho]-2g(b^{\dagger}\rho b^{\dagger}+b\rho b - b^{\dagger} b\rho -\rho b^{\dagger}b + 2b^{\dagger}b\rho b^{\dagger}b).$$ Now ${\mbox{tr }}(H\dot{\rho})=0$ since there will always be a factor of $b^2=0$ or $(b^{\dagger})^2=0$, and energy is conserved. It becomes clear that the positivity of $h_{\alpha\beta}$ should not be viewed as a necessary condition for sensible non-unitary models.
Observability of These Effects
------------------------------
As a response to [@banks], Unruh and Wald showed that violations of locality/causality or energy-momentum conservation can be kept arbitrarily small for all states that one could measure in a laboratory [@unruh]. Therefore it is, in principle, possible to have evolution laws that take pure states into mixed states.\
Choosing all the $Q^{\alpha}$ in the Lindblad equation to be orthogonal projection operators and $h_{\alpha\beta}$ to be diagonal one obtains $$\dot{\rho}=-i[H,\rho]-\sum_i\lambda_i(Q_i\rho+\rho Q_i-2Q_i\rho Q_i)=-i[H,\rho]+\sum_i\lambda_i[Q_i,[\rho,Q_i]].$$ It should be noted that $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is now real and positive, so that one would require $[H,Q_i]=0$ for energy conservation, which is not satisfied by general projection operators. This approach does not try to choose $h_{\alpha\beta}$ to be non-symmetric or indefinite to avoid problems.\
\
Corresponding to the Heisenberg picture of quantum mechanics, where observables evolve in time according to $\dot{A}=i[H,A]$, the evolution law is given by $$\dot{A}=i[H,A]+\sum_i\lambda_i[Q_i,[A,Q_i]].$$ Now the argument is as follows: If $\mathcal{R}$ is an inaccessibly small region of space, e.g. of Planck size, and $R$ is a local field observable for this region, $R$ will commute with a local field observable $T$ for a disjoint region $\mathcal{T}$ at equal times: $$[T(t),R(t)]=0.$$ Let $Q$ be a projection operator that projects on eigenstates of $R$ which have an eigenvalue greater than some given value $\alpha$; then $$[T(t),Q(t)]=0$$ since $Q$ and $R$ are simultaneously diagonalisable. It follows that, in the evolution law where $Q$ is the only appearing projection operator, $$\dot{T}=i[H,\rho]+\lambda[Q,[T,Q]],$$ $T$ evolves just as in conventional unitary quantum mechanics. This can be generalised to different regions $\mathcal{R}_i$ and respective projections $Q_i$, as long as $\mathcal{T}$ is disjoint from all of these. Any observable which is “almost" global (just excludes these regions) is unaffected by the non-unitarity of the evolution law for $\rho$. Therefore the theory does not violate locality as long as one forgets about the inaccessible regions $\mathcal{R}_i$.\
\
Banks et al. argued that gross violations of momentum conservation would have to occur for a local theory, but [@unruh] showed how to confine them: One can distinguish between “laboratory states" and “inaccessible states", with the essential assertion that if the projection operators $Q_i$ appearing in the Lindblad equation of this model are chosen as just described, then for laboratory states $\rho_L$ one will have $Q_i\rho_L\approx Q_i{\mbox{$|0\rangle$}}{\mbox{$\langle 0|$}}$. On the scale of the regions $\mathcal{R}_i$, $\rho_L$ is essentially equal to the vacuum state. This seems reasonable if one introduces a momentum cutoff $\Lambda$ for the Hilbert space of laboratory states, for example, and then chooses $\mathcal{R}_i$ to have size much smaller than $\Lambda^{-1}$. The subspaces on which the operators $Q_i$ project depend on the parameters $\alpha_i$, the subspaces becoming smaller with increasing $\alpha_i$. Therefore $||Q_i{\mbox{$|0\rangle$}}||^2$ will decrease with increasing $\alpha_i$.\
Now the values for $\lambda_i$ and $\alpha_i$ are independent parameters to adjust possible effects of non-unitarity: As loss of quantum coherence is measured by $\frac{d}{dt}\;{\mbox{tr }}\rho^2$, the magnitude of this loss is determined by $${\mbox{tr }}(\dot{\rho}\rho+\rho\dot{\rho})=\sum_i 4\lambda_i \left({\mbox{tr }}(Q_i\rho Q_i\rho)+\;{\mbox{tr }}(Q_i\rho^2)\right),$$ where the first term in the Lindblad equation gives no contribution. Assuming that there are states for which the traces appearing in the sum are large, one can have rapid loss of quantum coherence by choosing the couplings $\lambda_i$ to be large. But when looking at laboratory states, the loss of quantum coherence is given by $$\sum_i 4\lambda_i \left({\mbox{tr }}(Q_i\rho Q_i\rho)+\;{\mbox{tr }}(Q_i\rho^2)\right)\approx \sum_i 4\lambda_i \left({\mbox{tr }}(Q_i{\mbox{$|0\rangle$}}{\mbox{$\langle 0|$}} Q_i{\mbox{$|0\rangle$}}{\mbox{$\langle 0|$}})+\;{\mbox{tr }}(Q_i{\mbox{$|0\rangle$}}{\mbox{$\langle 0|$}})\right)$$ $$=\sum_i 4\lambda_i (||Q_i{\mbox{$|0\rangle$}}||^4-||Q_i{\mbox{$|0\rangle$}}||^2)\approx -\sum_i 4\lambda_i ||Q_i{\mbox{$|0\rangle$}}||^2.$$ So for any given couplings $\lambda_i$, the observable effects of non-unitary evolution, including possible violations of energy-momentum conservation, can be kept small by adjusting the operators $Q_i$. One can choose the respective values for $\alpha_i$ to be as large as necessary, so that $||Q_i{\mbox{$|0\rangle$}}||^2$ will be very small. Thus, all effects of non-unitary evolution will become negligible for all “laboratory states" one might hope to create in an experiment. All problems with non-unitarity seem to be resolved as no experiment will find any effects not predicted by conventional quantum mechanics[^8].\
In an “illustrative" calculation, Banks et al. had chosen the operator $Q$ to be a squared field operator. Unruh and Wald stated that this choice is inappropriate because then $||Q{\mbox{$|0\rangle$}}||^2$ is very large, so that the coupling $a$ (corresponding to $\lambda_i$ in [@unruh]) has to be chosen to be tiny. Then the apparent violation of energy conservation, proportional to $a$, will also be small. This indicates a serious loophole in the arguments of [@banks].\
\
Ellis et al. [@ellis] discussed how quantum mechanics violating effects could be detected in experiments. By looking at an EPR-type situation with two particles, they showed that when a pure state evolves into a mixed state, rotational invariance no longer implies that angular momentum is conserved. Symmetries seem to no longer imply the usual conservation laws, which have to be put in by hand. This is a strong argument against non-unitary laws of physics to many [@page; @srednicki]. In all well-accepted theories of physics, conservation laws arise naturally and do not have to be imposed.\
However, the magnitude of any violation of conservation laws is directly related to the magnitude of the corrections to the unitary evolution law. Ellis et al. rewrote the Lindblad equation as $$\dot{\rho}=-i[\rho,H]+\delta\slashed{H}\cdot\rho,$$ and compared the expected effects of a non-unitary term to experimental results of two separate experiments. The estimated that an upper bound for the eigenvalues of $\delta\slashed{H}$, assuming that non-unitary evolution occurs for all quantum states, should be given by $$2\cdot 10^{-12}\;\mbox{eV},$$ obtaining the same bound independently. In light of this it must be further questioned if an apparently very small violation of conservation laws should really be regarded as unacceptable. For a macroscopic black hole the evolution of pure into mixed states might be well described even if the correction to unitary evolution is tiny, since complete evaporation takes an enormous amount of time (approx. $10^{64}$ years for a black hole of one solar mass). However, for microscopic black holes one would need rapid loss of quantum coherence, which has to be restricted to states with “extraordinary" properties.
A Satisfactory Resolution?
--------------------------
The case for non-unitary laws of physics is still open. Assuming that some version of the Lindblad equation gives an appropriate modification of quantum mechanics, it is still not precisely known what necessary conditions the couplings $h_{\alpha\beta}$ have to satisfy to ensure positivity of $\rho$ and an increase in entropy, so that the second law of thermodynamics holds. A precise statement about which conditions are necessary would be desirable.\
\
A sufficient condition is that $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is a real symmetric positive matrix. One then needs operators $Q^{\alpha}$ that commute with the Hamiltonian to give conservation of energy. This severely limits the possible choices and eventually will lead to problems with Lorentz covariance. The example in [@liu] shows that one might get around these problems by choosing an indefinite matrix. In this case the evolution equation seems to be genuinely different. It is, however, unclear how such an evolution law might give a description of the evolution of a pure into mixed state such as to describe formation and evaporation of a black hole.\
\
Unruh and Wald accepted that the Lindblad equation with a real and symmetric $h_{\alpha\beta}$ will lead to violation of energy-momentum conservation and locality, but they showed how these violations may be confined to “inaccessible" states by choosing the operators $Q^{\alpha}$ appropriately. A fundamental theory is unlikely to arise from their model, as there is no apparent reason for particular inaccessible regions $\mathcal{R}_i$ to be distinguished.\
Quantum mechanics can be modified in such a way that it remains local and unitary for all states that could possibly be observed in laboratory physics, but becomes non-unitary on smaller length scales. On one hand, this seems to be a promising starting point. The reason to think about non-unitary laws of physics in the first place was a phenomenon that fundamentally involves quantum gravity, and conceivably involves quantum states “inaccessible" in laboratories. Conventional quantum mechanics would then appear as a low-energy limit. On the other hand, it appears like a cheap trick to sweep all possible problems with non-unitary quantum mechanics out of reach, and indeed, a theory that relies on “inaccessibility in laboratory physics" is [*a priori*]{} untestable.\
In black hole evaporation, non-unitary evolution would be confined to the final stage of evaporation. Before this the outgoing radiation would only appear thermal because of the trace over the Hilbert space of the inaccessible black hole interior. Then the observed von Neumann entropy would be small when the black hole has radiated away most of its mass, before sharply increasing when non-unitarity comes into play. It seems hardly possible to reconcile this with Hawking’s calculation, where entropy steadily increases.\
\
Two final comments should be made. Firstly, none of the authors has proposed a model to describe black hole physics. There seem to be only vague ideas of what a non-unitary theory of quantum mechanics should look like. Secondly, no argument has conclusively shown that any formulation of quantum mechanics that includes loss of information inevitably leads to inconsistencies such as violation of energy conservation or locality.
New Perspectives - Back Towards Unitarity?
==========================================
In the previous sections it has been implicitly assumed that Hawking’s original calculation gives an accurate picture of black hole evaporation. In the discussion of non-unitary laws of physics it was asserted that local dynamical evolution laws can describe the process. This section will turn back to these original assumptions; they could both be incorrect in a complete theory of quantum gravity. One might have to look at black hole evaporation in a slightly different way.
Locality and Time in Quantum Gravity
------------------------------------
Arkani-Hamed et al. [@nima] pointed out that if gravity is dynamical, the notion of local observables is not a well-defined concept. One needs the metric in order to say that two points $x$ and $y$ are spacelike separated, so that one could state $[O(x),O(y)]=0$ as the requirement of locality. If that itself fluctuates, locality can not be defined precisely.\
They interpreted this indeterminacy as an intrinsic limit on the precision of measurements for local observables: The number of internal states of any compact apparatus is bounded by the number of states of a black hole of the same size as the black hole is the object with the largest density of states. It follows that this irreducible error for a two-point correlation function is of order $$\delta_{\langle \phi(x)\phi(y)\rangle}\sim e^{-S_{BH}}\sim e^{-\frac{|x-y|^2}{G}},$$ i.e. of order $\frac{1}{N}$, where $N$ is the number of states for a black hole that has Schwarzschild radius of order $|x-y|$. The effect is tiny and non-perturbative in $G$, but this instance of nonlocality could lead to a breakdown of Hawking’s semi-classical calculation, as will be shown later.\
\
Secondly, the definition of time is somewhat arbitrary due to the covariance of general relativity under diffeomorphisms (coordinate transformations), which correspond to gauge transformations. In the canonical quantisation of gravity the Wheeler-de Witt equation $H{\mbox{$|\psi\rangle$}}=0$ replaces the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics and contains no explicit time dependence. As shown in [@nima], for non-dynamical gravity in flat space one can find a diffeomorphism invariant formulation, so that the Schrödinger equation is recovered. For a fluctuating metric the concept of time evolution is not well-defined.\
\
In [@hawking84], Stephen Hawking explained why from his point of view a violation of energy-momentum conservation as described in [@banks] will necessarily occur if one considers dynamical laws local in space and time: [@hawking84] claimed that the notion of time evolution breaks down in topologically non-trivial metrics, such as on the spacetime of an evaporating black hole. For this reason the process of black hole formation and evaporation should be viewed as a scattering process where one only looks at states at positive and negative infinity, where spacetime is asymptotically flat. Energy, momentum and angular momentum are conserved globally because the initial and final states satisfy the asymptotic field equations but no conservation law should necessarily hold locally.\
One will encounter violations of momentum conservation of order $\Delta p$ if one tries to make the dynamics local within a region $(\Delta p)^{-1}$, just as [@banks] claimed.\
\
From this perspective there is no reason to assume that local evolution laws describe evolution from pure states into mixed states. It seems that not only can quantum gravity not be described by conventional quantum field theory, but also that the dynamics of quantum gravity seem to be very different from those of known theories of physics.
Black Hole Complementarity
--------------------------
An intriguing new proposal to get around the usual arguments against unitary evolution in black-hole evaporation was provided by Susskind, Thorlacius, and Uglum [@complement]. This is based on the earlier observation by Thorne, Damour and others that a classical black hole can be described in terms of a so-called “stretched horizon", which has the physical (thermal, electrical etc.) properties of a membrane. This may be confusing, as it was argued earlier that nothing peculiar should happen at the event horizon of a black hole, or anywhere but close to the curvature singularity. Indeed a freely falling observer will not perceive a membrane, but a stationary observer remaining outside of the black hole will. This leads to a notion of [*black hole complementarity*]{}, expressed in the following three postulates:
- The process of black hole formation and evaporation can be described within standard quantum theory, and is in particular unitary.
- The semi-classical approximation is a good approximation to physics outside of the stretched horizon.
- The entropy $S$ does describe microscopic degrees of freedom of the black hole, as observed by a distant observer.
This proposal could be regarded as the “maximally conservative" proposed solution to the problem, concerned only with observations made from outside the black hole, and may not sound very satisfactory. It was demonstrated in [@complement], however, how to make sense of it, and in particular of the role of the stretched horizon, in a simplified model of two-dimensional “dilaton" (scalar) gravity. The physical validity of semi-classical arguments of the analysis was put in question by Hawking [@dilaton], who argued that because the temperature and rate of emission of radiation of an evaporating black hole in this model remain finite the evaporation process must lead to a naked singularity if the approximation is trusted. In any case it is probably fair to say that a simplified two-dimensional model can not give more than indications that one is on the right track.\
\
Let us assume black hole complementarity as a guiding principle. What about the apparently inevitable conclusions of section three, then? According to black hole complementarity, it is not meaningful to speak of a tensor product Hilbert space of states outside and inside of the event horizon. Only a nonexistent “superobserver" having access to regions both inside and outside of the horizon could make measurements on a state in this space, or make any predictions about its time evolution. One does not try to describe the universe as a whole in one consistent quantum theory, but only demands that time-evolution is consistent from the perspective of all possible observers. As noted in [@complement], this may well mean that the present framework of quantum field theory is inadequate to describe black-hole evaporation.\
\
Imposing such a principle, of course, does not give any indication of a dynamical process that might encode information in the outgoing radiation. It still seems that all information can only come out “at the end", and this leads to the problems outlined in section three, as this process would be assumed to take a very long time. Building on black hole complementarity, Hayden and Preskill [@haydpres] described a simple quantum information-theoretic model of how information could become scrambled in a black hole. Their proposal was not meant to provide new conceptual insights, but showed how simple estimates might be misleading because one has to “classical" a picture in mind. Firstly, they assumed that, for a black hole composed of $n$ qubits, an instantaneous, randomly chosen unitary transformation “randomizes" this information before the qubits get released in Hawking radiation. The black hole works as what is known as a [*quantum erasure channel*]{}, which has the property that after $(n+k+c)/2$ qubits have been released, an arbitrary $k$ qubits of information can be retrieved with fidelity at least $1-2^{-c}$. Thus, for an arbitrarily large black hole one can get arbitrarily close to ultimately retrieving all of the information thrown into the black hole (keeping $c$ constant). As soon as the black hole has evaporated more than half of its original information content, information can be retrieved from the radiation.\
\
This, of course, is a very simplified model, and even if one assumes black hole complementarity, leads to a contradiction: Assume a black hole has already evaporated away more than half of its original information, and most of the outgoing radiation has been received by an observer outside of the black hole. A second observer could then fall into the black hole, sending off a message about his information before becoming almost instantly “randomized". The first observer, having retrieved this information through the following Hawking radiation, could then follow into the black hole, receive the message and thus achieve some kind of quantum “cloning", which is not possible (see Fig. 6). This would violate the postulate that standard quantum mechanics can describe the process.
\
To test if this problem is still present in a more realistic model, an estimate for the “thermalization time" of a black hole was given in [@haydpres]. One would normally assume that a perturbation of a black hole dies off within a time scale $M$, since this is true classically, but only locally. Using the dissipative properties that the proposed stretched horizon has, one obtains an estimate of $M \log M$ (measured in the Schwarzschild time coordinate) for the black hole to settle down to a quasi-stationary state, which was shown can be achieved by a model of efficient quantum circuits.\
One can then show [@haydpres] that the proper time that the infalling observer has to send a message to the other observer is of order $M e^{-\Delta t/M}$, where $\Delta t$ is the difference in Schwarzschild time between the two observers’ crossing the horizon. Since this must be at least equal to the thermalization time for the external observer to retrieve information while he is still outside of the horizon, the proper time left to send the message is at most of the order of the Planck time, and in particular cannot be increased by choosing $M$ to be large. Since this means super-Planckian frequencies are required, one would normally regard this as impossible, and cloning is (“just barely") prevented.\
\
From a quantum information theoretic perspective, such a randomization of the infalling information also means that no acausal signalling occurs in this process, and no mysterious “bleaching" mechanism seems to be required. While the proposed model of Hayden and Preskill may look overly simplified to give insights into quantum gravity, it shows that information-theoretic reasoning can sometimes lead to very different conclusions than naively expected. It appears that the objections of section three could, at least in principle, be avoided. It was advocated in [@haydpres] there there could be “an interesting middle ground" between unitarity and information loss - the interpretation of this is somewhat unclear.
Holography and String Theoretic Arguments
-----------------------------------------
Most string theorists believed that the AdS/CFT correspondence[^9], proposed by Maldacena [@maldacena], solved the information loss paradox, and that no information was lost [@hawking05; @susskind]. Put simply, according to the correspondence, all gravitational processes can be mapped to a conformal field theory on the boundary, which is unitary. It seems that to trust these ideas one has to accept string theory as a consistent theory of quantum gravity.\
\
However, the AdS/CFT correspondence is a realisation of a more general principle. The result for the Hawking-Bekenstein entropy, namely that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to its surface area and not its volume, had led to the conjecture of the “holographic principle" which states that a region with boundary of area $A$ is fully described by no more than $\frac{A}{4}$ degrees of freedom [@bousso], since black holes have maximal entropy. This conclusion does not seem to depend on string theory or supersymmetric field theory. It means that a local field theory in which the number of degrees of freedom is proportional to the volume may not give a sufficent description when gravity is involved. In the context of black hole evaporation, the assumption that time evolution is unitary means that the entropy of the outgoing Hawking radiation is entanglement entropy which can not exceed the entropy of the system that forms the second subsystem, i.e. the black hole [@nima]. At the point where the entropy of the remaining black hole becomes equal to the total entropy of the emitted radiation, the semi-classical approximation has to break down and the observed entropy of the radiation must decrease and finally become zero.\
\
At this point the black hole is still large compared to the Planck scale. [@nima] gives an idea of how one could explain this apparently early breakdown of the semi-classical calculation: Consider $N$ spins $\sigma_i=\pm\frac{1}{2}$ and the pure state $${\mbox{$|\psi\rangle$}}=\sum_{\sigma_i}\frac{1}{2^{\frac{N}{2}}}{\mbox{$|\sigma_1\ldots\sigma_N\rangle$}}e^{i\theta(\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_N)},$$ where $\theta(\sigma_1,\ldots,\sigma_N)$ are random phases. If one only measures $k$ spins, the state appears as a mixed state, with entropy resulting from tracing over the unobserved subsystem $$S=k\log 2 + O(2^{-N+2k}).$$ The correction is exponentially small in $N$, but also exponentially increasing with the number of measurements, so that the effect is of order one when $k\approx\frac{N}{2}$. For $k=N$ one will have entropy zero, since ${\mbox{$|\psi\rangle$}}$ is a pure state.\
Likewise, exponentially small corrections to the leading order semi-classical theory can add up and significantly contribute when the number of emitted quanta of Hawking radiation is of order $S_{BH}$, which is the case after a time scale of the order of the (semi-classical) evaporation time $t\sim S_{BH}^{3/2}$. Just as in the spin case, the observed entropy will, after this time, drop to zero, so that unitarity is ultimately restored.\
Though an explanation for the breakdown of semi-classical theory at low curvature might emerge from these ideas, the apparent inconsistencies for any picture of unitary evolution explained in section three still exist. Again one has to invoke black hole complementarity. While an outside observer indeed observes “bleaching" at the horizon, the infalling observer will not observe anything special. Certainly, a departure from the picture of causality offered by classical general relativity is required.\
\
It is usually assumed that Hawking radiation is a quantum-gravitational prediction, and must therefore be reproduced, and perhaps explained, by any theory of quantum gravity. It was therefore considered to be a great success of string theory when Strominger and Vafa gave a calculation [@strominger] which could be interpreted as explaining black-hole entropy in terms of microscopic degrees of freedom, and string theorists claimed this puzzle had been solved. In the words of Roger Penrose [@penrose], however, “as appears to be usual, with such string-theoretic proclamations, this conclusion is very considerably overblown". This is because all calculations are performed in flat space, and the horizon of a black hole seems to not have played a role in these calculations, which could only be performed for near-extremal black holes with positive specific heat (as opposed to the usual [*negative*]{} specific heat). It must be noted, however, that the exact agreement with the Hawking-Bekenstein entropy is quite remarkable, and at least gives evidence to the idea of the holographic principle.\
Similar calculations in loop quantum gravity [@lqg], while giving a clearer “picture" and appearing to be better motivated physically, gave an entropy proportional to the area of the black hole, while the prefactor depended on the Barbero-Immirzi parameter (a free parameter of the theory). Again, the prediction of a universal formula for similar types of black holes seems quite remarkable, but does not seem to provide an intuitive understanding of the microscopic degrees of freedom of the black hole, or of any physical mechanism “destroying" or “encoding" information.
No Need For Non-Unitarity, After All?
-------------------------------------
In 2004, Stephen Hawking claimed that he had found an explanation why no evolution from pure into mixed states should occur in quantum gravity [@hawking05]. The basic statement is that since all measurements can be made only at spatial infinity, one does not know if a black hole has formed and evaporated in the process. One has to take the sum over all possible histories in the path integral, which include those in which there was no black hole.\
This sum restores unitarity for the following reasons: When calculating the partition function of gravity[^10], one takes the Euclidean path integral (“the only sane way to do quantum gravity nonperturbatively" [@hawking05]) over metrics of all topologies that fit inside the boundary $S^2\times S^1$. The point is that the path integral over metrics with trivial topology is unitary, while the path integral over metrics with non-trivial topology (including black holes) gives correlation functions that decay to zero (“very plausible" [@hawking05]), so that they will not contribute at late times, even though classically there might have been a very high probability for a black hole to form. In the end, one obtains a unitary mapping from initial to final states. In a semi-classical approximation one “throws away unitarity."\
\
If the arguments of [@hawking05] are accepted (though there seems to be no proof and they seem to apply only to spacetimes which are asymptotically AdS) the lesson still remains highly elusive. What happens when a black hole forms and evaporates? According to [@hawking05], Hawking and Hartle showed in [@hartle] that radiation could be thought of as tunnelling through the event horizon, and this might explain how it could carry information. But the final viewpoint seems to require that anything that happens between negative and positive infinity can not be specified. One has to take all possibilities into account, just as in microscopic processes described by conventional quantum field theory.\
\
[@hawking05] contained few explicit calculations, and it seems hard to compare the results to the semi-classical approach and see what went wrong there. The original question if black hole evaporation implies that physics is non-unitary is more open than ever.
Conclusion/Outlook
==================
The title of this essay asked two questions. The first one already seemed to be answered: Hawking radiation suggests that physics is non-unitary, and it seemed to have been shown conclusively that there is no alternative to this conclusion, unless one wants to make a great sacrifice such as disregarding locality to preserve unitarity.\
But in the end, it looks as if a different perspective on quantum gravity might be required. Were all examined alternatives to information loss just “classical" pictures inadequate to describe a process presumably including physics at the Planck scale? Will it prove to be impossible to describe quantum gravity by a “local" theory? That would eventually mean that a departure from the present understanding of cause and effect will be required in this theory, as the holographic principle suggests.\
\
These questions will presumably remain open for the foreseeable future. Assuming for the moment that there is information loss in black holes and that a description of it by a local theory is meaningful, the second question is: Can the present laws of physics be modified to accommodate information loss? Though nobody seems to have an idea of how exactly this should be done, the answer seems to be yes. No cherished principle is necessarily violated if evolution of pure into mixed states is possible.\
Inapt choices for the quantities remaining in the Lindblad equation will raise potential difficulties. But it seems fair to say that a consistent theory can be based on some version of the Lindblad equation, so that evolution of pure states into mixed states occurs. At least a little insight has been gained into what non-unitary laws of physics must be like.\
It may be necessary, as in Unruh’s and Wald’s model, to confine non-unitary evolution to a domain where it can escape present experiments, but become important at small length scales. However, assuming that non-unitarity only occurs at the Planck scale will presumably not allow the construction of a consistent theory that accurately describes processes involving black holes.\
Any hope for experimental data seems far out at present. Maybe the physics world will be surprised by an observation of non-unitary evolution in some future experiment. Accordingly one can hope to give more definite statements based on experimental results, or rely on pure thought in the meantime. But, to quote John Preskill, “anyway, we don’t have much choice."
Appendix
========
Derivation of the Lindblad Equation
-----------------------------------
Starting from $$\dot{\rho}=\slashed{H}\cdot\rho,$$ where $\slashed{H}$ is linear and the right-hand side must be hermitian, this can be written as $$\dot{\rho}=-\sum_{\alpha\beta}h_{\alpha\beta}Q^{\alpha}\rho Q^{\beta},$$ where $Q^{\alpha}$ is an arbitrary complete orthonormal set of hermitian matrices with $Q^0=1$ and $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is a hermitian matrix. The requirement that ${\mbox{tr }}\rho$ must be constant is the constraint $$0=\;{\mbox{tr }}\left(h_{00}\rho+\sum_{\alpha\neq 0}(h_{0\alpha}+h_{\alpha 0})Q^{\alpha}\rho+\sum_{\alpha,\beta\neq 0}h_{\alpha\beta}Q^{\beta}Q^{\alpha}\rho\right),$$ using the cyclic property of the trace. This can be satisfied by $h_{00}=0$ and $$\sum_{\alpha,\beta\neq 0}h_{\alpha\beta}Q^{\beta}Q^{\alpha}=-\sum_{\alpha\neq 0}(h_{0\alpha}+h_{\alpha 0})Q^{\alpha}.$$ Since the $Q^{\alpha}$ form a complete set, $Q^{\beta}Q^{\alpha}=\sum_{\gamma\neq 0} g_{\beta\alpha\gamma}Q^{\gamma}$ for some $g_{\beta\alpha\gamma}$, so that $(h_{0\alpha}+h_{\alpha 0})=-\sum_{\beta,\gamma\neq 0} h_{\beta\gamma}g_{\gamma\beta\alpha}$ satisfies the condition. After the parametrisation $$\sum_{\alpha\neq 0}(h_{0\alpha}-h_{\alpha 0})Q^{\alpha}=2iH,$$ which defines a hermitian operator $H$ since $h_{\alpha\beta}$ is hermitian and so the left-hand side is anti-hermitian, one obtains $$\sum_{\alpha\neq 0}h_{0\alpha}\rho Q^{\alpha}=\sum_{\alpha\neq 0}\frac{1}{2}\left(-\sum_{\beta,\gamma\neq 0}h_{\beta\gamma}g_{\gamma\beta\alpha}+(h_{0\alpha}-h_{\alpha 0})\right)\rho Q^{\alpha}$$ $$=-\frac{1}{2}\rho\sum_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma\neq 0}h_{\beta\gamma}g_{\gamma\beta\alpha}Q^{\alpha}+i\rho H=-\frac{1}{2}\rho\sum_{\beta,\gamma\neq 0}h_{\beta\gamma}Q^{\gamma}Q^{\beta}+i\rho H$$ and similarly $$\sum_{\alpha\neq 0}h_{\alpha 0}Q^{\alpha} \rho=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\beta,\gamma\neq 0}h_{\beta\gamma}Q^{\gamma}Q^{\beta}\rho-iH\rho,$$ which gives the most general form for a differential equation preserving ${\mbox{tr }}\rho$ $$\dot{\rho}=-i[H,\rho]-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta\neq 0}h_{\alpha\beta}\left(Q^{\beta}Q^{\alpha}\rho+\rho Q^{\beta}Q^{\alpha} -2Q^{\alpha}\rho Q^{\beta}\right),$$ the Lindblad equation.
Possible Violation of Locality For Generalised Lindblad-Type Equation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Following [@banks], assume that for some given density matrix $\rho_0$ the following holds for sufficiently large separations $|\vec{x}-\vec{y}|$ for all local operators $$|{\mbox{tr }}(A(\vec{x})B(\vec{y})\rho_0)|<Ce^{-\mu|\vec{x}-\vec{y}|}.$$ In standard quantum mechanics the evolution law gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dt}{\mbox{tr }}(A(\vec{x})B(\vec{y})\rho)\Big|_{t=0} & = & i\,{\mbox{tr }}\left(A(\vec{x})B(\vec{y})[H,\rho_0] \right)
\\& = & -i\,{\mbox{tr }}\left(([A(\vec{x}),H]B(\vec{y})+A(\vec{x})[B(\vec{y}),H])\rho_0\right),\end{aligned}$$ and since both commutators are local operators, both terms will be exponentially small, so that $$\left|\frac{d}{dt}{\mbox{tr }}(A(\vec{x})B(\vec{y})\rho_0)\right|<2Ce^{-\mu|\vec{x}-\vec{y}|}.$$ There can be a spread of wave packets, so that the left-hand side is non-zero and correlations develop over time, but there will be an exponential drop-off of correlation functions at all times. Now the second term in the generalised equation asserted in [@banks] will give an additional contribution, given by (where from now on $A\equiv A(\vec{x})$ and $B\equiv B(\vec{y})$) $$\begin{aligned}
K(A,B) & := & -\frac{1}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\int d^3 z\; d^3 w\; AB\;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{w})\left(\left\{Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z}),\rho_0\right\}-2Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\rho_0 Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right)
\\&=&-\frac{1}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\int d^3 z\; d^3 w \;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{w})\left(\left[AB,Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})+Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\left[Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z}),AB\right] \right)\rho_0\end{aligned}$$ Now expanding the commutators, this is equal to $$-\frac{1}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\int d^3 z\; d^3 w \;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{w})\left(\left[A(\vec{x}),Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]B(\vec{y})Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})+A(\vec{x})\times\right.\right.$$ $$\left.\left.\times\left[B(\vec{y}),Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})-Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})A(\vec{x})\left[B(\vec{y}),Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right]-Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\left[A(\vec{x}),Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right]B(\vec{y}) \right)\rho_0\right\}$$ A commutator like $\left[A(\vec{x}),Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]$ will only be non-zero for $\vec{w}=\vec{x}$ and so $$\int d^3 z\;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{w})\left[A(\vec{x}),Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]=\int d^3 z\;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{x})\left[A(\vec{x}),Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right].$$ Use this to rewrite $$\begin{aligned}
K(A,B) & =&-\frac{1}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\int d^3 z \;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{x})\left(\left[A(\vec{x}),\int d^3 w\; Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]B(\vec{y})Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right.\right.
\\ & &+\left.A(\vec{x})\left[B(\vec{y}),\int d^3 w\; Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right)\rho_0-\int d^3 w\; h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{x}-\vec{w}) \left(Q^{\beta}(\vec{w}) \times\right.
\\ & & \left.\left. \times A(\vec{x})\left[B(\vec{y}),\int d^3 z\; Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right]-Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\left[A(\vec{x}),\int d^3 z\; Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right]B(\vec{y}) \right)\rho_0\right\},\end{aligned}$$ which, using the commutativity of spacelike separated operators, so that for example $[[A(\vec{x}),\int\,Q^{\beta}],B(\vec{y})]=0$, can be written more succinctly as $$\begin{aligned}
K(A,B) &=&-\frac{1}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left(\int d^3 z \;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{x})\left[A(\vec{x}),\int d^3 w\; Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]B(\vec{y})Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right.\right.
\\&&\left.\left.-\int d^3 w\; h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{x}-\vec{w}) Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})B(\vec{y})\left[A(\vec{x}),\int d^3 z\; Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right]\right)\rho_0\right\}+(A\leftrightarrow B).\end{aligned}$$ Now a density matrix $\rho$ has the property that for localised operators $C(\vec{x})$ and $D(\vec{y})$, $${\mbox{tr }}(C(\vec{x})D(\vec{y})\rho)\approx{\mbox{tr }}(C(\vec{x})\rho){\mbox{tr }}(D(\vec{y})\rho)$$ for large separations $|\vec{x}-\vec{y}|$ [@srednicki]. This can be used to split the traces into two factors: $$\begin{aligned}
K(A,B)&=&-\frac{1}{2}\int d^3 z \;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{x})\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left(\left[A,\int d^3 w\; Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]B Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right)\rho_0\right\}
\\&&+\frac{1}{2}\int d^3 w\; h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{x}-\vec{w})\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{ \left(Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})B\left[A,\int d^3 z\; Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right]\right)\rho_0\right\}
\\&&+(A(\vec{x})\leftrightarrow B(\vec{y})).
\\&\approx& -\frac{1}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left[A,\int d^3 w\; Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]\rho_0\right\}\int d^3 z \;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{x})\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{B Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\rho_0\right\}
\\&&+\frac{1}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left[A,\int d^3 z\; Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right]\rho_0\right\}\int d^3 w\; h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{x}-\vec{w})\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{ Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})B\rho_0\right\}
\\&&+(A(\vec{x})\leftrightarrow B(\vec{y})).\end{aligned}$$ By relabelling $((\vec{z},\alpha)\leftrightarrow(\vec{w},\beta))$ in the second term and using the hermiticity of $h_{\alpha\beta}$ this can be cast in the form $$\begin{aligned}
K(A,B)&\approx& -\frac{1}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left[A,\int d^3 w\; Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]\rho_0\right\}\int d^3 z \;h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{x})\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{B Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\rho_0\right\}
\\&&+\frac{1}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left[A,\int d^3 w\; Q^{\beta}(\vec{w})\right]\rho_0\right\}\int d^3 z\; h^*_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{x})\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{ Q^{\alpha}(\vec{w})B\rho_0\right\}
\\&&+(A(\vec{x})\leftrightarrow B(\vec{y})).\end{aligned}$$ Splitting $h_{\alpha\beta}=\Re h_{\alpha\beta}+i\Im h_{\alpha\beta}$ one finally obtains $$\begin{aligned}
K(A,B)&\approx& -\frac{1}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left[A(\vec{x}),\int Q^{\beta}\right]\rho_0\right\}\int d^3 z \;\Re\,h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{x})\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left[B(\vec{y}), Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right]\rho_0\right\}
\\&&-\frac{i}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left[A(\vec{x}),\int Q^{\beta}\right]\rho_0\right\}\int d^3 z \;\Im\, h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{x})\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left\{B(\vec{y}), Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right\}\rho_0\right\}
\\&&+(A(\vec{x})\leftrightarrow B(\vec{y}))
\\&=& -\frac{1}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left[A(\vec{x}),\int Q^{\beta}\right]\rho_0\right\}\Re\,h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{y}-\vec{x})\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left[B(\vec{y}), \int d^3 z \; Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right]\rho_0\right\}
\\&&-\frac{i}{2}\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left[A(\vec{x}),\int Q^{\beta}\right]\rho_0\right\}\int d^3 z \;\Im\, h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{z}-\vec{x})\,{\mbox{tr }}\left\{\left\{B(\vec{y}), Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right\}\rho_0\right\}
\\&&+(A(\vec{x})\leftrightarrow B(\vec{y})),\end{aligned}$$ and this is essentially the result given in [@banks]. In the last step the fact that $\left[B, Q^{\alpha}(\vec{z})\right]=0$ unless $\vec{y}=\vec{z}$ was used again.\
Now since one may choose any local operators $A(\vec{x})$ and $B(\vec{y})$ in this expression, the appearing traces should be expected to be possibly large. Then the nonlocal correlations that develop over time depend on the drop-off of the function $h_{\alpha\beta}(\vec{x}-\vec{y})$, as was already claimed on rather heuristic grounds before.
Path Integral Approach to Quantum Gravity
-----------------------------------------
This introduction follows [@hawking78]. In conventional quantum field theory, the path integral approach invented by Feynman gives a nonperturbative description of any field theory and has proved to be a powerful mathematical tool. One may therefore attempt to quantise gravity by working out the respective path integral. The amplitude to go from an initial state at time $t$ with metric $g$ and matter fields $\phi$ to a state at time $t'$ with metric $g'$ and matter fields $\phi'$ would be given by $$\langle g',\phi',t'|g,\phi,t\rangle=\int d[g]\;d[\phi]\;e^{iI[g,\phi]},$$ where the gravitational part of $I$ is $$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\int_{\mathcal{M}} d^4 x\;\sqrt{g}\;R+\frac{1}{8\pi G}\int_{\mathcal{\partial M}} d^3 x\;\sqrt{h}\;K+C[h],$$ where $\mathcal{M}$ is the spacetime manifold and one will choose $C[h]$ so that $I=0$ for Minkowski space. A partition function for the canonical ensemble at temperature $T=\frac{1}{\beta}$ will be given by $$Z={\mbox{tr }}(\exp(-\beta H[g_L]))=\int d[g]\;d[\phi]\;e^{-I[g_R,\phi]}$$ where in the last step a Wick rotation was performed, so that $-\beta H[g_L]=\beta L[g_R]=-I[g_R]$ because in a thermal background imaginary time is periodic with period $\beta$, where $g_L$ is the Lorentzian and $g_R$ is the Riemannian metric. The path integral is then taken over all metrics whose boundary is a two-sphere at infinity times a circle of circumference $\beta$, representing periodicity in time, or in other words, the topology at infinity is $S^2\times S^1$.\
One will typically try to expand this path integral about a classical solution by setting $$I[g,\phi]=I[g_0,\phi_0]+I_2[\tilde{g},\tilde{\phi}]+\ldots,$$ where $I_2$ is quadratic in the perturbations $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{\phi}$, so that $$Z\approx e^{-I[g_0,\phi_0]}\int d[\tilde{g}]\;d[\tilde{\phi}]\;e^{-I_2[\tilde{g},\tilde{\phi}]}.$$ In the case where the background metric is a Schwarzschild black hole, it will contribute to the partition function at $\beta=8\pi M$. Only the surface term contributes to the action $I=\frac{\beta^2}{16\pi}$. To first order the partition function will then be $$Z\approx e^{-\frac{\beta^2}{16\pi}},$$ from which one can obtain the expectation value for the energy $$\langle E\rangle=-\frac{d}{d\beta}(\log Z)=\frac{\beta}{8\pi}=M,$$ which gives the correct result for the Hawking-Bekenstein entropy $$S=\beta\langle E\rangle +\log Z=8\pi M^2 - 4\pi M^2 = 4\pi M^2=\frac{A}{4}.$$
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
I would like to thank Jonathan Oppenheim for supervising this essay and making me think about these interesting things, and Philip Tanedo for pointing out mistakes and inaccuracies in my English. I am also grateful to the referee for helpful comments on section 5 and the introduction.
[42]{} Brandon Carter, Complete Analytic Extension of the Symmetry Axis of Kerr’s Solution of Einstein’s Equations, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**141**]{} (1966) 1242-1247. S. W. Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**43**]{} (1975) 199-220. John Preskill, Do Black Holes Destroy Information?, hep-th/9209058. Don N. Page, Black Hole Information, [*Canadian Gen. Rel.*]{} 1993:0001-41; hep-th/9305040. S. W. Hawking, Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 14**]{} (1976), 2460-2473. S. W. Hawking, Non-Trivial Topologies in Quantum Gravity, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 244**]{} (1984), 135-146. Don N. Page, Is Black-Hole Evaporation Predictable?, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**44**]{} (1980), 301-304. Thomas Banks, Leonard Susskind and Michael E. Peskin, Difficulties for the evolution of pure states into mixed states, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 244**]{} (1984), 125-134. Göran Lindblad, On The Generators Of Quantum Dynamical Semigroups, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**48**]{} (1976), 119-130. S. W. Hawking, Information Loss in Black Holes, hep-th/0507171. William G. Unruh and Robert M. Wald, On Evolution Laws Taking Pure States to Mixed States in Quantum Field Theory, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 52**]{} (1995), 2176-2182; hep-th/9503024. Steven B. Giddings, Black holes and massive remnants, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 46**]{} (1992), 1347-1352. Mark J. Bowick, Steven B. Giddings, Jeffrey A. Harvey, Gary T. Horowitz and Andrew Strominger, Axionic Black Holes and an Aharonov-Bohm Effect for Strings, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**61**]{} (1988), 2823-2826. Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Significance of electromagnetic potentials in quantum theory, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**115**]{} (1959), 485-491. S. W. Hawking, Wormholes in spacetime, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 37**]{} (1988), 904-910. Jun Liu, Evolution of Pure States into Mixed States, hep-th/9301082. Mark Srednicki, Is purity eternal?, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 410**]{} (1993), 143-154. John Ellis, John S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos and M. Srednicki, Search for Violations of Quantum Mechanis, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B 241**]{} (1984), 381-405. Nima Arkani-Hamed, Sergei Dubovsky, Alberto Nicolis, Enrico Trincherini and Giovanni Villadoro, A Measure of de Sitter Entropy and Eternal Inflation, arXiv:0704.1814 \[hep-th\]. Juan Maldacena, The Large N Limit of Superconformal field theories and supergravity, hep-th/9711200. Leonard Susskind, Lárus Thorlacius and John Uglum, The stretched horizon and black hole complementarity, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 48**]{} (1993), 3743-3761. Stephen Hawking, Evaporation of Two-Dimensional Black Holes, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**69**]{} (1992), 406-409. Patrick Hayden and John Preskill, Black holes as mirrors: quantum information in random subsystems, arXiv:0708.4025 \[hep-th\]. Leonard Susskind, The paradox of quantum black holes, review article in [*Nature Physics*]{} [**2**]{}, October 2006. Raphael Bousso, The holographic principle, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**74**]{} (2002), 825-874; hep-th/0203101 David Tong, private communication (2007). A. Strominger and C. Vafa, Microscopic Origin of the Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 379**]{} (1996), 99-104 Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality, Vintage Books, London (2004). A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, A. Corichi and K. Krasnov, Quantum Geometry and Black Hole Entropy, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**80**]{} (1998), 904-907. J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Path Integral Derivation of Black Hole Radiance, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 13**]{} (1976), 2188-2203 S. W. Hawking, Quantum gravity and path integrals, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D 18**]{} (1978), 1747-1753
[^1]: Electronic address: [email protected]
[^2]: It was noted by Page [@page80] that the superscattering operator cannot be $CPT$ invariant, which means the $CPT$ theorem of quantum field theory is violated. That however relies heavily on Poincaré invariance.
[^3]: A detailed derivation can be found in the appendix.
[^4]: The problem of remnants with too much (electrical) charge to decay was also discussed by [@preskill; @page]; these either must be stable, causing the known problems, or conservation laws must be violated in nature.
[^5]: Note that the factor $\frac{1}{2}$ arises because of $\int\limits_0^{t'}dt''\delta(t'-t'')=\frac{1}{2}.$
[^6]: The Fourier transformed operators are no longer hermitian, so that $Q^{\dagger}$ appear because the integral must still be hermitian.
[^7]: Details of the calculation are given in the appendix.
[^8]: In quantum field theory, all “inaccessible states" will also contribute to the amplitude for a given process. I assume that these contributions will be strongly suppressed, so that no essential departure from the argument is required.
[^9]: supposedly “the greatest advance in theoretical physics over the last ten years" [@tong]
[^10]: For a brief account of the path integral approach to quantum gravity, the reader is referred to the appendix.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
[Recent investigations of the magnetic field vector properties in the solar internetwork have provided diverging results. While some works found that the internetwork is mostly pervaded by horizontal magnetic fields, other works argued in favor of an isotropic distribution of the magnetic field vector. Motivated by these seemingly contradictory results and by the fact that most of these works have employed spectropolarimetric data at disk center only, we have revisited this problem employing high-quality data (noise level $\sigma \approx 3\times
10^{-4}$ in units of the quiet-Sun intensity) at different latitudes recorded with the Hinode/SP instrument. Instead of applying traditional inversion codes of the radiative transfer equation to retrieve the magnetic field vector at each spatial point on the solar surface and studying the resulting distribution of the magnetic field vector, we surmised a theoretical distribution function of the magnetic field vector and used it to obtain the theoretical histograms of the Stokes profiles. These histograms were then compared to the observed ones. Any mismatch between them was ascribed to the theoretical distribution of the magnetic field vector, which was subsequently modified to produce a better fit to the observed histograms. With this method we find that Stokes profiles with signals above $2\times 10^{-3}$ (in units of the continuum intensity) cannot be explained by an isotropic distribution of the magnetic field vector. We also find that the differences between the histograms of the Stokes profiles observed at different latitudes cannot be explained in terms of line-of-sight effects. However, they can be explained by a distribution of the magnetic field vector that inherently varies with latitude. We note that these results are based on a series of assumptions that, although briefly discussed in this paper, need to be considered in more detail in the future.]{}
author:
- 'J.M. Borrero'
- 'P. Kobel'
date: 'Received / Accepted'
subtitle: 'III. Disk variation of the Stokes profiles and isotropism of the magnetic field'
title: Inferring the magnetic field vector in the quiet Sun
---
Introduction {#section:intro}
============
In recent years several attempts have been made to investigate the magnetic field vector distribution in the solar internetwork. Initially, these works studied the magnetic field strength is in these regions. Some favored magnetic fields of about a few hundred Gauss or less (Asensio Ramos et al. 2007; López Ariste et al. 2007; Orozco Suárez et al. 2007a, Orozco Suárez & Bellot Rubio 2012) while others found magnetic fields in the kilo-Gauss range (Dom[í]{}nguez Cerdeña et al. 2003, 2006; Sánchez Almeida 2005). These studies were carried out mostly with low spatial resolution data (1“). Whenever the spatial resolution increased to better than 1 arcsec, this decreased the signal-to-noise ratio. With the Hinode satellite (Kosugi et al. 2007) it is now possible to obtain spectropolarimetric data (full Stokes vector) with high spatial resolution (0.3”) and low noise ($\sigma \approx 10^{-3}$ in units of the continuum intensity). Thanks to these new data, it is now also possible to investigate not only the module but the three components of the magnetic field vector. This has led to a new controversy about the angular distribution of the magnetic field vector in the quiet Sun. While some authors (Orozco Suárez et al. 2007a, 2007b; Lites et al. 2007, 2008) found that the magnetic field is mostly horizontal ($\gamma \approx 90\deg$; with $\gamma$ being the inclination of the magnetic field vector with respect to the observer’s line-of-sight), others favor a quasi-isotropic distribution of magnetic fields (Mart[í]{}nez González et al. 2008; Asensio Ramos 2009; Stenflo 2010). With a few exceptions (Harvey et al. 2007, Lites et al. 2008 and Mart[í]{}nez González et al. 2008), all previous studies were carried out employing data recorded at disk center only. Therefore, to better constrain the angular distribution of the magnetic field vector in the internetwork, we considered spectropolarimetric data recorded at different positions on the solar disk (Section \[section:observations\]).\
In addition, Asensio Ramos (2009), Stenflo (2010), and Borrero & Kobel (2011; hereafter referred to as paper I) warned that the highly inclined magnetic fields obtained by some studies could be caused by the noise in the linear polarization profiles. This yields a distribution of $B_\perp$ (component of the magnetic field vector that is perpendicular to the observer’s line-of-sight) with a peak at around 50-90 Gauss. To avoid this problem, these authors proposed to include only those profiles in the analysis that have a signal-to-noise ratio $> 4.5$ in the linear polarization (Stokes $Q$ and $U$). Although this selection criterion allows one to retrieve reliable distributions for the magnetic field vector, it has the disadvantage of excluding most of the Stokes profiles within the field-of-view from the analysis (see Borrero & Kobel 2012; hereafter referred to as paper II; cf. Bellot Rubio & Orozco Suárez 2012). In this paper we adopt an alternative approach based on inverting the histograms of the observed Stokes vector (Section \[section:pdftheory\]) over the entire field-of-view instead of inverting the Stokes vector at each pixel over the observed region. Under a number of simplifying assumptions, whose limitations are described in Section \[section:limitations\], we were able to reach some important, albeit preliminary, conclusions about the angular distribution of the magnetic field vector in the solar internetwork and its variation across the solar disk (Section \[section:conclu\]).\
Observations and datasets {#section:observations}
=========================
The data employed in this work were recorded with the spectropolarimeter (SP; Ichimoto et al. 2008) attached to the Solar Optical Telescope (SOT; Tsuneta et al. 2008, Suematsu et al. 2008, Shimuzu et al. 2008) onboard the Japanese spacecraft Hinode (Kosugi et al. 2007). The spectropolarimetric data comprise the full Stokes vector $(I, Q, U, V)$ around the pair of magnetically sensitive spectral lines 6301.5 [Å]{} ($g_{\rm eff}=1.67$) and 6302.5 [Å]{} ($g_{\rm eff}=2.5$). $g_{\rm eff}$ refers to the effective Landé factor calculated under LS coupling. The spectral resolution of these observations is about 21.5 m[Å]{} per pixel, with 112 pixels in the spectral direction. The spatial resolution of Hinode/SP observations is 0.32". For this paper we selected three maps at three different heliocentric positions. In all three maps the spectrograph’s slit was kept at the same location on the solar surface for the whole duration of the scan. This means that, while the vertical direction ($Y$-axis or direction along the slit) contains information about different spatial structures on the solar surface, the horizontal direction ($X$-axis or direction perpendicular to the spectrograph’s slit) samples the same position at different times. Each spectrum was recorded with a 9.6 seconds exposure, yielding a noise of about $\sigma = 7.5 \times 10^{-4}$ in units of the quiet-Sun continuum intensity. Each map records data for a period of time ($> 1$ hr) that includes several turnovers of the granulation, thus breaking down the temporal coherence and providing spatial information (in a statistical sense) along the $X$-axis.\
In paper I we have demonstrated that photon noise plays an important role in determining the magnetic field vector from spectropolarimetric observations. To further decrease the level of noise in our observations we averaged every seven slit positions (temporal average of about 67.1 seconds), which yields a new noise level of about $\sigma = 3 \times 10^{-4}$ (in units of the quiet-Sun continuum intensity). However, averaging means that the original map is shortened by a factor of seven in the direction that is perpendicular to the slit ($X$-axis). This decreases the number of points available for statistics. Fortunately, Hinode/SP data have a sufficient number of pixels to ensure good statistics even after averaging (see Section \[section:conclu\]). In the following we briefly describe each map individually.
Map A {#subsection:mapa}
-----
This map was recorded on February 27, 2007 between 00:20 UT and 02:20 UT. It originally consists of 727 slits positions, of which 103 remain after temporal averaging. The center of slit was located at approximately the following coordinates on the solar surface: $X = -31.7"$ and $Y = 7.7"$. This corresponds to a heliocentric position of $\mu=\cos\Theta \approx 1$ ($\Theta$ is the heliocentric angle) and to a latitude of $\Lambda \approx 0\deg$. The noise level is $\sigma = 2.8 \times 10^{-4}$. This map (original and temporally averaged) corresponds to Maps B and C in paper I, and it was also employed (with and without temporal averaging) by Lites et al. (2008) and Orozco Suárez et al. (2007a).
Map B {#subsection:mapb}
-----
This map was recorded on February 6, 2007 between 11:33 UT and 15:51 UT. It originally consists of 1545 slits positions, of which 222 remain after temporal averaging. The center of slit was located at approximately the following coordinates on the solar surface: $X = 493.6"$ and $Y = 491.3"$. This corresponds to a heliocentric position of $\mu=\cos\Theta \approx 0.7$ and to a latitude of $\Lambda \approx 30\deg$. The noise in this map is very similar to that in Map B: $\sigma = 3.1 \times 10^{-4}$.\
Map C {#subsection:mapc}
-----
This map was recorded on January 17, 2007 between 07:05 UT and 09:58 UT. It originally consists of 1048 slits positions, of which 149 remain after temporally averaging. The center of slit was located at approximately the following coordinates on the solar surface: $X = -3.0"$ and $Y = 697.1"$. This corresponds to a heliocentric position of $\mu=\cos\Theta \approx 0.7$ and to a latitude of $\Lambda \approx 40\deg$. Here, the noise level is slightly higher than in Map A: $\sigma = 3.2 \times 10^{-4}$. We note that some consecutive slit positions in this map show very high noise in the Stokes profiles. Although we could not relate this effect to the South Atlantic Anomaly (increased flux of cosmic rays at certain orbits of the satellite) we have removed these slit positions from our analysis, which reduced the effective number of slit positions to 120.\
![Inferred magnetic flux density $\Phi=\alpha B$ from the inversion of Map A (Sect. \[subsection:mapa\]). White areas correspond to regions where all three polarization profiles (Stokes $Q$, $U$, and $V$) are below the $4.5\sigma$-level.[]{data-label="figure:invmapa"}](fig1.ps){width="9cm"}
![Same as Figure \[figure:invmapa\] but for map B (Sect. \[subsection:mapb\]).[]{data-label="figure:invmapb"}](fig2.ps){width="9cm"}
![Same as Figure \[figure:invmapa\] but for map C (Sect. \[subsection:mapc\]).[]{data-label="figure:invmapc"}](fig3.ps){width="9cm"}
Figures \[figure:invmapa\], \[figure:invmapb\], and \[figure:invmapc\] display the magnetic flux density $\Phi$ of maps A, B, and C as obtained through the inversion of the full Stokes vector with the VFISV (Very Fast Inversion of the Stokes Vector) inversion code (Borrero et al. 2010). For better visualization the maps in these figures are obtained from the inversion of the original data (i.e. not temporally averaged). This avoids pixelization in the $X$-axis of these plots. However, for the remainder of the paper, our discussions and figures are based only on the temporally averaged (67.1 seconds) data.\
Although these previous figures only show the total magnetic flux density, it is worth mentioning that the VFISV code also retrieves the three components of magnetic field vector ${{\rm\bf {B}}}$: $B$ is the module of ${{\rm\bf {B}}}$, $\gamma$ is the inclination of ${{\rm\bf {B}}}$ with respect to the observer’s line-of-sight, and $\phi$ is the azimuth of ${{\rm\bf {B}}}$ in the plane that is perpendicular to the observer’s line-of-sight. In addition, VFISV retrieves the magnetic filling factor $\alpha$ as well as the line-of-sight component of the velocity vector $V_{\rm los}$ and a set of thermodynamic parameters ${{\rm\bf {T}}}$. We note that the magnetic flux density is defined as $\Phi = \alpha B$. For a more detailed overview on Milne-Eddington inversion codes, which include not only the magnetic field vector but also the thermodynamic and kinematic parameters relevant to the line formation, we refer the reader to del Toro Iniesta (2003), Borrero et al. (2010) and references therein.\
Stokes profiles at different positions on the solar disk. {#section:clvobs}
=========================================================
The inversions carried out in the previous section could be employed to obtain histograms of the magnetic flux density $\Phi$, module of the magnetic field vector $B$, and the inclination of the magnetic field vector with respect to the observer’s line-of-sight ($\gamma$) at different positions on the solar disk. However, in this paper we aimed to infer properties about the distribution of the magnetic field vector by directly studying the histograms of the Stokes profiles. Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\]a presents distribution histograms of the maximum signals of the Stokes $V(\lambda)$ (dashed lines) and Stokes $Q(\lambda)$ and $U(\lambda)$ (solid lines) normalized to the average quiet-Sun intensity over the entire map: $I_{\rm qs}$. The colors indicate each of the different maps studied: red for map A (Sect. \[subsection:mapa\]), green for map B (Sect. \[subsection:mapb\]), and blue for map C (Sect. \[subsection:mapc\]). Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\]b displays the cumulative histogram of the pixels in each map that have a $S/R$ (signal-to-noise ratio) equal to or higher than a given value. The colors and the line-styles are as in Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\]a. For instance: 31.6 % of the pixels in map A posses signals in $Q$ or $U$ (solid-red line) that are above 4.5 times the noise level. To limit our analysis to the internetwork regions, we excluded from these figures the pixels in maps A, B, and C with a magnetic flux density $\Phi > 500$ Mx cm$^{-2}$.\
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
{width="9cm"} {width="9cm"}
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
We now focus on some of the features of the histograms in Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\]. A very striking one is the peak at around the $3\sigma$-value for the linear polarization (solid lines) in Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\]a, and the fact that the amount of pixels with maximum linear polarization signals below and above this $3\sigma$-level quickly drops. One might wonder how a peak can appear at around 3$\sigma$ if the probability that photon noise (taken as a normal random distribution) will produce such a high value is only about 0.27 % ? The answer to this question is that photon noise has a probability of 0.27 % to produce a signal at the 3$\sigma$-level at one particular wavelength, but Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\] shows the maximum of the signal over all wavelengths. Indeed, it is possible to employ the binomial distribution to find the lower bound of the probability $K(\delta,N)$ that after $N$ wavelengths, one of them will have a signal stronger than or equal to $\delta$-times the noise level $\sigma$:
$$K(\delta,N) \geq 1-[1-p(\delta)]^N \;,$$
where $p(\delta)$ is the probability that at one single wavelength position, a normally distributed random variable (with a standard deviation $\sigma$) will yield a signal $\delta$-times above the standard deviation is given by
$$p(\delta) = 1-\textrm{erf}(\delta/\sqrt{2}) \;,$$
where $\textrm{erf}$ denotes the so-called error function. Since the spectral line is sampled in $N=112$ spectral positions for each Stokes parameter, the probability of finding a wavelength where the noise yields a signal at the 3$\sigma$ is much higher than the 0.27 % mentioned above. In particular, there is a $K(N=112,\delta=3) \geq 26.12 \%$ probability that the noise in the circular polarization (Stokes $V$) will yield a signal at the $3\sigma$-level. Because the linear polarization consists of two Stokes parameters ($Q$ and $U$), this probability is even higher: $K(N=224,\delta=3)
\geq 45.42 \%$. Given these high probabilities, it is not surprising that the histograms of the Stokes profiles peak close to the $3\sigma$-level. This is certainly the case of the linear polarization (solid lines in Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\]a). It is noteworthy that, at the $3\sigma$-location, Stokes $V$ (circular polarization) only presents a local maximum (dashed lines in Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\]a) that actually disappears for maps B (dashed green) and C (dashed red). Indeed, the peak for the histogram of Stokes $V$ appears to be located in the range of $2-3\times 10^{-3}$ (in units of the quiet Sun continuum intensity), which is about 8 times above the noise level $\sigma$.\
These differences between linear and circular polarization in Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\]a can be explained if we consider a distribution of $B_\parallel$ (component of the magnetic field vector that is parallel to the observer’s line-of-sight) that features a peak at a value such that the corresponding Stokes $V$ profile would have a maximum at around $8\sigma$. At the same time, the distribution of $B_\perp$ (component of the magnetic field vector that is perpendicular to the observer’s line-of-sight) should feature a low probability of finding values of $B_\perp$ that produce Stokes $Q$ and $U$ profiles above $3\sigma$ such that there is a peak at this level. We additionally investigated this by synthesizing Stokes profiles with different values of $B_\parallel$ and $B_\perp$ and comparing them with the maximum signal of the resulting Stokes profiles. To obtain a good estimation we carried out this experiment with two different semi-empirical models that represent granules and intergranules (Borrero & Bellot Rubio 2002). Results are presented in Figure \[figure:bfnoise\]. This figure shows that the distribution of $B_\parallel$ that is responsible for the Stokes $V$ signal in Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\]a (dashed-lines) must posses a peak at around $B_\parallel \approx 5-7$ G, which is the value needed to produce a majority of Stokes V signals at the $8\sigma$-level. In addition, Figure \[figure:bfnoise\] shows that the distribution of $B_\perp$ must have very low probabilities for $B_\perp \geq 40-70$ G, otherwise the peak in the histograms for $Q$ and $U$ in Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\]a (solid lines) would be significantly shifted above the $3\sigma$-level.\
![Amount of circular polarization (normalized to the quiet-Sun continuum intensity) generated as a function of the component of the magnetic field vector that is parallel to the observer’s line-of-sight: $B_\parallel$ (dashed lines). Amount of linear polarization (normalized to the quiet-Sun continuum intensity) signals generated as a function of the component of the magnetic field vector that is perpendicular to the observer’s line-of-sight: $B_\perp$ (solid lines). These curves were obtained by performing a synthesis of the Stokes profiles employing different values of $B_\parallel$ and $B_\perp$ and using two different atmospheric semi-empirical models: red for intergranules and blue for granules. The horizontal black lines indicate the $3\sigma$ and $8\sigma$ levels assuming a noise of $\sigma=3\times 10^{-4}$ as in our observed maps (Section \[section:observations\]).[]{data-label="figure:bfnoise"}](fig5.ps){width="9cm"}
An important feature of Figures \[figure:stokhistogram\]a and \[figure:stokhistogram\]b is that the distribution of the linear polarization signals (solid lines) is different at different positions on the solar surface. In addition, the distribution of the circular polarization signals (dashed lines) also changes slightly, but comparatively less than the linear polarization.\
Results from theoretical distributions {#section:pdftheory}
======================================
In the previous section we have determined some general properties about the distribution of the magnetic field vector in the internetwork by considering some details from the observed histograms of the Stokes profiles. We now continue along these lines by investigating the sources of the differences in the distribution of the polarization signals at different positions on the solar disk. Following the notation introduced in paper II, we refer to ${{\rm\bf {X}}}$ as the set of physical parameters that affect the formation of the Stokes profiles:\
$$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm\bf {X}}} = [{{\rm\bf {T}}}, V_{\rm los}, {{\rm\bf {B}}}, \alpha] \;,
\label{equation:x}\end{aligned}$$
where ${{\rm\bf {T}}}$ refers to the thermodynamic parameters, $V_{\rm los}$ to the line-of-sight-velocity, ${{\rm\bf {B}}}$ to the magnetic field vector, and finally $\alpha$ refers to the magnetic filling factor (see also Section \[section:observations\]). Considering a Milne-Eddington atmosphere (see del Toro Iniesta 2003; Borrero et al. 2010) is equivalent to assuming that with the exception of source function, none of the thermodynamic, kinematic, and magnetic parameters change with optical depth $\tau_c$ in the photosphere. The source function, however, is considered to vary linearly with optical depth: $S(\tau_c) = S_0 +\tau_c S_1$, where $S_0$ corresponds to the source function at the observer’s location, and $S_1$ is the derivative of the source function with optical depth. In addition to $S_0$ and $S_1$, the other thermodynamic parameters in ${{\rm\bf {T}}}$ are the Doppler width of the spectral line $\Delta \lambda_{\rm D}$, the damping parameter $a$, and quotient of the absorption coefficient in the continuum and in the line center $\eta_0$.\
We now refer to $\mathcal{P}({{\rm\bf {X}}})\df {{\rm\bf {X}}}$ as the probability of finding a pixel within the observed field-of-view where each of the physical parameters in ${{\rm\bf {X}}}$ has values between $X_i$ and $X_i+\df X_i$. Furthermore, we assume that the magnetic parameters are statistically independent of the thermodynamic and kinematic parameters, thereby allowing us to write\
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}({{\rm\bf {X}}})\df {{\rm\bf {X}}} = \mathcal{P}_1({{\rm\bf {B}}},\alpha) \mathcal{P}_2({{\rm\bf {T}}},V_{\rm los}) \df {{\rm\bf {B}}} \df {{\rm\bf {T}}} \df \alpha \df V_{\rm los} \;.
\label{equation:pdftot}\end{aligned}$$
We now turn our attention to the probability distribution function of the magnetic parameters $\mathcal{P}_1$, which can be rewritten as\
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_1({{\rm\bf {B}}},\alpha)\df{{\rm\bf {B}}} \df \alpha = & \mathcal{P}_1(B_i,B_j,B_k,\alpha) \df B_i \df B_j \df B_k \df \alpha \;,
\end{split}
\label{equation:pdfgeneric}\end{aligned}$$
which indicates the probability of finding a pixel whose magnetic field vector has the coordinates between the following values: $B_i$ and $B_i + \df B_i$, $B_j$ and $B_j + \df B_j$, $B_k$ and $B_k + \df B_k$, and finally where the filling factor of the magnetic field has a value between $\alpha$ and $\alpha + \df \alpha$. The reason for our choice of nomenclature in the three components of the magnetic field vector $B_i$, $B_j$ and $B_k$ is that the probability distribution function will generally not be expressed in spherical coordinates in the observer’s reference frame (the frame needed to solve the radiative transfer equation). In general, we therefore must perform a transformation of variables that will express Equation \[equation:pdfgeneric\] into the observer’s reference frame and into spherical coordinates:
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_1(B_i,B_j,B_k,\alpha) \df B_i \df B_j \df B_k \df \alpha = &
|J| \mathcal{P}_1(B,\gamma,\phi,\alpha) \cdot \\ & \cdot \df B \df\gamma \df\phi \df \alpha \;,
\end{split}
\label{equation:coortransform}\end{aligned}$$
where $|J|$ is the determinant of the Jacobian matrix for the transformation between the two reference frames. This transformation might also introduce a dependence on the heliocentric angle $\Theta$, thereby allowing us to evaluate the probability distribution function at different positions on the solar disk. The total probability must be equal to one:
$$\int_0^1 \df \alpha \int_0^\infty \df B \int_0^\pi \df\gamma \int_0^{2\pi} |J| \mathcal{P}_1(B,\gamma,\phi,\alpha)\df\phi = 1 \;.
\label{equation:normalization}$$
We then use this distribution function to evaluate the percentage of pixels (from the total) that posses a given magnetic field vector. In our simulations we employed a total of $2\times 10^6$ pixels. To solve the radiative transfer equation, we need the probability distribution function of the thermodynamic and kinematic parameters $\mathcal{P}_2$ (see Eq. \[equation:pdftot\]), in addition to the probability distribution function of the magnetic parameters $\mathcal{P}_1$. Hereafter we take, as $\mathcal{P}_2({{\rm\bf {T}}},V_{\rm los}) {\textrm d}{{\rm\bf {T}}} {\textrm d}V_{\rm los}$, the distribution obtained from the results of map A (called map C in paper I). We assume that this distribution does not depend with the position on the solar disk. Finally, in all our tests in this section we assume that the magnetic filling factor is unity: $\alpha=1$. We take this approach not to add a new degree of freedom that will make our subsequent analysis more cumbersome. Section \[section:limitations\] will address all the assumptions and simplifications of this section in more detail.\
With this we now have all the necessary ingredients needed by the VFISV (Borrero et al. 2010) code to solve the radiative transfer equation in order to obtain theoretical Stokes profiles $Q$, $U$, and $V$. To these profiles we then add noise, assuming a normally distributed random variable (Leva 1992) with a standard deviation $\sigma = 3\times 10^{-4}$ (in units of the quiet-Sun continuum intensity). This noise level is similar to that of the observed maps in Section \[section:observations\]. Once noise has been added, we select the peak values of the Stokes profiles and construct histograms like those derived from the observations in Figs. \[figure:stokhistogram\]a-\[figure:stokhistogram\]b. The theoretical and observed histograms are then compared with different theoretical distributions of the magnetic field in a attempt to match the observations.\
The approach described in this section is indeed an inversion. However, it is not the same kind of inversion as those in Section \[section:observations\] or in paper I. First of all, the observables here are the histograms of the peak values in Stokes $Q$, $U$, and $V$ (Figs. \[figure:stokhistogram\]a-\[figure:stokhistogram\]b), whereas in paper I the observables were the full Stokes vector ($I$, $Q$, $U$, and $V$) including their wavelength dependence (not only the peak values) at each individual pixel. The model parameters also differ: while before the model parameters corresponded to the three components of the magnetic field vector for each individual pixel, here the model parameters correspond to a parametrized theoretical distribution function for the magnetic field vector that includes all pixels. As we show below, this parametrized theoretical distribution function possesses a very limited number of free parameters (1-3), which can be tuned to simultaneously fit all pixels in the field-of-view and at different heliocentric angles. This is a great advantage compared to traditional inversion of Stokes profiles (e.g. Borrero & Kobel 2011; paper I), where there were about ten free parameters (those describing a Milne-Eddington atmosphere) for each pixel in the map. Another important difference is that, while regular inversion codes for the radiative transfer equation (Ruiz Cobo & del Toro Iniesta 1992; Borrero et al. 2010) are automatized, the procedure followed here is completely manual (i.e: trial and error).\
Isotropic distribution functions {#subsection:iso}
--------------------------------
In this section we employ a theoretical distribution where the magnetic field vector is isotropic. We first define as *isotropic* a probability distribution function where the magnetic field vector has no preferred orientation. In the local reference frame on the solar surface this can be expressed as having a probability of finding a magnetic field vector that depends only on its module $B=\sqrt{B_{\rm x}^2+B_{\rm y}^2+B_{\rm z}^2}$:
$$\mathcal{P}_1({{\rm\bf {B}}})\df {{\rm\bf {B}}} = A f(B)\df B_{\rm x} \df B_{\rm y} \df B_{\rm z} \;,
\label{equation:isocarte}$$
where $A$ is just a normalization constant. In this reference frame, $\{\ex,\ey,\ez\}$, the $\ez$-axis is perpendicular to the solar surface. To take into account that the observer’s line-of-sight forms an angle $\Theta$ (heliocentric angle) with respect to the $\ez$-axis, we perform a variable change into a new coordinate system $\{\expr, \eypr, \ezpr \}$ that is rotated by an angle $\Theta$ around the $\ey$-axis. Indeed, because the distribution is isotropic, it does not matter around which axis we consider the rotation. With this transformation the new $\ezpr$-axis is aligned with the observer’s line-of-sight. In this case, the relationship between the old coordinates of the magnetic field vector with the new ones is given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
B_{\rm x} = B_{\rm z}^{'} \sin\Theta + B_{\rm x}^{'} \cos\Theta \;, \\
B_{\rm y} = B_{\rm y}^{'} \;, \\
B_{\rm z} = B_{\rm z}^{'} \cos\Theta - B_{\rm x}^{'} \sin\Theta \;, \\
|J| = 1 \;.
\end{cases}
\label{equation:rotation}\end{aligned}$$
Since this is a simple rotation, the determinant of the Jacobian matrix for the transformation is unity. In addition, the module of the magnetic field vector is the same in the old and new reference frames: $B=\sqrt{B_{\rm x}^2+B_{\rm y}^2+B_{\rm z}^2} =
\sqrt{B_{\rm x}^{'2}+B_{\rm y}^{'2}+B_{\rm z}^{'2}}$. We can therefore rewrite Equation \[equation:isocarte\] in the observer’s reference frame as
$$\mathcal{P}_1({{\rm\bf {B}}})\df {{\rm\bf {B}}} = A f(B)\df B_{\rm x}^{'} \df B_{\rm y}^{'} \df B_{\rm z}^{'} \;,
\label{equation:isoobs}$$
which is functionally identical to Eq. \[equation:isocarte\] since it was defined to be isotropic and therefore independent of the viewing angle $\Theta$. As previously mentioned, to solve the radiative transfer equation we need to express Equation \[equation:isoobs\] in spherical coordinates. We therefore perform now an additional variable change where
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
B_{\rm x}^{'} = B\sin\gamma\cos\phi \;, \\
B_{\rm y}^{'} = B\sin\gamma\sin\phi \;, \\
B_{\rm z}^{'} = B\cos\gamma \;, \\
|J| = B^2\sin\gamma \;.
\end{cases}
\label{equation:spherical}\end{aligned}$$
and thus,
$$\mathcal{P}_1({{\rm\bf {B}}})\df {{\rm\bf {B}}} = A f(B) B^2 \sin\gamma \df B \df\gamma \df\phi \;.
\label{equation:iso}$$
Since the distribution is isotropic, it must also be independent of $\Theta$ once it is expressed in the observer’s reference frame both in Cartesian coordinates or spherical ones (Eqs. \[equation:isoobs\] and \[equation:iso\], respectively). In addition, isotropism manifests itself as a $\sin\gamma$-dependence, which comes from the determinant of the Jacobian matrix or, in order words, the volume-element expressed in spherical coordinates: $\df{{\rm\bf {B}}} = B^2 \sin\gamma \df B \df\gamma \df\phi$. For the distribution of the module of the magnetic field we consider an exponential function in the form $f(B) \approx \exp(-B)$. After normalization, the resulting expression for the theoretical distribution function is
$$\mathcal{P}_1(B,\gamma,\phi) \df B \df\gamma \df\phi = \frac{27}{8\pi}\frac{B^2}{B_0^3} \exp\left(\frac{-3B}{B_0}\right) \sin\gamma
\df B \df\gamma \df\phi \;,
\label{equation:isotropic}$$
where $B_0$ represents the mean value of the magnetic field vector module:
$$B_0 = <B> = \int_0^\infty \int_0^\pi \int_0^{2\pi} B \cdot \mathcal{P}_1(B,\gamma,\phi) \df B \df\gamma \df\phi \;.$$
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
{width="9cm"} {width="9cm"}
{width="9cm"} {width="9cm"}
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Figures \[figure:isotropic\]c-\[figure:isotropic\]d display the probability distribution functions for module $B$ and inclination of the magnetic field vector with respect to the observer’s line-of-sight $\gamma$, corresponding to Eq. \[equation:isotropic\], and employing three different values of $B_0 = 20, 30,$ and $40$ G. The histograms for the resulting Stokes profiles after solving the radiative transfer equation with these distributions are given in Figures \[figure:isotropic\]a-\[figure:isotropic\]b, which can be readily compared to Figs. \[figure:stokhistogram\]a-\[figure:stokhistogram\]b. This comparison shows that for $B_0=20$ G, the linear polarization produced by an isotropic distribution (solid lines) is too low compared to the observed one. For $B_0=40$ G, the amount of linear polarization is comparable to the observed one, but, in this case the isotropic distribution produces too much circular polarization (dashed lines). In addition, an isotropic distribution produces far too few $Q$ and $U$ profiles, about 50 % of the total, with $S/R > 3$ (solid lines in Fig. \[figure:isotropic\]b), while the observed distribution shows that about 70-80 % of the profiles are above this level (solid lines in Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\]b). The misfit between the theoretical histograms and the observed ones becomes even clearer when we consider that all curves in Fig. \[figure:isotropic\] are independent of the position on the solar disk (as they should, because they correspond to an isotropic distribution; Eq. \[equation:isotropic\]), while the observed ones (Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\]) do change. Choosing a different $f(B)$ function in Eq. \[equation:iso\] does not alter this because the histograms of the Stokes profiles would still be independent of the position on the solar disk. However, it is possible to obtain histograms that vary with the position on the solar disk by postulating that the mean magnetic field depends upon $B_0(\Theta)$ or $B_0(\Lambda)$. In this case, the different curves in Fig. \[figure:isotropic\] will certainly change with the position on the solar disk, yet, in doing so we would implicitly introduce a dependence with $\Theta$ and/or $\Lambda$ in the original distribution, given by Eq. \[equation:isotropic\], and thus it would no longer be isotropic.\
Triple-Gaussian distribution functions {#subsection:triple}
--------------------------------------
We now consider a distribution function in the local reference frame on the solar surface, $\{\ex, \ey, \ez\}$, in which each component of the magnetic field is statistically independent of the rest and shows a Gaussian-like dependence:
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_1 ({{\rm\bf {B}}})\df {{\rm\bf {B}}} & = \frac{\df B_{\rm x} \df B_{\rm y} \df B_{\rm z}}{\pi^3 B_{\rm x0}B_{\rm y0} B_{\rm z0}}
\exp{\left\{-\frac{B_{\rm x}^2}{\pi B_{\rm x0}^2}\right\}} \cdot \\ & \cdot \exp{\left\{-\frac{B_{\rm y}^2}{\pi B_{\rm y0}^2}\right\}} \cdot
\exp{\left\{-\frac{B_{\rm z}^2}{\pi B_{\rm z0}^2}\right\}} \;.
\end{split}
\label{equation:triplelocal}\end{aligned}$$
Again, with this definition, the $\ez$-axis is perpendicular to the solar surface. The distribution is of course normalized to one:
$$\iiint_{-\infty}^{\infty} \mathcal{P}_1(B_{\rm x},B_{\rm y},B_{\rm z}) \df B_{\rm x} \df B_{\rm y} \df B_{\rm z} = 1 \;.
\label{equation:norma}$$
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
{width="9cm"} {width="9cm"}
{width="9cm"} {width="9cm"}
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
In the previous equation, $B_{\rm x0}$, $B_{\rm y0}$, and $B_{\rm z0}$ refer to the mean of the absolute value for each component of the magnetic field:
$$B_{\rm x0} = \iiint_{-\infty}^{+\infty}
| B_{\rm x} | \mathcal{P}_1 (B_{\rm x},B_{\rm y},B_{\rm z})\df B_{\rm x} \df B_{\rm y} \df B_{\rm z} \;.$$
Similar equations can be written for $B_{\rm y0}$ and $B_{\rm z0}$. As in the previous section, we perform a rotation of angle $\Theta$ around the $\ey$-axis to transform Eq. \[equation:triplelocal\] into the observer’s reference frame: $\{\expr, \eypr, \ezpr \}$. To guarantee that the result of this transformation does not depend on the choice of rotation axis in the $XY$-plane we must ensure that $B_{\rm x0}=B_{\rm y0}$ such that Eq. \[equation:triplelocal\] can be written in terms of $B_{\rm x}^2+B_{\rm y}^2$. With this, we can now rewrite the theoretical distribution function as
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_1 & ({{\rm\bf {B}}})\df {{\rm\bf {B}}} =
\frac{\df B_{\rm x}^{'} \df B_{\rm y}^{'} \df B_{\rm z}^{'}}{\pi^3 B_{\rm x0}B_{\rm y0} B_{\rm z0}}
\exp{\left\{-\frac{B_{\rm y}^{'2}}{\pi B_{\rm y0}^2}\right\}}\cdot \\
& \cdot \exp{\left\{-\frac{(B_{\rm z}^{'} \sin\Theta + B_{\rm x}^{'} \cos\Theta)^2}{\pi B_{\rm x0}^2}\right\}} \cdot \\
& \cdot \exp{\left\{-\frac{(B_{\rm z}^{'} \cos\Theta - B_{\rm x}^{'} \sin\Theta)^2}{\pi B_{\rm z0}^2}\right\}} \;.
\end{split}
\label{equation:tripleobs}\end{aligned}$$
And finally, to solve the radiative transfer equation we need to express Equation \[equation:tripleobs\] in spherical coordinates (Eq. \[equation:spherical\]). This transformation yields
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_1 & (B,\gamma,\phi)\df B \df\gamma\df\phi =\frac{B^2 \sin\gamma\df B\df\gamma\df\phi}{\pi^3 B_{\rm x0}B_{\rm y0} B_{\rm z0}} \cdot \\
& \cdot \exp{\left\{-\frac{(B\sin\gamma\sin\phi)^2}{\pi B_{\rm y0}^2}\right\}} \cdot\\
& \cdot \exp{\left\{-\frac{(B\cos\gamma\sin\Theta+B\sin\gamma\cos\phi\cos\Theta)^2}{\pi B_{\rm x0}^2}\right\}} \cdot \\
& \cdot \exp{\left\{-\frac{(B\cos\gamma\cos\Theta-B\sin\gamma\cos\phi\sin\Theta)^2}{\pi B_{\rm z0}^2}\right\}} \;.
\end{split}
\label{equation:triplesphe}\end{aligned}$$
With this theoretical distribution function of the magnetic field vector we can again (see Section \[subsection:iso\]) synthesize the Stokes profiles, add noise, and finally construct the theoretical histograms of the resulting Stokes profiles. Equations \[equation:tripleobs\] and \[equation:triplesphe\] now entail an explicit dependence on $\Theta$, unlike the case of an isotropic distribution (Eq. \[equation:isotropic\]). Interestingly, if $B_{\rm x0}=B_{\rm y0}=B_{\rm z0}$, the distribution becomes isotropic, because Eq. \[equation:triplelocal\] can be re-written in terms of the module of the magnetic field vector $B$ (see Eq. \[equation:isocarte\]). In the following we employ $B_{\rm x0}=B_{\rm y0}=22 G; B_{\rm z0}=5$ G, and therefore the resulting distribution is non-isotropic. However, as indicated above, we impose $B_{\rm x0}=B_{\rm y0}$ so that the distribution is symmetric in the $XY$-plane. The distributions for $B$ and $\gamma$ corresponding to the aforementioned values are presented in Figures \[figure:triplegauss\]c and \[figure:triplegauss\]d for two different heliocentric angles: $\Theta=0\deg$ (red curves), $\Theta=45\deg$ (blue). The reason for employing $B_{\rm z0} < B_{\rm x0},B_{\rm y0}$ is because in the isotropic case (see Fig. \[figure:isotropic\]a) the value of $B_0$ that produced a reasonable fit to the linear polarization at disk center yielded too much circular polarization and thus, to simultaneously fit both, we need to decrease the vertical component of the magnetic field vector while keeping the horizontal component at the appropriate level.\
The first feature to notice is that the distribution of $B$ (Fig. \[figure:triplegauss\]c) is independent of the heliocentric angle $\Theta$. This was to be expected because the module of the magnetic field vector ${{\rm\bf {B}}}$ is invariant with respect to rotations. The second feature to notice is that the distribution of $\gamma$ shows a peak at $\gamma=90\deg$ at disk center (red curve). This is a consequence of having imposed $B_{\rm z0} < B_{\rm x0},B_{\rm y0}$. This peak smoothes out as we move toward the poles (blue curves).\
The theoretical histograms for the Stokes profiles resulting from the previous distribution (Eq. \[equation:triplesphe\]) are displayed in Figures \[figure:triplegauss\]a and \[figure:triplegauss\]b. As mentioned above, the values of $B_{\rm x0}$, $B_{\rm y0}$, and $B_{\rm z0}$ were selected such that, for signals above $2\times 10^{-3}$, the theoretical histograms at disk center ($\Theta=0\deg$; red curves) are comparable to the observed ones (Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\]). However, at larger heliocentric angles ($\Theta=45\deg$; blue curves), the mismatch between theoretical and observed histograms is very clear, in particular for the circular polarization (dashed lines). Our theoretical distribution function (Eq. \[equation:triplesphe\]) clearly predicts that the circular polarization should increase as $\Theta$ increases (blue dashed lines in Fig. \[figure:triplegauss\]). This happens as a consequence of having imposed $B_{\rm x0} > B_{\rm z0}$, which means that away from disk center, the component of the magnetic field vector that is aligned with the observer’s line-of-sight, $B_{\rm z}^{'}=B_\parallel$, increases due to the contribution from $B_{\rm x}$ (see Eq. \[equation:rotation\]). Because the slope of the $V-B_\parallel$ curve is so steep (see Fig. \[figure:bfnoise\]), a small increase in $B_{\rm z}^{'}=B_\parallel$ translates into a large increase in the Stokes $V$ signal. Therefore, the generated amount of circular polarization is much larger at larger heliocentric angles (dashed-blue curves; $\Theta=45\deg$) than at disk center (dashed-red curves; $\Theta=0\deg$). Likewise, since $B_{\rm z0} < B_{\rm x0}$, the component of the magnetic field that is perpendicular to the observer’s line-of-sight $B_\perp$ decreases as $\Theta$ increases. In this case, however, the linear polarization does not decrease as much as the circular polarization increases. This is due to the gentler slope of the $Q-B_\perp$ curve (Fig. \[figure:bfnoise\]).\
Interestingly, Figs.\[figure:stokhistogram\]a-\[figure:stokhistogram\]b show that the observed amount of circular polarization does not increase, as required by the change in the viewing angle, for larger heliocentric angles (i.e. as $\Theta$ increases) in accordance to the observed drop in linear polarization. We conclude therefore that the differences in the histograms of the observed Stokes profiles at different positions on the solar disk cannot be produced by the change in the viewing angle $\Theta$. This problem is not unique to the theoretical distribution given by Eq. \[equation:triplesphe\], but it will indeed affect any theoretical distribution that is prescribed in the local reference frame and features $B_{\rm z0} < B_{\rm x0},B_{\rm y0}$. Prescribing a theoretical distribution in the local reference frame means that the underlying distribution is always the same regardless of the position on the solar disk. The only reason that this distribution changes is because the angle $\Theta$, between the observer’s line of sight and the vector perpendicular to the solar surface, varies with the position on the solar disk.\
Other distribution functions {#subsection:other}
----------------------------
To avoid the problem described in Sect. \[subsection:triple\] we now prescribe a theoretical distribution of the magnetic field vector that, already in the local reference frame, depends on the latitude $\Lambda$. This will imply, unlike the previous distributions in Sections \[subsection:iso\] and \[subsection:triple\], that the underlying distribution (i.e. in the local reference frame) is different at different positions on the solar disk. In particular, the $\Lambda$ dependence means that the distribution function varies toward the poles, but not toward the limbs. The expression chosen in this section is\
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
& \mathcal{P}_1({{\rm\bf {B}}}; \Lambda)\df {{\rm\bf {B}}} = \frac{\df B_x \df B_y \df B_z}{192\pi\beta_\perp^5\beta_\parallel^3} (1+\zeta\sin\Lambda)^5 \cdot \\
& \cdot [(B_x\cos\Lambda+B_z\sin\Lambda)^2+B_y^2]^{\frac{3}{2}} [B_z\cos\Lambda-B_x\sin\Lambda]^2 \cdot \\
& \cdot \exp\left\{-\frac{|B_z\cos\Lambda-B_x\sin\Lambda|}{\beta_\parallel}\right\} \cdot \\
& \cdot \exp\left\{-\frac{|[(B_x\cos\Lambda+B_z\sin\Lambda)^2+B_y^2]^{\frac{1}{2}}|(1+\zeta\sin\Lambda)}{\beta_\perp}\right\} \;.
\end{split}
\label{equation:othercartesian}\end{aligned}$$
This theoretical distribution is normalized to one as it verifies Equation \[equation:norma\]. As in the two previous sections, we now perform a rotation of angle $\Theta$ around the $\ey$-axis to express Equation \[equation:othercartesian\] in the observer’s reference frame, and then we transform into spherical coordinates in the observer’s reference frame. This is done by applying Equations \[equation:rotation\] and \[equation:spherical\]. A close inspection (e.g make for instance $\Lambda=0$) of Eq. \[equation:othercartesian\] shows that again the result does not depend on the choice of rotation axis in the $XY$-plane. Although trivial to obtain, the resulting expression for the distribution function in spherical coordinates in the observer’s reference frame is too long to be written here (we provide it for a simplified case below). It is noteworthy to mention, however, that even though Eq. \[equation:othercartesian\] depends on $\Lambda$, once this equation is expressed in the observer’s reference frame, it depends both on $\Lambda$ and $\Theta$: $\mathcal{P}_1({{\rm\bf {B}}}; \Lambda, \Theta)$.\
The theoretical distributions functions of $B$ and $\gamma$ resulting from Equation \[equation:othercartesian\] are shown in Figures \[figure:other\]c and \[figure:other\]d, respectively. Here we considered the following values: $\zeta=0.3$, $\beta_\parallel=3$, and $\beta_\perp=7$. Unlike Sections \[subsection:iso\] and \[subsection:triple\], $\beta_\parallel$ and $\beta_\perp$ do not correspond to the mean values of $B_\parallel$ and $B_\perp$. For this reason we refer to them as $\beta_\parallel$ and $\beta_\perp$ instead of $B_{\parallel 0}$ and $B_{\perp 0}$. In this new distribution, the module of the magnetic field vector $B$ is different at different latitudes, with a slightly higher mean value at disk center (red line; $\Lambda=0\deg$) than closer to the poles (green and blue lines; $\Lambda=30-40\deg$). This is a direct consequence of prescribing a distribution of the magnetic field vector in the local reference frame that depends on $\Lambda$. Otherwise, as it occurred in Sects. \[subsection:iso\] and \[subsection:triple\], the distribution of $B$ would be the same, since the module of the magnetic field vector is invariant with respect to rotations.\
We now use the distribution given by Equation \[equation:othercartesian\] to solve the radiative transfer equation and produce theoretical histograms of the Stokes profiles. These are displayed in Figures. \[figure:other\]a and \[figure:other\]b. The shape of the curves for the circular (dashed) and linear (solid) polarization in Figure \[figure:other\]a are very similar to the observed ones (Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\]a). Of particular interest is the fact that, in agreement with the observations, the histograms of the circular polarization are very similar in the three considered positions on the solar disk, and feature a peak at signals $\approx 3-4\times 10^{-3}$. It is also important to mention that the linear polarization decreases from $\Lambda=0\deg$ towards $\Lambda=30-40\deg$, which also agrees with the observations.\
To understand how Equation \[equation:othercartesian\] can fit the observed histograms of the Stokes profiles at different latitudes, it is convenient to re-write this theoretical distribution function assuming that the observer’s line-of-sight is along the zero meridian. In this case the rotation angle $\Theta$ is equal to $\Lambda$, thereby simplifying the probability distribution function from Eq. \[equation:othercartesian\] into (in spherical coordinates in the observer’s reference frame)\
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{P}_1 & (B,\gamma,\phi)\df B \df\gamma\df\phi = \frac{B^7\sin^4\gamma\cos^2\gamma}{192 \pi \beta_\parallel^3 \beta_\perp^5}
(1+\zeta\sin\Lambda)^5 \cdot \\ & \cdot \exp{\left\{-\frac{|B\sin\gamma|(1+\zeta\sin\Lambda)}{\beta_\perp}\right\}} \cdot \\
& \cdot \exp{\left\{-\frac{|B\cos\gamma}{\beta_\parallel}\right\}} \df B \df \gamma \df \phi\;.
\end{split}
\label{equation:othersphe}\end{aligned}$$
In this Equation \[equation:othersphe\], the exponential term that refers to $B\cos\gamma$ (i.e. component of the magnetic field vector that is parallel to the observer’s line-of-sight) does not depend on $\Lambda$ and therefore the amount of circular polarization generated by this distribution will not change with latitude (see dashed lines in Figs. \[figure:other\]a and \[figure:other\]b). Moreover, the exponential term that contains $B\sin\gamma$ (i.e. component of the magnetic field vector that is perpendicular to the observer’s line-of-sight) decreases as $\Lambda$ increases and thus, this distribution function produces less linear polarization at higher latitudes (see solid lines in Figs. \[figure:other\]a and \[figure:other\]b).\
Despite all these similarities between the theoretical and observed distribution of Stokes profiles there are still some significant differences, namely: [**a)**]{} there is a clear deficit of pixels with sufficient amount of linear polarization in the range of signals $\approx 2-4\times10^{-3}$ (Fig. \[figure:other\]a) or $S/R > 5$ (Fig. \[figure:other\]b) at all latitudes; and [**b)**]{} the theoretical histograms show a peak in the circular polarization at the $3\sigma$-level at high latitudes (dashed-blue and dashed-green curves in Fig. \[figure:other\]a), while the observed histograms show no peak in the circular polarization at the $3\sigma$-level at any disk position (dashed curves in Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\]a). Overall, however, the fit between the observed and the theoretical histograms of the Stokes profiles is clearly better for this distribution (Eq. \[equation:othercartesian\]) than for the case of an isotropic distribution (Eq. \[equation:isotropic\]) or a triple Gaussian (Eq. \[equation:triplesphe\]).\
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
{width="9cm"} {width="9cm"}
{width="9cm"} {width="9cm"}
--------------------------------- ---------------------------------
Assumptions and limitations {#section:limitations}
===========================
In the previous subsections we have focused on the effect that the probability distribution function of the magnetic field vector $\mathcal{P}_1({{\rm\bf {B}}},\alpha)$ has on the observed histograms of the Stokes profiles at different positions on the solar disk. In our theoretical analysis a number of simplifying assumptions were made to keep the problem tractable. Although they have already been pointed out in Section \[section:pdftheory\], we summarize them here to briefly discuss their implications.\
- We have assumed that the thermodynamic and magnetic parameters are statistically independent of each other. This allowed us to write the total probability distribution function in Eq. \[equation:pdftot\] as the product of two distinct probability distribution functions. However, as dictated by the Lorentz-force term in the momentum equation in magnetohydrodynamics, the magnetic field affects the thermodynamic structure of the solar atmosphere. It is therefore clear that this assumption does not fully hold in the solar atmosphere. For instance, if we take the commonly accepted picture of intergranular lanes harboring more vertical and stronger magnetic fields than the granular cells, and we consider that intergranular cells have a smoother variation of the temperature with optical depth (see i.e. Fig. 3 in Borrero & Bellot Rubio 2002), we could then have postulated a correlation between the magnetic field vector ${{\rm\bf {B}}}$ and the gradient of the source function with optical depth $S_1$, which is contained in ${{\rm\bf {T}}}$ (Eq. \[equation:x\]). Indeed, the higher $S_1$ is, the stronger will be the polarization profiles $Q$, $U$, and $V$ (see Eq. 9.45 in del Toro Iniesta 2003). These correlations could potentially cause the observed histograms of the Stokes profiles (Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\]) to vary with the heliocentric angle, even if the underlying distribution of the magnetic field vector does not depend on $\Theta$. Therefore it is important to investigate what an effect they have before conclusively proving that the distribution of the magnetic field vector is not isotropic (Sect. \[subsection:iso\]), or that the differences in the observed histograms of the Stokes profiles are not due to the viewing angle (Sect. \[subsection:triple\]). Unfortunately, the aforementioned correlations are not known for the solar internetwork simply because it is not clear how magnetic fields are distributed here. In the future we will explore this question by employing 3D numerical simulations of the solar atmosphere, because they provide correlations between ${{\rm\bf {B}}}$ and ${{\rm\bf {T}}}$ that are compatible with the MHD equations.\
- We have also assumed that the probability distribution function of the thermodynamic and kinematic parameters, $\mathcal{P}_2({{\rm\bf {T}}},V_{\rm los})$, does not depend on the position on the solar disk. Kinematic parameters (i.e. line-of-sight velocity $V_{\rm los}$) do not influence our study, since they have no effect on the amplitude of the Stokes profiles in Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\]. The same can be argued about other thermodynamic parameters in ${{\rm\bf {T}}}$, such as the source function at the observer’s $S_0$ (affects only Stokes $I$), and damping parameter $a$ (affects mostly the line width but not its amplitude). By far, the most important thermodynamic parameters affecting the amplitude of the Stokes profiles under the Milne-Eddington approximation are the gradient of the source function with optical depth $S_1$ and the continuum-to-line-center absorption coefficient $\eta_0$. In a 1D atmosphere both these parameters are known to decrease as $\Theta$ increases, because the line-of-sight samples a thinner vertical-portion of the atmosphere. However, since the dependence of the polarization profiles with $S_1$ and $\eta_0$ are identical (see Eqs. 8.14, 8.15 and 9.44 in del Toro Iniesta 2003), one would expect the same drop with increasing heliocentric angle angle in the amplitude of the circular polarization profiles (Stokes $V$) and linear polarization profiles (Stokes $Q$ and $U$). However, Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\] shows that the linear and circular polarization profiles (solid-color and dashed-color lines) behave differently, and therefore we can rule out the variations of $S_1$ and/or $\eta_0$ with $\Theta$ as being responsible for the observed histograms in the Stokes profiles. Of course, this would change in a 3D atmosphere, where the line-of-sight pierces through different inhomogeneous atmospheric layers, thereby opening the door for the possibility of $S_1$ and or $\eta_0$ to affect the linear and circular polarization profiles differently[^1].\
- Adopting a Milne-Eddington atmosphere also implies that we are assuming that the magnetic field vector ${{\rm\bf {B}}}$ does not vary with optical depth $\tau_c$ in the photosphere. This can have important consequences, since at larger heliocentric angles the spectral line samples higher atmospheric layers than at disk center, where the probability distribution function of the magnetic field vector can be different. Employing the widely used 1D HOLMU model (Holweger & Müller 1974) we calculated that the continuum level $\tau_c=1$ rises by approximately $20$ Km from disk center $\Theta=0\deg$ (map A; Sect. \[subsection:mapa\]) to $\Theta=45\deg$ (maps B and C; Sects. \[subsection:mapb\] and \[subsection:mapc\]). Since this vertical shift of the continuum level is rather small, we could argue that the histograms of the Stokes profiles in Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\] are not affected by this effect. However, the value of 20 km should be considered only as a lower limit since a 1D model does not take into account the horizontal inhomogeneities present in the solar atmosphere. To properly account for this effect, more sophisticated 3D models should be employed.\
- Finally, we have considered $\alpha=1$ in our analysis (see Sect. \[section:pdftheory\]). This is equivalent to considering that, at the resolution of the Hinode/SP instrument (0.32"; Sect. \[section:observations\]), the magnetic structures are spatially resolved. This is, of course, highly unlikely, and therefore it would be important to drop this assumption in the future. Its importance can only be quantified with additional assumptions about the scale-distribution of the magnetic structures in the solar photosphere. This topic is, in itself, as controversial as the distribution of the magnetic field strength and inclination, which is the reason why we have refrained from addressing it here. Although employing 3D MHD simulations would certainly help to drop the $\alpha=1$ assumption, we are cautious about it since it is not clear whether these simulations are reliable at the smallest physical scales (Sánchez Almeida 2006).\
Discussion and conclusions {#section:conclu}
==========================
The histograms of the observed Stokes profiles at different positions on the solar disk (Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\]) are clearly different from each other. One possible interpretation for this is that the distribution of the magnetic field vector in the solar internetwork is not isotropic. We explored this possibility in Section \[subsection:iso\], where we employed an isotropic probability distribution of the magnetic field vector. This distribution yielded, as expected, the same distribution of Stokes profiles at all positions on the solar disk (Fig. \[figure:isotropic\]). Mart[í]{}nez González et al. (2008) have also presented similar histograms but employing the Stokes profiles from the Fe I line pair at 1.56 $\mu$m (observed with the TIP2 instrument; Mart[í]{}nez Pillet et al. 1999). Their histograms (see their Figure 2) showed no clear variation with the heliocentric angle, which lead them to conclude that the distribution of the magnetic field vector in the quiet Sun was isotropic. Interestingly, these authors also mentioned after a more detailed analysis that there could indeed be a dependence of the histograms with the heliocentric angle (as indeed we find here).\
In addition to Mart[í]{}nez González et al. (2008), a number of works have also argued in favor of an isotropic distribution of magnetic fields in the internetwork. In particular, Asensio Ramos (2009) and Stenflo (2010), employing two different approaches, both concluded that for very weak magnetic fields ($B \to 0$) the distribution becomes isotropic. With our present data we cannot argue against or in favor of this interpretation. The main reason for this is that, as discussed in Section \[section:clvobs\], any distribution for the magnetic field vector where $B_\perp$ has a peak below 40-70 will produce linear polarization profiles that are dominated by noise ($3\sigma$-level or $S/R = 3$). Therefore our current approach (described in Section \[section:pdftheory\]) cannot be employed to discern the underlying distribution of the magnetic field vector from these profiles dominated by noise. However, it can be employed to establish that the number of pixels that would follow this hypothetically isotropic distribution cannot be much larger than 30 % of the pixels in the internetwork, since this is the amount of pixels that show a peak at the $3\sigma$-level in the polarization profiles (see Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\]a). For signals above $> 2\times 10^{-3}$, the histograms of the Stokes profiles deviate significantly from the ones predicted by an isotropic distribution, and thus we can establish that here the distribution of the magnetic field vector cannot be isotropic.\
We can use a different argument to further clarify the previous point. Our theoretical distributions in Section \[section:pdftheory\] apply to all possible values of the module of the magnetic field vector. However, we could have employed distributions pieced together in the following form:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_1({{\rm\bf {B}}})\df {{\rm\bf {B}}} = \begin{cases} \mathcal{P}_a({{\rm\bf {B}}})\df{{\rm\bf {B}}}, & \textrm{if}\; B<B^{*} \\
\mathcal{P}_b({{\rm\bf {B}}})\df {{\rm\bf {B}}} , & \textrm{if}\; B>B^{*} \;, \end{cases}
\label{equation:piecepdf}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mathcal{P}_a$ could hypothetically correspond to an isotropic distribution for weak fields: $B<B^{*}$. This would explain the $3\sigma$-peak in the linear polarization in Figure \[figure:stokhistogram\]a (dashed lines). In addition, $\mathcal{P}_b$ could be a distribution, valid for larger fields $B > B^{*}$, that would fit the tails of the histogram. The distribution given by Equation \[equation:piecepdf\] does not need to be discontinuous because it could be prescribed such that $\mathcal{P}_a(B^{*}) = \mathcal{P}_b(B^{*})$.\
In Section \[subsection:triple\] we employed a triple Gaussian (one for each component of the magnetic field vector) distribution function and found that, under this assumption and at disk center, the best fit to the observed histograms of the Stokes profiles is produced by a distribution in which the mean value of the magnetic field vector component that is parallel to the solar surface is lower than the mean value of the magnetic field vector component that is perpendicular to the solar surface: $B_{z0} < \sqrt{B_{\rm x0}^2+B_{\rm y0}^2}$. This yields a distribution function where the magnetic field vector is highly inclined, in agreement with previous findings from Orozco et al. (2007a, 2007b) and Lites et al. (2007, 2008). However, this distribution does not fit well the histograms of the Stokes profiles at other positions on the solar disk. In fact, in that section we found that it is not possible to fit the observed histograms for the Stokes profiles at different heliocentric angles employing a theoretical distribution function for the magnetic field vector prescribed in the local reference frame that only changes due to the viewing angle $\Theta$. The reason for this is that, for an underlying distribution where the magnetic field vector is mostly horizontal at $\Theta=0\deg$ (disk center), the amount of linear polarization slightly decreases when $\Theta$ increases, while the amount of circular polarization would significantly increase as $\Theta$ increases. However, the observed histograms of the Stokes profiles (Fig. \[figure:stokhistogram\]) show that, although the amount of linear polarization decreases when $\Theta$ increases, the circular polarization does not particularly increase (see also discussion in Lites et al. 2008). This cannot be explained in terms of a simple rotation of the viewing angle $\Theta$, and therefore we interpreted this fact, in Section \[subsection:other\], as proof that the underlying (i.e. in the local reference frame) distribution of the magnetic field vector must depend on the position on the solar disk.\
Under the assumption that the distribution of the underlying magnetic field vector depends on the latitude $\Lambda$ (see Sect. \[subsection:other\]), we were able to find a theoretical distribution of the magnetic field vector (Eq. \[equation:othercartesian\]) that fits quite well the observed histograms of the Stokes profiles at different positions on the solar disk (Figure \[figure:other\]). Among other properties, this distribution features a magnetic field whose mean value decreases toward the poles. We note here that this does not mean that this is the real distribution for the magnetic field vector present in the quiet Sun. One reason for this is that the fit is far from perfect (see discrepancies mentioned in Sect. \[subsection:other\]), but most importantly, that we do not know whether this solution is unique because there can be other theoretical distributions that fit the observed Stokes profiles equally well, or even better. More work is indeed needed to confirm or rule out Eq. \[equation:othercartesian\] as the real distribution of the magnetic field vector present in the Sun. In particular, a better fit to the observed histograms of the Stokes profiles is desirable. In addition, it is important to have maps at more latitudes to further constrain the possible distribution functions.\
Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that the conclusions above are not necessarily the only possible interpretations, because postulating a probability distribution function of the thermodynamic and kinematic parameters, $\mathcal{P}_2({{\rm\bf {T}}},V_{\rm los})$, that varies with the heliocentric angle $\Theta$, or postulating a correlation between the thermodynamic (${{\rm\bf {T}}}$) and magnetic (${{\rm\bf {B}}}$) parameters might also help explain the observed differences between the histograms of the Stokes profiles at different positions on the solar disk. Another effect that has not been accounted for is that magnetic field vector can vary with optical depth in the solar photosphere. Since the Stokes profiles sample increasingly higher atmospheric layers as the heliocentric angle increases, the distribution of the magnetic field vector can be different for different values of $\Theta$, even if the probability distribution of the magnetic field vector is the same at all positions on the solar disk at a fixed geometrical depth. All these effects could be properly accounted for by means of 3D MHD simulations of the solar photosphere (Schüssler & Vögler 2008; Steiner et al. 2008, 2009; Danilovic et al. 2010).\
In the future we expect to employ such simulations to either rule out or confirm our results in this paper. Consequently, our conclusions at this point should be regarded as preliminary only. Instead, the main purpose in this paper is to illustrate the methodology detailed in Sections \[section:clvobs\] and \[section:pdftheory\] to study the distribution of the magnetic field vector in the quiet Sun, by directly inverting the histograms of the Stokes profiles in entire maps instead of inverting the Stokes profiles at each spatial position in a given map. Our method has great potential to investigate several aspects of the photospheric magnetism in the solar internetwork. For instance, it can be used, as in Sect. \[subsection:other\], to confirm whether the mean value of the distribution of the magnetic field vector changes from disk center toward the poles (cf. Zwang 1987; Ito et al. 2010). This will have important consequences for theoretical models that explain the torsional oscillations in the butterfly diagram in terms of a geostrophic flow model (Spruit 2003), which requires a significant amount of magnetic flux at high latitudes at the beginning of the sunspot cycle. In addition, and although in this work we have restricted ourselves to variations in latitude ($\Lambda$), additional observations from disk center toward the solar limbs could be employed to investigate whether the properties of the magnetic field in the internetwork change also in longitude. This is already predicted by non-axisymmetric dynamo models (Moss 1991, Moss et al. 1999, Bigazzi & Ruzmaikin 2004, Charbonneau 2005) and can provide important clues about the strength of the differential rotation (Rüdiger & Elstner 1994; Zhang et al. 2003).\
We would like to thank Luis Bellot Rubio, Mariam Mart[í]{}nez González and Oskar Steiner for fruitful discussions in the subject. Many thanks also to an anonymous referee, who pointed out an error in the probability distribution function of Section \[subsection:triple\] in an early version of this manuscript. This work analyzes data from the Hinode spacecraft. Hinode is a Japanese mission developed and launched by ISAS/JAXA, collaborating with NAOJ as a domestic partner, NASA and STFC (UK) as international partners. Scientific operation of the Hinode mission is conducted by the Hinode science team organized at ISAS/JAXA. This team mainly consists of scientists from institutes in the partner countries. Support for the post-launch operation is provided by JAXA and NAOJ (Japan), STFC (U.K.), NASA, ESA, and NSC (Norway). This work has also made use of the NASA ADS database.
Asensio Ramos, A., Mart[í]{}nez González, M.J., López Ariste, A., Trujillo Bueno, J. & Collados, M. 2007, , 659, 829 Asensio Ramos, A. 2009, , 701, 1032 Bellot Rubio, L.R. & Orozco Suárez, D. 2012, , 757, 19 Bigazzi, A., Ruzmaikin, A. 2004, , 604, 944 Borrero, J.M. & Bellot Rubio, L.R. 2002, A&A, 385, 1056 Borrero, J.M., Tomczyk, S., Kubo, M. et al. 2011, Solar Physics, 273, 267 Borrero, J.M. & Kobel, P. 2011, A&A, 527, 29, paper I Borrero, J.M. & Kobel, P. 2012, A&A, 547, 89, paper II Charbonneau, P. 2005, Living. Revs. Solar Phys., 2. (cited on 2010) Danilovic, S., Schüssler, M. & Solanki, S.K. 2010, A&A, 513, 1 Dom[í]{}nguez Cerdeña, I., Sánchez Almeida, J. & Kneer, F. 2003, , 582, 55 Dom[í]{}nguez Cerdeña, I., Sánchez Almeida, J. & Kneer, F. 2006, , 636, 496 Harvey, J.W., Bratson, D., Henney, C.J & Keller, C.U 2007, , 659, L177 Henney, C.J. & Harvey, J.W. 2002, , 207, 199 Holweger, H. & Müller, E.A. 1974, , 39, 19 Ichimoto, K., Lites, B.W., Elmore, D. et al. 2008, Solar Physics, 249, 233 Ito, H., Tsuneta, S., Shiota, D., Tokumaru, M. & Fukiri, K. 2010, , 719, 131 Kosugi, T., Matsuzaki, K., Sakao, T. 2007, Solar Physics, 243, 3 Leva, J.L. 1992, ACM Transactions of Mathematical Software, volume 18, number 4, p 454-455 Lites, B.W., Socas-Navarro, H., Kubo, M. et al. 2007, PASJ, 59, 571 Lites, B.W., Kubo, M., Socas-Navarro, H. et al. 2008, , 672, 1237 López Ariste, A., Mart[í]{}nez González, M.J & Ram[í]{}rez Vélez, J.C. 2007, A&A, 464, 351 Mart[í]{}nez González, M., Asensio Ramos, A., López Ariste, A. & Manso-Sainz, R. 2008, A&A, 479, 229 Mart[í]{}nez Pillet, V., Collados, M., Sánchez Almeida, J. et al. 1999, ASPC, 183, 264 Moss, D., Brandenburg, A. & Tuominen, I. 1991, A&A, 347, 576 Moss, D. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 300 Orozco Suárez, D., Bellot Rubio, L.R., del Toro Iniesta, J.C. et al. 2007a, , 670, L61 Orozco Suárez, D., Bellot Rubio, L.R., del Toro Iniesta, J.C. et al. 2007b, PASJ, 59, 837 Orozco Suárez, D. & Bellot Rubio, L.R. 2012, , 751, 1 Rüdiger, G & Elstner, D. 1994, A&A, 281, 46 Ruiz Cobo, B. & del Toro Iniesta, J.C. 1992, , 398, 375 Sánchez Almeida, J. 2005, A&A, 438, 727 Sánchez Almeida, J. 2006, A&A, 450, 1199 Sánchez Almeida, J. & Mart[í]{}nez González, M.J. 2011 in: Proceedings of the Solar Polarization Workshop 6. Eds: J. R. Kuhn, D. M. Harrington, H. Lin, S. V. Berdyugina, J. Trujillo-Bueno, S. L. Keil, and T. Rimmele. San Francisco: Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2011., p.451 Schüssler, M. & Vögler, A. 2008, A&A, 481, L5 Steiner, O., Rezaei, R., Schaffenberger, W. & Wedemeyer-Böhm, S. 2008, , 680, L85 Steiner, O., Rezaei, R. & Schlichenmaier, R. 2009 in: Proceedings for the Second Hinode Science Meeting. Eds: B. Lites, M. Cheung, T. Nagara, J. Mariska and K. Reeves. ASP Conf. Ser. vol 415, 67. Shimizu, T., Nagata, S., Tsuneta, S. et al. 2008, Solar Physics, 249, 221 Spruit, H. 2003, , 213, 1 Stenflo, J.O. 2010, A&A, 517, 37 Suematsu, Y., Tsuneta, S., Ichimoto, K. et al. 2008, Solar Physics, 249, 197 del Toro Iniesta, J.C. 2003. Introduction to Spectropolarimetry. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, April 2003. ISBN: 0521818273 Tsuneta, S., Suetmatsu, Y., Ichimoto, K. et al. 2008, Solar Physics, 249, 167 Zhang, K., Chan, K.H., Zou, J., Liao, X. & Schubert, G. 2003, , 596, 663 Zwang, C. 1987, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 25, 83
[^1]: Outside the Milne-Eddington approximation, a similar argument could be made in terms of the stratification with optical depth of the temperature in the solar photosphere $T(\tau_c)$, instead of $S_1$ and $\eta_0$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The KOTO experiment has recently performed a search for neutral Kaons decaying into neutral pions and a pair of neutrinos. Three events were observed in the KOTO signal region, with an expected background of about 0.05. Since no clear signal of systematic errors have been found, the excess of events in the decay $K_{L}\rightarrow\pi^0\nu\bar{\nu}$ is quite intriguing. One possibility to explain this anomaly would be the presence of a scalar $\phi$ with mass of the order of the pion mass and inducing decays $K_L \to \pi^0 \phi$ which mimic the observed signal. A scalar with mass of the order of the pion mass and a coupling to muons of the order of the Standard Model Higgs coupling could also explain the muon anomalous magnetic moment anomaly $(g-2)_{\mu}$. We built on these facts to show that a light singlet scalar with couplings to the leptons and quarks as the ones induced by mixing with Higgs states in two Higgs doublet models may lead to an explanation of both anomalies. More specifically, we show that this is the case in the so-called type-X models in which leptons and quarks couple to two different Higgs doublets, and for scalar masses that are in the range between 40 and 70 MeV. Due to the relatively large coupling to leptons required to fit $(g-2)_{\mu}$, the scalar lifetime accidentally falls into the sub-nanosecond range which is essential to evade the severe proton beam dump experiments and astrophysical constraints, though it becomes sensitive to constraints from electron beam dump experiments. The additional phenomenological properties of this model are discussed.'
author:
- Jia Liu
- Navin McGinnis
- 'Carlos E.M. Wagner'
- 'Xiao-Ping Wang'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: 'A Light Scalar Explanation of $(g-2)_{\mu}$ and the KOTO Anomaly'
---
Introduction
============
The Standard Model (SM) provides an excellent description of all experimental phenomena [@Tanabashi:2018oca]. After the discovery of the Higgs, the basic mechanism for electroweak symmetry breaking has been confirmed. Moreover, the Higgs couplings to the gauge bosons, as well as to the third generation quarks and leptons are in very good agreement with the predictions of the SM [@Khachatryan:2016vau]. Furthermore, no clear signals of new physics have been observed at the LHC, implying that the SM contains all basic ingredients to be the proper effective theory at the weak scale and perhaps at much higher energies.
The SM, however, does not provide an explanation for the observed Dark Matter density in the Universe. More importantly the couplings of the Higgs to the first and second generation quarks and leptons is still unknown and large deviations with respect to the SM predictions may be present in these sectors (see for example, Refs. [@Belanger:2013xza; @Perez:2015lra; @Coyle:2019hvs]). Indeed, it is a priori unlikely that the scalar sector of the theory reduces to a single Higgs doublet. Additional doublets and singlets may be present, some of them light and which have not been detected due to their small couplings to fermions and bosons of the SM.
One example of such scalars is associated with an explanation of the muon $(g-2)$ anomaly. As has been stressed in many works [@Kinoshita:1990aj; @Zhou:2001ew; @Barger:2010aj; @TuckerSmith:2010ra; @Chen:2015vqy; @Liu:2016qwd; @Batell:2016ove; @Marciano:2016yhf; @Wang:2016ggf; @Liu:2018xkx] a light singlet scalar with a mass of the order of the pion mass and a coupling to muons of the order of $10^{-3}$ may lead to an explanation of this anomaly. Due to gauge invariance, however, such a singlet, cannot couple directly to the muons and could couple to leptons via effective operators involving $SU(2)$ Higgs doublets.
Recently, the KOTO experiment looked for the decay of neutral Kaons into neutral pions and a pair of neutrinos [@Ahn:2018mvc; @KOTO-2019]. In particular, KOTO is mostly sensitive for the process $K_L \to \pi^0 \nu \bar{\nu}$. The neutral pions would subsequently decay into photon pairs. KOTO performed a blind search for such events. The SM expected rate is more than two orders of magnitude below the current KOTO sensitivity. When the process was unblinded, however, three events remain in the signal region, with an expected background of about 0.05 [@KOTO-2019].
The appearance of such a signal is particularly surprising due to the existence of the so-called Grossman-Nir bound [@Grossman:1997sk], which is based on a simple relationship between the decay widths of charged and neutral Kaons into charged and neutral pions and neutrinos. Using the respective lifetimes of charged and neutral Kaons, one obtains that
$${\rm BR}(K_L \to \pi^0\nu \bar{\nu}) \lesssim 4.3 \ {\rm BR}(K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar{\nu})$$
This bound puts strong constraints on any high energy physics explanation of the KOTO anomaly. However, it is known that a scalar, with mass of about the pion mass and either stable (when the mass is close to the pion mass) or with a lifetime lower than about a nanosecond can provide an explanation of the KOTO anomaly without violating the Grossman-Nir bound. This is due to the experimental sensitivities of the charged and neutral Kaon experiments. The possibility of a stable, light scalar, with mass close to the pion mass, leading to a possible excess at the KOTO experiment without violating the Grossman-Nir bound was first stressed in Refs. [@Fuyuto:2014cya; @Hou:2016den], well before the KOTO excess observation. The possibility that a light scalar, with mass different from the pion mass and with a long lifetime, but not necessarily stable, can also explain the observed KOTO excess without violating the Grossman Nir bound was stressed by several authors, including those of Refs. [@Kitahara:2019lws; @Egana-Ugrinovic:2019wzj; @Dev:2019hho]. Other possibilities have been discussed in Refs. [@Kitahara:2019lws; @Fabbrichesi:2019bmo; @Li:2019fhz].
The range of scalar masses necessary to explain the KOTO anomaly is very similar to the one arising in the light scalar explanation of the $(g-2)_\mu$ anomaly, suggesting a possible common explanation of both physical phenomena. In this article, we propose a simple model, which leads to such an explanation. Our model is based on a singlet scalar mixing with Higgs doublet states as the ones that appear in a type-X two Higgs doublet model (2HDM), in which quarks and leptons couple to different Higgs doublets. The required singlet scalar turns out to be lighter than the muon and pion.
Our model differs from previous proposals to explain the KOTO anomaly [@Egana-Ugrinovic:2019wzj; @Dev:2019hho], in which a singlet scalar mixing with the SM Higgs (SSM) is assumed. The decay of the scalar into electrons in such proposals lead to a lifetime of the order of $c\tau \sim 100$ km due to the small mixing angle $\sin\theta \sim 10^{-3}$ necessary to explain the KOTO anomaly. In our scenario, instead, the lifetime is much shorter. It is indeed a non-trivial fact that the coupling to leptons consistent with the explanation of $(g-2)_\mu$ leads to the proper scalar lifetime of $\sim 0.01 $ meter that allows to avoid the charged pion decay constraints. Moreover, this fact also allows a solution to the KOTO anomaly in a different mass range compared with previous proposals.
The article is organized as follows. In section \[sec:effmodel\], we introduce the effective model and show how it can explain both the $(g-2)_\mu$ and KOTO anomalies. In section \[sec:UVmodel\], we discuss the ultraviolet (UV) completion of the model and its constraints from collider, beam dump and astrophysics searches. We reserve section \[sec:conclusion\] for our conclusions.
The effective model for the $(g-2)_{\mu}$ and KOTO anomalies {#sec:effmodel}
============================================================
The anomalous magnetic moment of the muon is an excellent probe of new physics at the weak scale. It is governed mainly by a dimension five dipole operator, which is chirally violating, whose contribution to $a_\mu =(g-2)_\mu/2 $ is expected to be loop suppressed and proportional to $(m_\mu/\tilde{m})^2$, where $\tilde{m}$ parameterizes the scale of new physics. The current measurement is more than three standard deviations from the expected value in the SM [@Blum:2018mom], namely
$$\label{gm2_dev}
\Delta a_{\mu} \equiv a_{\mu}^{exp} - a_{\mu}^{SM}=(2.74 \pm 0.73) \times 10^{-9}$$
If this deviation were confirmed, it would be a clear indication of new physics at or below the weak scale. A new measurement of $a_\mu$ is expected to be reported by the $g-2$ collaboration at Fermilab within the next few months [@Grange:2015fou]. Many models of physics beyond the SM can lead to an explanation of this anomaly [@Miller:2007kk; @Jegerlehner:2009ry]. In our work, we consider a simple extension of the SM which includes a light scalar $\phi$ that couples to both the leptons and quarks but with different couplings relative to the SM ones. We assume that the couplings are flavor diagonal and universal within each sector. Thus, we consider the low-energy effective theory defined by
$$\begin{aligned}
\quad \mathcal{L}_{\rm eff} \supset \sum_{q} \epsilon_{q} \frac{m_q}{v} \phi \bar{q}q +
\sum_{\ell} \epsilon_{\ell} \frac{m_\ell}{v} \phi \bar{\ell} \ell + \epsilon_W \frac{2 m_W^2}{v} W_\mu^+ W^{\mu -}.
\label{eq:eff-lag}\end{aligned}$$
This setup can occur, for instance, in a lepton-specific 2HDM with an additional singlet. Later, we will argue that $\epsilon_W \approx \epsilon_q$ in some reasonable limit. Thus, comparing with the SSM model, the only difference with our effective model is that $\epsilon_{\ell}$ is an extra free parameter. We will return to the UV completion of this model in the next section. In [@Liu:2018xkx] it was shown how a light scalar with a generic coupling to the muon can account for the deviation in the muon anomalous magnetic moment. The contribution to $(g-2)_{\mu}$ in our effective model is given by [@PhysRevD.5.2396; @Leveille:1977rc] $$\Delta a_{\mu} = \frac{m_{\mu}^2}{8\pi^2v^2}\epsilon_{\ell}^2\int_{0}^{1}dx\frac{(1-x)^2(1+x)}{(1-x)^2 + x(m_{\phi}/m_{\mu})^2}.$$ It is easy to calculate that the requirement to satisfy $(g-2)_{\mu}$ fixes $\epsilon_{\ell}\simeq\mathcal{O}(1)$, for the range of masses $m_{\phi}$ that is relevant for the KOTO anomaly.
In a recent paper [@Kitahara:2019lws], it was shown that the KOTO anomaly could be explained by new physics involving a particle, $X$, with lifetime $\tau\sim\mathcal{O}(0.1-0.01)$ ns and appearing in decays of Kaons with a neutral Kaon branching ratio $ {\rm BR}(K_L \rightarrow\pi^0 X)\sim 10^{-2}$–$10^{-8}$. In our case, the decay of the Kaon is induced at one-loop through penguin diagrams with the $W$ boson and leads an effective $s-d-\phi$ vertex. The partial decay widths for $K_L$ are then controlled by $\epsilon_q$ and $m_{\phi}$ [@Leutwyler:1989xj; @Gunion:1989we],
$$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(K_L \rightarrow \pi^0 \phi)=&\frac{\left(\text{Re} \left[g(\epsilon_{q}) \right] \right)^2}{16\pi m_{K}^3}\lambda^{1/2}(m_{K}^2, m_{\pi}^2, m_{\phi}^2), \\
g(\epsilon_{q})=&\frac{3m_{K}^2}{32\pi v^3}\epsilon_{q}\sum_{q = u,c,t} m_{q}^2V^{*}_{qd}V_{qs},\end{aligned}$$
where $\lambda(x,y,z) = x^2+y^2+z^2 - 2 x y-2 y z - 2 x z$ is the triangle function. For the partial width of $K^+ \to \pi^+ \phi$, one needs to substitute $\text{Re} \left[g(\epsilon_{q}) \right]$ to $\left|g(\epsilon_{q}) \right|$ and change the corresponding mass parameters. In Fig. \[fig:kaon-BR\], we show the contours for ${\rm BR}(K_L \rightarrow\pi^0 \phi)$ and ${\rm BR}(K^+ \rightarrow\pi^+ \phi)$ (solid and dotted lines respectively) in the $m_{\phi} - \epsilon_q$ plane. We see that in the range of scalar masses we consider, the branching ratio is fairly insensitive to $m_{\phi}$ and thus determined mostly by $\epsilon_{q}$. Furthermore, obtaining a branching ratio appropriate for the KOTO anomaly sets $\epsilon_{q} \ll \epsilon_{\ell}$, as the latter is of order 1.
![Contours for ${\rm BR}(K_L \rightarrow\pi^0 \phi)$ and ${\rm BR}(K^+ \rightarrow\pi^+ \phi)$ in the $\epsilon_q$–$m_{\phi}$ plane. The solid colored lines indicate the contours for ${\rm BR}(K_L \rightarrow\pi^0 \phi)$. Dotted lines of corresponding colors show where ${\rm BR}(K^+ \rightarrow\pi^+ \phi)$ achieves the corresponding value.[]{data-label="fig:kaon-BR"}](mphi_eq_BR_v6)
![Branching ratios of the allowed $\phi$ decay modes. The solid lines show branching ratios ${\rm BR}(\phi\rightarrow X)$ when the coupling $\epsilon_{\ell} \sim 1$ is fixed to fit the central value for $\Delta a_{\mu} $, and $\epsilon_{q} = \epsilon_{W} \sim 6\times 10^{-3}$ is fixed so that ${\rm BR}(K_L\rightarrow \pi^0 \phi)=10^{-6}$. In dashed lines, the branching ratios for singlet scalar mixing model $\epsilon_{q}=\epsilon_{W} =\epsilon_{\ell}$ are shown. In the latter case, a dramatic cancellation between $W$ loop function and fermion loop function happens for $m_\phi$ around the pion mass, which leads to a higher electron-positron decay branching ratio even with a much smaller $\epsilon_\ell$. []{data-label="fig:BR_modes"}](BR_modelB_v5)
With $\epsilon_{\ell}$ fixed by the requirement to explain $(g-2)_{\mu}$ and $\epsilon_{q}$ fixed by the choice of ${\rm BR}(K_L \rightarrow\pi^0 \phi)$ to explain the KOTO experiment result, the lifetime of $\phi$ is then uniquely determined by its mass, once all allowed decay modes are identified. For the range of masses relevant to both experiments, the allowed decay modes are $\phi\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$, $\phi\rightarrow\gamma\gamma$, and when $m_{\phi}>2m_{\mu}$ $\phi\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$. The decay widths are given by $$\begin{aligned}
& \Gamma(\phi\rightarrow \ell\ell)=\frac{\epsilon_{\ell}^2m_{\ell}^2}{8\pi v^2}m_{\phi}(1-\tau_{\ell})^{3/2}\theta({m_{\phi}^2 - 4m_{\ell}^2}),
\label{eq:tree} \\
& \Gamma(\phi\rightarrow\gamma\gamma)=\frac{\alpha^2 m_{\phi}^3}{1024\pi^3}\left| \sum_{q}\frac{6\epsilon_{q}}{v}Q_{q}^2A_{1/2}(\tau_{q}) + \sum_{\ell}\frac{2\epsilon_{\ell}}{v}A_{1/2}(\tau_{\ell}) + \frac{2\epsilon_{W}}{v}A_{1}(\tau_{W})\right|^2,
\label{eq:diphoton}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta$ is the step function, $A_{1/2}(\tau_{i})$ ($A_{1}(\tau_{i})$) is the usual fermion (vector-boson) loop function and $\tau_{i}=4m_{i}^2/m_{\phi}^2$ [@Gunion:1989we].
In Fig. \[fig:BR\_modes\], we show the branching ratios of the allowed decay modes of $\phi$. The decay widths are determined by fixing $\epsilon_{\ell}$ so that $\Delta a_{\mu}$ is fit to the central value of $(g-2)_\mu$, and $\epsilon_{q}$ so that ${\rm BR}(K_L \rightarrow \pi^0 \phi)=10^{-6}$. However, the branching ratios are largely unaffected by deviations from these choices so long as $\epsilon_{q} \ll \epsilon_{l}$. Despite the fact that the diphoton width receives contributions from both quarks and leptons it is loop suppressed, and thus $\phi\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$ will always be the dominant decay mode for $m_{\phi}<2 \ m_{\mu}$. Besides the decay branching ratio of our model (solid lines), we also show the corresponding branching ratios in the SSM model (dashed lines) which has $\epsilon_q = \epsilon_\ell =\epsilon_W$. It is interesting to mention that for our model $\epsilon_q =\epsilon_W \sim 10^{-3} \textup{--} 10^{-2}$ and $ \epsilon_\ell \sim 1$, thus it is natural to expect ${\rm BR}(\phi \to e^+ e^-) \simeq 1$. However, due to a surprising cancellation between $W$ loop function and fermion loop function contributions to the di-photon decay amplitude for $m_\phi$ around the pion mass, the SSM model has a larger ${\rm BR}(\phi \to e^+ e^-)$. Therefore, in some beam dump experiments our model will be more constrained.
For a light scalar to mimic the signal in the KOTO experiment, it must decay outside of the detector. Taking into account the appropriate boost factors and detector efficiencies this leads to an effective branching ratio $${\rm BR}(K_L \rightarrow \pi^0 \phi; {\rm KOTO}) = \epsilon_{{\rm eff}} {\rm BR}(K_L \rightarrow \pi^0 \phi) e^{-\frac{L}{p_\phi}\frac{m_{\phi}}{\tau_{\phi}}},
\label{eq:BR_KOTO}$$ where $p_\phi$ is the typical momentum of $\phi$ and $L$ is the detector size in the KOTO experiment. The efficiency factor $\epsilon_{ \rm eff}$ is included to account for the signal efficiency difference between $K_L \rightarrow \pi^0 \phi$ and $K_L \rightarrow \pi^0 \bar{\nu} \nu$, which is taken from [@Ahn:2018mvc]. Following [@Kitahara:2019lws], we fix $L=3$m and $E_{\phi}=1.5$ GeV for the KOTO experiment.
In our model, there are three free parameters $m_\phi$, $\epsilon_{\ell}$ and $\epsilon_{q} = \epsilon_{W}$ where the last two are fixed by the $(g-2)_\mu$ and KOTO experiments, respectively. One can trade them into another set of parameters $m_\phi$, $\tau_{\phi}$ and ${\rm BR}(K_L \rightarrow \pi^0 \phi)$. Since $\epsilon_{q} \ll \epsilon_{\ell}$, the total width and lifetime of $\phi$ are dominantly determined by $\epsilon_{\ell}$. In this sense, $\tau_{\phi}$ is insensitive to the precise value of ${\rm BR}(K_L \rightarrow \pi^0 \phi)$.
In Fig. \[fig:major-result\], we show the model parameter space in the $m_\phi$–$\tau_{\phi}$ plane. Once $\epsilon_{\ell}$ is fixed to fit $(g-2)_\mu$, the model parameters shrink to the red shaded region, where the red solid line corresponds to the central value of $\Delta a_\mu$ and the red dashed lines correspond to the $2 \sigma$ region. The dashed gray lines show contours of ${\rm BR}(K_L\rightarrow \pi^0\phi)$ where the central value of the KOTO signal is achieved (see Fig. \[fig:kaon-BR\] to translate this to values of $\epsilon_{q}$). The cyan, blue, purple, yellow, light orange, brown, green, and light gray shaded regions are excluded by the $K_{\mu 2}$ [@Yamazaki:1984vg], E949 [@Anisimovsky:2004hr; @Artamonov:2009sz], NA62 [@NA62-2019], CHARM [@Bergsma:1985qz], KTeV/E799 ($K_L \to \pi^0 e^+e^-$) [@AlaviHarati:2003mr], KTeV ($K_L \to \pi^0 \gamma\gamma$) [@Abouzaid:2008xm], Orsay [@Davier:1989wz], and E137 [@Bjorken:1988as] experiments respectively. The gray shaded region is excluded by untagged $K_L$ decay [@Tanabashi:2018oca]. We defer the details of the constraints to section \[sec:UVmodel\]. The parameter space which can solve both the $(g-2)_\mu$ and KOTO anomalies is highlighted in the dark red region near $m_{\phi}\sim 50$ MeV.
In Fig. \[fig:major-result-2\] we show our results in the $m_\phi$–$\epsilon_{q}$ plane. In the left plot, we show in the red shaded region where the KOTO signal is achieved at the $95\%$ C.L. when $\epsilon_\ell$ is fixed for the central value of $\Delta a_\mu$. When $\epsilon_\ell$ is allowed to vary within a $2\sigma$ range of $\Delta a_\mu$, the variation will be reflected in the lifetime of $\phi$. This will modify the probability decay factor in both the KOTO effective branching ratio and the corresponding factors in the constraints. The right plot of Fig. \[fig:major-result-2\] shows the result of fixing $\epsilon_\ell$ to $\Delta a_\mu - 2\sigma$, displaying the maximum range allowed for $m_{\phi}$ which satisfies the experimental constraints. [^1]
In Fig. \[fig:major-result\] and \[fig:major-result-2\], we see that the allowed mass range for $\phi$ which can explain both $(g-2)_{\mu}$ and KOTO anomalies fall into the range of $\sim 40 - 70$ MeV. In Table \[tab:eff-model\_benchmark\], we give two benchmark points for the model parameters. Both points are indicated in Figs. \[fig:major-result\] and \[fig:major-result-2\]. In the following section we give an example of a possible UV completion model and discuss the details of the experimental constraints on the model.
$m_{\phi}$ \[MeV\] $\epsilon_q$ $\epsilon_\ell$ ${\rm BR}(K_L\rightarrow\pi^0\phi)$ $\tau$ \[s\] $\tan\beta $ $\sin\alpha$ $ \sin \theta_{1\phi} $ $\sin \theta_{2\phi} $
-------------------- --------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------- ----------------------- -------------- -------------- ------------------------- ------------------------
50 $1.6\times 10^{-2}$ $1.22$ $ 1.7\times10^{-6}$ $5.1\times 10^{-11}$ 100 $-0.01$ 0.0122 $1.6\times 10^{-2}$
60 $6.8\times 10^{-3}$ $0.87$ $3.2\times 10^{-7}$ $8.25\times 10^{-11}$ 100 $-0.01$ 0.0087 $6.8\times 10^{-3}$
: Benchmark points of the effective model which satisfies both the KOTO and $(g-2)_{\mu}$ anomalies. The benchmark with $m_{\phi}=50$ MeV is indicated in Figs. \[fig:major-result\] & \[fig:major-result-2\] by a star. The benchmark with $m_{\phi}=60$ MeV is indicated in Figs. \[fig:major-result\] & \[fig:major-result-2\] by a circle. The first three columns are the three free parameters of the effective model, and the fourth and fifth columns are the second set of parameters if one trades the two effective couplings for the Kaon decay branching ratio and $\phi$ lifetime. The last four columns give the corresponding values of $\tan \beta$ and three mixing angles in the UV model. []{data-label="tab:eff-model_benchmark"}
The UV completion of the model {#sec:UVmodel}
==============================
type-X 2HDM plus singlet scalar model {#sec:typeXmodel}
-------------------------------------
In this subsection, we discuss the ultra-violet completion of the effective model and the constraints in the next subsection. We shall work on a type-X two Higgs doublet model [@Barger:2009me; @Craig:2012vn; @Craig:2013hca], in which the two Higgs doublets couple disjointly to either leptons or quarks. We will denote $\Phi_2$ as the scalar doublet that couples to quarks, and $\Phi_1$ as the one that couples to leptons. We will assume the existence of an additional real singlet scalar $\phi$ mixing with the CP-even neutral components of these Higgs doublets. This light scalar $\phi$ is exactly the light degree of freedom in the effective model.
A clear advantage of this framework is that no flavor changing neutral currents associated the the scalar fields appear at tree level. The appearance of a coupling of one scalar to the lepton fields independent of the one to quark fields allows to solve the $(g-2)_\mu$ anomaly simultaneously with the explanation of the observed KOTO excess. Moreover, as emphasized before, the singlet scalar lifetime will be modified by the presence of the lepton couplings and will be far shorter than the one that would be obtained by a singlet mixing with only a SM-like Higgs boson, which allows a solution of the KOTO anomaly in a different mass range than the one obtained in previous works [@Egana-Ugrinovic:2019wzj; @Dev:2019hho].
The effective Lagrangian density, describing the interactions of the scalar doublets and the fermions is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm yuk} & = - \lambda_u \bar{Q} \tilde{\Phi}_2 u_R - \lambda_d \bar{Q} \Phi_2 d_R
- \lambda_e \bar{L} \Phi_1 e_R \,,\end{aligned}$$ while the scalar potential can be given as, $$\begin{aligned}
V\left(\Phi_1, \Phi_2, \phi_0 \right) & = \sum_{i = 1, 2} -\mu_i^2 \Phi_i^\dagger \Phi_i + \lambda_i \left( \Phi_i^\dagger \Phi_i \right)^2 - \mu_\phi^2 \phi^2_0 + \lambda_\phi \phi_0^4 \nonumber \\
& - \left( \rho \phi_0 \Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2 + H.c. \right)
+ \lambda_{12} \Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_1 \Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_2
- \rho_{1\phi} \Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_1 \phi_0 + - \rho_{2\phi} \Phi_2^\dagger \Phi_2 \phi_0 \\
& + \dots \nonumber
\label{eq:scalarpotential}\end{aligned}$$ where the first line determines the masses of the three CP-even neutral scalars, the second line determines the three mixing angles between the CP-even neutral scalars and the third line contains all terms irrelevant to our discussion. The vacuum expectation values (vevs) of the two Higgs doublets are $v_1$ and $v_2$ respectively. We will assume that $\tan \beta = v_2/v_1 \gg 1$, implying that the field $\Phi_2$ will have approximately standard interactions with quarks and gauge bosons, and will carry the dominant component of the SM-like Higgs in the alignment limit [@Gunion:2002zf; @Craig:2013hca; @Carena:2013ooa].
The CP-even neutral scalars in the two Higgs doublets ($\Phi_{1,2}^0$) will mix with the singlet scalar $\phi_0$ through the mixing matrix $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{pmatrix}
\sqrt{2} \text{Re}\left[\Phi_1^0 \right] \\
\sqrt{2} \text{Re}\left[\Phi_2^0 \right] \\
\phi_0
\end{pmatrix} \simeq
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\alpha & -\sin \alpha & \sin \theta_{1\phi}\\
\sin \alpha & \cos\alpha & \sin \theta_{2\phi} \\
- \sin \theta_{1\phi} & -\sin \theta_{2\phi} & 1
\end{pmatrix} \,.
\begin{pmatrix}
H \\
h \\
\phi
\end{pmatrix} , \end{aligned}$$ where we have assumed the mixing angles between the singlet and the CP-even scalars coming from the Higgs doublets are very small. The mass eigenstates are $h, ~ H , ~ \phi$, where $h \approx \sqrt{2} \text{Re}\left[\Phi_2^0 \right]$ is the SM-like Higgs. In terms of mass eigenstates, the Yukawa lagrangian at leading order in the mixing angles is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{\rm yuk} & \simeq \left(\sin\alpha \ H + \cos\alpha \ h + \sin \theta_{2\phi} \ \phi \right) \sum_{q} \frac{m_q}{v_2} \bar{q} q
+
\left( \cos\alpha \ H - \sin \alpha \ h + \sin \theta_{1\phi} \ \phi \right) \sum_{\ell} \frac{m_\ell}{v_1} \bar{\ell} \ell, \end{aligned}$$ where $v_1^2 + v_2^2=v^2=(246 \text{ GeV})^2$.\
For $h$ to be SM-like, its couplings to leptons requires $$\begin{aligned}
\sin\alpha/\cos\beta \approx - 1 , \end{aligned}$$ which is the same as the usual Higgs alignment requirement [@Gunion:2002zf; @Craig:2013hca; @Carena:2013ooa].
Once we apply this requirement, the Yukawa terms can be simplified as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{ \rm yuk}
& \simeq \left( h - \frac{H}{\tan\beta} + \frac{\sin \theta_{2\phi} }{\sin\beta} \phi \right) \sum_{q} \frac{m_q}{v} \bar{q} q
+ \left( h + \tan\beta \ H + \frac{ \sin \theta_{1\phi} }{\cos \beta} \phi \right) \sum_{\ell} \frac{m_\ell}{v} \bar{\ell} \ell \end{aligned}$$ where we will assume that $\tan \beta \gg 1$. One can read out the relation between UV parameters and the effective model parameters, $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_q \simeq \frac{\sin \theta_{2\phi}}{\sin\beta} , \quad \epsilon_{\ell} \simeq \frac{\sin \theta_{1\phi}}{\cos \beta}.\end{aligned}$$
To calculate the diphoton decay BR for $\phi$, one also needs the coupling to $W$ gauge boson, $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_W & \simeq \left( \sin \theta_{1\phi} \cos\beta + \sin \theta_{2\phi} \sin \beta \right) \\
& \approx \epsilon_{\ell} \cos^{2} \beta + \epsilon_q \sin^2 \beta \approx \epsilon_q ,\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line, $\tan^2 \beta \gg \epsilon_{\ell}/\epsilon_q$ was assumed. One can see that in this limit, we have simplified to $\epsilon_W \approx \epsilon_q $ which is similar to the SSM model case. The charged Higgs can also contribute to the diphoton decay for $\phi$. However, there are too many parameters in the scalar potential to uniquely determine the relevant coupling. For example, the mixing angle $\sin \theta_{1\phi}$ can come from $\rho \phi_0 \Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_2$ term instead of $\rho_{1\phi} \phi_0 \Phi_1^\dagger \Phi_1$. As a result, the coupling of $\phi$ to the charged Higgs can be small without changing the phenomenology we are interested in. Therefore we neglect the charged Higgs contribution in our results.
The various constraints
-----------------------
In the UV model, since $\Phi_{1,2}$ couples to leptons and quarks respectively, there are no FCNC issues at the tree-level. However, there are constraints from collider, beam dump and astrophysical experiments [@Bezrukov:2009yw; @Schmidt-Hoberg:2013hba; @Clarke:2013aya; @Dolan:2014ska; @Alekhin:2015byh; @Flacke:2016szy]. We will discuss them one by one in the following subsections.
### Collider constraints
We consider several relevant constraints for the UV model from collider measurements. The first is the modification of the $\tau$ leptonic decay branching ratio, because the charged Higgs couples to $\tau$ leptons with a large Yukawa coupling. The next is exotic Z decays to lepton final states. The third is the exotic Higgs decay $h \to \phi \phi$ and the last one is B meson decay $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^-$.
Firstly, the charged Higgs coupling to leptons is contrained by the $\tau$ leptonic decay [@Krawczyk:2004na; @Craig:2013hca]. Its contribution to the $\tau$ leptonic decay width is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{H^\pm}_{\rm tree} \left(\tau \to \ell \bar{\nu}_{\ell} \nu_{\tau} \right) =\Gamma_0\left[ \frac{m^2_\tau m^2_\ell \tan^4\beta}{4m^4_{H^\pm}} -2\frac{m_\ell m_\tau \tan^2\beta}{m^2_{H^\pm}}\frac{m_\ell}{m_\tau}\kappa \left( \frac{m^2_\ell}{m^2_\tau}\right) \right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_0$ is the SM total decay width of $\tau$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\kappa(x)=\frac{g(x)}{f(x)}, \quad & g(x)=1+9x-9x^2-x^3+6x(1+x)\ln{x},
\nonumber\\
& f(x)=1-8x+8x^3-x^4-12x^2\ln{x} .\end{aligned}$$ It is clear that if the combination $m_\tau m_\ell \tan^2\beta \ll m^2_{H^\pm}$, then the deviation from the SM decay width is small. The SM branching ratio for the tau decay to a muon plus a neutrino pair is measured to be ${\rm BR}\left(\tau \to \mu \bar{\nu}_\mu \nu_\tau \right) = 17.39 \pm 0.04 \%$ [@Tanabashi:2018oca]. Therefore, within $1\sigma$, this measurement constrains the combination $\tan^2\beta/m^2_{H^\pm} < 0.89 ~{\rm GeV^{-2}}$. For our benchmark points we have taken $\tan \beta = 100$. Thus, the constraint from tau decays requires that $m_{H^\pm } \gtrsim 100$ GeV, which is easily satisfied. On the other hand, the contribution of $H^\pm$ for $\tau \to e \bar{\nu}_e \nu_\tau$ is suppressed by the electron mass, thus the corresponding constraint is much weaker.
Secondly, since the new Higgs couplings to leptons are enhanced by large $\tan \beta$, one might worry that the branching ratio $Z \to 4\ell$ might be changed due to new Higgs mediation. The measurement on Z decay branching ratio $Z \to 4\ell$ is $\left(4.58 \pm 0.26 \right) \times 10^{-6}$ [@Tanabashi:2018oca], where $\ell$ means $e, ~ \mu$. Since we are considering a light scalar with couplings to leptons proportional to $\tan \beta$, the process $Z \to \mu^+ \mu^- \phi$ with $\phi \to e^+ e^-$ subsequent decay can modify the branching ratio of $Z \to 4\ell$. For $m_{\phi} = 50$ MeV, we have checked that the branching ratio ${\rm BR}\left( Z \to \mu^+ \mu^- \phi \right)$ is about $4\times 10^{-10}$. Therefore, the exotic decay $Z \to \mu^+ \mu^- \phi$ does not set a significant constraint.
Thirdly, the exotic Higgs can decay to a pair of $\phi$ particles, $h \to \phi \phi$. Since $\phi$ decays to $e^+ e^-$ and has a mass around $50 $ MeV, the electron and positron will be highly collimated and can not be separated by the LHC. Such an exotic event might be identified as $h \to e^+ e^-$ and could be constrained by exotic Higgs decays to two lepton jets measurements [@Aad:2015sms]. The ATLAS collaboration performed a search for prompt lepton jets at 8 TeV and the model they consider is $h \to A' A' + X$ where the two $A' $ decay to lepton jets subsequently. For $m_{A'} = 0.4$ GeV, the constraint with prompt $A'$ decay is ${\rm BR}(h \to A' A' + X) \lesssim 0.3 \%$ at $95\%$ C.L.. Since $\phi$ decays mostly to an electron pair in our model, it falls into the electron lepton jet which is less stringent. It is reasonable to say that the constraint for ${\rm BR}( h \to \phi \phi) \lesssim 1 \%$. Again, in the scalar potential, there are many free parameters and the relevant terms in the second line of Eq. (\[eq:scalarpotential\]) will control the exact value of the $\phi-\phi-h$ coupling. Therefore, this constraint may be avoided while keeping the three mixing angles required to explain the KOTO and $(g-2)_\mu$ anomalies.
Lastly, $\phi$ can mediate $B_s \to \mu^+ \mu^- $ decays as it couples, in particular to bottom and strange quarks, and muons. Recently, this process has been measured by CMS and LHCb [@Aaij:2013aka; @Chatrchyan:2013bka] and found to be in agreement with the SM predictions. The constraints for a single-mixing coupling with strength proportional to $m_f/v$ are calculated for a pseudoscalar in [@Dolan:2014ska] and for a scalar in [@Alekhin:2015byh; @Flacke:2016szy], which conservatively require that the new contribution can not exceed the SM branching ratio. Relevant to our scenario, for $m_\phi < 1$ GeV, the limit on $\epsilon_f$ is $\lesssim 1$. Since the process is proportional to $\epsilon_f^4$ [@Altmannshofer:2011gn], in our model the corresponding factor is $\epsilon_q^2 \epsilon^2_\ell$. Fitting the $(g-2)_\mu$ anomaly implies $\epsilon_\ell \sim 1$ for the light $\phi$, but this constraint becomes quite weak since $\epsilon_q$ is about $10^{-3}$. One might worry about the heavy Higgs $H$ which carries a $\tan\beta$ enhanced lepton coupling. However, its quark coupling is suppressed by the same $\tan\beta$ factor and thus the multiplication of quark and lepton couplings gives, apart from a sign, the same as that for the SM-like Higgs $h$. Given the fact that the $H$ is heavier than $h$ and the SM contribution is dominated by Z-penguin and box diagram, it is safe to neglect the heavy Higgs boson contribution to this process.
### Beam dump experiments
In this section, we consider various beam dump experiments. In this type of experiment, displaced decays of new particles is critical, otherwise they will be swamped by the SM background. Therefore, the lifetime is a very important factor in the signal analysis as it appears in the exponential form of the decay probability. Some of the beam dump experiments look for new particle decays to visible final states, e.g. electron pairs, while some look for invisible decays. In our scenario, the light scalar $\phi$ will dominantly decay to visible final states $e^+ e^-$ and subdominantly to $\gamma \gamma$. With a finite lifetime, it can always be subject to constraints by either kind of beam dump experiments, depending on decay probability within and without the detector. We will go through the various experiments in the following discussion.\
**E949 and NA62:**
The E949 collaboration [@Anisimovsky:2004hr; @Artamonov:2009sz] and NA62 collaboration [@NA62-2019] have measured the process $K^+ \to \pi^+ \bar{\nu} \nu$, which could be mimicked by the $K^+ \to \pi^+ \phi$ decay.
The recent NA62 result combines 2016 and 2017 data, which sets ${\rm BR} \left(K^+ \to \pi^+ \bar{\nu} \nu \right) < 1.85 \times 10^{-10}$ at $90 \% $ C.L. If the process is the two body decay $K^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$, they can also constrain ${\rm BR}(\pi^0 \to {\rm invisible } ) < 4.4 \times 10^{-9}$ at $90 \% $ C.L. Since the $\phi$ has finite lifetime, there is probability for it to decay outside the detector. Therefore, one can use Eq. (\[eq:BR\_KOTO\]) to describe the constraint for NA62, with the substitution of detector size $L = 150$ m. Since NA62 used the flying Kaon with energy of 75 GeV, one can calculate the energy of $\phi$, assuming an isotropic decay of $K^+$ and further requiring that the $\pi^+$ energy falls into their signal box $15$–$35$ GeV. Neglecting the signal efficiency difference between 2-body and 3-body decay of $K^+$, we can arrive at a constraint for NA62 on the parameter space, which is the purple shaded region in Fig. \[fig:major-result\] and \[fig:major-result-2\].
For the result from the E949 collaboration [@Artamonov:2009sz], the possibility of $K^+ \to \pi^+ \phi$ with $\phi$ being long-lived has been explicitly explored. The constraints on ${\rm BR}(K^+ \to \pi^+ \phi)$ have been given as a function of $m_\phi$ and its lifetime. We translate the limit into our signal model and the excluded parameter space is shown as blue shaded region in Fig. \[fig:major-result\]. We comment on the constraint from the invisible decay for B meson $B \to K + {\rm inv}$. It can exclude $\epsilon_q \lesssim 10^{-2}$ in SSM model [@Clarke:2013aya; @Alekhin:2015byh; @Flacke:2016szy], however it can not be applied in our case because $\phi$ is too short-lived.\
**CHARM:**
The CHARM experiment measures the displaced decay of neutral particles into $\gamma \gamma , ~ e^+e^-$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$. Since our signal can result from $\phi$ being produced from the decays $K_L \to \pi^0 \phi$ and $K^+ \to \pi^+ \phi$, the CHARM experiment is relevant for long-lived $\phi$. Following [@Dolan:2014ska], we have the number of events of this exotic decay for CHARM detector to be $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\rm det} \approx N_\phi \left( e^{- \frac{480 m}{ \gamma_\phi \beta_\phi c\tau_\phi}} - e^{- \frac{480 +35 m}{ \gamma_\phi \beta_\phi c\tau_\phi}} \right)
\sum_{X = e,\mu,\gamma} {\rm BR}\left(\phi \to X X \right).
\label{eq:charm}\end{aligned}$$ In CHARM experiment, the energy of $\phi$ is about 10 GeV thus one can calculate the velocity $\beta_\phi$ and the boost factor $\gamma_\phi$. The number of $\phi$ produced in the Kaon decay is $N_\phi = 2.9 *10^{17} \sigma_\phi/\sigma_{\pi_0}$ and $\sigma_\phi$ is production cross-section [@Bezrukov:2009yw] $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_\phi \approx \sigma_{pp} M_{pp} \chi_s \left( 0.5 ~ {\rm BR} \left(K^{+ } \to \pi^+ \phi \right) + 0.25 ~ {\rm BR} \left(K_{L} \to \pi^0 \phi \right)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\sigma_{pp} $ is the total proton cross-section, $M_{pp}$ is the total hadron multiplicity and $\chi_s =1/7$ is the relative parts going into strange flavour [@Andersson:1983ia]. For the pion, there is the relation $\sigma_{\pi_0} \simeq \sigma_{pp} M_{pp} / 3$. In [@Dolan:2014ska], the authors calculated the CHARM limit for $\phi$ as a pseudoscalar. In [@Clarke:2013aya; @Alekhin:2015byh; @Flacke:2016szy], the CP-even scalar case is calculated, and the effect of the parity of the scalar is subdominant. Since the CHARM experiment has observed zero event for such exotic decay, one can set $90\%$ confidential level bound by requiring $N_{\rm det} < 2.3$. The CHARM experiment excludes the parameter space of our model in the yellow shaded region in Fig. \[fig:major-result\] and \[fig:major-result-2\].\
**$K_{\mu 2}$ experiment:**
Due to $K^+ \to \pi^+ \phi$ process, a stopping $K^+$ decay to $\pi^+$ in two body final state is relevant as a by product of the $K_{\mu 2}$ experiment [@Yamazaki:1984vg]. Because $K^+$ is stopped in the above 2-body decay, the momentum of $\pi^+$ is mono-chromatic with a dependence only on the $\phi$ mass. Since this energy peak has not been observed, one can set a constraint on ${\rm BR}\left( K^+ \to \pi^+ \phi \right)$, regardless of the $\phi$ decay products [@Yamazaki:1984vg; @Dolan:2014ska; @Alekhin:2015byh]. We apply this constraint to our model and translate the constraint on ${\rm BR}\left( K_L \to \pi^0 \phi \right)$ to the model parameter $\epsilon_q$. The excluded parameter space is shown as the cyan shaded region in Fig. \[fig:major-result\] and \[fig:major-result-2\].\
**KTeV/E799 ($ e^+ e^-$):**
Given the $\phi$ mass we are interested in, $\phi$ will dominantly decay to $e^+ e^-$. The searches for $K_L \to \pi^0 e^+ e^-$ from KTeV/E799 [@AlaviHarati:2003mr] has set limits ${\rm BR} \left( K_L \to \pi^0 e^+ e^-\right) < 2.8\times 10^{-10} $ at $90\%$ C.L. , which is relevant for the process $K_L \to \pi^0 \phi$. Another search $K^+ \to \pi^+ e^+ e^-$ from NA48/2 [@Batley:2009aa] has measured ${\rm BR} \left( K^+ \to \pi^+ e^+ e^-\right) = (3.11 \pm 0.12)\times 10^{-7} $, which is also relevant to our signal, but is much less stringent. In these type of searches, an invariant mass cut of $m_{e^+e^-} > 140$ MeV is always applied to suppress the dominant background $K \to \pi \pi^0_D$, where $\pi^0_D$ is the pion Dalitz decay $\pi^0 \to \gamma e^+ e^-$. Therefore it is not applicable for light $\phi$ with $m_\phi < 140$ MeV. Furthermore, the leptons $e^+e^-$ are required to have a common vertex with the Kaon decay vertex. Thus, if $\phi$ is long-lived the constraint will vanish. Following [@Dolan:2014ska], the vertex resolution of KTeV/E799 is taken to be 4 mm, which corresponds to $1.3 \times 10^{-11}$ seconds. The probability of $\phi \to e^+ e^-$ being prompt is $$\begin{aligned}
P_{\rm prompt} = 1 - e^{- \frac{L_{\min}}{\tau_{\phi}} \frac{m_{\phi}}{p_{\phi}}},\end{aligned}$$ where $L_{\min}$ is the vertex resolution, $p_\phi$ is the momentum of $\phi$ in the laboratory frame in the decay. For the KTeV/E799 experiment, the Kaon has an energy range of $20.3$–$216$ GeV [@AlaviHarati:2003mr], which determines the energy of $\phi$ when assuming isotropic decay in the Kaon center of mass frame. Further, assuming the Kaon energy has a flat distribution, one can calculate the probability $P_{\rm prompt}$. We set the KTeV/E799 constraint in the orange shaded region in Fig. \[fig:major-result\].\
**KTeV ($\gamma\gamma$):**
The KTeV collaboration has measured the process $K_L \to \pi^0 \gamma \gamma$ [@Abouzaid:2008xm], and determined the branching ratio to be ${\rm BR}\left( K_L \to \pi^0 \gamma \gamma \right) = \left( 1.29 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.05 \right) \times 10^{-6}$. Since the four photons are measured by the CsI calorimeter, the information is not sufficient to reconstruct the decay vertex as it needs to assume that the invariant mass of four photons equals the Kaon mass. Therefore, it is not sensitive to whether the $\phi \to \gamma \gamma$ decay is displaced or prompt in the signal process $K_L \to \pi^0 \phi$. The efficiency difference between 3-body decay and 2-body decay $K_L \to \pi^0 \phi$ with $\phi \to \gamma \gamma$ is not given in [@Abouzaid:2008xm]. As a result, we can conservatively assume that the new physics contribution should be as small as ${\rm BR}\left( K_L \to \pi^0 \phi \right) {\rm BR}\left( \phi \to \gamma \gamma \right) \lesssim 10^{-6}$, see [@Kitahara:2019lws]. The constraint for KTeV shown in the brown shaded region in Fig. \[fig:major-result\] and \[fig:major-result-2\].\
**Orsay:**
Orsay is an electron beam dump experiment which is sensitive to a light scalar decaying to electrons. The process is electron bremsstrahlung $e N \to e N \phi$ where $\phi $ subsequently decays to $e^+ e^-$. In [@Davier:1989wz], a search for light Higgs bosons was performed under the assumption that the light Higgs couplings exclusively to electrons. This constraint, at the $90 \%$ C.L., can be directly applied to our model, where the only difference is a tiny $\rm BR(\phi \to \gamma\gamma)$ which can be neglected for $m_{\phi} < 60$ MeV. We fit to the $90 \%$ C.L. constraint set in [@Davier:1989wz] and project this limit to the $95 \%$ C.L. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:major-result\] and Fig. \[fig:major-result-2\] in the green shaded region and the fitting procedure is described in detail in the Appendix.\
**E137:**
Additional constraints are also relevant from other electron beam dump experiments at SLAC, e.g. E137 [@Bjorken:1988as] and E141 [@Riordan:1987aw]. In [@Bjorken:2009mm; @Andreas:2012mt; @Bauer:2018onh], these experiments were used to constrain the parameter space for dark photons. In particular, the E137 experimental setup provides an accurate upper bound on the dark-photon kinetic mixing. Therefore, we estimate the E137 limit by translating the bound on kinetic mixing to the scalar lifetime by equating the corresponding lifetime of the dark photon, $\tau_{A'} = \tau_{\phi}$. This limit is shown in Fig. \[fig:major-result\] and Fig. \[fig:major-result-2\] in light gray shaded region. Indeed, suppose we can split the signal event into $N \approx \sigma P(\tau)$, where $\sigma$ is the production cross-section, and $P(\tau)$ is the probability to decay within the right volume. Assuming that $\tau_{A'} = \tau_{\phi}$, the probabilities for decay will be equivalent $P_{A'} = P_{\phi}$. This would imply that $\epsilon e > \epsilon_{ \ell} m_e/v$ since $$\Gamma(A' \to e^+e^-) \approx \frac{(\epsilon e)^2}{12\pi} m_{A'}.$$ Comparing to Eq. \[eq:diphoton\] this gives $\sigma_{A'} > \sigma_{\phi}$. Though, the difference in cross sections occurs even in the case when the couplings are equivalent due to the collinear enhancement of the vector boson production rate. Thus, the number of events which decay within the detector in the case of scalar particles is strictly smaller than that for dark photons. Hence, while translating the bounds on the dark photon mass for a given lifetime to the scalar case, we are imposing a conservative bound.
We have also compared our results to the limit presented in [@Batell:2016ove], where the limit is obtained by relating the dark photon kinetic mixing and Higgs-like couplings, $\epsilon e = \epsilon_{ \ell} m_e/v$. We find that our estimate is slightly weaker than the one obtained by this method. However, we argue that relating the dark photon and scalar lifetimes provides a more accurate bound. Indeed, assuming that $\epsilon e = \epsilon_{ \ell} m_e/v$ one obtains $\tau_{A'} > \tau_{\phi}$, or $P_{A'} > P_{\phi}$. In addition, the larger cross section associated to the dark photon production lead to a further enhancement of their event rate, implying that their bound is too restrictive when applied to the scalar case.
### Astrophysical constraints
Astrophysical constraints can set relevant bounds on models with long-lived scalars. For instance, supernova can loose energy by emitting the light scalar outside the neutrino sphere $R_\nu =40$ km [@Chang:2016ntp]. If the scalar decays inside or is absorbed inside $R_\nu$, the supernova neutrino flux is not affected. The supernova can not stand the instantaneous luminosity of exotic particle emission, which exceeds the neutrino luminosity when the core reaches its peak density $\rho_c \sim 3\times 10^{14} ~{\rm g/cm^3}$ and temperature $T_c \sim 30 ~{\rm MeV}$. Otherwise, the duration of the neutrino burst will be shortened by half and the energy spectrum will be incorrect [@Raffelt:1996wa]. The typical core radius $R_c$ is about 10 km. Since in our interested region, the scalar $\phi$ has mass around $\mathcal{O}(30)$ MeV and lifetime around $10^{-11}$–$10^{-10}$ seconds, the decay length is about $0.3$–$3$ cm, and hence much smaller than the size of the core. Naively, such decay length is too small to result in a sizable energy leak due to $\phi$ emission.
Before discarding this constraint, one should remember that the progenitor star is an electron rich environment, and hence it is necessary to consider the Pauli blocking effect which suppresses $\phi$ decaying to electron pairs. Inside the core, the chemical potential for the electron is $\mu_e \simeq 100$ MeV [@Rrapaj:2015wgs]. The Pauli blocking factor is $$\begin{aligned}
\left(e^{\frac{\mu_e - E_e}{T}}+1\right)^{-1} ,\end{aligned}$$ where we can conservatively replace the electron energy $E_e$ as $m_{\phi}/2$. Due to the high $T_c$ in the core, the Pauli blocking factor is about 0.05 which is too small to make $\phi$ decay outside of the core. Outside of the core region, the Pauli blocking factor can also be calculated. Adopting fiducial model parameters for the progenitor star [@Raffelt:1996wa; @Chang:2016ntp], the density and temperature can be modeled as $\rho(r) = \rho_c (r/R_c)^{-5}$ and $T(r) = T (r/R_c)^{-5/3}$. Applying a uniform proton factor of $0.3$, one can obtain the number density of electron $n_e$, which equals the number density of proton $n_p$. The temperature within the neutrino sphere $R_\nu$ is higher than 3 MeV [@Chang:2016ntp], thus the electrons are relativistic. In the limit of $m_e = 0$, one can have a relation $n_e(T, \mu_e) = (3 \pi^2)^{-1} \mu_e (\mu_e^2 + \pi^2 T^2)$ [@Braaten:1993jw]. Solving for the electron chemical potential, we find that the Pauli blocking factor is about $3\times 10^{-4}$ for $R_c<r<R_\nu$. Taking account the Pauli blocking, the typical decay length for $\phi$ becomes $10$–$100$ meters, which is still much smaller than the size of the neutrino sphere $R_\nu$. Therefore, unlike the case of the SSM model in [@Dev:2019hho], in our scenario the supernova constraint is not relevant due to the short lifetime of $\phi$.
Besides the supernova, the light scalar $\phi$ can also affect the big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) if it decays to SM particles fairly late. In our scenario, $\phi$ couples to leptons with similar a Yukawa coupling as the Higgs. Thus, its lifetime is as small as $\sim 0.1$ nanosecond, which is much smaller than lifetimes larger than $\mathcal{O}(1 \ {\rm sec})$ that are constrained by these considerations. As a result, our model will not affect either BBN or the cosmic microwave background.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
Although the SM accurately describes all experimental data, it is expected to be only an effective field theory. The presence of extra scalar degrees of freedom, beyond the standard Higgs doublet, is a natural feature that is present in many extensions of the SM. Motivated by experimental data, we have explored the possible extension of the scalar sector by an additional Higgs doublet and a singlet. The singlet plays an essential role in our phenomenological analysis and it couples to quarks, leptons and gauge bosons via the mixing with the Higgs doublets, therefore avoiding tree level flavor changing neutral interactions.
Our goal has been to explain at the same time the observed anomalous magnetic moment of the muon and the excess of events observed at the KOTO experiment. We have shown that for this to happen the singlet should have a mass between about 40 and 70 MeV, and with a coupling to leptons and to quarks that are fixed by the $(g-2)_\mu$ anomaly and the KOTO excess, respectively. While the couplings to leptons should be approximately of the same order as the Yukawa coupling to the SM Higgs boson, the coupling to quarks should be more than two orders smaller than the SM Yukawa coupling.
Under these conditions, the singlet lifetime is controlled by its decay into electrons, which is by far the dominant decay mode of this scalar. Actually, the singlet decays significantly more promptly than in the previously explored case in which it only mixes with the SM Higgs. The lifetime that is obtained is of the same order as the one needed to invalidate the constraints coming from the charged Kaon decay into charged pions and neutrinos, avoiding therefore the Grossman-Nir bound on the analogous neutral Kaon decays. This happens for a relatively large range of masses, which is a very attractive feature of our scenario.
The requirement of obtaining different values of the coupling to quarks and leptons with respect to the SM Yukawa couplings is obtained by assuming that the 2HDM is of type-X, in which one Higgs doublet couples only to quarks and the other doublet couples to leptons. We assume the system to be close to the alignment limit, implying the presence of a scalar with similar couplings to quark, leptons and gauge bosons as the SM Higgs. We also assume that $\tan\beta$ is large, of the order of 100, with the doublet that couples to leptons acquiring a small vacuum expectation value. This implies that the SM Higgs doublet will be mostly associated with the one that couples to quarks. This also implies that although the singlet has small mixings with the neutral CP-even components of both Higgs doublets, its coupling to leptons will be similar to the SM Yukawa due to the large $\tan\beta$ enhancement of the lepton coupling to the non-standard Higgs doublet.
There are two features that do not have a natural explanation in our model, but depend strongly on details of the model that are not associated with the phenomenological properties discussed in this article. One is the possible decays of the SM Higgs into a pair of singlets. In order to preserve the agreement with Higgs precision measurements, the branching ratio of this decay should be smaller than $10^{-2}$. The second feature is associated with the stability of the singlet mass. In our model the singlet mixing angle to the non-standard neutral CP-even Higgs is of the order of $10^{-2}$. This mixing may be smaller, but at the cost of increasing the coupling of the non-standard neutral Higgs bosons to tau leptons and inducing a Landau pole on this coupling at too low scales. Although small, this mixing induces corrections to the singlet mass that are much larger than its predicted value.
Beyond these theoretical issues, the model presented here leads to an explanation of both the observed value of $(g-2)_\mu$ and of the KOTO excess, while avoiding the severe proton beam dump experiments and astrophysical constraints. Due to the relatively large coupling of the new scalar to leptons, some of the strongest constraints on our model come from electron beam dump experiments. These experiments lead to somewhat weaker bounds for values of $(g-2)_\mu$ below the current measured value, while values of $(g-2)_\mu$ more than two standard deviations above the current measured value are firmly ruled out. Therefore, the expected measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment at the g-2 experiment at Fermilab will further test this model. Moreover, the KOTO experiment is expected to update its measurement within the next few years. Therefore, this model will be tested in a definitive way by the KOTO and g-2 experiments in the near future.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Elina Fuchs, Samuel D. McDermott and Lian-tao Wang for very useful discussions and communication. Work at University of Chicago is supported in part by U.S. Department of Energy grant number DE-FG02-13ER41958. Work at ANL is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. JL acknowledges support by Oehme Fellowship. NM is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Work- force Development for Teachers and Scientists, Office of Science Graduate Student Research (SCGSR) program. The SCGSR program is administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) for the DOE. ORISE is managed by ORAU under contract number de-sc0014664.
Numerical fit of Orsay result {#sec:orsayfit}
=============================
In this appendix, we provide the details of our estimation for the $95 \% $ C.L. Orsay constraint [@Davier:1989wz]. The signal number for Orsay should have a form close to $$\begin{aligned}
N_{\rm sig} \approx \frac{c_0}{\tau_{\phi} m_\phi^3} \left( e^{-a_1 \frac{L_{\rm sh}}{c \tau_\phi \beta_\phi } \frac{m_\phi}{E_\phi}}
- e^{-a_2 \frac{L_{\rm sh}}{c \tau_\phi \beta_\phi } \frac{m_\phi}{E_\phi}} \right) ,
\label{eq:fitOrsay}\end{aligned}$$ where the term $(\tau_{\phi} m_\phi^3)^{-1}$ comes from the total signal production, and the term in parentheses is the decay probability for Orsay, and $L_{\rm sh} = 1$ m, $L_{\rm dec} = 2$ m [@Bauer:2018onh]. The energy $E_\phi$ should be within 0.75 GeV and 1.6 GeV, where the upper bound is the electron beam energy and lower bound is the experimental cut [@Davier:1989wz]. We reserve $a_1$ and $a_2$ to be $\mathcal{O}(1)$ factors to compensate the electron beam energy attenuation, geometric setup of experiment and signal efficiency of the experiment. $c_0$ is an overall factor which fits to the $90 \% $ C.L. bound ($N_{\rm sig} = 2.3$) given in Fig. 4 of [@Davier:1989wz]. In Fig. \[fig:fit\] we show the fitting result using Eq. \[eq:fitOrsay\], and our projection to the $95 \% $ C.L. ($N_{\rm sig} = 3$).
[^1]: Similarly, fixing $\epsilon_\ell$ to fit $\Delta a_\mu + 2\sigma$ would give an indication of the minimum $m_{\phi}$ allowed. However, from Fig. \[fig:major-result\] we see that this range (bottom orange dashed curve) is ruled out by multiple constraints.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The electronic structure of the honeycomb lattice iridates and has been investigated using resonant inelastic x-ray scattering (RIXS). Crystal-field split $d$–$d$ excitations are resolved in the high-resolution RIXS spectra. In particular, the splitting due to non-cubic crystal fields, derived from the splitting of =3/2 states, is much smaller than the typical spin-orbit energy scale in iridates, validating the applicability of physics in . We also find excitonic enhancement of the particle-hole excitation gap around 0.4 eV, indicating that the nearest-neighbor Coulomb interaction could be large. These findings suggest that both and can be described as spin-orbit Mott insulators, similar to the square lattice iridate .'
author:
- 'H. Gretarsson'
- 'J. P. Clancy'
- 'X. Liu'
- 'J. P. Hill'
- Emil Bozin
- Yogesh Singh
- 'S. Manni'
- 'P. Gegenwart'
- Jungho Kim
- 'A. H. Said'
- 'D. Casa'
- 'T. Gog'
- 'M. H. Upton'
- 'Heung-Sik Kim'
- 'J. Yu'
- 'Vamshi M. Katukuri'
- 'L. Hozoi'
- Jeroen van den Brink
- 'Young-June Kim'
title: 'Crystal field splitting and correlation effect on the electronic structure of $A_2{\rm IrO}_3$'
---
The intense interest in iridium oxides, or iridates, arises from a number of competing interactions of similar magnitude [@Okamoto2007; @BJKIM2008; @BJKim2009; @Jackeli2009; @Shitade2009; @Pesin2010; @Jiri2010; @Sr2IrO4-RIXS; @Clancy2012]. While the on-site Coulomb interaction is the dominant energy scale in 3$d$ transition metal oxides, the spin-orbit coupling (SOC) is largely ignored. On the other hand, for 5$d$ elements such as Ir, the SOC becomes significant, and in fact plays a dominant role. A good example is , whose electronic states are well described by =1/2 states arising from the spin-orbit split $t_{2g}$ levels [@BJKIM2008; @BJKim2009; @Sr2IrO4-RIXS].
One of the most intensely scrutinized families of iridates is the honeycomb lattice family ($A$=Na,Li) [@Shitade2009; @Jiri2010; @Yogesh2010; @Yogesh2011; @Reuther2011; @Khomskii2012]. Originally thought of as topological insulator [@Shitade2009], these materials are now believed to be Mott insulators [@Yogesh2010; @Yogesh2011]. A recent calculation though suggests that uniaxial strain might still drive the system to topological insulating behavior [@Choong]. Furthermore, these materials could be described with the Kitaev-Heisenberg model [@Jiri2010; @Yogesh2011], in which bond-dependent Kitaev interaction are realized and support various types of topological phases. The applicability of such intriguing theoretical possibilities to real system crucially depends on the physics arising from strong SOC. However, the experimental situation seems to be far from clear. In particular, structural refinements find a sizable trigonal distortion of the IrO$_6$ octahedra [@Coldea2012; @GangCao2012], which will produce crystal field splittings within the $t_{2g}$ manifold. If the splitting is comparable to the SOC, the =1/2 states will mix with =3/2 states and the relevant microscopic model becomes quite different from the ideal physics [@Subhro2011; @Khomskii2012], preventing the Kitaev-Heisenberg model from being realized [@Jiri2010; @Reuther2011; @Yogesh2011]. Recent theoretical studies have even suggested that the ground state has a large contribution from the =3/2 state [@Lovesey2012].
Therefore, it is of great importance to elucidate the underlying electronic structure of experimentally. In particular, the spectroscopic investigation of excitations between spin-orbit split states can provide us with direct information regarding the size of the crystal field splitting with respect to the typical SOC energy scale in iridates (0.4-0.5 eV). In the case of , such excitations between =3/2 to =1/2 were observed around 0.6-0.8 eV in the resonant inelastic x-ray scattering (RIXS) data [@Sr2IrO4-RIXS], which is accounted for in the quantum chemical calculation by Katukuri et al. [@Vamshi]. The splitting within these “spin-orbit" excitations arises due to non-zero tetragonal crystal fields, and is much smaller ($\sim 0.1$ eV) than the SOC, justifying the description of Sr$_2$IrO$_4$.
In this Letter, we present a comprehensive picture of the low energy electronic structure of $\rm Na_2IrO_3$ and $\rm Li_2IrO_3$, based on Ir $L_3$-edge RIXS experiments. Our high-resolution RIXS measurements allow us to resolve the crystal field splitting of the =3/2 states due to the trigonal distortion, which is determined to be about 110 meV in both compounds. This energy scale agrees very well with quantum chemical calculations, and is much smaller than the typical value for SOC, validating the picture in these compounds. We have also studied momentum dependence of the insulating gap; the observed flat dispersion of the insulating gap is consistent with what is expected from a significant Coulomb interaction in both compounds. Taken together, we argue that just as , the honeycomb iridates can be described as spin-orbit Mott insulators [@BJKIM2008; @Subhro2011; @Choong; @Comin].
 Top: Wide energy range RIXS spectrum for a single-crystal sample of at [**Q**]{} = (0 0 6.7) obtained with $E_i$ = 11.217 keV. Note the different scale used for left and right panel. Bottom: RIXS spectrum for powder sample at $\rm |{\bf Q}| \approx 8$ $\rm \AA^{-1}$, obtained with the same $E_i$. All spectra were measured at room temperature. The black dashed curves are the result of a fit (see text) and the red solid lines represent the background. ](Na213_fig01.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The RIXS experiment was carried out at the Advanced Photon Source using the 30ID MERIX and 9ID RIXS spectrometer. A spherical (1 m radius) diced Si(844) analyzer and Si(844) secondary monochromator were used to obtain overall energy resolution (FWHM) of $\sim 35$ meV. To minimize the elastic background, most of the measurements were carried out in a horizontal scattering geometry near [**Q**]{} = (0 0 6.7), for which the scattering angle 2$\theta$ was close to 90$^\circ$. We use the $C2/m$ notation for the lattice [@Coldea2012; @GangCao2012]. A single crystal of Na$_2$IrO$_3$ and a polycrystalline samples of were grown by the solid state synthesis method, previously described in detail [@Yogesh2010; @Yogesh2011]. The crystal was plate-like with a flat shiny surface, the surface normal was in the (001) direction.
The RIXS process at the $L_3$-edge of Ir (or any other $d$ electron system) is a second order process consisting of two dipole transitions ($2p \rightarrow 5d$ followed by $5d \rightarrow 2p$). Therefore, it is especially valuable for detecting excitations between the $d$-levels and has been extensively utilized in the study of $3d$ transition metal compounds [@Moretti2011; @Ghiringhelli; @Vernay; @Ghiringhelli2004; @Luuk]. Recent instrumental advances have made it possible to measure collective magnetic excitations [@Braicovich09; @Sr2IrO4-RIXS]. In , Ir$^{4+}$ ions are in the $5d^5$ configuration in a slightly distorted octahedral environment of oxygen ions, with the edge-sharing IrO$_6$ octahedra forming a honeycomb net. Due to the octahedral crystal field, there exists a fairly large splitting ($10Dq$) between the $t_{2g}$ and $e_g$ states. Since the $5d$ orbitals are spatially more extended than the $3d$ orbitals, the $10Dq$ value is expected to be much larger. Indeed, in our RIXS investigations of various iridium compounds, well separated $t_{2g}$ and $e_g$ states have been observed, with the $10Dq$ value typically about 3 eV [@CuIr2S4].
In Fig. \[fig01\], a representative high-resolution RIXS spectrum of is plotted on a wide energy scale. This scan was obtained at room temperature and plotted as a function of energy loss $(\hbar\omega=E_i-E_f)$. The incident energy, $E_i=11.217$ keV, was chosen to maximize the resonant enhancement of the spectral features of interest below 1 eV. A broad and strong feature is observed at $2$-$4$ eV and other sharper features are observed below 1 eV, corresponding to $d$–$d$ transitions from occupied $t_{2g}$ states into the empty $e_g$ and $t_{2g}$ levels, respectively. Also plotted in the figure is the room temperature data of polycrystalline . Lack of significant momentum dependence of these $d$–$d$ excitations (shown later in Fig. 3) allows one to directly compare the peak positions between the single crystal and powder samples. The spectra were fit to 5 peaks (labeled A-E), as shown by the black dashed lines. The low energy excitations can be fit to three peaks, two Gaussians (B and C) of the same width and one Lorentzian (A) on top of a broad background (Gaussian). Two Lorentzian functions with sloping background were used to fit the higher energy excitations (D and E). The resulting peak positions are listed in Table \[tab1\].
-------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Na213 Na213 Li213 Li213
RIXS MRCI RIXS MRCI
Peak A 0.42(1) – 0.45(2) –
Peak B 0.72(2) 0.82 0.72(2) 0.80
Peak C 0.83(2) 0.89 0.83(2) 0.97
Peak D 2.4(1) 2.8–3.4 2.6(1) 3.1–3.7
Peak E 3.3(1) 3.8–4.1 3.5(1) 4.1–5.0
-------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
: \[tab1\] RIXS and MRCI+SOC excitation energies ($C2/m$ structure) for 213 iridates (eV).
\[tab:tab1\]
To clarify the nature of the excitations revealed by RIXS, we have carried out multiconfiguration self-consistent-field and multireference configuration-interaction (MRCI) calculations [@book_QC_00] on clusters consisting of one central IrO$_6$ octahedron, all adjacent Na or Li ions, and the three nearest-neighbor (NN) IrO$_6$ octahedra (see Ref. and Supplemental Material for details). Local $d$–$d$ transitions are computed only for the central IrO$_6$ octahedron while the NN octahedra are explicitly included in the cluster for providing an accurate description of the nearby charge distribution. Two different lattice configurations are considered, i.e., the $C2/c$ structure [@Yogesh2010; @Kobayashi2003] and also the $C2/m$ arrangement proposed more recently [@Coldea2012; @GangCao2012; @Malley2008].
Results of spin-orbit MRCI (MRCI+SOC) calculations using the $C2/m$ configuration [@Coldea2012] are listed for Na$_2$IrO$_3$ in the third column of Table I. The MRCI+SOC data fit the experiment reasonably well, with peaks B and C corresponding to =3/2 to =1/2 electronic transitions. Above 2.5 eV, the MRCI+SOC results indicate multiple $t_{2g}$ to $e_g$ excitations displaying a two-peak structure reminiscent of the D and E features in the RIXS spectra. However, MRCI+SOC seems to overestimate somewhat the relative energies of those latter features. Interestingly, for the alternative $C2/c$ structure of Na$_2$IrO$_3$ [@Yogesh2010], the splitting between the two doublets originating from the =3/2 quartet in an ideal octahedral environment is much larger and the position of the C peak is overestimated by 0.25 eV in the MRCI+SOC treatment. Since the deviations from the experimental data are in this case larger, the MRCI+SOC results for $C2/c$ symmetry are not listed in Table I. The $t_{2g}$ splittings in calculations with no SOC are in fact as large as 0.6 eV for the $C2/c$ structure of Na$_2$IrO$_3$, which gives rise to a highly uneven admixture of $t_{2g}$ components in the spin-orbit calculations. In contrast, for the $C2/m$ configuration, the $t_{2g}$ splittings are about 0.1 eV and the three different $t_{2g}$ hole configurations contribute with similar weight to the spin-orbit ground-state wave function (see Table II).
For Li$_2$IrO$_3$, the calculations correctly reproduce the shift to higher energies of the $t_{2g}$ to $e_g$ transitions relative to those in . The discrepancy between the experimental values and the MRCI+SOC results (e.g., peak C) could be caused by the uncertainty in the structural model used for this calculation ($C2/m$ from Ref. [@Malley2008]). Since local structural disorder is not easily captured in the regular diffraction data, local structure probes such as pair-distribution function (PDF) measurements can sometimes be useful for clarifying the structural details. We have carried out X-ray PDF studies on and powder samples. Details of these measurements and the comparison of the two structures are reported in the Supplemental Material. Except for the overall lattice contraction, the PDF seems to be well described by the $C2/m$ symmetry, eliminating the local structural disorder as a possible explanation. Most likely cause of the structural uncertainty is the oxygen position, since x-ray structural probes are not particularly sensitive to light elements like oxygen [@Kobayashi2003; @Malley2008]. We note that the latest refinements using both powder neutron and single crystal x-ray data on do show important differences compared to earlier x-ray powder diffraction data and the MRCI+SOC results are very different for the two structures. Better structural refinements using neutron diffraction would reduce the oxygen position uncertainty in and could improve the agreement between our MRCI+SOC calculation and the experiment.
One of our main findings is that the splitting of the strong RIXS peak located at 0.7-0.8 eV is due to the trigonal distortion which is well corroborated with our MRCI+SOC calculations. The fact that this splitting (110 meV) is much smaller than a SOC of 0.4-0.5 eV strongly supports that these excitations are transitions from crystal-field-split =3/2 levels to the =1/2 state (labeled spin-orbit exciton in Ref. [@Sr2IrO4-RIXS]). Given that the optical gap in this material is about 350 meV [@Comin] and that there is no such excitation in the MRCI+SOC calculations which only look at on-site $d$–$d$ excitations, it is reasonable to associate feature A at low energy as arising from the excitation of a particle and hole pair across the charge gap. Additional periodic density functional theory (DFT) calculations shows that a moderate size $U$ and SOC can indeed open a (Mott) gap of 300-400 meV, in accordance with the experimental observation (see Supplemental Material).
Energy (eV) 0 0.82 0.89
---------------------------- ------ ------ ------
$d_{xy}^2d_{yz}^2d_{zx}^1$ 38.7 24.3 32.2
$d_{xy}^2d_{yz}^1d_{zx}^2$ 34.7 60.3 24.7
$d_{xy}^1d_{yz}^2d_{zx}^2$ 26.6 15.4 43.1
: Percentage contributions of the different Ir $5d^5$ configurations to the lowest on-site $d$–$d$ excited states in , as obtained from MRCI+SOC calculations.
\[tab:tab2\]
![(Color online) (a) Momentum dependence of the low energy RIXS spectra of obtained at $T=9$ K. The inset shows a schematic diagram of the (H K 0) reciprocal space plane. The Brillouin zones (BZ) corresponding to the monoclinic unit cell are blue rectangles. For comparison, we also plot the BZ of the honeycomb net in black. The circles are the points where RIXS spectra are taken. The low energy peaks denoted with red triangles are fit to a Lorentzian, and the momentum dependence of (b) the peak position and width, and (c) the peak intensity are shown. (d) Same data are plotted in false color scale. (e) Schematics of electronic excitations in determined from our RIXS measurements.[]{data-label="fig03"}](Na213_fig02.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The nature of the charge excitation gap can be further revealed by its momentum dependence. In Fig. \[fig03\], we plot the momentum dependence of the low energy peaks (A-C) in . In the honeycomb plane, the magnetic ordering doubles the unit cell [@Xuerong2011], and correspondingly the first Brillouin zone (BZ) becomes smaller. Two different BZ schemes are illustrated in the inset of Fig. \[fig03\] (a) to aid the comparison. We will use the rectangular BZ notation. Note that the two high symmetry directions of interest, the [**q**]{}=(H 0) and [**q**]{}=(0 K) in rectangular notation, correspond to the $\Gamma-M$ and $\Gamma-K$ directions in the honeycomb plane, respectively. One can see that the overall momentum dependence of the peak positions is very small, except for peak A. To investigate the behavior of peak A in detail, the low energy portion of the spectra was fit to a Lorentzian peak. Since the peak seems to disappear at [**q**]{}=(1 0), we have used the spectrum at this [**q**]{} as an empirical background. The fitting results for peak positions, widths, and intensities are shown in Fig. \[fig03\](b)-(c). The width and peak position remains almost unchanged ($\approx 10$ meV dispersion), but the intensity is strongly peaked around the BZ center. This can be clearly seen in the pseudocolor plot of the spectra shown in Fig. \[fig03\](d), in which a strong peak around [**q**]{}=(0 0) and 0.42 eV is contrasted with the [**q**]{}-independent features B+C. In addition, one can see that the spectral weight changes abruptly around 0.4 eV, confirming that this is the particle-hole continuum boundary. Based on our RIXS results, the electronic excitations in can be summarized as shown in Fig. \[fig03\](e).
It is clear from this observation that the insulating gap is direct (minimum gap at $\Gamma$). The relatively flat dispersion observed in our data is also consistent with the DFT calculation which suggests that the correlation effect makes the bandwidth smaller, leading to an almost dispersionless charge gap. The sharpness in energy and momentum of peak A is quite reminiscent of the excitonic behavior of the BZ center particle-hole excitation across the charge-transfer gap in the insulating cuprate $\rm La_2CuO_4$ [@Ellis2008]. This suggests that an extra nearest-neighbor Coulomb interaction $V$ (in addition to the on-site interaction $U$) might be important for modelling this material. Sizable $V$ could promote the tendency towards exciton binding and also further narrow the bandwidths. The smaller intensity of the charge gap feature in compared to could be due to the fact that the data are powder averaged. However, one cannot rule out the possibility of weaker $V$ in as compared to .
Another interesting aspect of our data is that the dispersion of the gap appears to follow the underlying honeycomb lattice rather than the crystallographic/magnetic unit cell. This is clearly observed by the spectrum obtained at [**q**]{}=(2 0). While (2 0) is the next BZ center along the $\Gamma-K$ direction, (1 0) is on the zone boundary; peak A disappears at (1 0) but recovers its intensity at the [**q**]{}=(2 0) position. Additional momentum dependence data, reported in the Supplemental Material, shows the lack of momentum dependence along the $L$-direction (perpendicular to the honeycomb plane). Therefore, the electronic structure of seems to be quite well described as that of a 2D honeycomb lattice.
It is worth comparing the observed low energy RIXS spectrum with that of . In , a low energy magnon was observed below 200 meV, while highly dispersive excitations were observed between 0.4 eV and 0.8 eV. This latter band of excitations is composed of particle-hole excitation across the Mott gap and spin-orbit excitations from =3/2 states to the =1/2 states. Because of the smaller single-particle band width in (see DFT calculations in Ref. ) , the “ excitation" in is almost dispersionless, unlike the highly dispersive counterpart in . Perhaps an even more significant difference is the well separated energy scale of the excitation and the particle-hole continuum in . These two energy scales are very similar in , but the large separation in allows one to investigate these two types of excitations separately.
To summarize, we have carried out a resonant inelastic x-ray scattering investigations of electronic excitations in and . We observe three well-defined features below 1 eV and a broad two peak feature at 2-5 eV. By comparing our observation with quantum chemical and density functional theory calculations, we associate these features with $d$–$d$ transitions. Specifically, the high energy excitations are from $t_{2g}$ to $e_g$ excitations, while the low energy excitations around 0.7-0.8 eV are excitations from =3/2 to =1/2 states. The splitting of the latter feature arising from the trigonal crystal field is about 110 meV, much smaller than the spin-orbit coupling energy scale of Ir compounds, which validates the applicability of physics in . In addition, we observe a lower energy excitation around 0.4 eV, which shows very little momentum dependence and is associated with the particle-hole excitation across the Mott gap; the “excitonic" behavior of this peak suggests the nearest-neighbor Coulomb interaction $V$ is sizable. We conclude that the electronic structures of both and are similar and these systems can be described as spin-orbit Mott insulators.
We would like to thank Y. B. Kim and S. Bhattacharjee for fruitful discussions and Doug Robinson for technical assistant during the PDF measurements. Research at the U. of Toronto was supported by the NSERC, CFI, and OMRI. This research benefited from the RIXS collaboration supported by the Computational Materials and Chemical Sciences Network (CMCSN) program of the Division of Materials Science and Engineering, U.S. Department of Energy, Grant No. DE- SC0007091. Use of the APS was supported by the U. S. DOE, Office of Science, Office of BES, under Contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38. Work performed at Brookhaven National Laboratory was supported by DOE, Office of Science, Division of Materials Science under contract No. DE-AC02-98CH10886. Y.-J.K. was supported by the KOFST through the Brainpool program. H-S Kim and J. Yu were supported by the NRF through the ARP (R17-2008-033-01000-0). H-S Kim would like to acknowledge the support from KISTI supercomputing center through the strategic support program for the supercomputing application research (No. KSC-2010-S00-0005). S. Manni acknowledges support from the Erasmus Mundus Eurindia Project.
[32]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ** (, ).
, , , ****, (), ISSN .
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
Supplemental Material
=====================
S1. First principle electronic structure calculations
-----------------------------------------------------
In order to understand the origin of the low energy excitations around 0.4 eV, we have carried out periodic density functional theory (DFT) electronic-structure calculations. We have used the DFT code OpenMX [@S_openmx] based on the linear combination of pseudo-atomic orbital(LCPAO) formalism [@S_ozaki], the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof GGA-functional, $8\times 6\times
8$ k-points grids within the Brillouin zone, and 300 Ry for the real-space grid. The SOC is treated via a fully-relativistic $j$-dependent pseudopotential in the non-collinear DFT formalism [@S_macdonald; @S_bachelet; @S_theurich]. We applied the $C2/m$ monoclinic crystal structure reported in Ref. [@S_Coldea2012] and the zigzag-type magnetic order suggested in Ref. [@S_Xuerong2011] for . For , we used the same magnetic stucture as for and structural data from Refs. [@S_Malley2008].
Densities of states (DOS) from GGA and GGA+U [@S_han] calculations are plotted in Fig. \[fig02\]. The solid line is the total DOS and the filled shaded area represents partial $d$-orbitals DOS. From top to bottom, the calculations were done with no SOC or $U$, with SOC, and with both SOC and $U$. As expected the $5d$ states are dominant near the Fermi level, although there exists some modest amount of hybridization between Ir $5d$ and O $2p$ states. A moderate size $U$ can open a (Mott) gap of 300-400 meV, in accordance with the experimental observation. Compared to , the bandwidths in are a little bit larger but the nature of the gap is essentially the same.
![(color online) The evolution of the DOS for both and upon inclusion of spin-orbit coupling and on-site correlation. The solid line is the total DOS and the filled shaded area represents partial $d$-orbital DOS.[]{data-label="fig02"}](LIOvsNIO.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
S2. Quantum chemical calculations
---------------------------------
To investigate in detail the electronic structure and the essential interactions in the iridates, we further performed correlated quantum chemical calculations. In the quantum-chemical study, we employed multiconfiguration self-consistent-field and multireference configuration-interaction (MRCI) methods [@S_book_QC_00] as implemented in the [molpro]{} package [@S_molpro_brief]. The calculations were performed on fragments consisting of one central IrO$_6$ octahedron for which the local $d$–$d$ transitions are explicitly computed plus all nearest-neighbor (NN) octahedra, three in , and adjacent Na or Li ions. To simplify the analysis of the wave functions, the NN Ir$^{4+}$ ions were modeled as closed-shell Pt$^{4+}$ species [@S_Nikolai; @S_Vamshi]. The remaining part of the crystal is represented as an array of point charges that reproduce the Madelung field in the cluster region. Effective core potentials and basis sets as described in earlier investigations on Sr$_2$IrO$_4$, Ba$_2$IrO$_4$, and CaIrO$_3$ were used [@S_Nikolai; @S_Vamshi].
S3. Additional momentum dependence
----------------------------------
In many layered systems, such as the cuprates [@S_Kenji2005], momentum dependence along the $L$-direction is expected to be small. However, recent DFT calculations have shown dispersion of the optical gap along the $L$-direction [@S_Comin2012]. In order to investigate this we measured the momentum dependence along the [**Q**]{} = (0 0 L) direction in at T = 9 K. These spectra were taken with the same high-resolution setup as the one in Fig. 3 (a). The RIXS spectra in Fig. \[Ldep\] show no observable dispersion, supporting the 2D nature of . We have also measured the momentum dependence of the high energy excitation (labelled D and E in Fig. 1). These spectra were taken with an overall resolution of $\sim\!\!150$ meV. Fig. \[eg\_Qdep\] show RIXS spectra taken along the [**Q**]{} = (-H -H 6.9) direction in at T = 9 K. No observable changes were seen.
![ Momentum dependence of the low energy RIXS spectra in along the [**Q**]{} = (0 0 L) direction. All data sets collected at $T=9$ K.[]{data-label="Ldep"}](Ldep.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
![ Momentum dependence of the high energy RIXS spectra in along the [**Q**]{} = (H H 6.9) direction. All data sets collected at $T=9$ K with a resolution of $\sim\!\!150$ meV (FWHM). []{data-label="eg_Qdep"}](eg_Qdep.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
S4. X-Ray Atomic Pair Distribution Function (PDF) Measurements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atomic PDF measurements were performed at 300 K at the 6-ID-D beamline of the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory, utilizing a General Electric amorphous silicon image plate (IP) detector. A monochromatic incident x-ray beam $0.5\rm{mm}\times 0.5\rm{mm}$ in size was used, conditioned to have energy of 74.353 keV ($\lambda$=0.1668 $\rm{\AA}$). Finely pulverized Li$_2$IrO$_3$ and Na$_2$IrO$_3$ samples were packed in cylindrical polyimide capillaries 1.0 mm in diameter and sealed at both ends. The IP detector was mounted orthogonally to the beam path with a sample to detector distance of 221.87 mm, as calibrated using a ceria (CeO$_2$) standard sample [@S_Billinge2003]. The 2D diffraction data were integrated and converted to intensity versus $2 \theta$ using the software FIT2D [@S_Hauserman1996], where $2 \theta$ is the angle between the incident and scattered x-ray beam. The intensity data were corrected and normalized [@S_Billinge2003_Book] using the program PDFgetX2 [@S_Billinge2004] to obtain the total scattering structure function, $F(Q)$ and its Sine Fourier transform, i.e. the atomic PDF, $G(r)$. $Q_{\rm{max}}$ of 25 $\rm{\AA}^{-1}$ was used in the transform. The PDF analysis was carried out using the program PDFgui [@S_Billinge2007]. Atomic PDF yields a histogram of interatomic distances in a material, and provides structural information on short, intermediate, and long range lengthscales [@S_Billinge2003_Book].
The PDF data of could be explained over a broad $r$-range within the $C2/m$ model with all crystallographic sites fully occupied, with no indication of local structural distortions being present, as evident in Fig. \[PDF\] (a). Structural parameters, as refined over a 1.25-20.0 $\rm{\AA}$ range, can be summarized as follows: a=5.172(1) $\rm{\AA}$, b=8.926(2) $\rm{\AA}$, c=5.122(2) $\rm{\AA}$, $\beta=109.91(4)^{\circ}$, with Ir at 4g (0.5, 0.167(1), 0), Li1 at 2a (0,0,0), Li2 at 2d (0.5, 0, 0.5), Li3 at 4h (0.5, 0.31(6), 0.5), O1 at 8j (0.752(5), 0.173(2), 0.769(4)), and O2 at 4i (0.707(8), 0, 0.260(7)) atomic positions. The Ir-O distances and Ir-O-Ir bond angles range from 2.01 to 2.04 $\rm{\AA}$ and 93.6 to 94.8$^{\circ}$ respectively, while Ir-Ir nearest neighbor distances are in the range from 2.984 to 2.992 $\rm{\AA}$.
On the other hand, while the fit of the $C2/m$ crystallographic model to the PDF data of is consistent with the low-$r$ PDF features, significant discrepancies are observed beginning at around 6 $\rm{\AA}$, as can be seen in Fig. S4 (b), and no convergence could be achieved in broad $r$-range fits irrespective of refinement strategies attempted. The $C2/m$ model is inadequate in describing the intermediate structure of and the actual symmetry of the intermediate range structure is lower. This PDF is consistent with there being an appreciable amount of disorder in the sample compared to . To qualitatively illustrate this, it is useful to directly compare the experimental PDFs of the two systems, Fig. \[PDF\] (c). Local structural features are compared first. The first sharp PDF feature containing nearest neighbor Ir-O distance in occurs at around 2 $\rm{\AA}$, and coincides with that of . The next sharp PDF feature, which includes the Ir-Ir near neighbor peak, in occurs at an observably larger distance in (3.105 $\rm{\AA}$) than in (2.985 $\rm{\AA}$), indicating that the Ir-rings of the honeycomb network are appreciably larger, and reflecting the lattice expansion on going from smaller Li to larger Na. Despite the shift in peak positions, the relative intensities of these short range PDF features are comparable for the two samples, and have comparable peak widths, suggesting that the underlying local environments are very similar in the two systems.
We now consider the intermediate lengthscale in PDFs shown in Fig. S4 (c). What is immediately apparent is that starting from about 5-5.5 $\rm{\AA}$ the PDF features of are visibly broader than those in indicative of disorder in the former. Notably, while the $C2/m$ model explains the features in the PDF of in 6-7 $\rm{\AA}$ range (marked by black arrows in Fig. \[PDF\] (a)), the same model fails to explain the corresponding features in the data. The two features marked by arrows in PDF are both sharp and of approximately equal intensity. In contrast, the corresponding PDF peaks in PDF (marked by black arrows in Fig. \[PDF\] (b)) have very different intensities. The PDF feature at around 6 $\rm{\AA}$ in is rather broad, with extra intensity appearing at the low-$r$ side of the peak (indicated by red arrow in Fig. \[PDF\] (b)), and is clearly multi-component. This is precisely the region where the broad $r$-range fits first fail to explain the PDF of , as these features are not incorporated into the $C2/m$ structural model. Although extracting the details of the actual intermediate structure of from the present 300 K data is a difficult task, further hampered by the thermal broadening that lowers the PDF resolution and requiring elaborate analysis of the low-temperature PDF data for full characterization, it is tempting to speculate about the origin of the observed features. Considerations of the crystallographic model reveal that in the 6 $\rm{\AA}$ range there are contributions from the third Ir-Ir neighbors in the honeycomb, as well as contributions involving Ir-Ir pairs belonging to two successive honeycomb sheets. It is plausible that the observed discrepancies originate from stacking faults suggested in reference [@S_Coldea2012], where appreciable rods of diffuse scattering were observed in the single crystal scattering experiments. However, if we assume that stacking faults occur randomly at the $<10\%$ level, a sharp signal in PDF such as that seen in the difference curve shown in Fig. \[PDF\] (b) is difficult to explain. Considering that the PDF feature around 5.3 $\rm{\AA}$ in , containing the next near neighbor Ir-Ir distance of the honeycomb, is already broad compared to its counterpart, we cannot rule out the possibility that in addition to the distortions generated by stacking faults there are also in-plane distortions of the honeycomb lattice of involving correlations beyond that of the Ir-Ir near neighbor.
[10]{} The DFT code, OpenMX, is available at the web site (http://www.openmx-square.org) in the constitution of the GNU General Public License.
T. Ozaki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 155108 (2003).
M. J. Han [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 045110 (2006).
A. H. MacDonald and S. H. Vosko, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. [**12**]{}, 2977 (1979).
G. B. Bachelet and D. R. Hamann and M. Schlüter, Phys. Rev. B [**26**]{}, 4199 (1982).
G. Theurich and N. A. Hill, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 073106 (2001).
S. K. Choi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**108**]{}, 127204 (2012).
X. Liu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 220403 (2011).
M. O’Malley [*et al.*]{}, J. Solid State Chem. [**181**]{}, 1803 (2008).
T. Helgaker, P. J[ø]{}rgensen and J. Olsen, Molecular Electronic-Structure Theory (Wiley, Chichester, 2000).
H.-J. Werner [*et al.*]{}, 2010, see http:www.molpro.net.
N. A. Bogdanov [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 235147 (2012).
V. M. Katukuri [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. B [**85**]{}, 220402 (2012).
K. Ishii [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 207003 (2005).
R. Comin [*et al.*]{}, e-print arXiv:1204.4471v2 (2012).
P. J. Chupas [*et al.*]{}, J. Appl. Crystallogr. [**36**]{}, 1342-1347 (2003).
A. P. Hammersley [*et al.*]{}, High Press. Res. [**14**]{}, 235 (1996).
T. Egami [*et al.*]{}, Pergamon, New York/Elsevier, Oxford (2003).
X. Qiu [*et al.*]{}, J. Appl. Crystallogr. [**37**]{}, 678 (2004).
C. L. Farrow [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys: Condens. Mat. [**19**]{}, 335219 (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We discuss the rainbow Ramsey theorems at limit cardinals and successors of singular cardinals, addressing some questions in [@MR2354904] and [@MR2902230]. In particular, we show for inaccessible $\kappa$, $\kappa\to^{poly}(\kappa)^2_{2-bdd}$ does not characterize weak compactness and for singular $\kappa$, $\mathrm{GCH}$ implies $\kappa^+\not\to^{poly} (\eta)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}$ for any $\eta\geq cf(\kappa)^+$ and $\square_\kappa$ implies $\kappa^+\to^{poly} (\nu)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}$ for any $\nu<cf(\kappa)^+$. We also provide a simplified construction of a model for $\omega_2\not\to^{poly} (\omega_1)^2_{2-bdd}$ originally constructed in [@MR2902230] and show the witnessing coloring is indestructible under strongly proper forcings but destructible under some c.c.c forcing. Finally, we conclude with some remarks and questions on possible generalizations to rainbow partition relations for triples.'
author:
- Jing Zhang
bibliography:
- 'bib.bib'
title: Some remarks on uncountable rainbow Ramsey theory
---
Introduction
============
Fix ordinals $\lambda,i, \kappa$ and $n\in \omega$.
We use $\lambda\to (\kappa)^n_i$ to abbreviate: for any $f: [\lambda]^n \to i$, there exists $A\subset \lambda$ of order type $\kappa$ such that $f\restriction [A]^n$ is a constant function. Such $A$ is called a *monochromatic* subset of $\lambda$ (with respect to $f$).
We use $\lambda\to^{poly} (\kappa)^n_{i-bdd}$ to abbreviate: for any $f: [\lambda]^n \to \lambda$ that is *i-bounded*, namely for any $\alpha\in \lambda$, $|f^{-1}\{\alpha\}|\leq i$, there exists $A\subset \lambda$ of order type $\kappa$ such that $f\restriction [A]^n$ is injective. Such $A$ is called a *rainbow* subset of $\lambda$ (with respect to $f$).
$\to^{poly}$ is sometimes denoted as $\to^*$. We adopt $\to^{poly}$ to avoid possible confusion, as rainbow subsets are sometimes called “polychromatic” subsets.
$\lambda\to (\kappa)^n_i$ implies $\lambda\to^{poly} (\kappa)^n_{i-bdd}$ as given a $i$-bounded coloring it is possible to cook up a dual $i$-coloring for which any monochromatic subset will be a rainbow subset for the original coloring. This is the *Galvin’s trick*. This explains why rainbow Ramsey theory is also called sub-Ramsey theory in finite combinatorics.
In many cases, the rainbow analogue is a strict weakening. For example:
1. In finite combinatorics, the sub-Ramsey number $sr(K_n, k)$, which is the least $m$ such that $m\to^{poly}(n)_{k-bdd}^2$, is bounded by a polynomial in $n$ and $k$ (Alspach, Gerson, Hahn and Hell [@MR867747]). This is in contrast with the Ramsey number which grows exponentially.
2. In reverse mathematics, over $RCA_0$, $\omega\to^{poly}(\omega)^2_{2-bdd}$ does not imply $\omega\to(\omega)^2_2$ (Csima and Mileti [@MR2583822]).
3. In combinatorics on countably infinite structures, the Rado graph is Rainbow Ramsey but not Ramsey (Dobrinen, Laflamme, and Sauer [@MR3518438]).
4. In combinatorics on the ultrafilters on $\omega$, Martin’s Axiom implies there exists a Rainbow Ramsey ultrafilter that is not a Ramsey ultrafilter (Palumbo [@MR3135506]).
5. In uncountable combinatorics, ZFC proves $\omega_1\not\to (\omega_1)_2^2$ but $\omega_1\to^{poly} (\omega_1)_{2-bdd}^2$ is consistent with ZFC (Todorcevic [@MR716846]).
Results in this note serve as further evidence that rainbow Ramsey theory is a strict weakening of Ramsey theory. We focus on the area of uncountable combinatorics.
The organization of the paper is:
1. In Section \[inaccessible\], we discuss rainbow Ramsey theorems at limit cardinals. In particular, we show $\kappa\to^{poly} (\kappa)^2_{2-bdd}$ for an inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$ does not imply $\kappa$ is weakly compact, answering a question in [@MR2354904];
2. In Section \[singular\], we discuss the rainbow Ramsey theorems at the successor of singular cardinals. Answering a question in [@MR2902230], we show $\mathrm{GCH}+\square_\kappa$ implies $\kappa^+\not\to^{poly} (\eta)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}$ for any $\eta\geq cf(\kappa)^+$ and $\kappa^+\to^{poly} (\nu)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}$ for any $\nu<cf(\kappa)^+$ .
3. In Section \[indestructible\], we use the method of Neeman developed in [@MR3201836] to simplify the construction of a model by Abraham and Cummings [@MR2902230] in which $\omega_2\not\to^{poly} (\omega_1)_{2-bdd}^2$. Furthermore, we show in this model, the witnessing coloring is indestructible under strongly proper forcings but destructible under c.c.c forcings. In other words, the coloring witnessing $\omega_2\not\to^{poly} (\omega_1)_{2-bdd}^2$ remains the witness to the same negative partition relation in any strongly proper forcing extension but there exists a c.c.c forcing extension that adds a rainbow subset of size $\omega_1$ for that coloring. As a result, $\omega_2\not\to^{poly} (\omega_1)_{2-bdd}^2$ is compatible with the continuum being arbitrarily large.
4. In Section \[generalization\], we briefly discuss possibilities and restrictions of generalizations to partition relations for triples.
Rainbow Ramsey at limit cardinals {#inaccessible}
=================================
In [@MR2354904], Abraham, Cummings and Smyth studied the rainbow Ramsey theory at small uncountable cardinals and successors of regular cardinals. They asked what can be said about the rainbow Ramsey theory at inaccessible cardinals. A test question they asked was for any inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$, whether $\kappa\to^{poly}(\kappa)^2_2$ characterize weak compactness. We answer this in the negative. Fix a regular uncountable cardinal $\kappa$.
We say $f: [\kappa]^n \to \kappa$ is a normal coloring if whenever $\bar{a}, \bar{b}\in [\kappa]^n$ are such that $f(\bar{a})=f(\bar{b})$, then $\max \bar{a}=\max \bar{b}$.
A normal function $f:[\kappa]^2\to \kappa$ is regressively bounded (reg-bdd) if there exists $\lambda<\kappa$ such that $\kappa \cap cof(\geq \lambda)$ is stationary in $\kappa$ and for all $\alpha\in \kappa\cap cof(\geq \lambda)$, and $i<\kappa$, $\{\beta\in \alpha: f(\beta, \alpha)=i\}$ is bounded in $\alpha$. We use $\kappa \to^{poly} (\kappa)^2_{reg-bdd} $ to denote the statement: for any normal regressively bounded $f: [\kappa]^2\to \kappa$, there exists a subset $A\in [\kappa]^\kappa$ such that $A$ is a rainbow subset for $f$.
Notice for any weakly inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$ and any cardinal $\lambda<\kappa$, $\kappa \to^{poly} (\kappa)^2_{reg-bdd}$ implies $\kappa \to^{poly} (\kappa)^2_{\lambda-bdd}$. To see this, given $f: [\kappa]^2\to \kappa$ that is $\lambda$-bounded, recursively, we may find a subset $B\in [\kappa]^\kappa$ such that $f\restriction [B]^2$ is normal. Hence without loss of generality we may assume $f$ is normal. Then it is easy to see that $f$ is regressively bounded witnessed by $\lambda^+$.
Even though we cannot employ Galvin’s trick of dual colorings since there may not be any $\lambda<\kappa$ that bounds the sizes of color classes, we do have that if $\kappa$ is weakly compact, then $\kappa\to^{poly} (\kappa)_{reg-bdd}^2$.
It turns out that weak compactness is not necessary. It suffices when $\kappa$ is a “generic large cardinal” (for more on this topic, see [@MR2768692]). Recall that a *$\overrightarrow{C}$-sequence* on $\kappa$ is $\langle C_\alpha: \alpha\in \lim \kappa\rangle$ such that each $C_\alpha\subset \alpha$ is a club subset of $\alpha$.
\[vanilla\] Let $\kappa$ be a regular cardinal. Consider the following statements:
1. Every $\overrightarrow{C}$-sequence on $\kappa$ is *trivial stationarily often*, namely, there exists a club $D\subset \kappa$ such that for any $\alpha<\kappa$, there exist stationarily many $\beta<\kappa$ such that $D\cap \alpha \subset C_\beta$;
2. $\kappa\to^{poly} (\kappa)^2_{reg-bdd}$;
3. every $\overrightarrow{C}$-sequence on $\kappa$ is *trivial*, in the sense that there exists a club $D\subset \kappa$ such that for any $\alpha<\kappa$ there exists $\beta<\kappa$ such that $D\cap \alpha\subset C_\beta$.
Then (1) implies (2).
We first prove (1) implies (2). Given a regressively bounded $f$ witnessed by $\lambda<\kappa$, we may assume $f(\cdot, \delta): \delta\to \delta$. It is not hard to see that (1) implies that $\kappa$ is a limit cardinal. Hence we may also assume $\lambda\geq \aleph_1$.
For each $\alpha\in cof(\geq \lambda)\cap \kappa$, we let $C_\alpha\subset \alpha$ be a club of order type $cf(\alpha)$ such that for any $\gamma_0<\gamma_1\in C_\alpha$, $f(\gamma_0, \alpha)\neq f(\gamma_1, \alpha)$. We can achieve this by first picking a club subset $C'_\alpha\subset \alpha$ of order type $cf(\alpha)$, and $C_\alpha\subset C_\alpha'$ is the closure points for the following function: $f: C'_\alpha \to C'_\alpha$ such that $f(\beta)$ is the least $\beta'$ such that for all $\beta''\geq \beta'$, $f(\beta, \alpha)\neq f(\beta'', \alpha)$. Note $f$ is well-defined by the regressive bounding condition on $f$ and we make sure that $f(\cdot, \alpha)\restriction C_\alpha$ is injective. If $\alpha\in cof(<\lambda)\cap \kappa$, then just let $C_\alpha$ be any club of type $cf(\alpha)$.
Let $D\subset \kappa$ be a club given by the conclusion of (1). We may then build a continuous sequence $\langle \alpha_i\in D: i<\kappa\rangle$ such that for any $i<\kappa$, $D\cap \alpha_i\subset C_{\alpha_{i+1}}$. Notice that on a tail of this sequence, $\alpha_{i+1}\in cof(\geq \lambda)\cap \kappa$. We may without loss of generality assume that $\alpha_{i+1}\in cof(\geq \lambda)\cap \kappa$ for all $i<\kappa$.
Let $Y\subset \kappa$ be a set of size $\kappa$ such that for any $i<j\in Y$, $\alpha_{i+1} < \alpha_j$. We claim that $X=_{def} \{\alpha_{i+1}: i\in Y\}$ is a rainbow subset for $f$. Fix $i<j<k \in Y$, since $\alpha_{i+1}<\alpha_{j+1}\in D\cap \alpha_{k} \subset C_{\alpha_{k+1}}$, we know that $f(\alpha_{i+1}, \alpha_{k+1})\neq f(\alpha_{j+1},\alpha_{k+1})$.
We prove (2) implies (3).
Let a $\langle C_\alpha: \alpha<\kappa\rangle$ be a given. Define $f(\alpha,\beta)=(\min (C_\beta - (\alpha+1)),\beta)$. It can be easily checked that that $f$ is regressively bounded. Let $X\subset \kappa$ be a rainbow subset of size $\kappa$ and let $C=\lim X=\{\delta \in \lim \kappa: \sup X\cap \delta=\delta\}$. We claim that $C$ is what we are looking for. It clearly suffices to show that any $\alpha\in C$ and any $\beta\in X- (\alpha+1)$, it is true that $\alpha\in C_\beta$. Since $\alpha$ is a limit point of $X$, and $f(\cdot, \beta)\restriction X\cap \alpha$ is injective, it must be the case that $\alpha\in \lim C_\beta$, which implies that $\alpha\in C_\beta$.
Lambie-Hanson and Rinot [@CLHRinot] introduced and studied a cardinal invariant on $\overrightarrow{C}$-sequences. The statement (3) in Lemma \[vanilla\] is what they call $\chi(\kappa)\leq 1$. Furthermore, they show $\chi(\kappa)\leq 1$ implies that $\kappa$ is greatly Mahlo.
Suppose $\kappa$ is regular and ${}^{<\kappa}\kappa=\kappa$. We say *$\kappa$ is generically weakly compact via $\kappa$-c.c forcings* if for any transitive $M$ with $|M|=\kappa$, $\kappa\in M$, ${}^{<\kappa}M\subset M$, there exists a $\kappa$-c.c forcing $P$ such that for any generic $G\subset P$ over $V$, in $V[G]$, there exists an elementary embedding $j: M\to N$ where $N$ is transitive and $\mathrm{crit}(j)=\kappa$.
\[saturatedproof\] If a regular cardinal $\kappa$ is generically weakly compact via $\kappa$-c.c forcings, then $\kappa\to^{poly} (\kappa)_{reg-bdd}^2$.
We will show that every $\overrightarrow{C}$-sequence on $\kappa$ is trivial stationarily often, then the theorem follows from Lemma \[vanilla\]. Given a $\overrightarrow{C}$-sequence on $\kappa$, $\bar{C}=\langle C_\alpha: \alpha<\kappa\rangle$, let $X\prec H(\theta)$ containing $\bar{C}$ where $\theta$ is a large enough regular cardinal, such that $|X|=\kappa$, $\kappa\subset X$ and ${}^{<\kappa}X\subset X$. Let $\pi: X\to M$ be the transitive collapse. Note that $\bar{C}$ is fixed by $\pi$. By the assumption on $\kappa$, there is some generic extension $V[G]$ by a $\kappa$-c.c forcing such that there exists an embedding $j: M\to N$ with $N$ being transitive and $\mathrm{crit}(j)=\kappa$.
Let $D'=j(\bar{C})(\kappa)$. Then $D'\subset \kappa$ is a club set in $V[G]$. Since the forcing is $\kappa$-c.c, there exists a club $D\subset \kappa\in V$ such that $D\subset D'$. We claim that $D$ trivializes $\bar{C}$ stationarily often. For any $\alpha<\kappa$, $D\cap \alpha\in M$ since $M$ contains $\kappa$ and is closed under $<\kappa$-sequences in $V$. Let $S=\{\beta<\kappa: D\cap \alpha\subset C_\beta\}$. We will show that $S$ is stationary. Notice that $S\in M$ and $M\models S$ is a stationary subset of $\kappa$. To see this, suppose for the sake of contradiction there is a club $D^*\in M$ disjoint from $S$. Then $\kappa \in j(D^*)$ since $j(D^*)$ is a club in $j(\kappa)$ by elementarity and $j(D^*)\cap \kappa=D^*$ which is unbounded in $\kappa$. This implies $j(D)\cap \kappa=D\not \subset j(\bar{C})(\kappa)=D'$, which is a contradiction. Since $\pi^{-1}(S)=S$, we know that $X\models S$ is a stationary subset of $\kappa$, hence by elementarity, $S\subset \kappa$ is stationary.
To get a model of a cardinal $\kappa$ which is generically weakly compact via $\kappa$-c.c forcings but not weakly compact, we can proceed by the following: first we prepare the ground model such that the weakly compact cardinal $\kappa$ is indestructible under $\mathrm{Add}(\kappa,1)$, and then use a theorem of Kunen ([@MR495118]) that $\mathrm{Add}(\kappa,1)$ is forcing equivalent to $P*\dot{T}$ where $P$ adds a homogeneous $\kappa$-Suslin tree $\dot{T}$. The final model will be $V^P$.
The Kunen model also shows that the existence of a $\kappa$-Suslin tree is consistent with $\kappa\to^{poly} (\kappa)^2_{reg-bdd}$. The existence of a $\kappa$-Suslin tree is sometimes strong enough to refute some weak consequences of $\kappa\to (\kappa)^2_2$. For example Todorcevic proved in [@Todorcevic1989-TODTSA-5] that for any regular uncountable cardinal $\kappa$, the existence of $\kappa$-Suslin tree implies $\kappa\not\to [\kappa]^2_\kappa$, namely there exists a coloring $f: [\kappa]^2\to \kappa$ such that any $X\in [\kappa]^\kappa$, $f'' [X]^2 =\kappa$.
It is consistent relative to a weakly compact cardinal that for some inaccessible cardinal $\kappa$ that is not weakly compact, $\kappa\to^{poly} (\kappa)_{\lambda-bdd}^2$ for any $\lambda<\kappa$.
If $\kappa$ is real-valued measurable, then $\kappa\to^{poly} (\kappa)_{\lambda-bdd}^2$ for any $\lambda<\kappa$.
If $\kappa$ is weakly compact, then $\kappa\to^{poly} (\kappa)^2_{reg-bdd}$ is indestructible under any forcing satisfying $\lambda$-c.c. for some $\lambda<\kappa$.
The trick of using some large enough ordinal to “guide” the construction can also be used analogously to prove the following, which provides more contrast with its dual Ramsey statement:
\[singularstronglimit\] For any singular strong limit $\kappa$, $\kappa\to^{poly} (\kappa)_{\lambda-bdd}^2$ for any $\lambda<\kappa$.
Given a $\lambda$-bounded coloring $f$ on $[\kappa]^2$, we claim that there is $B\in [\kappa]^{\kappa}$ such that $f\restriction [B]^2$ is normal. Fix a continuous sequence of strictly increasing regular cardinals $\langle \kappa_i: i<cf(\kappa)\rangle$ with $\kappa_0>\max \{cf(\kappa), \lambda\}$ converging to $\kappa$. We find $\langle A_i: i<cf(\kappa)\rangle$ such that
- for any $i<cf(\kappa)$, $A_i\subset \kappa_i$ and $|A_i|=\kappa_i$
- for any $i<j<cf(\kappa)$, $A_i\subsetneq A_j$
- for any limit $\delta<cf(\kappa)$, $A_\delta=\bigcup_{i<\delta} A_i$
- for any $i<cf(\kappa)$, $f\restriction [A_i]^2$ is normal
The construction clearly gives $B=\bigcup_{i<cf(\kappa)} A_i$ such that $f\restriction [B]^2$ is normal. The construction at limit stages is clear. At stage $i+1$, we inductively find a subset $C\subset \kappa_{i+1}-\kappa_i$ of size $\kappa_{i+1}$ such that $f\restriction [A_i\cup C]^2$ is normal. Suppose we have built $C'\subset \kappa_{i+1}-\kappa_i$ of size $\leq \kappa_i$, we demonstrate how to add one more element. As $|C'\cup A_i|\leq \kappa_i, \lambda<\kappa_i$ and $\kappa_{i+1}$ is regular, there exists $\gamma>\max C'+1$ such that there do not exist $a\in [C'\cup A_i]^2, \beta\in C'\cup A_i$ with $f(a)=f(\beta, \gamma)$. It is easy to see that $f\restriction [A_i\cup C'\cup \{\gamma\}]^2$ is normal.
Fix a $\lambda$-bounded coloring $f: [\kappa]^2\to \kappa$. By the remark above, we may assume $f$ is normal. Let $\eta=cf(\kappa)$. Fix an increasing sequence of regular cardinals $\langle \kappa_i: i<\eta\rangle$ such that
1. $\kappa_0>\max\{\lambda, \eta\}$;
2. $\langle \kappa_i: i<\eta\rangle$ converges to $\kappa$;
3. $\kappa_{i+1}^{\kappa_{i}}=\kappa_{i+1}$ for all $i<\eta$.
Let $\theta$ be a large enough regular cardinal and fix an $\in$-increasing chain $\langle N_i\prec H(\theta): i<\eta \rangle$ such that $|N_i|=\kappa_{i+1}$, $\kappa_{i+1}\subset N_i$, $\sup (N_i\cap\kappa_{i+2})=_{def} \delta_i\in \kappa_{i+2}\cap cof(\kappa_{i+1})$, ${}^{\kappa_i} N_i\subset N_i$. We arrange that $\lambda,f, \langle \kappa_i : i<\eta\rangle \in N_0$.
We will recursively build $\langle A_i: i<\eta\rangle$ such that $A_i\subset N_i\cap \kappa_{i+2}$ and $|A_i|=\kappa_{i}^+$ satisfying:
*for all $j\geq i$, $A_i\cup \{\delta_j\}$ is a rainbow subset of $f$.*
Recursively, suppose $A_k\subset N_k\cap \kappa_{k+2}$ for $k<i$ have been built. Let $A^*=\bigcup_{k<i} A_k \subset \kappa_{i+1}\subset N_i$. Notice that $|A^*|\leq \kappa_{i}$. We will enlarge $A^*$ with $\kappa_{i}^+$ many elements in $\delta_i-\kappa_{i+1}$. More precisely, we will find $C=\{\alpha_k\in \delta_i -\kappa_{i+1} : k<\kappa_{i}^+\}$ such that $A^*\cup C \cup \{\delta_j\}$ is a rainbow subset of $f$ for all $j\geq i$. We finish by setting $A_i=A^*\cup C$.
Suppose we have built $C_\nu=\{\alpha_k: k<\nu\}$ for some $\nu<\kappa_{i}^+$ satisfying the requirement. Since ${}^{\kappa_i} N_i\subset N_i$, we have $A^*\cup C_\nu \in N_i$. Let $A(A^*\cup C_\nu)=_{def}\{\gamma<\kappa_{i+2}: A^*\cup C_\nu \cup \{\gamma\} \text{ is a rainbow subset for }f\}$. Since $A(A^*\cup C_\nu)\in N_i$ and $\delta_i\in A(A^*\cup C_\nu)$, we know that $A(A^*\cup C_\nu)$ is a stationary subset of $\kappa_{i+2}$.
Let $B_j=_{def} \{\rho\in A(A^*\cup C_\nu): \exists \alpha\in A^*\cup C_\nu \ f(\alpha, \delta_j)=f(\rho, \delta_j)\}$ for each $j\geq i$. As $|A^*\cup C_\nu| \leq \kappa_{i}$ and the coloring is $\lambda$-bounded, we know that $|B_j|\leq \kappa_i$ for any $j\geq i$. Pick any $\gamma \in A(A^*\cup C_\nu)- \bigcup_{i\leq j<\eta} B_j$ with $\gamma > \max A^*\cup C_\nu$. We claim that this $\gamma$ is as desired, namely $A^*\cup C_\nu\cup \{\gamma\}\cup \{\delta_j\}$ is a rainbow subset for all $j\geq i$. Indeed, fix some $j\geq i$. By the fact that $\gamma,\delta_j\in A(A^*\cup C_\nu)$, the only bad possibility is that for some $\alpha\in A^*\cup C_\nu$, $f(\alpha,\delta_j)=f(\gamma,\delta_j)$. But this is ruled out by the fact that $\gamma\not\in B_j$.
\[Indestructible\] We can strengthen the conclusion of Lemma \[singularstronglimit\] to that $\kappa\to^{poly} (\kappa)_{\lambda-bdd}^2$ for any $\lambda<\kappa$ and it remains true in any forcing extension satisfying $<\gamma$-covering property (see Definition \[covering\]) for some cardinal $\gamma<\kappa$. The proof is similar to that of Theorem \[CountableCase\]. Hence it is also possible for a singular cardinal which is not a strong limit to satisfy the conclusion of Lemma \[singularstronglimit\].
\[FreeSetTheorem\] The following strengthening is also true: if $\kappa$ is a strong limit singular cardinal, then $\kappa\to^{poly} (\kappa)^n_{\lambda-bdd}$ for any $\lambda<\kappa$ and $n\in \omega$. This is an immediate consequence of the following theorem (Theorem 45.4 in [@MR795592]): given a strong limit singular cardinal $\kappa$ and some $\lambda<\kappa$, we have that for any $f: [\kappa]^n \to [\kappa]^{\lambda}$, there exists $H\subset \kappa$ of cardinality $\kappa$ such that for any $x\in [H]^2$, $f(x)\cap (H-x) =\emptyset$ (such $H$ is called *$f$-free*). To see the implication, given a $g: [\kappa]^2\to \kappa$ which is $\lambda$-bounded, consider $f: [\kappa]^2\to [\kappa]^\lambda$ defined as $f(x)=\bigcup \{y: g(y)=g(x)\}-x$. We leave it to the reader to verify that any $f$-free set is a rainbow subset for $g$. However, the proof of Theorem 45.4 in [@MR795592] heavily uses the Erdős-Rado theorem, it is thus not clear if the proof can be generalized to give the forcing indestructibility result as in Remark \[Indestructible\]. We decide to keep the proof of a weaker result that entails generalizations.
If an inaccessible $\kappa$ carries a non-trivial $\kappa$-complete $\kappa$-saturated normal ideal, is it true that $\kappa\to^{poly}(\kappa)^n_{\lambda-bdd}$ for all $n\in \omega$ and all $\lambda<\kappa$?
The extent of Rainbow Ramsey theorems at successors of singular cardinals {#singular}
=========================================================================
In [@MR2354904] and [@MR2902230], it is shown that if $\mathrm{GCH}$ holds, then $\kappa^+\to^{poly} (\eta)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}$ for any regular cardinal $\kappa$ and ordinal $\eta<\kappa^+$ and moreover the partition relations continue to hold in any $\kappa$-c.c. forcing extension. The authors ask what we can say when $\kappa$ is singular. We will address this question by showing $\mathrm{GCH}$ implies $\kappa^+\to^{poly} (\eta)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}$ for all $\eta<cf(\kappa)^+$ and $\square_\kappa$ implies $\kappa^+\not\to^{poly} (\eta)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}$ for all $\eta\geq cf(\kappa)^+$. For the latter, as we will see below, a weaker hypothesis suffices.
\[cofinalityObservation\] If $\kappa$ is singular of cofinality $\lambda<\kappa$, then $\kappa^+\not \to^{poly} (\lambda^+ +1)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}$.
For each $\beta\in \kappa^+$, fix disjoint $\{A_{\beta, n}: n\in \lambda\}$ such that each set has size $<\kappa$ and $\bigcup_{n\in \lambda} A_{\beta, n} =\beta$. Define a coloring by mapping $\{\alpha,\beta\}\in [\kappa^+]^2\mapsto (n,\beta)$ if $n$ is the unique element in $\lambda$ that $\alpha\in A_{\beta,n}$. This coloring is easily seen to be $<\kappa$-bounded. For any subset $A$ of order type $\lambda^++1$, let $\delta$ be the top element. Now by pigeon hole, there exists $n\in \lambda$, such that $|A\cap A_{\delta,n}|\geq \lambda^+$. For any $\alpha<\beta\in A\cap A_{\delta,n}$, $f(\alpha,\delta)=(n,\delta)=f(\beta,\delta)$. Thus $A$ is not a rainbow subset.
The following connects the rainbow partition relations with sets in Shelah’s approachability ideal. Fix a singular cardinal $\kappa$ with cofinality $\lambda<\kappa$ for Definitions \[sing1\] and \[sing2\].
\[sing1\] A set $S\subset \kappa^+$ is in $I[\kappa^+; \kappa]$ iff there is a sequence $\bar{a}=\langle a_\alpha \in [\kappa^+]^{<\kappa} : \alpha<\lambda\rangle$ and a closed unbounded $C\subset \kappa^+$ such that for any $\delta\in C\cap S$ is singular and weakly approachable with respect to the sequence $\bar{a}$, namely there is an unbounded $A\subset \delta$ of order type $cf(\delta)$ such that any $\alpha<\delta$ there exists $\beta<\delta$ with $A\cap \alpha\subset a_\beta$.
Notice that $I[\kappa^+; \kappa]$ contains $I[\kappa^+]$, which is Shelah’s approachability ideal. For more details on these matters, see [@MR2768694].
\[sing2\] $d: [\kappa^+]^2\to cf(\kappa)$ is
1. *normal* if $$i<cf(\kappa) \rightarrow \sup_{\alpha<\kappa^+} |\{\beta<\alpha: d(\beta,\alpha)<i\}|<\kappa,$$
2. *transitive* if for any $\alpha<\gamma<\beta<\kappa^+$, $d(\alpha,\beta)\leq \max \{d(\alpha,\gamma), d(\gamma,\beta)\}$,
3. *approachable* on $S\subset \lim \kappa^+$ if for any $\delta\in S$, there is a cofinal $A\subset \delta$ such that for any $\alpha\in A$, $\sup \{d(\beta,\alpha): \beta\in A\cap \alpha\}<cf(\kappa)$.
It is a consequence of Theorem 3.28 in [@MR2768694] that $\kappa^+\cap cof(\lambda^+)\in I[\kappa^+; \kappa]$ implies the existence of a normal $d$ that is approachable on $E\cap \kappa^+\cap cof(\lambda^+)$ for some club $E\subset \kappa^+$.
For a singular cardinal $\kappa$ with cofinality $\lambda<\kappa$, we have that $\kappa^+\cap cof(\lambda^+)\in I[\kappa^+; \kappa]$ implies $\kappa^+\not\to^{poly} (\lambda^+)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}$.
Fix a normal $d$ that is approachable at $E\cap \kappa^+\cap cof(\lambda^+)$ for some club $E\subset \kappa^+$. Define $f: [ E]^2\to \kappa^+$ such that $f(\alpha,\beta)=(d(\alpha,\beta),\beta)$. The normality of $d$ implies $f$ is $<\kappa$-bounded. Given $A\in [E]^{\lambda^+}$, let $\gamma=\sup A$. Then $d$ is approachable at $\gamma$. Fix some unbounded $B\subset \gamma$ of order type $\lambda^+$ witnessing the approachability of $d$. We may assume there exists $\eta_0<\lambda$ such that $\sup d''[B]^2 \leq \eta_0$. To see why we can do this, note that by the approachability assumption on $d$, we know for each $\alpha\in B\cap \gamma$, $\eta_\alpha'=\sup \{d(\beta, \alpha): \beta\in B\cap \alpha\}<\lambda$. Find $B'\in [B]^{\lambda^+}$ and $\eta_0<\lambda$ such that for any $\alpha\in B'$, $\eta_\alpha'=\eta_0$. It is clear that $\sup d''[B']^2 \leq \eta_0$. Without loss of generality, we may assume $B'=B$.
Pick the following increasing sequences $\langle a_i\in A: i<\lambda^+\rangle$ and $\langle b_i \in B : i<\lambda^+\rangle$ satisfying that for all $i<\lambda^+$, $b_i<a_i<b_{i+1}$. By the Pigeon Hole principle, we can find $D\in [\lambda^+]^{\lambda^+}$ and some $\eta_1\in \lambda$ such that for all $i\in D$, $d(b_i, a_i), d(a_i, b_{i+1})\leq \eta_1$. Then for any $i<j\in D$, by the transitivity of $d$, we have $d(a_i,a_j)\leq \max \{d(a_i, b_{i+1}), d(b_{i+1}, b_j), d(b_j, a_j)\}\leq \max\{\eta_0, \eta_1\}=_{def} \eta^*$ (here we use the convention that $d(t,t)=0$). Let $A'=\{a_i: i\in D\}$.
Pick $\delta\in A'$ such that $A'\cap \delta$ has size $\lambda$. We know $\sup d(\cdot, \delta)'' A'\cap \delta \leq \eta^*<\lambda$, which clearly implies there exist $\alpha_0<\alpha_1\in A'\cap \delta$ such that $d(\alpha_0, \delta)=d(\alpha_1,\delta)$. In particular, $A$ is not rainbow for $f$.
$\square_\kappa$ implies $I[\kappa^+]$ is trivial. Hence $\square_\kappa$ implies $\kappa^+\not\to^{poly}(cf(\kappa)^+)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}$.
In light of the preceding theorems, the following theorem is the best possible in a sense.
\[covering\] A forcing poset $\mathbb{P}$ satisfies $<\kappa$-covering property if for any $\mathbb{P}$-name of subset of ordinals $\dot{B}$ such that $\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}} |\dot{B}|<\kappa$, there exists $B\in V$ such that $|B|<\kappa$ and $\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}} \dot{B}\subset B$.
Notice that if $\kappa$ is singular, then $\kappa$ and $\kappa^+$ are preserved as cardinals in any forcing extension satisfying $<\kappa$-covering property.
\[CountableCase\] Fix a singular cardinal $\kappa$ with $\lambda=\mathrm{cf}(\kappa)<\kappa$. Suppose $\kappa^{<\lambda}=\kappa$. Then for any $\alpha<\lambda^+$, $$\kappa^+\to^{poly} (\alpha)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}.$$ Moreover, these partition relations continue to hold in any forcing extension by $\mathbb{P}$ satisfying the $<\kappa$-covering property.
We may assume $|\alpha|=\lambda$. Fix a $\mathbb{P}$-name for a $<\kappa$-bounded coloring $\dot{f}$ on $[\kappa^+]^2$. We may assume it is normal. Fix some large enough regular cardinal $\chi$. Build a sequence $\langle M_i \prec (H(\chi),\in, \dot{f}, \kappa, \mathbb{P}): i<\alpha\rangle$ such that
1. $\kappa+1\subset M_i$, $|M_i|=\kappa$, $\kappa_i =_{def} M_i\cap \kappa^+ \in \kappa^+$,
2. $|\kappa_{i+1}-\kappa_i|=\kappa$,
3. ${}^{<\lambda} M_{i}\subset M_{i+1}$.
The construction is possible since $\kappa^{<\lambda}=\kappa$. Fix a bijection $g: \lambda\to \alpha$. We will inductively define a rainbow subset $\{ a_i: i<\lambda\}$ such that $a_i\in \kappa_{g(i)+1}-\kappa_{g(i)}$. It is clear that this set as defined will have order type $\alpha$. During the construction, we maintain the following *construction invariant*:
*for any $i<\lambda$ and $l=g(i)$, whenever $a_j,a_k<\kappa_{l+1}$, we have $\Vdash_\mathbb{P} \dot{f}(a_j, \kappa_{l+1})\neq \dot{f}(a_k,\kappa_{l+1})$*.
Suppose for some $\beta<\lambda$ we have defined $A=\{ a_i: i<\beta\}$. Let $l=g(\beta)$ and $B=\kappa_{l+1}-\kappa_{l}$. Our goal is to find an element in $B$ such that after we augment $A$ with this element, not only does the set remains a rainbow subset, but also the construction invariant is satisfied. Let $C=\{\delta<\kappa^+: \forall i,j<\beta \ a_i,a_j\in A\cap \kappa_{l+1}\rightarrow \Vdash_{\mathbb{P}} \dot{f}(a_i,\delta)\neq \dot{f}(a_j,\delta)\}$ and $B'=B\cap C$.
$|B'|=\kappa$.
Let $A'=A\cap M_{l+1}=A\cap \kappa_{l+1}\subset M_l$. As ${}^{<\lambda}M_l\subset M_{l+1}$ we have $A'\in M_{l+1}$. Hence $C\in M_{l+1}$ and that $\kappa_{l+1}\in C$ by the construction invariant. $C$ is thus a stationary subset of $\kappa^+$. In particular, $M_{l+1}\models $ there exists an injection from $\kappa$ to $C$. As $\kappa+1\subset M_{l+1}$, $B\cap C=B'$ has size $\kappa$.
We want to pick an element from $B'$ and add it to the set, however, we need to make sure the set is rainbow and satisfy the construction invariant. For any cardinal $\delta$, let $A\restriction \delta$ be $A\cap (<\delta)$. For the purpose of presentation, work in $V[G]$ for some $G\subset \mathbb{P}$ generic over $V$.
Let $B_{-1}=\{\delta\in B': \exists a\in A\restriction \kappa_{l+1} \ f(\delta,\kappa_{l+1})=f(a,\kappa_{l+1})\}$. For each $i<\beta$ with $g(i)>l$, let $B_i=\{\delta\in B': \exists \alpha\in A\restriction \kappa_{g(i)+1} \ f(\alpha,\kappa_{g(i)+1})=f(\delta,\kappa_{g(i)+1})\}$ and $B'_i=\{\delta\in B': \exists \alpha\in A\restriction a_i \ f(\alpha, a_i)=f(\delta,a_i)\}$. We verify that these sets as defined all have size $<\kappa$.
Suppose for the sake of contradiction that $B_{-1}$ has size $\kappa$, then since $|A|<\kappa$ and $|B'|=\kappa$, there exists $a\in A$ such that $\{\delta\in B': f(a,\kappa_{l+1})=f(\delta,\kappa_{l+1})\}$ has size $\kappa$. This contradicts with the assumption that $f$ is $<\kappa$-bounded.
Suppose for the sake of contradiction that for some $i$ with $i<\beta$ and $g(i)>l$ we have $|B_i|=\kappa$, similar to the above, we can find $a\in A$ such that $\{\delta\in B': f(a, \kappa_{g(i)+1})=f(\delta,\kappa_{g(i)+1})\}$ has size $\kappa$, contradicting with $<\kappa$-boundedness. Similarly $|B_i'|<\kappa$.
Back in $V$, pick $\mathbb{P}$-names for the sets above: $\dot{B}_{-1}$, $\dot{B}_i, \dot{B}'_i$ for all $i<\beta$ such that $g(i)>l$. By the $<\kappa$-covering property of $\mathbb{P}$, we can find $B_{-1}^*, B_i^*, (B_i')^*$ of size $<\kappa$ in $V$ such that $\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}} \dot{B}_{-1}\subset B_{-1}^*, \dot{B}_i\subset B_i^*, \dot{B}'_i\subset (B'_i)^*$ for all $i<\beta$ with $g(i)>l$. Since $\beta<\lambda=cf(\kappa)$, we know $|B_{-1}^*\cup \bigcup_{i<\beta, g(i)>l} B_i^*\cup (B_i')^*|<\kappa$. Pick $a_\beta\in B'-B_{-1}^*-\bigcup_{i<\beta, g(i)>l} B_i^*\cup (B_i')^*$. Then it follows that $A\cup \{a_\beta\}$ is forced by $\mathbb{P}$ to be a rainbow subset and to satisfy the construction invariant.
An immediate consequence of the proof of Theorem \[CountableCase\] is:
For any cardinal $\kappa$ and any $\alpha<\omega_1$, $$\kappa^+\to^{poly} (\alpha)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}.$$
Is $\kappa^+\to^{poly} (\omega_1)^2_{<\kappa-bdd}$ consistent for some singular $\kappa$ of countable cofinality?
A coloring that is strongly proper indestructible but c.c.c destructible {#indestructible}
========================================================================
It is proved in [@MR2354904] that if $CH$ holds, then $\omega_2\to^{poly} (\eta)^2_{<\omega_1-bdd}$ for any $\eta<\omega_2$. In [@MR2902230], a model where $2^\omega=\omega_2$ and $\omega_2\not\to^{poly} (\omega_1)_{2-bdd}^2$ is constructed. A question regarding the possibility of getting $\omega_2\not\to^{poly} (\omega_1)_{2-bdd}^2$ along with continuum larger than $\omega_2$ was raised. A positive answer was given in [@MR3437648] using the method of forcing with symmetric systems of submodels as side conditions.
In this section we give a simpliflied construction of the model presented in [@MR2902230] using the framework developed by Neeman [@MR3201836] and show the witness to $\omega_2\not\to^{poly} (\omega_1)_{2-bdd}^2$ in that model is indestructible under strongly proper forcings. This provides an alternative answer to the original question.
Let $K=(H(\omega_2), <^*)$ where $<^*$ is some well-ordering of $H(\omega_2)$. Define *small nodes* and *transitive nodes* respectively as $$\mathcal{S}=_{def}\{M \in [K]^\omega: M\prec K\}$$ and $$\mathcal{T}=_{def}\{W\in [K]^{\omega_1} : W\prec K\text{ and internally approachable of length }\omega_1\}.$$ Here $W\prec K$ is *internally approachable of length $\omega_1$* if there exists a continuous $\subseteq$-increasing countable sequence $\langle W_i \prec K: i<\omega_1\rangle$ such that $W=\bigcup_{i<\omega_1} W_i$ and for all $i<\omega_1$, $\langle W_j: j\leq i\rangle\in W_{i+1}$.
Both sets are stationary in $K$ respectively. Let $\mathbb{P}=\mathbb{P}_{\omega,\omega_1,\mathcal{S}, \mathcal{T}}$ be the standard sequence poset consisting of models of two types. More precisely, $\mathbb{P}$ consists of finite increasing $\in$-chain of elements in $\mathcal{S}\cup \mathcal{T}$ closed under intersection. For example, a typical element will look like $\{s_0, s_1, \cdots, s_{k-1}\}\subset \mathcal{S}\cup \mathcal{T}$, where for any $i<k-1$, $s_i\in s_{i+1}$ and for any $i,j<k$, there is some $l<k$ satisfying $s_i\cap s_j=s_l$. Notice that we can either think of a condition as a finite sequence or as a finite set, since the elements in a condition can be naturally ordered by their Von Neumann ranks. Thus, given a condition $s$ and $M, M'\in s$, we say $M$ *precedes/is before (succeeds/is after)* $M'$ when the rank of $M$ is smaller (greater) than the rank of $M'$.
\[elaborate\] In order to consolidate the reader’s understanding of the notion, we point out the following:
1. If $M_0\in \mathcal{S}, M_1\in \mathcal{S}\cup \mathcal{T}$ and $M_0\in M_1$, then $M_0\subset M_1$. However, if $W\in \mathcal{T}$ and $M\in \mathcal{S}$ satisfy $W\in M$, it cannot be the case that $W\subset M$. Hence, in general the membership relation $\in$ restricted on a condition in $\mathbb{P}$ is not transitive.
2. If $W\in \mathcal{T}$ and $M\in \mathcal{S}$ satisfy that $W\in M$, then $W\cap M\in \mathcal{S}\cap W$. Let $\langle W_i: i<\omega\rangle$ be the $<^*$-least sequence witnessing that $W$ is internally approachable of length $\omega_1$. Let $M\cap \omega_1=\delta$. We claim that $M\cap W=W_\delta$. On the one hand, we have $\langle W_i: i<\omega\rangle\in M$ which implies $\bigcup_{i<\delta}W_i= W_\delta\subset M$. On the other hand, suppose $x\in M\cap W$, then if $i_x\in \omega_1$ is the least such that $x\in W_{i_x}$, we know $i_x\in M$ by elementarity. Hence $i_x\in \delta$, which implies $x\in W_\delta$.
3. If $s\in \mathbb{P}$ and $W\in s\cap \mathcal{T}$, then any $M\in s$ preceding $W$, $M\in W$. If $M_0, M_1\in s\cap \mathcal{S}$ such that there is no transitive node in $s$ between $M_0$ and $M_1$, then $M_0\in M_1$.
It is not necessary for a reader to be familiar with [@MR3201836] in order to understand the following proof since we will list all the lemmas needed.
\[residuegap\] Fix $s\in \mathbb{P}$ and $Q\in s$. Define $res_Q(s)=s\cap Q$. Then
1. $res_Q(s)\in \mathbb{P}$.
2. If $Q$ is a transitive node, then $res_Q(s)$ consists of all nodes of $s$ that occur before $Q$. If $Q$ is a small node, then $res_Q(s)$ consists of all nodes in $s$ that occur before $Q$ and do not belong to any interval $[Q\cap W, W)\cap s$ for any transitive node $W\in s$. Those intervals are called *residue gaps* of $s$ in $Q$.
Do not confuse $res_Q(s)$ with the set of nodes in $s$ preceding $Q$. The point of (1) is that the part of information about $s$ that is captured by $Q$ is itself a legitimate condition. The fact that $res_Q(s)$ is closed under intersection is immediate since $s$ is. It takes a little work to show it forms an $\in$-increasing chain.
The second part of the claim describes what $res_Q(s)$ looks like in a very concrete way. For any $W\in \mathcal{T}\cap s$, $[Q\cap W, W)\cap s \cap Q$ must be empty. It takes more work to show that any $M\in s-Q$, there exists one such residue gap containing $M$.
\[strongproperness\] Let $s\in \mathbb{P}$ and $Q\in s$. For any $t\in \mathbb{P}\cap Q$ such that $t\leq res_Q(s)=_{def}s\cap Q\in \mathbb{P}$. Then
1. $s$ and $t$ are directly compatible, namely the closure of $s\cup t$ under intersection is a common lower bound. Moreover, if $Q$ is a transitive node, then $s\cup t$ is already closed under intersection hence is the lower bound for $s$ and $t$.
2. If $r$ is the closure of $s\cup t$, then $res_Q(r)=t$.
An immediate corollary is that that if $Q\in \mathcal{S}$ contains $s\in Q\cap \mathbb{Q}$, then the closure of $s\cup \{M\}$ under intersection is a greatest lower bound of $s$ containing $Q$. The basic idea of the proof is that: first verify that $s\cup t$ consists of $\in$-increasing nodes, and then show that this property remains even after we add nodes of the form $M_0\cap M_1$ where $M_0\in s, M_1\in t$.
For each $\beta<\omega_2$, let $f_\beta$ be the $<^*$-least injection from $\beta$ to $\omega_1$. Define the main forcing $\mathbb{Q}$ to consist of $p=(c_p, s_p)$ such that:
1. $c_p$ is a finite partial function from $[\omega_2]^2\to \omega_1$ satisfying the *bounding requirement*, namely there do not exist $\alpha_0<\alpha_1<\alpha_2<\beta$ such that $(\alpha_i,\beta)\in dom(c_p)$ for all $i<3$ and $c_p(\alpha_0,\beta)=c_p(\alpha_1,\beta)=c_p(\alpha_2,\beta)$;
2. for any $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_p)$, $c_p(\alpha,\beta)\geq f_\beta(\alpha)$;
3. $s_p\in \mathbb{P}$;
4. if $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_p)$ and $M\in s_p$ contains $(\alpha,\beta)$, then $c_p(\alpha,\beta)\in M$.
$q\leq_{\mathbb{Q}} p$ iff $c_q\restriction dom(c_p)=c_p$ and $s_q \supset s_p$.
\[enlarge\] For any $\alpha<\beta<\omega_2$ and $p\in \mathbb{Q}$, there exists $p'\leq p$ such that $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_{p'})$.
We may assume $(\alpha,\beta)\not \in dom(c_p)$. Let $\delta\leq\omega_1$ be the least such that there is some $M\in s\cap \mathcal{S}$ containing $(\alpha,\beta)$ such that $\delta=M\cap \omega_1$ if it exists, $\delta=\omega_1$ if no such node exists. In any case, we have $\delta$ is a limit ordinal and $f_\beta(\alpha)\in \delta$. Pick $\delta\backslash (f_\beta(\alpha)+1)$ which is not in $range(c_p)$. It is clear that $(c_p\cup (\{\alpha,\beta\},\gamma), s_p)$ is a desired extension.
Let $\lambda$ be a fixed regular cardinal, $P$ be a poset. Let $\mathcal{M}=(H(\lambda), \in , \cdots)$ be some countable extension of $(H(\lambda), \in )$. We say $P$ is strongly proper for $B$ where $B\subset \{M: M\prec \mathcal{M}\}$ if for any $M\in B$ and any $r\in M\cap P$, there exists $r'\leq r$ such that $r'$ is *strongly $(M,P)$-generic*, namely for any $r''\leq r'$, there exists some $r^* \in M\cap P$ such that any $t\leq r^*$ with $t\in M$ is compatible with $r''$. We call such $r^*$ a *reduct* of $r''$ on $M$ and for the rest of the section we will use $r''\restriction M$ to represent one such reduct of $r''$ on $M$.
$P$ is strongly proper if for all sufficiently large regular $\theta$, $P$ is strongly proper for a club subset of $\{M\in [H(\theta)]^\omega: M\prec H(\theta)\}$.
\[StrongPropernessTransitive\] For any $p=(c_p, s_p)$ with a transitive node $W\in s_p$, if $t\leq (c_p\cap W, res_W(s_p))$ and $t\in W$, then $t$ and $p$ are compatible. In particular, $\mathbb{Q}$ is strongly proper for $\mathcal{T}$.
Implicitly in the statement of the claim, $(c_p\cap W, res_W(s_p))$ can be easily checked to be a condition. It is left to check that $r=(c_t\cup c_p, s_p\cup s_t)$ is a condition since it is clear that it extends $t$ and $p$. First note that $s_p\cup s_t \in \mathbb{P}$ and $\leq_\mathbb{P}$-extends $s_p$ and $s_t$ by Lemma \[strongproperness\]. It is also clear that $c_t\cup c_p$ is a function that satisfies the bounding requirement. We are left with checking condition (4) as in the definition of $\mathbb{Q}$. Given $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_r)$ and $M\in s_r$, if $(\alpha,\beta)\in M$, we need to show $c_r(\alpha,\beta)\in M$. Since $t$ and $p$ are conditions, the following cases are what we need to check:
- $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_p)-dom(c_t)$ and $M\in s_t-s_p$,
- $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_t)-dom(c_p)$ and $M\in s_p-s_t$.
If $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_p)-dom(c_t)$, $(\alpha,\beta)\not \in W$ so $(\alpha,\beta)\not \in M$ for any $M\in s_t$ as $t\in W$ and $W$ is transitive. If $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_t)-dom(c_p)$ and $M\in s_p-s_t$ containing $(\alpha,\beta)$, then $M\cap W\in s_p\cap W\subset s_t$. As $t$ is a condition, we have $c_t(\alpha,\beta)\in M\cap W\subset M$.
To see $\mathbb{Q}$ is strongly proper for $\mathcal{T}$, it suffices to notice that for any $W\in \mathcal{T}$ and $t=(c_t,s_t)\in W\cap \mathbb{Q}$, there exists $t'=(c_t, s_t')\leq t$ such that $W\in s_t'$ by Lemma \[strongproperness\].
\[StrongPropernessCountable\] For any countable $M^*\prec H(\lambda)$ for some large enough regular $\lambda$ containing $\mathbb{Q}, K$, if $r\in \mathbb{Q}$ satisfies that $M^*\cap K\in s_r$, then $r$ is strongly $(M^*, \mathbb{Q})$-generic. In particular, $\mathbb{Q}$ is strongly proper.
Let $M=M^*\cap K$. We need to show for any $r'\leq r$, there exists $r'\restriction M\in M\cap \mathbb{Q}$ weaker than $r'$, such that any extension of $r'\restriction M$ in $M$ is compatible with $r'$. Let $r'\restriction M$ be $(c_{r'} \cap M, res_M(s_{r'}))$. It is easy to see that $r'\restriction M$ is a condition weaker than $r'$.
Let $t\in \mathbb{Q}\cap M$ be such that such that $t\leq r'\restriction M$. As $s_t\leq res_M(s_{r'})$ and $s_t\in M$, we know by Lemma \[strongproperness\] there exists $s^*\leq s_t, s_{r'}$ such that $res_M(s^*)=s_t$. Furthermore, we may assume $s^*$ is the closure of $s_{r'}\cup s_t$ under intersection. Let $h=_{def}(c_t\cup c_{r'}, s^*)$. We will check that $h$ is a condition.
First we check that $c_t\cup c_{r'}$ is a function that satisfies the bounding requirement. To see it is a function, let $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_t)\cap dom(c_{r'})$, then $(\alpha,\beta)\in M$. Since $c_t\supset c_{r'}\restriction M$, we know $c_t(\alpha,\beta)=c_{r'}(\alpha,\beta)$. To see $c_t\cup c_{r'}$ is 2-bounded, suppose for the sake of contradiction, $\alpha_0<\alpha_1<\alpha_2<\beta$ are such that $c_h(\alpha_0,\beta)=c_h(\alpha_1,\beta)=c_h(\alpha_2,\beta)=\gamma\in \omega_1$. Note that there exists some $i<3$ such that $(\alpha_i, \beta)\in M$ since otherwise $(\alpha_k,\beta)\in dom(c_{r'})$ for all $k<3$, which contradicts with the fact that $r'$ is a condition. Also notice that $c_t(\alpha_i,\beta)=\gamma\in M$. By the requirement of a condition we know $f_\beta (\alpha_j)\leq \gamma$ for all $j<3$. But as $\gamma\in M$, $\gamma\subset M$, we know $\alpha_j\in M$ for all $j<3$. This means these three tuples are all in the domain of $c_t$. This is a contradiction to the fact that $t$ is a condition.
Finally we check condition (4) in the definition of $\mathbb{Q}$. Given $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(h)$ and $N\in s_h$, if $(\alpha,\beta)\in N$, then we need to verify $c_h(\alpha,\beta)\in N$. Recall that each element of $s_h$ is of the form $M_0\cap M_1$, $M_0$ or $M_1$ where $M_0\in s_{r'}, M_1\in s_t$. Hence, since $r'$ and $t$ are conditions, the cases we need to verify are:
- $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_{r'})-dom(c_{t})$ and $N\in s_{t}-s_{r'}$ and
- $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_t)-dom(c_{r'})$ and $N\in s_{r'}-s_t$.
For $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_{r'})-dom(c_t)$ and $N\in s_t\cap \mathcal{S}-s_{r'}$, we know $(\alpha,\beta)\not\in M$ since otherwise, it would have been in $dom(c_{r'}\restriction M)\subset dom(c_t)$. But $s_t\in M$ since $t\in M$, which implies $N\in M$. Hence it is impossible to have $(\alpha,\beta)\in N$.
For $(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_t)-dom(c_{r'})$ and $N\in s_{r'}\cap \mathcal{S}-s_t$ such that $(\alpha,\beta)\in N$, since $(\alpha,\beta)\in M$ and $s_{r'}$ is closed under intersection, we may assume $N\subset M$. If $N=M$, then we are done since $c_h(\alpha,\beta)=c_{t}(\alpha,\beta)\in M$. If $N\in M$, then we are done since $t\leq r'\restriction M$. So assume $N\not \in M$. By Claim \[residuegap\], $N$ occurs in a residue gap, namely there exists $W\in M\cap s_{r'}$ such that $N\in [W\cap M, W)=_{def} \{M'\in s_{r'}: rank(W\cap M)\leq rank(M') < rank(W)\}$. We will show $c_h(\alpha,\beta)\in N$ by inducting on the rank of $N$. As $(\alpha,\beta)\in N\subset W$, $(\alpha,\beta)\in M\cap W$. Also $c_h(\alpha,\beta)\in M\cap W$. If there is no transitive node between $W\cap M$ and $N$, then we are done since $W\cap M\subset N$ (recall that $s_{r'}$ is linearly ordered by $\in$ and Remark \[elaborate\]). Otherwise, there exists $W'\in [W\cap M, N)\cap \mathcal{T}$. Let $N'= W'\cap N$. Then $rank(N')<rank(N)$. Since $(\alpha,\beta)\in N'$, by the induction hypothesis, we know that $c_h(\alpha,\beta)\in N' \subset N$.
To see $\mathbb{Q}$ is strongly proper, for any condition $p$, for sufficiently large regular cardinal $\lambda$, we can find $M^*\prec H(\lambda)$ containing $p, K, \mathbb{Q}$. Then $p'=(c_p, cl(s_p\cup \{M^*\cap K\}))$ is a strongly $(M^*, \mathbb{Q})$-generic extension of $p$ by Lemma \[strongproperness\], where $cl(s_p\cup \{M^*\cap K\})$ denotes the closure of $s_p\cup \{M^*\cap K\}$ by intersection.
By Claim \[StrongPropernessCountable\] and Claim \[StrongPropernessTransitive\], $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ are preserved in the forcing extension by $\mathbb{Q}$.
\[borrow\] For $\alpha_0<\alpha_1<\beta<\omega_2$ and $p\in \mathbb{Q}$, if $(\alpha_i,\beta)\not \in dom(c_p)$ for any $i<2$ and
$$\forall M\in s_p \ (\alpha_0,\beta)\in M \Leftrightarrow (\alpha_1,\beta)\in M$$
Then there exists an extension $p'=(c_{p'}, s_p)$ with the same side condition such that $(\alpha_0,\beta), (\alpha_1,\beta)\in dom(c_{p'})$ and $c_{p'}(\alpha_0,\beta)=c_{p'}(\alpha_1,\beta)$. Furthermore, we can ensure that $dom(c_{p'})=dom(c_p)\cup \{(\alpha_0,\beta),(\alpha_1,\beta)\}$.
Building on the idea of Lemma 4.6 in [@MR2902230], we prove a strengthened version in the following.
\[strengthen\] In $V^{\mathbb{Q}}$, for any strongly proper forcing $\dot{P}$, $\Vdash_{\dot{P}}$ $c$ witnesses $\omega_2^V\not\to^{poly} (\omega_1)^2_{2-bdd}$.
\[confuse\] More accurately, it is the coloring $c': [\omega_2]^2\to \omega_2$ such that $c'(\alpha,\beta)=(c(\alpha,\beta), \beta)$ that witnesses $\omega_2\not\to^{poly} (\omega_1)^2_{2-bdd}$. As it is clear from the context, we will continue to refer to $c$ as the witness in the following.
Suppose otherwise for the sake of contradiction. Let $r\in \mathbb{Q}$, $\mathbb{Q}$-name $\dot{p}, \dot{P}$, $\mathbb{Q}*\dot{P}$-name $\dot{X}$, $\gamma\in \omega^V_2+1$ such that
1. $r\Vdash_{\mathbb{Q}} \dot{P}$ is a strongly proper forcing and $\dot{p}\in \dot{P}$ and
2. $r\Vdash_{\mathbb{Q}} \dot{p}\Vdash_{\dot{P}} \sup \dot{X}=\gamma, \dot{X}$ is a rainbow subset for $c$ of order type $\omega_1$.
Note that we include the possibility that $\gamma=\omega_2^V$ since it may be collapsed by $\mathbb{Q}*\dot{P}$. In either case, $cf(\gamma)>\omega$.
Let $G\subset \mathbb{Q}$ containing $r$ be generic over $V$. Fix some sufficiently large regular cardinal $\lambda$ and let $C=(\dot{C})^G\subset ([H(\lambda)]^\omega)^{V[G]}$ be a club that witnesses the strong properness of $P$ in $V[G]$.
For any stationary subset $T\subset [H(\lambda)]^\omega$ in $V$, $T[G]=_{def} \{M[G]: M\in T\}$ is a stationary subset of $([H(\lambda)]^\omega)^{V[G]}$.
In $V[G]$, let $f: H(\lambda)^{<\omega} \to H(\lambda)$. In $V$, let $\lambda^*$ be much larger regular cardinal than $\lambda$ and $M'\prec H(\lambda^*)$ containing $\dot{f}, H(\lambda)$ be such that $M=M'\cap H(\lambda)\in T$. Then $M[G]$ is closed under $f$, since for any $\bar{a}\in M[G]\cap [H(\lambda)^{V[G]}]^{<\omega} $, $f(a)\in M'[G]\cap (H(\lambda))^{V[G]} =M'[G]\cap H(\lambda)[G]=(M'\cap H(\lambda))[G]$. The last equality holds since for any $\dot{\tau}\in M', \dot{\sigma}\in H(\lambda)$ such that $(\dot{\tau})^G=(\dot{\sigma})^G$, by the fact that $M'[G]\prec H(\lambda^*)[G]$, $M'[G]\models $ there exists $\dot{\sigma}\in H(\lambda)^V$, $\dot{\tau}^G=\dot{\sigma}^G$. It is easy to see this is sufficient since $M'[G]\cap H(\lambda)^V=M'\cap H(\lambda)^V$.
Find a countable $N'\in V$ such that $N'\prec H(\lambda)^V$ contains $r,\mathbb{Q}, \dot{p}, \dot{P}, \dot{X},\gamma$. Moreover, $N=_{def} N' \cap K \in \mathcal{S}$ and $N'[G]\in C$.
Let $\gamma'=\sup N\cap \gamma$. Extend $r$ to $t$ such that $N\in s_t$ by Lemma \[strongproperness\]. Consequently, $t$ is strongly $(N', \mathbb{Q})$-generic. Find $t'\leq_{\mathbb{Q}} t$, $\beta\in [\gamma', \gamma)$ and $\mathbb{Q}$-names $\dot{p}'$, $\dot{q}$ such that $\dot{q} \in N'$ and $t'\Vdash_{\mathbb{Q}} \dot{p}'$ is strongly $(N'[\dot{G}], \dot{P})$-generic and $\dot{p}'\leq_{\dot{P}}\dot{p}$, $\dot{p}'\restriction N'[\dot{G}]=\dot{q}$ and $\dot{p}'\Vdash_{\dot{P}} \beta\in \dot{X}$. Let $m=|t'|<\omega$.
Now consider $D=\{a\leq_{\mathbb{Q}} t'\restriction N': \exists \dot{b} \ a\Vdash_{\mathbb{Q}} \dot{b}\leq_{\dot{P}} \dot{q}, \exists \alpha_0<\cdots <\alpha_{2^m} \ \dot{b}\Vdash_{\dot{P}} \forall i\leq 2^m \ \alpha_i\in \dot{X}\}$. This set is dense below $t'\restriction N'$ and is in $N'$. Pick $a\in D\cap N'$ and $\dot{b}, \alpha_0,\cdots, \alpha_{2^m} \in N'$ as its witness. By the Pigeonhole principle, there exist $i\neq j\leq 2^m$ such that for any $M \in \mathcal{S}\cap s_{t'}$, $(\alpha_i,\beta)\in M$ iff $(\alpha_j,\beta)\in M$. Apply Lemma \[borrow\], there exists $t''\leq t'$ such that $c_{t''}(\alpha_i,\beta)=c_{t''}(\alpha_j,\beta)$ with $s_{t''}=s_{t'}$ and $dom(c_{t''})=dom(c_{t'})\cup \{(\alpha_i,\beta), (\alpha_j,\beta)\}$. As $a\leq_{\mathbb{Q}} t'\restriction N'=t''\restriction N'$, $a$ and $t''$ are compatible. Find a common lower bound $t'''\leq_{\mathbb{Q}} a, t''$. Then $t'''\Vdash_{\mathbb{Q}}\dot{b}\leq_{\dot{P}} \dot{q}=\dot{p}'\restriction N'[\dot{G}]$ and $\dot{b}\in N'[\dot{G}]$. Hence $t'''$ forces $\dot{b}$ and $\dot{p}'$ are compatible. Let $\dot{w}$ be a common lower bound. Then $(t''', \dot{w})$ forces $c(\alpha_i,\beta)=c(\alpha_j,\beta)$ as well as $\alpha_i, \alpha_j, \beta\in \dot{X}$. This is a contradiction since $(t''',\dot{w})\leq_{\mathbb{Q}*\dot{P}} (r,\dot{p})$ and $(r,\dot{p}) \Vdash _{\mathbb{Q}*\dot{P}} \dot{X}$ is a rainbow subset for $c$.
An immediate consequence is $\omega_2\not\to^{poly} (\omega_1)^2_{2-bdd}$ is consistent with the continuum being arbitrarily large as Cohen forcings are strongly proper. This provides an alternative answer to a question in [@MR2902230], which was originally answered in [@MR3437648] using a different method.
However In this model, there exists a c.c.c forcing that forces a rainbow subset into $c\restriction [\omega_1]^2$. In $V^{\mathbb{Q}}$, let $R$ be the poset $\{a\in [\omega_1]^{<\omega}: a \text{ is a rainbow subset for }c\}$ order by reverse inclusion. By Remark \[confuse\], $a\in [\omega_1]^{<\omega}$ is a rainbow subset for $c$ if there is no $\alpha_0<\alpha_1<\beta \in c$ such that $c(\alpha_0,\beta)=c(\alpha_1,\beta)$. It is easy to see that in $V^{\mathbb{Q}}$, $R$ adds an unbounded subset of $\omega_1^V$.
In $V^{\mathbb{Q}}$, $R$ is c.c.c.
Otherwise, let $\langle \dot{\tau}_i: i<\omega\rangle$ be a head-tail-tail system with root $r\in [\omega_1]^{<\omega}$ that is forced to be an uncountable antichain by $p$. Let $N'\prec H(\lambda)$ contain relevant objects for some sufficiently large regular cardinal $\lambda$. Let $\delta=N'\cap \omega_1$. Let $q\leq p$ be a strongly $(N',\mathbb{Q})$-generic condition that determines some $\dot{\tau}_j=h$ such that $\min (h-r)\geq \delta$. Let $q'=q\restriction N'$. Find $t\leq q'$ in $N'$ such that $t$ decides some $\dot{\tau}_i = h' \in N'$ such that $\min (h'-r)\geq \max_{(\alpha,\beta)\in dom(c_q)\cap N'} \max \{\alpha,\beta\} +1$. Now we extend $q$ to $q^*$ such that $s_{q}=s_{q^*}$ and $dom(c_{q^*})$ includes $h'\times h$ such that $c_{q^*} [(h'-r)\times (h-r)] \cap (\delta\cup range(c_q))=\emptyset$, $c_{q^*}\restriction (h'-r)\times (h-r)$ is injective and $q^*\restriction N' = q'$. To see that we can do this, enumerate $(h'-r)\times (h-r)$ as $\{(\alpha_i,\beta_i): i<k\}$. We inductively add $(\alpha_i,\beta_i)$ to $c_q$ by Claim \[enlarge\] while maintaining the other requirements. More precisely, suppose we have added $(\alpha_j,\beta_j)$ to the domain of $c_p$ for $j<i$. Let $M\in s_p$ be of the minimum rank such that $(\alpha_i,\beta_i)\in M$. Then $M\cap \omega_1>\max\{\delta, f_{\beta_i}(\alpha_i)\}$. Hence we only need to avoid finitely many elements in $M\cap \omega_1-(\max\{\delta, f_{\beta_i}(\alpha_i)\}+1)$, which is clearly possible. $q^*$ is compatible with $t$ since $t\leq q'=q^*\restriction N'$ and $q^*\leq q$ which is strongly $(N',\mathbb{Q})$-generic. But a common extension of $q^*$ and $t$ forces that $\dot{\tau}_i \cup \dot{\tau}_j$ is rainbow. We have reached the desired contradiction.
Similarly, if we force with finite rainbow subsets of $\omega_2$, then we will add a rainbow subset of size $\aleph_2$ for $c$ in a c.c.c forcing extension.
Some remarks and questions on partition relations of triples {#generalization}
============================================================
Recall that Todorcevic in [@MR716846] showed that it is consistent that $\omega_1\to^{poly} (\omega_1)_{<\omega-bdd}^2$. In fact, he showed a stronger conclusion, namely for any $<\omega$-bounded coloring on $[\omega_1]^2$, it is always possible to partition $\omega_1$ into countably many rainbow subsets. The plain generalization of this result to 3-dimensional case fails miserably.
$\omega_1\not \to^{poly} (4)^3_{<\omega-bdd}$.
Fix $a: [\omega_1]^2\to \omega$ such that for each $\alpha<\omega_1$, $a(\cdot, \alpha)$ is an injection from $\alpha$ to $\omega$. Define $f: [\omega_1]^3\to \omega$ such that $\{\alpha,\beta,\gamma\}_{<}$ is defined to be $\max \{a(\alpha,\gamma), a(\beta,\gamma)\}\in \omega$. Now define $g: [\omega_1]^3\to \omega_1$ to be $g(\{\alpha,\beta,\gamma\})=(f(\{\alpha,\beta,\gamma\}),\gamma)$. Note $g$ is $<\omega$-bounded, since for each $\gamma\in \omega$, there are only finitely many $\alpha<\gamma$ such that $a(\alpha,\gamma)<n$. For any $A=\{\alpha_0<\alpha_1<\alpha_2<\alpha_3\}\subset \omega_1$ of size 4, pick $i<3$ such that for any $j<3$ and $j\neq i$, $a(\alpha_j,\alpha_3)<a(\alpha_i,\alpha_3)=n$. Say $i=0$ for the sake of demonstration. Then $\{\alpha_0, \alpha_1,\alpha_3\}$ and $\{\alpha_0, \alpha_2,\alpha_3\}$ get the same color $(n,\gamma)$.
There are various limitations on Ramsey Theorems for higher dimensions. For example, $2^\omega \not\to (\omega+2)^3_2$. Hence we need other methods to prove higher dimensional rainbow Ramsey theorems.
Given a 2-bounded normal coloring $f$ on $[\delta]^3$, let us try to classify what types of obstacles there are for getting a rainbow subset.
1. for some $\alpha,\beta,\alpha',\beta'<\gamma$ such that $\{\alpha,\beta\}\cap \{\alpha',\beta'\}=\emptyset$ and $f(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=f(\alpha',\beta',\gamma)$
2. for some $\alpha<\beta<\gamma<\delta$, $f(\alpha,\gamma, \delta)=f(\alpha,\beta, \delta)$
3. for some $\alpha<\beta<\gamma<\delta$, $f(\alpha,\beta,\delta)=f(\beta,\gamma,\delta)$
4. for some $\alpha<\beta<\gamma<\delta$, $f(\alpha,\gamma,\delta)=f(\beta,\gamma,\delta)$.
By repeatedly applying the Ramsey theorem on $\omega$ to eliminate bad tuples of the 4 types above, one can show $\omega_1\to^{poly} (\omega+k)^3_{l-bdd}$ for any $k,l\in \omega$. This is already in contrast with the dual statements in Ramsey theory.
Can we prove in ZFC that $\omega_1\to^{poly} (\alpha)^3_{2-bdd}$ for any $\alpha<\omega_1$?
Is $\omega_1\to^{poly} (\omega_1)^3_{2-bdd}$ consistent? Is it a consequence of $\mathrm{PFA}$?
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Department of Mathematics,\
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 5290002, Israel</span>
*E-mail*: `[email protected]`
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present complete one-loop radiative corrections to the decay rate of a top quark into a charged Higgs boson and a bottom quark, and for the decay of a charged Higgs boson into leptons. The results are discussed in the framework of the two Higgs boson extension of the Standard Model suggested by supersymmetry. The effect of electroweak corrections after exclusion of universal corrections $\Delta r$ is found to decrease the partial width of the top quark typically by 5%.'
---
[Alberta Thy-29-93]{}\
[June 1993]{}\
[**Electroweak corrections to decays involving a charged Higgs boson**]{}
[Andrzej Czarnecki[^1]]{}\
PACS numbers: 12.15.Cc, 12.15.Ji, 14.80.Gt
Introduction
============
Due to the expected large mass of the top quark and its possible large Yukawa coupling to Higgs bosons, decays of this particle (once it is observed, presumably at the Tevatron) can give us an insight into the Higgs sector and the mechanism of mass generation. A topic of particular importance is the number of Higgs doublets. The supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model, for example, predicts existence of at least two Higgs doublets. In such scenarios, in addition to the charged Goldstone boson of the standard electroweak theory there would be a physical charged scalar particle $H^\pm$. Its presence could influence the rate of top quark decay and even open up a new decay channel.
If the charged Higgs boson is heavier than the top quark, its effect on the decay rate of the top will only be in the virtual corrections to the standard process $t\rightarrow W^+ b$. This has been examined in ref. [@hollik; @denner], and in some models the effect was found to be large, of the order of several percent. On the other hand, if the decay of the top into the charged Higgs and a bottom quark is kinematically allowed, it can become the dominant decay channel, especially if the ratio of vacuum expectation values of the two doublets is such that the Yukawa coupling to the top is not suppressed. It is this scenario that is the topic of the present work. We examine the effects of first order electroweak corrections on the width of the decay $t\rightarrow H^+ b$ in the two Higgs doublet extension of the Standard Model suggested by supersymmetry [@b272; @hunter]. In this model one of the Higgs fields, $H_1$, is responsible for giving masses to down-quarks, and the other one, $H_2$ - to up-quarks. The ratio of the expectation values of these two fields is denoted by $\tan\beta=v_2/v_1$. In the present paper we consider the range of small values of $\tan\beta$, in which the mass of the bottom quark can be safely neglected, which considerably simplifies the calculations.
Radiative corrections to the decay $t\rightarrow H^+ b$ have been subject of several recent publications. The QCD corrections have been studied in ref. [@liuyao90; @liyuan90]. An analysis of effects of the mass of the $b$ quark and a comparison of corrections to the main decay channels $t\rightarrow H^+ b$ and $t\rightarrow W^+ b$ has been done in ref. [@sa92b], where further references on this subject can be found.
In the electroweak sector the corrections have been studied only to the order $O(\alpha m_t^2/m_W^2)$. They have been calculated in ref. [@csli93] and further analyzed in [@diaz93]. Such corrections would be dominant if the top quark was much heavier than the $W$ boson. However in view of the expected mass of the top quark of the order of $(1.5 - 2) m_W$ it is important to compute also the remaining corrections not involving the top quark mass, as well as the effect of real photon radiation.
This paper is organized as follows: the next section explains the renormalization scheme and various kinds of corrections. Section \[sec:cancel\] discusses cancellation of infrared and ultraviolet divergences, especially the quadratic ones. Calculation of virtual corrections to vertices and evaluation of the bremsstrahlung are explained in sections \[sec:vertex\] and \[sec:real\] . Section \[sec:results\] presents final results; previously unpublished formulas for renormalization constants are collected in the Appendix.
Renormalization scheme
======================
At the tree level the decay rate for is obtained from the Feynman rule for the $tbH^+$ vertex: i [e m\_t m\_W s\_W]{}|b [R]{} t, where we have taken the relevant element of the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix to be equal 1 (and neglected the effect of the $b$ quark mass). R denotes the right chiral projection operator $(1+\gamma_5)/2$. We use $m_W$ and $m_Z$ as input parameters and define $c_W^2=1-s_W^2=m_W^2/m_Z^2$. The resulting rate of the decay is: \^[(0)]{}( )= [m\_t\^316m\_W\^2 s\_W\^2 ]{} \^2( 1- [m\_[H\^+]{}\^2 m\_t\^2 ]{} )\^2. Electroweak corrections modify the values of parameters in the vertex: the coupling constant $e$, masses $m_W$, $m_Z$ and $m_t$, and the angle $\beta$. It is also necessary to calculate effects of the real photon radiation, virtual corrections to the vertex (triangle diagrams) and the renormalization of wave functions of the charged Higgs and of the quarks $t$ and $b$. On the one loop level there are also contributions from the mixing of the charged Higgs with the $W$ boson. Finally, since we are going to work in the ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge, we have to include the mixing between $H^+$ and the charged Goldstone boson $G^+$. The one loop correction to the decay rate can be written in the following form: \^[(1)]{} ()=2\^[(0)]{} ()([ee]{}-[s\_Ws\_W]{} +.[m\_tm\_t]{}- [m\_Wm\_W]{}+\
. +[12]{}\^t\_[REAL]{} +\^t\_+[12]{}Z\^L\_b+[12]{}Z\^R\_t+ [12]{}Z\_H+\^t\_[MIX]{}). \[topcc\] $\delta^t_{REAL}$, $\delta^t_\Delta$ and $\delta^t_{MIX}$ denote contributions of the real photon radiation, triangle diagrams and mixing of $H^+$ with $W^+$ and with $G^+$ respectively. For the renormalization of the angle $\beta$ we employ the prescription introduced by Méndez and Pomarol [@mend91; @mend92], with a small modification. It is assumed that the value of $\beta$ will be extracted from the leptonic decay channel of the charged Higgs boson. Since the coupling is proportional to the mass, the dominant decay will be into a $\tau$ lepton and its neutrino. The renormalization of the angle $\beta$ is fixed by the condition that radiative corrections to the vertex $\tau\nu_\tau H$ vanish. However, the renormalization constant for $\beta$ defined in this way is infrared divergent; this problem was not addressed in the original papers [@mend91; @mend92], because only the fermionic loop corrections were discussed there. The infrared divergence could also be removed in the suitable process of extracting the value of the $\beta$ angle from the experimental measurement of the decay width of the charged Higgs boson. For the purpose of the current calculation it is convenient to include the effect of the real photon radiation in definition of $\delta\beta$. The one loop correction to the decay rate of the charged Higgs into tau and the neutrino can be written in analogy to the top decay:\
&& . - +[12]{}\^\_[REAL]{} +\^\_+[12]{}Z\^L\_+[12]{}Z\^R\_+ [12]{}Z\_H+\^\_[MIX]{}). The notation here is analogous to the formula (\[topcc\]). Since the coupling of the charged Higgs to leptons is proportional to $\tan\beta$, the effect of renormalization of $\beta$ has an opposite sign in the two decays under consideration. The reason for this is that in both cases we have only one fermion with non-negligible mass, but they have opposite values of the weak isospin.
The condition of vanishing of radiative corrections to the tau channel of the decay of the charged Higgs allows us to express the renormalization constant of the $\beta$ angle in terms of corrections to the $H\tau\nu_\tau$ vertex. This leads to the following formula for the relative correction to the rate :\
&=& 2(2[ee]{}-2[s\_Ws\_W]{} +.[m\_m\_]{}+[m\_tm\_t]{} -[m\_W\^2m\_W\^2]{}\
&& +[12]{}\^\_[REAL]{}+[12]{}\^t\_[REAL]{} +\^\_+\^t\_+[12]{}Z\^L\_+[12]{}Z\^R\_\
&& . +[12]{}Z\^L\_b+[12]{}Z\^R\_t +Z\_H+\^\_[MIX]{}+\^t\_[MIX]{}).
As will be seen later, the mixing can be described by one constant $\delta_{MIX}$ defined so that \^\_[MIX]{}+\^t\_[MIX]{}=[-m\_[H\^+]{}\^2 -m\_W\^2]{}\_[MIX]{}.
The renormalization of the electroweak parameters is done in the on-shell scheme of ref. [@boehm; @denner; @denn93]. In particular, for the weak coupling constant $e/s_W$ we have: -[s\_Ws\_W]{} &&Z\_e+[m\_Z\^22m\_Z\^2]{} -[m\_Z\^2-m\_W\^22(m\_Z\^2-m\_W\^2)]{}\
&=& [12]{} .[\^[AA]{}\_T(s)s]{}|\_[s=0]{} -[s\_Wc\_W]{}[\^[AZ]{}\_T(0)m\_Z\^2]{}+[m\_Z\^22m\_Z\^2]{} -[m\_Z\^2-m\_W\^22(m\_Z\^2-m\_W\^2)]{}. This leads to the final formula from which we are going to calculate the one loop corrections:\
&& +[12]{}\^\_[REAL]{}+[12]{}\^t\_[REAL]{} +\^\_+\^t\_+[12]{}Z\^L\_+[12]{}Z\^R\_\
&& . +[12]{}Z\^L\_b+[12]{}Z\^R\_t +Z\_H+[-m\_[H\^+]{}\^2 -m\_W\^2]{}\_[MIX]{} ). \[eq:deltag\] Many details and explicit formulas for some of the renormalization constants can be found in ref. [@hoang92]. There are no external Higgs particles in processes described in that reference, so the wave function renormalization of the charged Higgs boson and mixing with $W^+$ and Goldstone boson was not included. The relevant formulas can be found in the appendix of the present work.
Remarks on cancellation of divergences {#sec:cancel}
======================================
In the calculation of electroweak corrections to decays and $H^-
\rightarrow \tau \bar\nu_\tau$ one encounters three kinds of infinite quantities: infrared divergences, and logarithmic and quadratic ultraviolet divergences. The infrared divergent integrals result from the radiation of soft and collinear photons from external charged particles. They are cancelled in the calculation of the total decay rate by wave function renormalization constants of the Higgs boson and of fermions, as well as by corrections to the Higgs-fermion vertex. For the purpose of the present calculation the infrared divergence was regularized by introducing a small mass $\lambda$ of the photon. All phase space integrals relevant to this problem have been listed in ref. [@denn93].
The ultraviolet divergent integrals are regularized dimensionally. In this scheme, the quadratic divergences show up as poles at number of dimensions $n=2$. They originate from tadpole diagrams and from the fermionic loop contribution to charged Higgs - Goldstone boson mixing. Some individual non-tadpole diagrams in boson self energies also contain quadratic divergences, but the relevant sums of diagrams are free from them (in the ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge), just like in the Standard Model [@velt81]. Goldstone bosons are absent in the unitary gauge and there all the tadpole contributions cancel out. The problem is more delicate in the ’t Hooft-Feynman gauge, in which the present calculation is done[^2].
The different types of tadpole diagrams in the two Higgs doublet model are shown in figure (\[fig:tadpol\]). The external particle can be one of the CP even neutral Higgs bosons, $H^0$ or $h^0$. These diagrams contribute to mass renormalization of external fermions, to $\delta m_W$ and $\delta m_Z$, and to the mixing between the Higgs boson and Goldstone and $W$ bosons. The quadratic divergence from the fermionic loop in figure (\[fig:tadpol\]b) cancels the one from the fermionic contribution to the Higgs-Goldstone mixing shown in figure (\[fig:mixss\]a). The sum of contributions of the remaining, bosonic tadpole diagrams, is free from quadratic divergences. The logarithmic divergences of tadpole diagrams are cancelled by loop diagrams of Higgs-Goldstone boson mixing depicted in figures (\[fig:mixtad\]a) and (\[fig:mixss\]b,c). The sum of bosonic loops of Higgs-$W$ boson mixing is finite.
Vertex corrections {#sec:vertex}
==================
Electroweak corrections to vertices are of two kinds: there are modifications of the values of parameters determining the strength of the coupling and relations among them, and triangle diagrams. It is this second type which will be considered in this section. The basic types of triangle diagrams contributing to decays of the $t$ quark and the charged Higgs boson are depicted in figures (\[fig:topv\]) and (\[fig:tauv\]). Since the number of diagrams of is fairly large it is most convenient to employ the method of standard matrix elements (see ref. [@denn93] for a review and further references). The principle of this method is to calculate coefficients in a representation of an invariant matrix element in form of a sum over certain standard tensors, which depend only on the Lorentz structure of the process. In particular, in the case of scalar-fermion interaction, there are only two standard matrix elements: \^L&=&|u(p) L u(q),\
[M]{}\^R&=&|u(p) R u(q), where $L=(1-\gamma_5)/2$. Born amplitude of the decay of the Higgs boson into leptons is proportional to ${\cal M}^L$, and since on the level of one-loop corrections we need to compute only the interference of triangle and tree diagrams, it is sufficient to evaluate only the ${\cal M}^L$ component of the triangle diagrams.
----------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -------------------------------------------------------
Diagram
(Figure No.) X Y Z Residuum
\[fig:topv\](a) $ t $ $ H^+ $ $ H^0$ 0
\[fig:topv\](a) $ t $ $ H^+ $ $ h^0 $ 0
\[fig:topv\](a) $ t $ $ G^+ $ $ A^0 $ 0
\[fig:topv\](b) $ t $ $ H^+ $ $ \gamma $ 2/3
\[fig:topv\](b) $ t $ $ H^+ $ $ Z $ $-1/3 + s_W^2/(3 c_W^2) $
\[fig:topv\](c) $ t $ $ W^+ $ $ H^0 $ $-\sin\alpha\sin(\beta-\alpha)/(4s_W^2\cos\beta)$
\[fig:topv\](c) $ t $ $ W^+ $ $ h^0 $ $\cos\alpha\cos(\beta-\alpha)/(4s_W^2\cos\beta) $
\[fig:topv\](c) $ t $ $ W^+ $ $ A^0 $ $ 1/(4s_W^2) $
\[fig:topv\](c) $ b $ $ \gamma $ $ H^+ $ $ 1/3 $
\[fig:topv\](c) $ b $ $ Z $ $ H^+ $ $
(2s_W^2-3)(s_W^2-c_W^2)/(12s_W^2c_W^2)$
\[fig:topv\](d) $ \gamma $ $ b $ $ t $ $ -8/9 $
\[fig:topv\](d) $ Z $ $ b $ $ t $ $ (12-8 s_W^2)/(9 c_W^2) $
\[fig:tauv\](a) $\gamma$ $ \tau $ $H^-$ $ 1 $
\[fig:tauv\](a) $Z$ $\tau$ $H^-$ $ (s_W^2-c_W^2)/(2c_W^2)$
\[fig:tauv\](b) $W$ $\tau$ $H^0$ $ \cos\alpha
\sin(\beta-\alpha)/(4s_W^2\sin\beta) $
\[fig:tauv\](b) $W$ $\tau$ $h^0 $ $ \sin\alpha
\cos(\beta-\alpha)/(4s_W^2\sin\beta)$
\[fig:tauv\](b) $W$ $\tau$ $A^0$ $ 1/(4s_W^2) $
\[fig:tauv\](b) $Z$ $\nu_\tau$ $H^-$ $ (c_W^2-s_W^2)/(2s_Wc_W)^2$
\[fig:tauv\](c) $Z$ $\nu_\tau$ $\tau$ $ 2/c_W^2 $
----------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -------------------------------------------------------
: Particle contents of triangle diagrams. The last column shows the coefficient of ${\alpha\over 4\pi}{2\over 4-n}$ in $\delta^t_\Delta$ and $\delta^\tau_\Delta$.[]{data-label="tab:triang"}
Analogously, in the case of the top quark decay, we need the ${\cal M}^R$ part only. The resulting formulas are quite space consuming and will not be shown here, because in contrast to the two point functions their applicability in other contexts is rather limited. However, in Table \[tab:triang\] we list concrete particle assignments to the general diagrams of figures (\[fig:topv\]) and (\[fig:tauv\]) together with explicit expressions of their ultraviolet divergent parts.
Complete analytic formulas are obtained using [*FeynArts*]{} (also used to illustrate the present paper) and [ *FeynCalc*]{} [@feynarts; @feyncalc]. Fortran output of these programs is evaluated using the library [*FF*]{} [@ff].
Real photon radiation {#sec:real}
=====================
Triangle diagrams discussed in the previous section are infrared divergent due to exchange of soft photons. These divergences are cancelled by bremsstrahlung processes depicted in figures (\[fig:topreal\]) and (\[fig:taureal\]). These diagrams can be easily evaluated in terms of phase space integrals listed in ref. [@denn93]. We give here as an example an explicit formula for the width of the process $H^-\rightarrow
\tau\bar\nu_\tau\gamma$: (H\^-|\_) =[e\^4m\_\^2\^22\^7\^3s\_W\^2m\_[H\^-]{}m\_W\^2]{} (|[A]{}|\^2+|[B]{}|\^2+[A]{}\^\*[B]{}+[B]{}\^\*[A]{}), where ${\cal A}$ and ${\cal B}$ denote the amplitudes corresponding to diagrams in figure (\[fig:taureal\]), for which we have: |[A]{}|\^2&=& 4m\_[H\^-]{}\^2 (m\_\^2- m\_[H\^-]{}\^2) I\_[00]{} + 2( m\_\^2 - 3 m\_[H\^-]{}\^2 )I\_0 - 2 I,\
|[B]{}|\^2&=& 4m\_\^2 (m\_\^2 - m\_[H\^-]{}\^2) I\_[11]{} + 4 m\_\^2 I\_1 - 2 I - 2 I\_1\^0,\
[A]{}\^\* [B]{}+[B]{}\^\* [A]{}&=& 4( m\_\^4 - m\_[H\^-]{}\^4) I\_[01]{} +2( m\_\^2+ m\_[H\^-]{}\^2 ) I\_0 - 4 m\_[H\^-]{}\^2 I\_1+2I. Integrals $I$ are taken from ref. [@denn93], where explicit expressions can be found. Here we only quote the definition: I\^[j\_1,...,j\_m]{}\_[i\_1,...,i\_n]{}=[1\^2]{} \^[(4)]{}( p\_0-p\_1-p\_2-q ) [(2qp\_[j\_1]{})...(2qp\_[j\_m]{})(2qp\_[i\_1]{})...(2qp\_[i\_n]{})]{}, where we $q$, $p_0$, $p_1$ and $p_2$ denote momenta of the photon, Higgs boson, tau and neutrino respectively, and the signs should be chosen in the following way: minus sign if $i_k$ or $j_k$ is zero, plus in all other cases. Functions $I_{00}$, $I_{01}$ and $I_{11}$ contain infrared divergences, regularized by introducing a small mass of the photon $\lambda$. If the mass of neutral particle in the final state is small, the representation of these functions given in [@denn93] becomes numerically unstable and it is more convenient to use the corresponding formulas from ref. [@cza90].
Results and discussion {#sec:results}
======================
Following ref. [@denner; @hoang92], the electroweak correction can be expressed by comparing the one-loop decay width to the Born rate parameterized by Fermi coupling constant $G_F$ instead of the fine structure constant $\alpha$: \^[(0)]{}(G\_F)=[\^[(0)]{}()1-r]{}, where $\Delta r$ denotes radiative corrections to the muon decay, from which Fermi constant is determined. Such representation has the advantage of including large corrections due to fermion loops in the Born rate. In the present renormalization scheme, based on the condition of vanishing of radiative corrections to the $H^+\tau\nu_\tau$ vertex, the effect of coupling constant renormalization is doubled (see equation \[eq:deltag\]), and one ought to subtract $2\Delta r$ in order to cancel the fermion loop contribution from universal corrections. This is due to the fact that in order to avoid the artificially large corrections one has to parameterize [*both*]{} decay rates $\Gamma^0\left(
H^\pm\rightarrow \tau\nu_\tau\right)$ and $\Gamma^0\left(t\rightarrow
H^+b
\right)$ by $G_F$. At this point our analysis differs from ref. [@csli93]. For moderate values of $\tan\beta>1$ the corrections consist typically of -4% bosonic contributions and +7% from fermion loops. This last part is cancelled by subtraction of $\Delta r$, so that the fermionic contribution to the corrections becomes slightly negative. This can be seen in figure (\[fig:coranat\]).
Numerical evaluation of corrections to the decay width $\Gamma^{(0)}
(G_F)$ proceeds in the following way. The set of input parameters consists of $m_Z$, $G_F$, $\alpha$, masses of fermions and CKM matrix elements; values of them are taken from a recent review [@denn93]. All the numerical results are presented for mass of the top quark equal 140 GeV. In addition we need two parameters of the Higgs sector: we choose angle $\beta$ and mass of the charged Higgs boson. Masses of the remaining Higgs particles and angle $\alpha$ are found using the formulas of ref. [@hunter]. Mass of the $W$ boson is found by solving a nonlinear equation [@denner]: m\_W\^2(1-[m\_W\^2m\_Z\^2]{})=[ G\_F]{} [11-r]{}. Finally, using this value of $m_W$, we find $\Delta r$ and $\Delta\Gamma$. The resulting corrections $\overline{\Delta\Gamma}=\Delta\Gamma-2\Delta r$ are plotted as a function of mass of the charged Higgs boson in figure (\[fig:cormhp\]) and as function of $\tan\beta$ in (\[fig:cortanb\]).
Similarly to the case of the decay $t\rightarrow W^+b$ [@denner], the corrections become large when mass of the lighter CP even neutral Higgs boson $h^0$ is small. In particular, they diverge at the point $\tan\beta=1$ where $m_{h^0}=0$. This divergence should be cancelled by adding width of the decay $t\rightarrow
H^+bh^0$, just like the infrared divergence due to virtual photon exchange is cancelled by the real photon radiation. As $\tan\beta$ becomes larger (or smaller) than 1, mass of $h^0$ increases, and at the point where it reaches $m_{H^+}-m_{W^+}$, amplitudes of both decays $H^\pm\rightarrow \tau\nu_\tau$ and $t\rightarrow
H^+b$ have singularities which show up as discontinuities of the derivative of the one-loop decay rate and can be noticed on the diagrams; the value of $\tan\beta$ where this happens is close to 1 for light $H^+$, and gets further away as $H^+$ becomes heavier. The corresponding cusps on the diagrams are easier to recognize for $\tan\beta>1$, but they are present also in the region of $\tan\beta<1$.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The author thanks Professor A.N. Kamal for many helpful discussions and for clarifying the problem of $W$-Higgs-Goldstone boson mixing, and Dr. J. Pinfold for the opportunity to use the computing facilities of the Subatomic Research Center of the University of Alberta. It is a pleasure to acknowledge helpful correspondence with Dr. G.J. van Oldenborgh about his library FF. Many thanks go to B. Darian, S. Droz and J. MacKinnon for sharing their expertise in computing.
This research was supported by Killam Foundation and a Dissertation Fellowship of the University of Alberta, and by a grant to Professor A.N. Kamal from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Renormalization constants
=========================
In this Appendix we list those of renormalization constants of the 2 Higgs doublet model which have not been published so far. We first give expressions for the wave function renormalization of the charged Higgs boson and then analyze various contributions to the mixing of Higgs boson with $W$ and Goldstone boson $\delta_{MIX}$. The results are given in terms of standard Passarino-Veltman integrals [@pave], using the conventions of ref. [@denn93; @hoang92], where many useful properties of these functions have been collected.
The wave function renormalization constant of the charged Higgs boson gets contributions from diagrams with fermion, scalar and vector-scalar loops. To make the formula more compact it is convenient to introduce the notation: (m\_i,m\_j,m\_k)m\_i\^4+m\_j\^4+m\_k\^4 -2m\^2\_im\^2\_j-2m\^2\_im\^2\_k-2m\^2\_jm\^2\_k. The bosonic contributions to the renormalization constant $\delta
Z_H$ is:\
&& ( \_[HH\^0]{}\^2(-)+ \_[Hh\^0]{}\^2(-)+\_[HA\^0]{})\
&& . }\
&& +[(s\_W\^2-c\_W\^2)\^24s\_W\^2c\_W\^2]{}\
&& +2 B\_0(m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,m\_[H\^+]{},) +4m\_[H\^+]{}\^2B\_0\^(m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,m\_[H\^+]{},)\
&&-[m\_W\^2s\_W\^2]{}{ \^2 B\_0\^(m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,m\_[H\^+]{},m\_[H\^0]{}) .\
&& .. +\^2 B\_0\^(m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,m\_[H\^+]{},m\_[h\^0]{})}}. The contribution of one generation of quarks is: Z\_H\^[q]{} &=&[4]{}[N\_C2s\_W\^2m\_W\^2]{} { - ( m\_d\^2\^2+m\_u\^2\^2) B\_0(m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,m\_d,m\_u) .\
&& +\
&& . B\_0\^(m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,m\_d,m\_u) }. \[eq:zhq\] Finally, the contribution of a lepton-neutrino pair is obtained from the formula (\[eq:zhq\]) by taking $N_C=1$, $m_u=0$ and using: B\_0(s,0,m)= [1m\^2-s]{} { -[m\^2s]{} +1}. The result is: Z\_H\^[l]{} &=&[4]{}[m\^2\^22s\_W\^2 m\_W\^2]{}{ -[m\^2m\_[H\^+]{}\^2]{}.\
&&. +1-B\_0(m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,0,m) }. The contribution of bosons to mixing can be represented by the following formula:\
&&{ [(m\_H\^2-m\_W\^2)\^2m\_[H\^+]{}\^2]{} ( B\_0( m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,m\_H,m\_W )- B\_0( 0,m\_H,m\_W ) ) .\
&& . +(2m\_[H\^+]{}\^2+m\_H\^2-3m\_W\^2 ) B\_0( m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,m\_H,m\_W ) }\
&& +[m\_W\^22m\_[H\^+]{}\^2]{} { \_[H,H\^0]{}(-) ( (-)-[2(+)2c\_W\^2 ]{} ) .\
&& . - \_[H,h\^0]{}(-) ((-)+[2(+)2c\_W\^2 ]{}) }\
&& (m\_H\^2- m\_[H\^+]{}\^2)\
&& +[24c\_W\^2]{} ((-)(+)\_[H,H\^0]{} +(+)(-)\_[H,h\^0]{} )\
&& . ( m\_[H\^+]{}\^2-m\_H\^2) B\_0( m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,m\_H,m\_W) \]\
&& -[4]{}[18s\_W\^2c\_W\^2]{}{ 22.\
&& . +(c\_W\^2 22+s\_W\^2 22)}\
&& +[g2m\_W]{}. The last two lines in the above formula represent contributions of tadpole diagrams. Formulas for fermion loops are given below for $H-G$ and $H-W$ mixing separately:\
&&\
&& . +2m\_u\^2m\_d\^2(-) B\_0(m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,m\_u,m\_d)},\
\
&& . +m\_u\^2B\_0(m\_[H\^+]{}\^2,m\_u,m\_d)\].
of of line),
[10]{}
B. Grzdkowski and W. Hollik. Radiative corrections to the top quark width within two-[Higgs]{}-doublet models. , B384:101–112, 1992.
A. Denner and A.H. Hoang. The top decay [$t\rightarrow bW$]{} in the two [Higgs]{} doublet model. Karlsruhe preprint TTP 92-24, 1992.
J.F. Gunion and H.E. Haber. bosons in supersymmetric models ([I]{}). , B272:1–76, 1986. Errata: bulletin board [email protected]/9301205.
J. F. Gunion, H. E. Haber, G. Kane, and S. Dawson. . Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, 1990. Errata: bulletin board [email protected]/9302272.
J. Liu and Y. P. Yao. correction to heavy top exclusive decays. preprint UM-TH-90-09, 1990.
C.S. Li and T.C. Yuan. correction to charged [Higgs]{} decay of the top quark. , D42:3088, 1990. Erratum: ibid. D47:2156, 1993.
A. Czarnecki and S. Davidson. corrections to the charged [Higgs]{} decay of a heavy quark. Alberta preprint Thy-34-92, submitted for publication in Physical Review D, 1992.
C.S. Li, B.Q. Hu, and J.M. Yang. Electroweak radiative corrections to $t\rightarrow {H^+} b$ for a heavy top quark. , D47:2865–2871, 1993.
M.A. Díaz. Top quark and charged [H]{}iggs: linked by radiative corrections. Preprint VAND-TH-93-5.
A. Méndez and A. Pomarol. t-quark loop corrections to the charged [H]{}iggs boson hadronic width. , B265:177–181, 1991.
A. Méndez and A. Pomarol. t-quark loop corrections to neutral [H]{}iggs couplings in the two-[H]{}iggs-doublet model. , B279:98–105, 1991.
M. [Böhm]{} and A. Denner. Radiative corrections in the electroweak [S]{}tandard [M]{}odel. In A. Perez and Roberto Huerta, editors, [*Proc. of the Workshop on High Energy Phenomenology, Mexico City*]{}, pages 1–113, River Edge, N.J., 1991. World Scientific.
A. Denner. Techniques for the calculation of electroweak radiative corrections at the one-loop level and results for [W]{}-physics at [LEP200]{}. , 41, 1993. In press.
A. Hoang. Tau- und [T]{}op-[Zerfälle]{} im [Z]{}wei-[H]{}iggs-[D]{}ublett-[M]{}odell. Master’s thesis, Karlsruhe University, 1992. In German.
M. Veltman. The infrared-ultraviolet connection. , B12:437–457, 1981.
M. Capdequi Peyran[è]{}re, H.E. Haber, and P. Irulegui. and [$H^\pm\rightarrow
W^\pm Z$]{} in two-[H]{}iggs-doublet models: large-fermion-mass limit. , D44:191–201, 1991.
J. K[ü]{}hlbeck, M. B[ö]{}hm, and A. Denner. Feyn [A]{}rts - computer-algebraic generation of [F]{}eynman graphs and amplitudes. , 60:165–180, 1990.
R. Mertig, M. B[ö]{}hm, and A. Denner. Feyn [C]{}alc - computer-algebraic calculation of [F]{}eynman diagrams. , 64:345–359, 1991.
G.J. van Oldenborgh. - a package to evaluate one-loop [F]{}eynman diagrams. , 48:1, 1991.
A. Czarnecki. corrections to the decay [$t\rightarrow Wb$]{} in dimensional regularization. , B252:467–470, 1990.
G. Passarino and M. Veltman. One loop corretions for $e^+e^-$ annihilation into $\mu^+\mu^-$ in the [W]{}einberg model. , B160:151, 1979.
Figure captions {#figure-captions .unnumbered}
===============
1. Real photon corrections to the decay of $t$ quark \[fig:topreal\]
2. Real photon corrections to the charged Higgs boson decay \[fig:taureal\]
3. Vertex corrections to the decay of $t$ quark \[fig:topv\]
4. Vertex corrections to the charged Higgs boson decay \[fig:tauv\]
5. Momentum independent contributions to mixing \[fig:mixtad\]
6. Mixing between the charged Higgs and the $W$ boson \[fig:mixsw\]
7. Mixing between the charged Higgs and the Goldstone boson \[fig:mixss\]
8. Types of tadpole diagrams in 2HDM \[fig:tadpol\]
9. Corrections $\overline{\Delta\Gamma}$ plotted as a function of $\tan\beta$ for two different values of $m_{H^+}$: $m_{H^+}=90$ GeV (solid line) and $m_{H^+}=120$ GeV (dashed) \[fig:cortanb\]
10. Corrections $\overline{\Delta\Gamma}$ plotted as a function of $m_{H^+}$ for various values of $\tan\beta$: $\tan\beta=0.5$ (solid line), $\tan\beta=1.5$ (long dash) and $\tan\beta=5$ (short dash) \[fig:cormhp\]
11. Bosonic contributions to corrections ${\Delta\Gamma}$ (solid line) and the fermionic contributions from which twice the value of universal corrections ${\Delta r}$ was subtracted (dashed). Plotted as a function of $m_{H^+}$ for $\tan\beta=1.5$ \[fig:coranat\]
[^1]: Address after September 1993: Johannes Gutenberg-Universität, Institut für Physik, Staudingerweg 7, 6500 Mainz, Germany
[^2]: A discussion of tadpole diagrams with a fermion loop can be found in ref. [@cap91] which also contains further references.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We evaluate the direct detection of extrasolar giant planets with a two-aperture nulling infrared interferometer, working at angles ${\theta}<{\lambda}/2B$, and using a new ‘ratio-of-two-wavelengths’ technique. Simple arguments suggest that interferometric detection and characterization should be quite possible for planets much closer than the conventional inner working angle, or angular resolution limit. We show that the peak signal from a nulling infrared interferometer of baseline ($\lesssim 40$ meters) will often occur ‘inside the null’, and that the signal variations from path-difference fluctuations will cancel to first order in the ratio of two wavelengths. Using a new interferometer simulation code, we evaluate the detectability of all the known extrasolar planets as observed using this two-color method with the proposed [*Fourier Kelvin Stellar Interferometer (FKSI)*]{}. In its minimum configuration [*FKSI*]{} uses two 0.5-meter apertures on a 12.5-meter baseline, and a $\pm 20^{\circ}$ field-of-regard. We predict that $\sim 7$ known extrasolar planets are directly detectable using [*FKSI*]{}, with low-resolution spectroscopy ($R \sim 20$) being possible in the most favorable cases. Spaceborne direct detection of extrasolar giant planets is possible with $\sim 12$ meter baselines, and does not require the much longer baselines provided by formation flying.'
author:
- 'William C. Danchi, Drake Deming, Marc J. Kuchner, Sara Seager'
title: |
Detection of Close-In Extrasolar Giant Planets\
Using the Fourier-Kelvin Stellar Interferometer
---
Introduction
============
The number of known extrasolar giant planets is now over 100 [@marcy03], almost all of which have been detected indirectly, using the radial velocity method. Direct detections of extrasolar giant planets are now becoming possible. For example, @char02 detected the atmosphere of the ‘transiting planet’ HD209458b using transit spectroscopy [@ss00]. In the case of planets which do not transit, other techniques of direct detection are being developed, such as visible coronagraphic imaging [@ks03], and nulling infrared (IR) interferometry [@bw78; @angel97]. A conventional view is that the ‘inner working angle’ (IWA) of a nulling interferometer is the angular distance to the first fringe maximum, i.e. ${\lambda}/2B$, where $B$ is the interferometer baseline and $\lambda$ is wavelength. In this [*Letter*]{}, we show that, when the likely IR intensities of the extrasolar planets are factored in, nulling IR interferometers having $B \lesssim 40$ m, are most sensitive to extrasolar giant planets (EGPs) well inside the conventional IWA, i.e. ‘inside the null’. A substantial number of the known extrasolar planets are directly detectable using interferometry with modest baselines, e.g., the $12.5$ m baseline of the minimum configuration of [*FKSI*]{} [@dan02; @danc03].
Interferometric Detection ‘Inside the Null’?
============================================
Simple arguments suggest that interferometric detection can occur for close-in extrasolar giant planets (CEGPs) not fully resolved spatially by the interferometer. First, it is well known that a significant source of noise for a spaceborne nulling interferometer will be photon noise from the leakage of stellar radiation around the ‘edges’ of the null fringe, due to the finite angular radius of the star. If leakage from one stellar radius is a significant noise source, the IR signal from the closest CEGPs, at tens of stellar radii, will also leak through the null fringe. Second, we note that ground-based studies of the CEGPs [@rich03] are beginning to achieve the sensitivity needed to detect the planets in combined light, with no spatial resolution whatsoever. For a given interferometer baseline, at what angular separation does the transmitted IR signal from an extrasolar planet peak? For decreasing angular separation from the star, the fringe transmission decreases, but the planet’s thermal equilibrium temperature in the stellar radiation field increases, so the signal transmitted through the null fringe can remain significant. Distant planets will be observed with fringe transmission of unity, but they will be colder. Figure 1 shows the product of the Planck function at a wavelength of $5\ \mu$m, times the fringe transmission ($\sin^{2}(\pi \theta B/\lambda)$) for baselines of 8, 12, 20 and 40 m. The extrasolar system was assumed to be at 10 pc distance, and the planet was assumed to emit as a blackbody in thermal equilibrium with a Bond albedo of 0.4. These ‘interferometer contribution functions’ were normalized to unity for the peak signal at the 40-m baseline. The asterisks on each curve mark the nominal IWA at $\lambda/2B$.
Figure 1 shows that, even for the longest (40-m) baseline, the peak signal occurs inside the nominal IWA at $\lambda/2B$. For the shorter baselines the peak occurs quite far inside the IWA. For example, the 12-m peak signal occurs for planets near 0.1 AU, a factor of 4 below $\lambda/2B$. For all baselines, the decrease in signal at the greatest distances occurs because of the lower planetary temperatures. Although the peak signal for the 12-m baseline occurs near 0.1 AU, this signal is reduced by about an order of magnitude from the 40-m case. Figure 1 suggests that the sensitivity of a 12-m interferometer working ‘inside the null’ may be sufficient to allow detection and characterization of some of the known extrasolar giant planets.
A Two-color Method
==================
Using a simple analytical model of the nulling interferometer we demonstrate that the ratio of the intensity at the output of the nuller at two wavelengths is insensitive to the residual pathlength fluctuations, provided they are small compared to the wavelength. A nulling interferometer operates like a conventional stellar interferometer except that an achromatic $\pi$ phase shift is applied to the beam coming from one element of the interferometer and that the beams are symmetrically and achromatically combined. The equation for the normalized intensity, $N({\lambda}_1)$, is:
$$N({\lambda}_1) = 1/2 ~ [1 - | V({\lambda}_1) | ~ \cos ~
{\phi}({\lambda}_1)]$$
where ${\lambda}_1$ is the first wavelength, $| V({\lambda}_1) |$ is the modulus of the visibility of the source, and ${\phi}(
\lambda _1)= 2 \pi \sigma_N / {\lambda}_1$ is the rms phase error caused by residual pathlength fluctuations, $\sigma _N$ in the system. For a point source and no pathlength fluctuations, Eq. 1 reduces to the usual $ \theta ^2$ null of the classical Bracewell interferometer. A similar equation holds for the output of the same nuller at a second wavelength, ${\lambda}_2$. Using these assumptions,
$$| V({\lambda}_1) | \approx 1 - {\pi ^2 \over 16 } \left ( { {
\theta _ {star} } \over { \lambda _1 / B } } \right ) ^ 2$$
where ${\theta _ {star} } $ is the angular diameter of the star and B is the baseline length, and similarly expanding the term for the phase fluctuations: $$\cos ~ \phi ( \lambda _1 ) \approx 1 - \phi ( \lambda _1 ) ^2 / 2
= 1 - 2 \pi ^2 \left ( \sigma _N / \lambda _1 \right ) ^2$$
Substituting these equations into (1) and using similar equations for the second wavelength, ${\lambda}_2$, it is easy to show that:
$${N( \lambda _1 ) \over N( \lambda _2 )} \approx \left ( {
{\lambda _2} \over {\lambda _1 } } \right ) ^2$$
Hence the stellar leakage and pathlength fluctuations cancel out. This result is valid for the case when the interferometer is not rotating about the line of sight or when the residual pathlength fluctuations occur at much higher frequencies than the rotation frequency about the line of sight. The cancellation occurs in the leakage signal variations which accompany instability in the null fringe (not in the photon noise), and which would otherwise overwhelm the planetary signal. This technique is expected to work best when the two wavelengths $\lambda _1$ and $\lambda _2$ are reasonably close together, avoiding higher order effects.
An Interferometer Simulation Code
=================================
We have written a simulation code to compute the signal from the known extrasolar giant planets, as observed by a rotating 2-aperture nulling interferometer, following the principle of @bw78, and treating the output signal as a ratio, exploiting the rationale given above. The code uses the interferometer parameters for [*FKSI*]{} as listed in Table 1. The modeled fringe pattern of the interferometer includes path difference errors, based on the current [*FKSI*]{} error budget. Shot-noise is computed from the total signal, including the stellar leakage, the extrasolar zodiacal background, and the instrument thermal background. Dark current and read noise from the detection system are also included. The stellar spectrum is assumed to be a blackbody, but wavelength-dependent limb darkening is imposed on the disk, based on the solar observations of @pierce50. The stellar temperature and radius are estimated from the spectral type. The planet is modeled as a blackbody spectrum with superposed molecular band spectral structure. The planet’s blackbody equilibrium temperature is computed assuming a Bond albedo of 0.4; the planetary radius is taken to be 35% greater than Jupiter, based on HD209458b [@brown01]. The planetary spectral structure was included by interpolating in the ‘cloudless’ sequence computed by @sud03. The planetary spectrum is currently assumed to be independent of orbital phase and inclination to the line of sight. Orbital motion of the planet is included, using orbital elements from the Doppler observations, and a nominal inclination of $45^{\circ}$. The zodiacal background is calculated including contributions from both scattered light and thermal radiation [@kuch02]. Since younger stars will have more massive zodiacal disks, we scaled the mass of the disk as the -1.76 power of the stellar age [@spang01]. Ages for stars hosting extrasolar planets were taken from @laws03. The inclination of the zodiacal disk is also included (nominally $45^{\circ}$ to the plane of the sky), since the asymmetry from the inclined disk produces a significant signal as the interferometer rotates.
Example of an [FKSI]{} Detection
================================
We have simulated observations by [*FKSI*]{} of all known extrasolar planetary systems using the code. An example is shown in Fig. 2, which illustrates the detection of 55 Cancri b. Figure 2a shows the number of photons detected versus wavelength, at the [*FKSI*]{} spectral resolving power ($\lambda / \delta\lambda = 20$), in one 300-s integration. The calculated wavelength range in Fig. 2 extends longward of the nominal wavelength limits of [*FKSI*]{}. The dominant source of photons is stellar leakage, with planetary radiation second. The zodiacal radiation falls below the planetary intensity for this old, and dust-poor system [@rayjay02]. The dominant source of noise depends on wavelength, but is due to stellar leakage shot noise at the shortest wavelengths, thermal background radiation noise at the longest wavelength ($8\ \mu$m), and dark current and read noise at intermediate wavelengths. Since the anticipated total integration time during an observational ‘campaign’ for a given planetary system can be many days, planets whose photon counts fall well below the noise level in a single 300-s integration will nevertheless be detectable. But for 55 Cancri b, the planetary signal photon counts are comparable to the noise photons in a single 300-s integration, for wavelengths $>3\ \mu$m. This planet is strongly detectable, and more extensive spectral information could also be extracted.
In the original Bracewell concept, the rotation of the interferometer modulates the planetary signal, and we have included this process in the simulation code. Figure 2b (lower panel) shows a power spectrum from a signal time series of 55 Cancri b. As per our two-color method, the Fourier-transformed signal in this case was the intensity integrated over wavelengths $6\ \geqslant \lambda\ \geqslant 3\
\mu$m, ratioed to the intensity integrated over $\lambda < 3\ \mu$m. The denominator in this ratio is dominated by the stellar leakage at the shortest wavelengths, and contains minimal planetary signal. The planet peaks at the longer wavelengths in the numerator. The greater null depth at long wavelengths enhances this separation of planet and stellar signals.
The interferometer was rotated slowly, about 15 hours per rotation, and the simulated campaign lasted about 35 days (50 rotations). The zodiacal signal appears in the Fig. 2b power spectrum at twice the interferometer rotation frequency, i.e. at 37 microHz ($\mu$Hz), and the planetary signal also contributes at this frequency. Because of the planet’s orbital motion, the planetary signal appears primarily at a different frequency (see caption), slightly displaced, and [*resolved*]{} from the zodiacal signal. Moreover, because the planet is inside the null, no overtones are caused by transmission through higher-order fringes. Note also that, as the signal from the planet goes in- and out-of-phase with the zodiacal signal, the envelope of this modulation is seen in the low-frequency region of the power spectrum as a peak at 1.6 $\mu$Hz, twice the orbital frequency of the planet.
Discussion
==========
Our simulations show that a significant number of known extrasolar planets will be detectable using [*FKSI*]{}, and that spectral information can be derived in several of the most favorable cases. These simulated detections are robust in the sense that the few most favorable planetary systems are detectable with almost any reasonable instrumental configuration (baseline, aperture size, etc.) or choice of long-wavelength cutoff. However, detections for the fainter systems depend significantly on the instrumental parameters and wavelength range, as well as on the properties of the detectors (dark current, read noise).
Figure 3 illustrates the distances and orbital semi-major axes for many of the known planetary systems, with those systems detectable by [*FKSI*]{} (using Table 1 parameters) plotted as filled symbols. The $\pm 20^{\circ}$ field-of-regard ([*FOR*]{}) holds seven detectable planets, and an additional six planets are within a $\pm 40^{\circ}$ [*FOR*]{}. The conventional IWA resolutions for baselines of 40, 20, 12, and 8 m are overplotted. It can be seen that the detectable planets are essentially the CEGP systems closest to earth, with essentially no dependence on the angular resolution limits (IWA lines).
Our results show that planets can be detected much closer to stars than expected based on the concept of the inner working angle, computed from the nominal resolution of the interferometer, i.e., $\lambda / 2 B$. This resolution estimate is essentially the same as the Rayleigh criterion for conventional telescopes, which is the angular separation of two stars of equal intensity in which one star is placed at the first zero of the Airy pattern of the second star. The Rayleigh criterion is well known to be a very conservative estimate of resolution, and sources can be resolved that are substantially closer than this, using super-resolution techniques such as the pixon method [@pixon]. Similar considerations hold for interferometers as CLEAN, MEM, and other methods have provided images with effective angular resolutions much better than nominally expected [@cobb87].
For a wavelength of 5 $\mu$m, the resolution of the [*FKSI*]{} is $ \lambda/2B \approx$ 41 milli-arcsec (mas). But our simulations demonstrate an ‘effective resolution’ of approximately 1 mas. Our results are consistent with the working resolution of the interferometer being determined by the ratio of the rms pathlength fluctuation to the baseline, $\sigma _N / B$, which for the parameters in this paper, is 0.2 mas. This is not as surprising as it may seem at first, since the pathlength stability requirement to achieve a $10^{-4}$ null or better is essentially that of an interferometer with extremely high phase stability.
The work presented here has important implications for the Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) mission [@TPFbook], because angular resolution is often emphasized over sensitivity. The desire for a nulling interferometer using free flyer telescopes is based on the resolution needed to search more than 150 F, G, and K stars for earth-like planets in the habitable zone [@lunine03]. Given that the actual IWA can be significantly smaller than previously thought, means that it may be possible to achieve the basic goals of TPF with a structurally connected interferometer having a modest baseline in the range of 20 to 30 m.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank Drs. R. Allen, D. Benford, D. Gezari, D. Leisawitz, J. Monnier, M. Mumma, L. Mundy, C. Noecker, and W. Traub, for their contributions to the [*FKSI*]{} mission concept.
Angel, J. R. P. & Woolf, N. J. 1997, , 475, 373 Beichman, C., Woolf, N. J., & Lindensmith, C. 1999 (eds.), JPL Publication 99-3. Bracewell, R. N. 1978, Nature, 274, 780 Brown, T. M., Charbonneau, D., Gilliland, R. L., Noyes, R. W., & Burrows, A. 2001, , 552, 699 Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Noyes, R. W., & Gilliland, R. L. 2002, , 568, 377 Cobb, M. L., & Fix, J. D. 1987, , 315, 325 Danchi, W. C., et al. 2002, AAS Meeting 201, \# 151.09 Danchi, W. C. et al. 2003, in [*Towards Other Earths*]{} , ESA Publication SP-539, in press. Jayawardhana, R., Holland, W. S., Kalas, P., Greaves, J. S., Dent, W. R. F., Wyatt, M. C., & Marcy, G. W. 2002, , 570, L93 Kuchner, M. J. 2002, IDL software program ’zodipic’, http:// cfa-www.harvard.edu/$\sim$mkuchner Kuchner, M. J., and Spergel, D. 2003, in [*Scientific Frontiers in Research on Extrasolar Planets*]{}, ASP Conference Series vol. 294 (D. Deming & S. Seager, eds.), p. 603 Laws, C., Gonzalez, G., Walker, K. M., Tyagi, S., Dodsworth, J., Snider, K., & Suntzeff, N. B. 2003, , 125, 2664 Lunine, J. I. et al. 2003, TPF Science Working Group, unpublished. Marcy, G. W., Butler, R. P., Fischer, D. A., & Vogt, S. S. 2003, in [*Scientific Frontiers in Research on Extrasolar Planets*]{}, ASP Conference Series vol. 294 (D. Deming & S. Seager, eds.), p. 1 Pierce, A.K., McMath, R. R., Goldberg, L., & Mohler, O. C. 1950, , 112, 289 Pina, R. K., & Puetter, R. C. 1993, PASP, 105, 630 Richardson, L. J., Deming, D., & Seager, S. 2003, , in press, astro-ph/0307297 Seager, S. & Sasselov, D. D. 2000, , 537, 916 Spangler, C., Sargent, A. I., Silverstone, M. D., Becklin, E. E., & Zuckerman, B. 2001, , 555, 932 Sudarsky, D., Burrows, A., & Hubeny, I. 2003, , 588, 1121
[ll]{} Parameter & Value\
Baseline & 12.5 meters\
Aperture & $2 \times 0.5$ meters diameter\
Field of regard & $\pm 20^{\circ}$\
Efficiency & 0.05 (electrons out / photons in)\
Spectral resolution & $\lambda/\delta\lambda = 20$\
Pathlength stability & 15 nm rms; 10-sec time constant\
Wavelength range & $1\ \mu$m$\ \leqq\ \lambda\ \leqq\ 6\ \mu$m\
Optics temperature & 63K\
Detector temperature & 35K\
Dark current & 0.2 $e^{-}$/sec\
Read noise & 8 $e^{-}$\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We use binary Darboux transformation to obtain exact multi-soliton solutions of principal chiral model and its noncommutative generalization. We also show that the exact multi-solitons of noncommutative principal chiral model in two dimensions and noncommutative (anti-) self dual Yang-Mills equations in four dimensions can be expressed explicitly in terms of quasi-determinants.'
---
\
PACS: 11.10.Nx, 02.30.Ik\
Keywords: Noncommutative geometry, Integrable systems, Principal chiral model
Introduction
============
It is well known that the classical principal chiral model, a nonlinear sigma model with target manifold being a Lie group, is an integrable field theoretic model in the sense that it contains an infinite sequence of local and non-local conserved quantities and can be embedded into the general scheme of the inverse scattering method [@Brezin]-[@Evans1]$.$ Recently some investigations have been made regarding the classical integrability of the principal chiral model with and without a Wess-Zumino term and its supersymmetric and noncommutative generalizations [@Evans1]-[@saleem]$.$ In these studies [@Evans1],[@Evans] the involution of the local conserved quantities amongst themselves and with the non-local conserved quantities has been investigated for the bosonic models (with and without a Wess-Zumino term) and for their supersymmetric generalization. It has been shown in [@saleem1] that the supersymmetric generalization of the principal chiral model admits a one-parameter family of superfield flat connections that results in the existence of an infinite number of conservation laws and a superfield Lax formalism.
The study of integrability of principal chiral model is also important from the point of view of integrability and the determination of the exact spectrum of free string theory on $AdS^{5}\times S^{5}.$ In the last few years a great deal of work has been done in studying the integrability of the classical string sigma model on $AdS^{5}\times S^{5}$ (see e.g. [@dorey]-[@hatsuda]). In these studies integrability aspects such as the Lax formalism, the existence of local and nonlocal conserved quantities, the fundamental Poisson bracket algebra and the Yangian symmetry; has been investigated. It has been shown that the infinite number of conserved quantities are in involution for classical string moving on $\mathbf{R}\times S^{3}$ submanifold of $AdS^{5}\times S^{5} $. In fact, the bosonic strings on $\mathbf{R}\times S^{3}$ are described in static gauge by an $SU\left( 2\right) $ principal chiral model. From the point of view of string theory, it seems natural to study the construction of multi-soliton solutions for the principal chiral model through a solution generating technique of binary Darboux transformation. The purpose of this work is to use the binary Darboux transformation for obtaining exact multi-soliton solutions of the principal chiral model and the $N$-soliton solution has been obtained in terms of ratio of determinants of certain matrices.
The other aspect that we shall be interested in investigating is the generalization of our results to the case of noncommutative principal chiral model. In recent times, there has been an increasing interest in the study of noncommutative integrable field models (see e.g. [@saleem]-[@Dimakis1])$.$ The interest in these studies is partly due to the fact that the noncommutative field theories play an important role in string theory, D-brane dynamics, quantum Hall effect, etc. (see e.g. [@minwalla]-[furuta]{} ). The noncommutative principal chiral model has been studied recently and it has been shown that the noncommutative generalization of $U\left( N\right) $ principal chiral model is integrable in the sense that it contains an infinite sequence of conserved quantities and it admits a one-parameter family of flat connections leading to a Lax formalism [saleem]{}$.$ Moreover, it has been shown that the noncommutative principal chiral model admits a solution generating technique of elementary Darboux transformation which generates noncommutative multi-soliton solutions of the model. In the present work, we shall use the binary Darboux transformation to obtain the exact noncommutative multi-soliton solution of the noncommutative principal chiral model. We show that the exact multi-solitons of noncommutative principal chiral model can be expressed in terms of quasi-determinants introduced by Gelfand and Retakh [@gr]-[@gr3]$.$ The quasi-determinants also appear in the construction of soliton solutions of some integrable systems (see e.g. [@hamanakag]-[@hassan]). We also compare our results with those for the noncommutative (anti) self-dual Yang-Mills theory that acts as a master theory in the sense of Ward conjecture [@ward1]-[@ward3] which states that almost all (noncommutative) integrable systems including the principal chiral model can be obtained by (anti) self-dual Yang-Mills equations (or its generalizations) by reduction [@hamanaka1], [@hamanaka6]$.$
The $U(N)$ principal chiral model
=================================
The field variables $g\left( x\right) $ of the $U\left( N\right) $ principal chiral model (PCM) take values in the Lie group $U\left(
N\right) $ [@Brezin]-[@Evans1]. The action for the $U\left( N\right) $ PCM can be written in terms of field $g\left( x\right) $ as [^1]$$S=\frac{1}{2}\int d^{2}x\mbox{Tr}\left( \partial
_{+}g^{-1}\partial _{-}g\right) , \label{action}$$with $$g^{-1}\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) g\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) =g\left(
x^{+},x^{-}\right) g^{-1}\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) =1, \label{fields}$$where $g\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) \in U\left( N\right) .$ The $U\left(
N\right) $-valued field $g\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) $ can be expressed as $$g\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) \equiv e^{i\pi _{a}T^{a}}=1+i\pi _{a}T^{a}+\frac{1}{2}\left( i\pi _{a}T^{a}\right) ^{2}+\cdots , \label{field exp}$$where $\pi _{a}$ is in the Lie algebra $u\left( N\right) $ of the Lie group $U\left( N\right) $ and $T^{a},a=1,2,3,\ldots ,N^{2},$ are Hermitian matrices with the normalization Tr$\left( T^{a}T^{b}\right) =-\delta ^{ab}$ and are the generators of $U\left( N\right) $ in the fundamental representation satisfying the algebra$$\left[ T^{a},T^{b}\right] =if^{abc}T^{c}, \label{generators}$$where $f^{abc}$ are the structure constants of the Lie algebra $u\left(
N\right) $. For any $X\in u\left( N\right) $, we write $X=X^{a}T^{a}$ and $X^{a}=-$Tr$\left( T^{a}X\right) .$ The action (\[action\]) is invariant under a global continuous symmetry$$U_{L}\left( N\right) \times U_{R}\left( N\right) :\mbox{ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ }g\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) \longmapsto ugv^{-1},
\label{gsymmetry}$$where $u\in U_{L}\left( N\right) $ and $v\in U_{R}\left( N\right) .$ The Noether conserved currents associated with the global symmetry of the PCM are$$j_{\pm }^{R}=-g^{-1}(\partial _{\pm }g),\mbox{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ }j_{\pm }^{L}=(\partial _{\pm }g)g^{-1}, \label{lrcurrents}$$which take values in the Lie algebra $u\left( N\right) ,$ so that one can decompose the currents into components $j_{\pm }\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right)
=j_{\pm }^{a}\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) T^{a}.$ The equation of motion following from (\[action\]) corresponds to the conservation of these currents. The left and right currents satisfy the following conservation equation$$\partial _{-}j_{+}+\partial _{+}j_{-}=0. \label{continuity}$$The currents also obey the zero-curvature condition$$\partial _{-}j_{+}-\partial _{+}j_{-}+\left[ j_{+},j_{-}\right] =0.
\label{z-c}$$Equations (\[continuity\]) and (\[z-c\]) can also be expressed as $$\partial _{-}j_{+}=-\partial _{+}j_{-}=-\frac{1}{2}\left[ j_{+},j_{-}\right]
. \label{cz-c}$$The equations (\[continuity\])-(\[cz-c\]) hold for both $j_{\pm }^{L}$ and $j_{\pm }^{R}.$
It is well known that the principal chiral model admits a one-parameter family of flat currents [@Brezin]. We define a one-parameter family of transformations on the field $g\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) $ as$$g\rightarrow g^{\left( \gamma \right) }=u^{\left( \gamma \right) }gv^{\left(
\gamma \right) -1}, \label{1-p}$$where $\gamma $ is a parameter and $u^{\left( \gamma \right) },v^{\left(
\gamma \right) }$ are the matrices belonging to $U\left( N\right) $. We choose the boundary values $u^{\left( 1\right) }=1,v^{\left( 1\right) }=1$ or $g^{\left( 1\right) }=g.$ The matrices $u^{\left( \gamma \right) }$and $v^{\left( \gamma \right) }$ satisfy the following set of linear equations$$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{\pm }u^{\left( \gamma \right) } &=&\frac{1}{2}\left( 1-\gamma
^{\mp 1}\right) j_{\pm }^{L}u^{\left( \gamma \right) }, \label{gamma1} \\
\partial _{\pm }v^{\left( \gamma \right) } &=&\frac{1}{2}\left( 1-\gamma
^{\mp 1}\right) j_{\pm }^{R}v^{\left( \gamma \right) }. \label{gamma2}\end{aligned}$$From now on, we shall consider right-hand currents and drop the superscript $R$ on the current to simply write $j_{\pm }^{R}=j_{\pm }.$ The compatibility condition of the linear system (\[gamma2\]) is given by$$\{(1-\gamma ^{-1})\partial _{-}j_{+}-(1-\gamma )\partial _{+}j_{-}+\left( 1-\frac{1}{2}\left( \gamma +\gamma ^{-1}\right) \left[ j_{+},j_{-}\right]
\right) \}v^{\left( \gamma \right) }=0. \label{compatibility}$$Under the one-parameter family of transformations, the Noether conserved currents transform as$$j_{\pm }\mapsto j_{\pm }^{\left( \gamma \right) }=\gamma ^{\mp 1}v^{\left(
\gamma \right) -1}j_{\pm }v^{\left( \gamma \right) }. \label{1-pcurrent}$$The linear system (\[gamma2\]) can also be expressed in the following well known form $$\partial _{\pm }v\left( x^{+},x^{-};\lambda \right) =A_{\pm }^{\left(
\lambda \right) }v\left( x^{+},x^{-};\lambda \right) , \label{linearsys}$$where the fields $A_{\pm }^{\left( \lambda \right) }$ are given by $$A_{\pm }^{\left( \lambda \right) }=\mp \frac{\lambda }{1\mp \lambda }j_{\pm
}. \label{laxpair}$$Here $\lambda $ is the spectral parameter and is related to $\gamma $ by $\lambda =\frac{1-\gamma }{1+\gamma }.$ The compatibility condition of the linear system (\[linearsys\]) is the zero-curvature condition$$\left[ \partial _{+}-A_{+}^{\left( \lambda \right) },\partial
_{-}-A_{-}^{\left( \lambda \right) }\right] \equiv \partial
_{-}A_{+}^{\left( \lambda \right) }-\partial _{+}A_{-}^{\left( \lambda
\right) }+\left[ A_{+}^{\left( \lambda \right) },A_{-}^{\left( \lambda
\right) }\right] =0. \label{z-c1}$$In other words, we have defined a one-parameter family of connections $A_{\pm }^{\left( \lambda \right) }$ which are flat. The Lax operators $$L_{\pm }^{\left( \lambda \right) }=\partial _{\pm }-A_{\pm }^{\left( \lambda
\right) }, \label{laxoperator}$$obey the following equations$$\partial _{\mp }L_{\pm }^{\left( \lambda \right) }=\left[ A_{\mp }^{\left(
\lambda \right) },L_{\pm }^{\left( \lambda \right) }\right] .
\label{laxoequation}$$This is the Lax equation and the set of operators $\left(
L,A\right) $ is the given Lax pair of the model [@Brezin]-[@Novikov]$.$ The Lax formalism detailed above can be used to generate an infinite number of local and non-local conserved quantities and to construct multi-soliton solutions of the model.
Binary Darboux transformation and exact multi-solitons
======================================================
The Lax pair of the PCM can be used to construct binary Darboux transformation of the system [@Ustinov]. We proceed by writing the Lax pair (direct Lax pair) as$$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{+}v &=&\frac{1}{1-\lambda }j_{+}v, \nonumber \\
\partial _{-}v &=&\frac{1}{1+\lambda }j_{-}v, \label{laxpair20}\end{aligned}$$where we have used $\lambda \rightarrow \frac{1}{\lambda }.$ From ([laxpair20]{}), we have$$\begin{aligned}
v^{-1}(\partial _{+}v)v^{-1} &=&\frac{1}{1-\lambda
}v^{-1}j_{+}vv^{-1}, \nonumber
\\
\partial _{+}v^{-1} &=&-\frac{1}{1-\lambda }v^{-1}j_{+}. \label{dual1}\end{aligned}$$Similarly$$\partial _{-}v^{-1}=-\frac{1}{1+\lambda }v^{-1}j_{-}. \label{dual2}$$Let us denote $$v^{-1}\equiv \omega , \label{dualsoln}$$then from equations (\[dual1\]), (\[dual2\]) and by analogy of direct Lax pair, we define another Lax pair (dual Lax pair) for the matrix field $\omega $ with spectral parameter $\lambda ^{\prime }$ as$$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{+}\omega &=&-\frac{1}{1-\lambda ^{\prime }}\omega j_{+},
\nonumber \\
\partial _{-}\omega &=&-\frac{1}{1+\lambda ^{\prime }}\omega j_{-}.
\label{dualpair2}\end{aligned}$$Now consider two solutions $v_{1}$ and $v_{2}$ of (\[laxpair20\]), then$$\partial _{+}\left( v_{1}^{-1}v_{2}\right) =(\partial
_{+}v_{1}^{-1})v_{2}+v_{1}^{-1}\partial _{+}\left( v_{2}\right) ,$$using (\[laxpair20\]) and (\[dual1\]) in the above equation we get$$\partial _{+}\left( v_{1}^{-1}v_{2}\right) =0. \label{soln}$$Similarly$$\partial _{-}\left( v_{1}^{-1}v_{2}\right) =0. \label{soln2}$$From equations (\[soln\]) and (\[soln2\]), we have$$v_{1}^{-1}v_{2}=C\left( \lambda \right) ,$$or$$v_{1}^{-1}=C\left( \lambda \right) v_{2}^{-1},$$where $C\left( \lambda \right) $ is some arbitrary matrix function. Now using (\[dualsoln\]), we see that$$\omega \left( x,\lambda \right) =C\left( \lambda \right) v^{-1}\left(
x,\lambda \right) , \label{connection}$$where $\omega \left( x,\lambda \right) $ and $v\left( x,\lambda \right) $ are the solutions of the dual and the direct Lax pairs respectively. The matrix field $g\left( x\right) $ can be related to the solution $\omega $ of the dual Lax pair by$$g\left( x\right) C\left( 0\right) =\omega \left( x,\lambda \right)
\mid _{\lambda =0}. \label{initialsoln1}$$Again from (\[laxpair20\]), we see that at $\lambda =0$$$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{+}v &=&j_{+}v, \\
(\partial _{+}v)v^{-1} &=&j_{+},\end{aligned}$$using (\[lrcurrents\]) we have$$(\partial _{+}v)v^{-1}=(\partial _{+}g)g^{-1}, \label{initialsoln}$$impying$$g\left( x\right) C\left( 0\right) =v\left( x,\lambda \right) \mid
_{\lambda =0}. \label{initialsolna}$$It follows from (\[laxpair20\]) that the matrix function $v$ may be chosen to satisfy the reality condition $$v^{\dagger }\left( \bar{\lambda}\right) =v^{-1}\left( \lambda
\right) .\label{unitarity}$$Similar equation holds for $\omega .$
Let $\left\vert m\right\rangle $ be a column solution and $\left\langle
n\right\vert $ be a row solution of the Lax pairs (\[laxpair20\]), ([dualpair2]{}) with spectral parameters $\mu $ and $\nu $ respectively ($\mu
\neq \nu $). Through a projection operator $P$, the one-fold binary Darboux transformation can be constructed to obtain new matrix solutions $v\left[ 1\right] $ and $\omega \left[ 1\right] $ satisfying the direct and dual Lax pairs (\[laxpair20\]) and (\[dualpair2\]), respectively. The solutions $v\left[ 1\right] $ and $\omega \left[ 1\right] $ are related to the old solutions $v$ and $\omega $ respectively by the following transformation$$\begin{aligned}
v\left[ 1\right] &=&\left( I-\frac{\mu -\nu }{\lambda -\nu }P\right) v,
\nonumber \\
\omega \left[ 1\right] &=&\omega \left( I-\frac{\mu -\nu }{\mu -\lambda
^{\prime }}P\right) , \label{bdt}\end{aligned}$$For the reality condition (\[unitarity\]) to be satisfied, we have$$\begin{aligned}
\nu &=&(\bar{\mu})^{-1}, \\
P^{\dagger } &=&P=P^{2},\end{aligned}$$where the projector $P$ is defined as$$P=\frac{\left\vert m\right\rangle \left\langle n\right\vert
}{\left\langle n\mid m\right\rangle }, \label{projector}$$with $$\left\langle n\mid m\right\rangle
=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N}n_{i}m_{i}. \label{mn}$$The projector $P$ has been expressed in terms of the solutions of Lax pairs (\[laxpair20\]) and (\[dualpair2\]). Let $g$ be a known solution of the PCM, the binary Darboux transformation gives a new solution $g\left[ 1\right]
$ given by $$g\left[ 1\right] =\left( I+\frac{\mu -\nu }{\nu }P\right) g, \label{g1dt}$$where $v\mid _{\lambda =0}=g.$ The new solutions $v\left[ 1\right] $ and $\omega \left[ 1\right] $ satisfy the direct and dual Lax pairs ([laxpair20]{}) and (\[dualpair2\]) respectively, which shows the covariance of the Lax pair of the PCM under the binary Darboux transformation, implying that the conserved currents $j_{\pm }$ transform as$$\begin{aligned}
j_{+}\left[ 1\right] &=&j_{+}-\left( \mu -\nu \right) \partial _{+}P,
\nonumber \\
j_{-}\left[ 1\right] &=&j_{-}+\left( \mu -\nu \right) \partial _{-}P,
\label{trcurrents}\end{aligned}$$Substituting equations (\[bdt\]) and (\[trcurrents\]) into the systems we get$$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{+}v\left[ 1\right] &=&\frac{1}{1-\lambda }j_{+}\left[ 1\right] v\left[ 1\right] , \nonumber \\
\partial _{-}v\left[ 1\right] &=&\frac{1}{1+\lambda }j_{-}\left[ 1\right] v\left[ 1\right] , \label{directtr}\end{aligned}$$and$$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{+}\omega \left[ 1\right] &=&-\frac{1}{1-\lambda ^{\prime }}\omega \left[ 1\right] j_{+}\left[ 1\right] , \nonumber \\
\partial _{-}\omega \left[ 1\right] &=&-\frac{1}{1+\lambda ^{\prime }}\omega \left[ 1\right] j_{-}\left[ 1\right] . \label{dualtr}\end{aligned}$$
The successive iterations of binary Darboux transformation produces the transformed matrix solutions of direct and dual Lax pairs as$$\begin{aligned}
v\left[ K\right] &=&\left( I-\frac{\mu ^{\left( K\right) }-\nu ^{\left(
K\right) }}{\lambda -\nu ^{\left( K\right) }}P\left[ K\right] \right) \cdots
\left( I-\frac{\mu ^{\left( 1\right) }-\nu ^{\left( 1\right) }}{\lambda -\nu
^{\left( 1\right) }}P\left[ 1\right] \right) v, \nonumber \\
\omega \left[ K\right] &=&\omega \left( I-\frac{\mu ^{\left( 1\right) }-\nu
^{\left( 1\right) }}{\mu ^{\left( 1\right) }-\lambda ^{\prime }}P\left[ 1\right] \right) \cdots \left( I-\frac{\mu ^{\left( K\right) }-\nu ^{\left(
K\right) }}{\mu ^{\left( K\right) }-\lambda ^{\prime }}P\left[ K\right]
\right) , \label{dtn}\end{aligned}$$where$$P\left[ i\right] =\frac{\left\vert m^{\left( i\right) }\left[
i-1\right] \right\rangle \left\langle n^{\left( i\right) }\left[
i-1\right] \right\vert }{\left\langle n^{\left( i\right) }\left[
i-1\right] \mid m^{\left( i\right) }\left[ i-1\right]
\right\rangle }, \label{projectorn}$$and $\left\vert m^{\left( i\right) }\left[ i-1\right] \right\rangle $ and $\left\langle n^{\left( i\right) }\left[ i-1\right] \right\vert
,(i=1,2,3,\ldots ,K)$ defined as$$\begin{aligned}
&&\left\vert m^{\left( i\right) }\left[ i-1\right] \right\rangle
\nonumber
\\
&=&\left( I-\frac{\mu ^{\left( i-1\right) }-\nu ^{\left(
i-1\right) }}{\mu ^{\left( i\right) }-\nu ^{\left( i-1\right)
}}P\left[ i-1\right] \right) \cdots \left( I-\frac{\mu ^{\left(
i\right) }-\nu ^{\left( i\right) }}{\mu ^{\left( i\right) }-\nu
^{\left( i\right) }}P\left[ i\right] \right)
\left\vert m^{\left( i\right) }\right\rangle , \nonumber \\
&&\left\langle n^{\left( i\right) }\left[ i-1\right] \right\vert
\nonumber
\\
&=&\left\langle n^{\left( i\right) }\right\vert \left( I-\frac{\mu
^{\left( i\right) }-\nu ^{\left( i\right) }}{\mu ^{\left( i\right)
}-\nu ^{\left( i\right) }}P\left[ i\right] \right) \cdots \left(
I-\frac{\mu ^{\left( i-1\right) }-\nu ^{\left( i-1\right) }}{\mu
^{\left( i-1\right) }-\nu ^{\left( i\right) }}P\left[ i-1\right]
\right) , \label{vectorsoln}\end{aligned}$$are the matrix-column and matrix-row solutions of direct and dual Lax pairs, with spectral parameters $\mu ^{\left( i \right) }$ and $\nu ^{\left( i\right) }$ respectively.
If we write the general form of multi-soliton solution of direct Lax pair (\[laxpair20\]) in terms of partial fraction as$$v\left[ K\right] =\left( I-\sum\limits_{j=1}^{K}\frac{R_{j}}{\lambda -\nu
^{\left( j\right) }}\right) v, \label{partialsoln}$$and use the fact that $v\left[ K\right] =0$ if $\lambda =\mu
^{\left(
i\right) },$ $v=\left\vert m^{\left( i\right) }\right\rangle $, we get the $K $th iteration formula in the form$$v\left[ K\right] =\left( I-\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{K}\frac{\mu ^{\left(
j\right) }-\nu ^{\left( i\right) }}{\lambda -\nu ^{\left( j\right) }}\frac{\left\vert m^{\left( i\right) }\right\rangle \left\langle n^{\left( j\right)
}\right\vert }{\left\langle n^{\left( i\right) }\mid m^{\left( j\right)
}\right\rangle }\right) v. \label{phin}$$Similarly, by using $\omega \left[ K\right] =0$ for $\lambda
^{\prime }=\nu ^{\left( i\right) },\omega =\left\langle n^{\left(
i\right) }\right\vert ,$ we get$$\omega \left[ K\right] =\omega \left( I-\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{K}\frac{\mu
^{\left( j\right) }-\nu ^{\left( i\right) }}{\mu ^{\left( i\right) }-\lambda
^{\prime }}\frac{\left\vert m^{\left( i\right) }\right\rangle \left\langle
n^{\left( j\right) }\right\vert }{\left\langle n^{\left( i\right) }\mid
m^{\left( j\right) }\right\rangle }\right) . \label{chin}$$The relation of $v\left[ K\right] $ with the new solution $g\left[
K\right] $ of equation (\[continuity\]) gives$$g\left[ K\right] =\left( I+\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{K}\frac{\mu ^{\left(
j\right) }-\nu ^{\left( i\right) }}{\nu ^{\left( j\right) }}\frac{\left\vert
m^{\left( i\right) }\right\rangle \left\langle n^{\left( j\right)
}\right\vert }{\left\langle n^{\left( i\right) }\mid m^{\left( j\right)
}\right\rangle }\right) g. \label{ncurrent}$$For expression (\[ncurrent\]) to ensure the positive-definite solution of (\[continuity\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\nu ^{\left( i\right) } &=&\left( \bar{\mu}^{\left( i\right) }\right) ^{-1},
\label{cond1} \\
\left\langle n^{\left( i\right) }\right\vert &=&\left( \left\vert m^{\left(
i\right) }\right\rangle \right) ^{\dagger }g^{-1}=\left\langle m^{\left(
i\right) }\right\vert g^{-1}. \label{cond3}\end{aligned}$$The solutions $v\left[ K\right] $ and $\omega \left[ K\right] $ expressed in additive form (\[phin\]) and (\[chin\]) respectively, are subjected to the reality condition (\[unitarity\]). The condition (\[unitarity\]) to be satisfied, one requires that the projectrs $P\left[ i\right] $ be Hermitian and mutually orthogonal, i.e.$$\begin{aligned}
P^{\dagger }\left[ i\right] &=&P\left[ i\right] =P^{2}\left[ i\right] ,
\nonumber \\
P\left[ i\right] P\left[ j\right] &=&0,\mbox{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ for }i\neq j. \label{proj}\end{aligned}$$The solutions of the $U\left( N\right) $ principal chiral model obtained here are same as the solutions obtained through the well known dressing method of Zakharov and Shabat [@Zakharov], [@Novikov]. In the dressing method, the solution of the system is obtained by reducing the solution of the spectral problem to that of a Riemann-Hilbert problem with zero. By using the technique of complex analysis, the solution of the system is expressed in terms of projectors that relate solutions of Riemann-Hilbert problem in a simple algebraic form. In the binary Darboux transformation method discussed here, we express the solution of the system in terms of projectors that can be obtained in terms of the solutions of the direct and dual Lax pairs of the system. We combine two elementary Darboux transformations to construct binary Darboux transformation that generates solutions of the system in terms of given projectors. Let us now consider the second iteration of binary Darboux transformation. Take $\mu
^{\left(
1\right) }=\mu ,\mu ^{\left( 2\right) }=\bar{\mu}^{-1}+\varepsilon ,$ and $\left\langle m^{\left( 1\right) }g^{-1}\mid m^{\left( 2\right)
}\right\rangle =O\left( \varepsilon \right) .$ Taking the limit $\varepsilon
\rightarrow 0,$ the coefficients of matrix $g\left[ 2\right] $ become$$g\left[ 2\right] _{ik}=\frac{\left\vert
\begin{array}{ccc}
g_{ik} & -\left\langle m^{\left( 1\right) }g^{-1}\mid g^{\left( k\right)
}\right\rangle & -\left\langle m^{\left( 2\right) }g^{-1}\mid g^{\left(
k\right) }\right\rangle \\
\ m_{i}^{(1)} & \frac{\left\langle m^{\left( 1\right) }g^{-1}\mid
m^{\left( 1\right) }\right\rangle }{\left\vert \mu \right\vert
^{2}-1} & \mu ^{-1}\left\langle A^{\dagger }g^{-1}\mid m^{\left(
1\right) }\right\rangle \\
\ m_{i}^{(2)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}\left\langle m^{\left( 1\right)
}g^{-1}\mid A\right\rangle & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert
^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}\left\langle m^{\left(
2\right) }g^{-1}\mid m^{\left( 2\right) }\right\rangle\end{array}\right\vert }{\left\vert
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\left\langle m^{\left( 1\right) }g^{-1}\mid m^{\left( 1\right)
}\right\rangle }{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1} & \mu ^{-1}\left\langle
A^{\dagger }g^{-1}\mid m^{\left( 1\right) }\right\rangle \\
\bar{\mu}^{-1}\left\langle m^{\left( 1\right) }g^{-1}\mid A\right\rangle &
\frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}\left\langle m^{\left( 2\right) }g^{-1}\mid m^{\left( 2\right) }\right\rangle\end{array}\right\vert }, \label{matrixg}$$where $$\begin{aligned}
A &=&\frac{\partial \left\vert m^{\left( 2\right) }\right\rangle }{\partial
\mu ^{\left( 2\right) }}\mid _{\mu ^{\left( 2\right) }=\bar{\mu}^{-1}}, \\
g &=&\left( g^{\left( 1\right) },\ldots ,g^{\left( N\right)
}\right), \\
\left\vert m^{\left( i\right) } \right\rangle &=& \left(
m_{i}^{\left( i\right) },\ldots ,m_{N}^{\left( i\right)
}\right)^{T},\mbox{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }i=1,2,\cdots,K.\end{aligned}$$Similarly applying binary Darboux transformation $K$ times, we see that the coefficients of matrix $g\left[ K\right] $ are $$\begin{aligned}
&&g\left[ K\right] _{ik} \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{\left\vert
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
g_{ik} & -a_{1k} & -a_{2k} & -a_{3k} & -a_{4k} & \cdots & -a_{Kk}
\\
\ m_{i}^{(1)} & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}b_{11}
& \mu ^{-1}A_{11}^{\dagger } & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert
^{2}-1}A_{21}^{\dagger } & \mu ^{-1}A_{31}^{\dagger } &
\cdots & c_{1K}A_{(K-1)1}^{\dagger } \\
\ m_{i}^{(2)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{11} & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{22} &
\bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{31} & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert
\mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{41} & \cdots & c_{2K}A_{K1} \\
\ m_{i}^{(3)} & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}A_{12}
& \mu ^{-1}A_{22} & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu
\right\vert ^{2}-1}b_{33} & \mu ^{-1}A_{42} & \cdots & c_{3K}A_{K2} \\
\ m_{i}^{(4)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{13} & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{23} &
\bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{33} & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert
\mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{44} & \cdots & c_{4K}A_{K3} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\ m_{i}^{(K)} & c_{K1}A_{1(K-1)} & c_{K2}A_{2(K-1)} &
c_{K3}A_{3(K-1)} & c_{K4}A_{4(K-1)} & \cdots &
c_{kK}b_{KK}\end{array}\right\vert }{\left\vert
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}b_{11} & \mu ^{-1}A_{11}^{\dagger
} & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}A_{21}^{\dagger } & \mu
^{-1}A_{31}^{\dagger } & \cdots & c_{1K}A_{(K-1)1}^{\dagger } \\
\bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{11} & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert
\mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{22} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{31} & \frac{\left\vert \mu
\right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{41} & \cdots &
c_{2K}A_{K1} \\
\frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}A_{12} & \mu ^{-1}A_{22} & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}b_{33} & \mu ^{-1}A_{42} & \cdots &
c_{3K}A_{K2} \\
\bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{13} & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert
\mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{23} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{33} & \frac{\left\vert \mu
\right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{44} & \cdots &
c_{4K}A_{K3} \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
c_{K1}A_{1(K-1)} & c_{K2}A_{2(K-1)} & c_{K3}A_{3(K-1)} & c_{K4}A_{4(K-1)} &
\cdots & c_{kK}b_{KK}\end{array}\right\vert }, \label{matrixgkf}\end{aligned}$$where$$\begin{aligned}
a_{ik} &=&\left\langle m^{\left( i\right) }g^{-1}\mid g^{\left( k\right)
}\right\rangle , \\
b_{ik} &=&\left\langle m^{\left( i\right) }g^{-1}\mid m^{\left( k\right)
}\right\rangle , \\
A_{ik} &=&\left\langle m^{\left( i\right) }g^{-1}\mid A_{k}\right\rangle ,
\\
A_{ik}^{\dagger } &=&\left\langle A_{i}^{\dagger }g^{-1}\mid m^{\left(
k\right) }\right\rangle .\end{aligned}$$Please note that we have used the following notation for the coefficients of the entries in $K$-$th$ column of $g\left[ K\right] _{ik}$ $$c_{ij}=\left\{
\begin{array}{c}
\mu ^{-1}\mbox{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (for odd values of }i,j\mbox{),} \\
\bar{\mu}^{-1}\mbox{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (for even values
of }i,j\mbox{),} \\
\frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}\mbox{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (for }i\mbox{ odd, }j\mbox{ even),} \\
\frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}\mbox{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (for }i\mbox{ even, }j\mbox{ odd),}\end{array}\right. \label{coeffs}$$while the entries in $K$-$th$ row of $g\left[ K\right] _{ik}$ are obtained as $$c_{ji}=\bar{c}_{ij}. \label{coeffrow}$$The solution $g\left[ K\right] _{ik}$ is the $K$-soliton solution of the $U\left( N\right) $ principal chiral model. It has been mentioned earlier that such solutions can be constructed using the dressing method.
Binary Darboux transformation for a noncommutative $U(N)$ principal chiral model
================================================================================
In this section, we study the binary Darboux transformation of a noncommutative $U(N)$ principal chiral model and obtain the multi-soliton solutions of the model in terms of quasi-determinants. In recent years, a lot of investigations have been made regarding the noncommutative generalization of integrable models (see e.g. [@saleem]-[@Dimakis1]). In reference [@Moriconi], a noncommutative extension of $U(N)$-principal chiral model (nc-PCM) has been presented and it is concluded that this noncommutative extension gives no extra constraints for the theory to be integrable. The non-local conserved quantities of nc-PCM have also been derived using the iterative method of Br'ezin-Itzykson-Zinn-Justin-Zuber (BIZZ) [@Brezin1] and the Lax formalism of the nc-PCM to derive conserved quantities has been developed in [@saleem].
One way of obtaining noncommutative field theories is by the replacement of ordinary products of field functions in commutative field theories with their star products($\star $-products) and the resulting theories are realized as deformed theories from the commutative ones. The $\star $-product is defined for ordinary fields on flat spaces, explicitly by [@moyal]$$\begin{aligned}
f\left( x\right) g\left( x\right) &\rightarrow &\left( f\star g\right)
\left( x\right) =\exp [\left( \frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\partial _{\mu
}^{x_{1}}\partial _{\nu }^{x_{2}}\right) f\left( x_{1}\right) g\left(
x_{2}\right) \mid _{x_{1}=x_{2}=x}] \nonumber \\
&=&f\left( x\right) g\left( x\right) +\frac{i\theta ^{\mu \nu }}{2}\partial
_{\mu }f\left( x\right) \partial _{\nu }g\left( x\right) +O\left( \theta
^{2}\right) , \label{strproduct}\end{aligned}$$where $\partial _{\mu }^{x_{i}}=\frac{\partial }{\partial
x_{i}^{\mu }}.$ The noncommutativity of coordinates of the Euclidean space $R^{D}$ is defined as$$\left[ x^{\mu },x^{\nu }\right] =i\theta ^{\mu \nu }, \label{commutator}$$where $\theta ^{\mu \nu }$ is the second rank antisymmetric real constant tensor known as the deformation parameter. The $\star
$-product of functions carries intrinsically the noncommutativity of the coordinates and is associative i.e.$$\left( f\star g\right) \star h=f\star \left( g\star h\right)$$As can be seen from (\[strproduct\]), the noncommutative field theories reduce to the ordinary (commutative) field theories as the deformation parameter $\theta $ goes to zero (for more details see e.g. [@minwalla]-[@furuta] ) . Following section 2, we define the action for the two-dimensional $U\left( N\right) $ noncommuative principal chiral model (nc-PCM) as [@saleem]$$S^{\star }=\frac{1}{2}\int d^{2}x\mbox{Tr}\left( \partial
_{+}g^{-1}\star
\partial _{-}g\right) , \label{nc-action}$$with$$g^{-1}\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) \star g\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) =g\left(
x^{+},x^{-}\right) \star g^{-1}\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) =1,
\label{nc-fields}$$where $g\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) \in U\left( N\right) .$ In this case, the $U\left( N\right) $-valued field $g\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) $ is defined as $$g\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) \equiv e_{\star }^{i\pi _{a}T^{a}}=1+i\pi
_{a}T^{a}+\frac{1}{2}\left( i\pi _{a}T^{a}\right) _{\star }^{2}+\cdots ,
\label{nc-fieldexp}$$The action (\[nc-action\]) is invariant under a global continuous symmetry$$U_{L}\left( N\right) \times U_{R}\left( N\right) :\mbox{ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ }g\left( x^{+},x^{-}\right) \longmapsto u\star g\star
v^{-1}, \label{nc-gsymmetry}$$and the corresponding Noether conserved currents of the nc-PCM are$$j_{\pm }^{\star R}=-g^{-1}\star (\partial _{\pm }g),\mbox{ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ }j_{\pm }^{\star L}=(\partial _{\pm }g)\star g^{-1},
\label{nc-lrcurrents}$$which take values in the Lie algebra $u\left( N\right) $. The left and right currents satisfy the following conservation equation$$\partial _{-}j_{+}^{\star }+\partial _{+}j_{-}^{\star }=0,
\label{nc-continuity}$$and the zero-curvature condition$$\partial _{-}j_{+}^{\star }-\partial _{+}j_{-}^{\star }+\left[ j_{+}^{\star
},j_{-}^{\star }\right] _{\star }=0, \label{nc-z-c}$$where $\left[ ,\right] _{\star }$ is the commutator with respect to $\star $-product i.e. for any functions $f$ and $g$, $\left[ f,g\right] _{\star
}=f\star g-g\star f.$ It can be easily seen that the equations ([nc-continuity]{}) and (\[nc-z-c\]) appear as the compatibility condition of the following set of linear equations (Lax pair) $$\partial _{\pm }v\left( x^{+},x^{-};\lambda \right) =A_{\pm }^{\star \left(
\lambda \right) }\star v\left( x^{+},x^{-};\lambda \right) ,
\label{nc-linearsys}$$where the fields $A_{\pm }^{\star \left( \lambda \right) }$ are given by $$A_{\pm }^{\star \left( \lambda \right) }=\mp \frac{\lambda }{1\mp \lambda }j_{\pm }^{\star }, \label{nc-laxpair}$$and $\lambda $ is the spectral parameter$.$
By analogy of section 3, the Lax pair of the nc-PCM can be used to construct binary Darboux transformation of the system. We proceed by rewriting the Lax pair (direct Lax pair) as$$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{+}v &=&\frac{1}{1-\lambda }j_{+}^{\star }\star v,
\label{nc-laxpair2} \\
\partial _{-}v &=&\frac{1}{1+\lambda }j_{-}^{\star }\star v.
\label{nc-laxpair20}\end{aligned}$$The dual Lax pair for the matrix field $\omega $ with spectral parameter $\lambda ^{\prime }$ is given as$$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{+}\omega &=&-\frac{1}{1-\lambda ^{\prime }}\omega \star
j_{+}^{\star }, \label{nc-dualpair1} \\
\partial _{-}\omega &=&-\frac{1}{1+\lambda ^{\prime }}\omega \star
j_{-}^{\star }. \label{nc-dualpair2}\end{aligned}$$Since all the objects involved are of matrix nature, therefore, the binary Darboux transformation can be constructed for the nc-PCM in the same way as for the usual (commutative) PCM. Following the previous section, one arrives at the transformation$$\begin{aligned}
v\left[ 1\right] &=&\left( I-\frac{\mu -\nu }{\lambda -\nu }P\right) \star v,
\nonumber \\
\omega \left[ 1\right] &=&\omega \star \left( I-\frac{\mu -\nu }{\mu
-\lambda ^{\prime }}P\right) , \nonumber \\
g^{\star }\left[ 1\right] &=&\left( I+\frac{\mu -\nu }{\nu }P\right) \star
g^{\star }, \label{ncbdt}\end{aligned}$$where the $P$ is the projector, defined as$$P=\left\vert m\right\rangle \star (\left\langle m\mid n\right\rangle
)^{-1}\star \left\langle n\right\vert . \label{nc-projector}$$By applying the successive Darboux transformation on $v,\omega $ and $g$, we arrive at the following solution$$\begin{aligned}
g^{\star }\left[ K\right] &=&[I+(\sum\limits_{i,j=1}^{K}\frac{\mu
^{\left( j\right)
}-\nu ^{\left( i\right) }}{\nu ^{\left( j\right) }} \nonumber \\
&&\times \left\vert m^{\left( i\right) }\right\rangle \star \left(
\left\langle n^{\left( i\right) }\mid m^{\left( j\right) }\right\rangle
\right) ^{-1}\star \left\langle n^{\left( j\right) }\right\vert )]\star
g^{\star }, \label{ncnthit}\end{aligned}$$where $$\begin{aligned}
\nu ^{\left( i\right) } &=&\left( \bar{\mu}^{\left( i\right) }\right) ^{-1},
\label{nc-cond1} \\
\left\langle n^{\left( i\right) }\right\vert &=&\left( \left\vert
m^{\left( i\right) }\right\rangle \right) ^{\dagger }\star
(g^{\star})^{-1}=\left\langle m^{\left( i\right) }\right\vert
\star (g^{\star})^{-1}, \label{nc-cond3}\end{aligned}$$The solution (\[ncnthit\]) of nc-PCM is different from (\[ncurrent\]) of the usual PCM in the sense that the product of functions has been replaced with the corresponding $\star
$-product. The difference will clearly show up when we take explicit expressions of solution (\[ncnthit\]) of nc-PCM. In the usual (commutative) case the solution appears as a ratio of determinants of certain functions but in the noncommutative case, the solution appears as quasi-determinant. To show this we consider the second iteration of the binary Darboux transformation. Take $\mu ^{\left( 1\right) }=\mu ,\mu ^{\left( 2\right) }=\bar{\mu}^{-1}+\varepsilon ,$ and $ \left\langle m^{\left( i\right)
}(g^{\star })^{-1}\mid m^{\left( j\right)}\right\rangle=O\left(
\varepsilon \right) .$ Taking the limit $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0,$ the coefficients of matrix $g^{\star }\left[ 2\right] $ may then be written in terms of quasi- determinant [^2] as $$g^{\star }\left[ 2\right] _{ik}=\left\vert
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frame{\fbox{$g_{ik}^{\star}$}} & -\left\langle m^{\left( 1\right)
}(g^{\star })^{-1}\mid g^{\star \left( k\right) }\right\rangle &
-\left\langle m^{\left(
2\right) }(g^{\star })^{-1}\mid g^{\star \left( k\right) }\right\rangle \\
\ m_{i}^{(1)} & \frac{\left\langle m^{\left( 1\right) }(g^{\star
})^{-1}\mid m^{\left( 1\right) }\right\rangle }{\left\vert \mu
\right\vert ^{2}-1} & \mu
^{-1}\left\langle A^{\dagger }(g^{\star })^{-1}\mid m^{\left( 1\right) }\right\rangle \\
\ m_{i}^{(2)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}\left\langle m^{\left( 1\right)
}(g^{\star })^{-1}\mid A\right\rangle & \frac{\left\vert \mu
\right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}\left\langle
m^{\left(
2\right) }(g^{\star })^{-1}\mid m^{\left( 2\right) }\right\rangle\end{array}\right\vert , \label{nc-matrixg}$$where $$\begin{aligned}
A &=&\frac{\partial \left\vert m^{\left( 2\right) }\right\rangle }{\partial
\mu ^{\left( 2\right) }}\mid _{\mu ^{\left( 2\right) }=\bar{\mu}^{-1}}, \\
g^{\star } &=&\left( g^{\star \left( 1\right) },\ldots ,g^{\star \left(
N\right) }\right) .\end{aligned}$$The $K$-$th$ iteration of BDT leads to the coefficients of matrix $g\left[ K\right] $ as$$\begin{aligned}
&&g^{\star }\left[ K\right] _{ik} \nonumber \\
&=&\left\vert
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\frame{\fbox{$g_{ik}^{\star}$}} & a_{1k}^{\star } & a_{2k}^{\star
} &
a_{3k}^{\star } & a_{4k}^{\star } & \cdots & a_{Kk}^{\star } \\
\ m_{i}^{(1)} & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert
^{2}-1}b_{11}^{\star } & \mu ^{-1}A_{11}^{\star \dagger } &
\frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}A_{21}^{\star \dagger }
& \mu
^{-1}A_{31}^{\star \dagger } & \cdots & c_{1K}A_{(K-1)1}^{\star \dagger } \\
\ m_{i}^{(2)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{11}^{\star }
& \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{22}^{\star } & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{31}^{\star } & \frac{\left\vert \mu
\right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{41}^{\star } & \cdots
& c_{2K}A_{K1}^{\star } \\
\ m_{i}^{(3)} & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu
\right\vert ^{2}-1}A_{12}^{\star } & \mu ^{-1}A_{22}^{\star } & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}b_{33}^{\star } & \mu ^{-1}A_{42}^{\star }
& \cdots & c_{3K}A_{K2}^{\star } \\
\ m_{i}^{(4)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{13}^{\star }
& \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{23}^{\star } & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{33}^{\star } & \frac{\left\vert \mu
\right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{44}^{\star } & \cdots
& c_{4K}A_{K3}^{\star } \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\ m_{i}^{(K)} & c_{K1}A_{1(K-1)}^{\star } &
c_{K2}A_{2(K-1)}^{\star } & c_{K3}A_{3(K-1)}^{\star } & c_{K4}A_{4(K-1)}^{\star } & \cdots & c_{KK}b_{KK}^{\star }\end{array}\right\vert , \label{matrixngk}\end{aligned}$$where $$\begin{aligned}
a_{ik}^{\star } &=&-\left\langle m^{\left( i\right) }(g^{\star
})^{-1}\mid
g^{\star \left( k\right) }\right\rangle , \\
b_{ik}^{\star } &=&\left\langle m^{\left( i\right) }(g^{\star
})^{-1}\mid
m^{\left( k\right) }\right\rangle , \\
A_{ik}^{\star } &=&\left\langle m^{\left( i\right) }(g^{\star
})^{-1}\mid
A_{k}\right\rangle , \\
A_{ik}^{\star \dagger } &=&\left\langle A_{i}^{\dagger }(g^{\star
})^{-1}\mid
m^{\left( k\right) }\right\rangle , \\
\mu ^{\left( 1\right) } &=&\mu , \\
\mu ^{\left( i\right) } &=&\frac{1}{\bar{\mu}^{(i-1)}}+\varepsilon
,\mbox{ \
\ \ \ }i=2,3,\cdots ,(N-1), \\
\left\langle m^{\left( i\right) }(g^{\star })^{-1}\mid
m^{\left( j\right)}\right\rangle &=& O\left( \varepsilon \right) ,\mbox{ \ \ \ \ }i\neq j, \\
A_{i-1} &=&\frac{\partial \left\vert m^{\left( i\right) }\right\rangle }{\partial \mu ^{\left( i\right) }}\mid _{\mu ^{\left( i\right) }=\bar{\mu}^{-1}}.\end{aligned}$$The coefficients of the entries in $K$-$th$ row and column of $g^{\star }\left[ K\right] _{ik}$ are same as given in equations (\[coeffs\]) and (\[coeffrow\]). Note that in the commutative limit i.e. $\theta \rightarrow
0$, the quasi-determinants $\left( \ref{nc-matrixg}\right) $ and $\left( \ref{matrixngk}\right) $ reduce to the ratio of determinants $\left( \ref{matrixg}\right) $ and $\left( \ref{matrixgkf}\right) $ respectively.
Relation to binary Darboux transformation for noncommutative (anti) self-dual Yang-Mills equations
==================================================================================================
(Anti) self-dual Yang-Mills ((A)SDYM) theory is a well known example of multi-dimensional integrable systems [@ward1]-[@ward3]. The (A)SDYM equations also act as master equations of many integrable equations in the sense of Ward conjecture [@ward1]-[@ward3]. The noncommutative generalization of (A)SDYM equations and its integrability aspects have been investigated recently (e.g. [@hamanaka]-[@siddiq]). Following [siddiq]{}, we write the (A)SDYM equations on a four-dimensional noncommutative space[^3]$$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{\bar{y}}\mathcal{J}_{y}^{\star }+\partial _{\bar{z}}\mathcal{J}_{z}^{\star } &=&0, \nonumber \\
\partial _{y}\mathcal{J}_{\bar{y}}^{\star }+\partial _{z}\mathcal{J}_{\bar{z}}^{\star } &=&0, \label{asdym}\end{aligned}$$where$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}_{\bar{y}}^{\star } &=&\partial _{\bar{y}}J^{\star }\star
(J^{\star })^{-1}, \\
\mathcal{J}_{\bar{z}}^{\star } &=&\partial _{\bar{z}}J^{\star
}\star (J^{\star})^{-1}\end{aligned}$$and $ (J^{\star})^{-1} =\bar{g}^{-1}\star g$ is the inverse of $J^{\star }$ with respect to the $\star $-product. The noncommutative (A)SDYM equations (nc-(A)SDYM equations) can also be expressed as the compatibility condition of the following linear system (Lax pair)$$\begin{aligned}
(\partial _{y}+\lambda \partial _{\bar{z}})\Psi \left( y,\bar{y},z,\bar{z};\lambda \right) &=&\mathcal{J}_{y}^{\star }\star \Psi \left( y,\bar{y},z,\bar{z};\lambda \right) , \nonumber \\
\left( \partial _{z}-\lambda \partial _{\bar{y}}\right) \Psi \left( y,\bar{y},z,\bar{z};\lambda \right) &=&\mathcal{J}_{z}^{\star }\star \Psi \left( y,\bar{y},z,\bar{z};\lambda \right) ,\, \label{asdym1}\end{aligned}$$where $\Psi \left( y,\bar{y},z,\bar{z};\lambda \right) $ is some $N\times N$ matrix-valued field and $\lambda $ is the spectral parameter. The compatibility of the linear system (\[asdym1\]) is $$(\partial _{z}\mathcal{J}_{y}^{\star }-\partial _{y}\mathcal{J}_{z}^{\star }+\left[ \mathcal{J}_{y}^{\star },\mathcal{J}_{z}^{\star }\right] )-\lambda
\left( \partial _{\bar{y}}\mathcal{J}_{y}^{\star }+\partial _{\bar{z}}\mathcal{J}_{z}^{\star }\right) =0.$$Following [@siddiq], it is easy to see that nc-(A)SDYM equations ([asdym]{}) reduce to a noncommutative two-dimensional principal chiral field equation, if we take $y=\bar{y}=x_{0}$ and $z=\bar{z}=x_{1}$,$$\partial _{0}\mathcal{J}_{0}^{\star }+\partial _{1}\mathcal{J}_{1}^{\star
}=0,$$where $\mathcal{J}_{0}^{\star }$ and $\mathcal{J}_{1}^{\star }$ are the components of conserved currents associated with the global transformation $U\left( N\right) _{L}\times U\left( N\right) _{R}$.
The binary Darboux transformation of nc-(A)SDYM equation has been studied in [@siddiq] where the $K$-soliton solution $J\left[ K\right] $ has been expressed in terms of the projector $P\left[ i\right] $ as$$J^{\star }\left[ K\right] =\left( I+\frac{\mu ^{\left( K\right) }-\nu
^{\left( K\right) }}{\nu ^{\left( K\right) }}P\left[ N\right] \right) \star
\cdots \star \left( I+\frac{\mu ^{\left( 1\right) }-\nu ^{\left( 1\right) }}{\nu ^{\left( 1\right) }}P\left[ 1\right] \right) \star J^{\star },$$where$$P\left[ i\right] =\left\langle \psi ^{\left( i\right) }\left[ i-1\right]
\right\vert \star \left\langle \phi ^{\left( i\right) }\left[ i-1\right]
\mid \psi ^{\left( i\right) }\left[ i-1\right] \right\rangle ^{-1}\star
\left\vert \phi ^{\left( i\right) }\left[ i-1\right] \right\rangle ,$$and $\left\langle \psi ^{\left( i\right) }\left[ i-1\right] \right\vert $ and $\left\vert \phi ^{\left( i\right) }\left[ i-1\right] \right\rangle $ are row and column solutions of the direct and dual Lax pairs of nc-(A)SDYM equations with spectral parameters $\mu ^{\left( i\right) }$ and $\nu
^{\left( i\right) }$ respectively. The $K$-soliton solution of nc-(A)SDYM equations can also be expressed in terms of quasi-determinants as in the case with nc-PCM. For this, we write (see [@Ustinov]) $$J^{\star }\left[ 2\right] _{ik}=\left\vert
\begin{array}{ccc}
\frame{\fbox{$J_{ik}^{\star}$}} & -\left\langle \psi ^{\left(
1\right) }(J^{\star })^{-1}\mid J^{\star \left( k\right)
}\right\rangle & -\left\langle \psi ^{\left( 2\right) }(J^{\star
})^{-1}\mid J^{\star \left( k\right) }\right\rangle
\\
& & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(1)} & \frac{\left\langle \psi ^{\left( 1\right)
}(J^{\star })^{-1}\mid \psi ^{\left( 1\right) }\right\rangle
}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1} & \mu ^{-1}\left\langle
A^{\prime
\dagger }(J^{\star })^{-1}\mid \psi ^{\left( 1\right) }\right\rangle \\
& & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(2)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}\left\langle \psi ^{\left( 1\right) }(J^{\star })^{-1}\mid
A^{\prime }\right\rangle & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert
^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}\left\langle \psi ^{\left(
2\right) }(J^{\star })^{-1}\mid
\psi ^{\left( 2\right) }\right\rangle \\
& &
\end{array}\right\vert ,$$where$$\begin{aligned}
\nu ^{\left( i\right) } &=&\left( \bar{\mu}^{\left( i\right) }\right) ^{-1},
\nonumber \\
\left\langle \phi ^{\left( i\right) }\right\vert &=&\left(
\left\vert \psi ^{\left( i\right) }\right\rangle \right) ^{\dagger
}\star (J^{\star })^{-1}=\left\langle \psi ^{\left( i\right)
}\right\vert \star (J^{\star })^{-1}, \label{cond}\end{aligned}$$and$$\begin{aligned}
A^{\prime } &=&\frac{\partial \left\vert \psi ^{\left( 2\right)
}\right\rangle }{\partial \mu ^{\left( 2\right) }}\mid _{\mu ^{\left(
2\right) }=\bar{\mu}^{-1}}, \\
J^{\star } &=&\left( J^{\star \left( 1\right) },\ldots ,J^{\star
\left( N\right) }\right),\\
\left\vert \psi^{\left( i\right) } \right\rangle &=& \left(
\psi_{1}^{\left( i\right) },\ldots ,\psi_{N}^{\left( i\right)
}\right)^{T},\mbox{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }i=1,2,\cdots,K .\end{aligned}$$The $J^{\star }\left[ K\right] $ is now given as$$\begin{aligned}
&&J^{\star }\left[ K\right] _{ik} \\
&=&\left\vert
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\frame{\fbox{$J_{ik}^{\star}$}} & a_{1k}^{\prime \star } &
a_{2k}^{\prime \star } & a_{3k}^{\prime \star } & a_{4k}^{\prime
\star } & \cdots & a_{Kk}^{\prime
\star } \\
& & & & & & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(1)} & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert
^{2}-1}b_{11}^{\prime \star } & \mu ^{-1}A_{11}^{\prime \star
\dagger } & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert
^{2}-1}A_{21}^{\prime \star \dagger } & \mu ^{-1}A_{31}^{\prime
\star \dagger } & \cdots &
c_{1K}A_{(K-1)1}^{\prime \star \dagger } \\
& & & & & & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(2)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{11}^{\prime \star } & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{22}^{\prime \star } & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{31}^{\prime \star } & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{41}^{\prime \star } & \cdots &
c_{2K}A_{K1}^{\prime \star } \\
& & & & & & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(3)} & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert
^{2}-1}A_{12}^{\prime \star } & \mu ^{-1}A_{22}^{\prime \star } &
\frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}b_{33}^{\prime \star }
& \mu
^{-1}A_{42}^{\prime \star } & \cdots & c_{3K}A_{K2}^{\prime \star } \\
& & & & & & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(4)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{13}^{\prime \star } & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{23}^{\prime \star } & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{33}^{\prime \star } & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{44}^{\prime \star } & \cdots &
c_{4K}A_{K3}^{\prime \star } \\
& & & & & & \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(K)} & c_{K1}A_{1(K-1)}^{\prime \star } &
c_{K2}A_{2(K-1)}^{\prime \star } & c_{K3}A_{3(K-1)}^{\prime \star
} & c_{K4}A_{4(K-1)}^{\prime \star } & \cdots &
c_{KK}b_{KK}^{\prime \star }
\\
& & & & & &
\end{array}\right\vert ,\end{aligned}$$where$$\begin{aligned}
a_{ik}^{\prime \star } &=&-\left\langle \psi ^{\left( i\right)
}(J^{\star })^{-1}\mid J^{\star \left( k\right) }\right\rangle , \\
b_{ik}^{\prime \star } &=&\left\langle \psi ^{\left( i\right) }(J^{\star })^{-1}\mid \psi ^{\left( k\right) }\right\rangle , \\
A_{ik}^{\prime \star } &=&\left\langle \psi ^{\left( i\right) }(J^{\star })^{-1}\mid A_{k}^{\prime }\right\rangle , \\
A_{ik}^{\prime \star \dagger } &=&\left\langle A_{i}^{\prime \dagger
}(J^{\star })^{-1}\mid \psi ^{\left( k\right) }\right\rangle , \\
\mu ^{\left( 1\right) } &=&\mu , \\
\mu ^{\left( i\right) } &=&\frac{1}{\bar{\mu}^{(i-1)}}+\varepsilon
,\mbox{ \
\ \ \ }i=2,3,\cdots ,(K-1), \\
\left\langle\psi ^{\left( i\right) }(J^{\star })^{-1}\mid \psi
^{\left( j\right)
}\right\rangle &=&O\left( \varepsilon \right) ,\mbox{ \ \ \ \ }i\neq j, \\
A_{i-1}^{\prime } &=&\frac{\partial \left\vert \psi ^{\left( i\right)
}\right\rangle }{\partial \mu ^{\left( i\right) }}\mid _{\mu ^{\left(
i\right) }=\bar{\mu}^{-1}}.\end{aligned}$$The coefficients of the entries in $K$-$th$ row and column of $J^{\star }\left[ K\right] _{ik}$ are same as given in equations (\[coeffs\]) and (\[coeffrow\]). Here again, one can see that in the commutative limit i.e. $\theta \rightarrow 0$, the quasi-determinants of multi-solitons reduce to the ratio of determinants of multi-solitons of usual (commutative) (A)SDYM equations. So in the limit $\theta \rightarrow 0$, we get the following two-soliton solution as$$J^{\star }\left[ 2\right] _{ik}\rightarrow J\left[ 2\right] _{ik}=\frac{\left\vert
\begin{array}{ccc}
J_{ik} & -\left\langle \psi ^{\left( 1\right) }J^{-1}\mid
J^{\left( k\right) }\right\rangle & \left\langle \psi ^{\left(
2\right)
}J^{-1}\mid J^{\left( k\right) }\right\rangle \\
& & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(1)} & \frac{\left\langle \psi
^{\left( 1\right) }J^{-1}\mid \psi ^{\left( 1\right) }\right\rangle }{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1} & \mu ^{-1}\left\langle A^{\prime \dagger
}J^{-1}\mid \psi ^{\left( 1\right) }\right\rangle \\
& & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(2)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}\left\langle \psi ^{\left( 1\right) }J^{-1}\mid A^{\prime
}\right\rangle & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu
\right\vert ^{2}}\left\langle \psi ^{\left( 2\right) }J^{-1}\mid \psi
^{\left( 2\right) }\right\rangle \\
& &
\end{array}\right\vert }{\left\vert
\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\left\langle \psi ^{\left( 1\right) }J^{-1}\mid \psi ^{\left(
1\right) }\right\rangle }{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1} & \mu
^{-1}\left\langle A^{\prime \dagger }J^{-1}\mid \psi ^{\left( 1\right)
}\right\rangle \\
& \\
\bar{\mu}^{-1}\left\langle \psi ^{\left( 1\right) }J^{-1}\mid A^{\prime
}\right\rangle & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu
\right\vert ^{2}}\left\langle \psi ^{\left( 2\right) }J^{-1}\mid \psi
^{\left( 2\right) }\right\rangle \\
&
\end{array}\right\vert },$$ and similarly for the multi-soliton solution, we get$$\begin{aligned}
&&J^{\star }\left[ K\right] _{ik}\rightarrow J\left[ K\right] _{ik} \\
&=&\frac{\left\vert
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
J_{ik} & -a_{1k}^{\prime } & -a_{2k}^{\prime } & -a_{3k}^{\prime
}
& -a_{4k}^{\prime } & \cdots & -a_{Kk}^{\prime } \\
& & & & & & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(1)} & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert
^{2}-1}b_{11}^{\prime } & \mu ^{-1}A_{11}^{\prime \dagger } &
\frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}A_{21}^{\prime \dagger
} & \mu ^{-1}A_{31}^{\prime \dagger } & \cdots &
c_{1K}A_{(K-1)1}^{\prime \dagger }
\\
& & & & & & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(2)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{11}^{\prime } & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert
\mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{22}^{\prime } & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{31}^{\prime } &
\frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{41}^{\prime } & \cdots & c_{2K}A_{K1}^{\prime } \\
& & & & & & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(3)} & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu
\right\vert ^{2}-1}A_{12}^{\prime } & \mu ^{-1}A_{22}^{\prime } & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}b_{33}^{\prime } & \mu ^{-1}A_{42}^{\prime
} & \cdots & c_{3K}A_{K2}^{\prime } \\
& & & & & & \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(4)} & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{13}^{\prime } & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert
\mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{23}^{\prime } & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{33}^{\prime } &
\frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{44}^{\prime } & \cdots & c_{4K}A_{K3}^{\prime } \\
& & & & & & \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
\ \psi_{i}^{(K)} & c_{K1}A_{1(K-1)}^{\prime } &
c_{K2}A_{2(K-1)}^{\prime } & c_{K3}A_{3(K-1)}^{\prime } &
c_{K4}A_{4(K-1)}^{\prime } & \cdots & c_{KK}b_{KK}^{\prime } \\
& & & & & &
\end{array}\right\vert }{\left\vert
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}b_{11}^{\prime } & \mu
^{-1}A_{11}^{\prime \dagger } & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}A_{21}^{\prime \dagger } & \mu ^{-1}A_{31}^{\prime \dagger } & \cdots &
c_{1K}A_{(K-1)1}^{\prime \dagger } \\
& & & & & \\
\bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{11}^{\prime } & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{22}^{\prime } & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{31}^{\prime } & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert
\mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{41}^{\prime } & \cdots & c_{2K}A_{K1}^{\prime } \\
& & & & & \\
\frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}A_{12}^{\prime } & \mu
^{-1}A_{22}^{\prime } & \frac{1}{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}-1}b_{33}^{\prime } & \mu ^{-1}A_{42}^{\prime } & \cdots & c_{3K}A_{K2}^{\prime
} \\
& & & & & \\
\bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{13}^{\prime } & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}A_{23}^{\prime } & \bar{\mu}^{-1}A_{33}^{\prime } & \frac{\left\vert \mu \right\vert ^{2}}{1-\left\vert
\mu \right\vert ^{2}}b_{44}^{\prime } & \cdots & c_{4K}A_{K3}^{\prime } \\
& & & & & \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
c_{K1}A_{1(K-1)}^{\prime } & c_{K2}A_{2(K-1)}^{\prime } &
c_{K3}A_{3(K-1)}^{\prime } & c_{K4}A_{4(K-1)}^{\prime } & \cdots &
c_{KK}b_{KK}^{\prime } \\
& & & & &
\end{array}\right\vert },\end{aligned}$$where$$\begin{aligned}
a_{ik}^{\prime } &=&\left\langle \psi ^{\left( i\right) }J^{-1}\mid
J^{\left( k\right) }\right\rangle , \\
b_{ik}^{\prime } &=&\left\langle \psi ^{\left( i\right) }J^{-1}\mid \psi
^{\left( k\right) }\right\rangle , \\
A_{ik}^{\prime } &=&\left\langle \psi ^{\left( i\right) }J^{-1}\mid
A_{k}^{\prime }\right\rangle , \\
A_{ik}^{\prime \dagger } &=&\left\langle A_{i}^{\prime \dagger }J^{-1}\mid
\psi ^{\left( k\right) }\right\rangle , \\
\mu ^{\left( 1\right) } &=&\mu , \\
\mu ^{\left( i\right) } &=&\frac{1}{\bar{\mu}^{(i-1)}}+\varepsilon
\qquad i=2,3,\cdots ,(K-1), \\
\left\langle \psi ^{\left( i\right) }J^{-1}\mid \psi ^{\left(
j\right)
}\right\rangle &=&O\left( \varepsilon \right) ,\qquad i\neq j, \\
A_{i-1}^{\prime } &=&\frac{\partial \left\vert \psi ^{\left(
i\right) }\right\rangle }{\partial \mu ^{\left( i\right) }}\mid
_{\mu ^{\left( i\right) }=\bar{\mu}^{-1}}.\end{aligned}$$The values of coefficients $c_{ij}$ are as given in equation (\[coeffs\]).
Conclusions
===========
We have constructed a binary Darboux transformation to generate exact multi-soliton solutions of $U\left( N\right) $ principal chiral model. The multi-soliton solutions of the noncommutative $U\left( N\right) $ principal chiral model are also obtained and the solutions are expressed in terms of quasi-determinants of Gel’fand and Retakh. We find that these solutions have the same form as that of (anti) self dual Yang-Mills equations. Our results are useful in the sense that their exact analysis leads to the various applications of D-brane dynamics and helps understanding the properties of $N=2$ string theory. This technique of binary Darboux transformation can also be applied to other integrable models to obtain their exact mulit-soliton solutions. These solutions may be analysed and it would be interesting to check their stability and the scattering properties. The work can be further extended to construct super multi-solitons for the supersymmetric principal chiral model. From the point of view of string theory, it is also interesting to study the spectrum of solutions in the string theory on $Ads^{5}\times S^{5}$ using the binary Darboux transformation.
[**Acknowledgements**]{}
BH would like to acknowledge the enabling role of the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan and appreciates its financial support through Indeginous 5000 fellowship program" for PhD studies in Science and Technology. MH would like to thank Jonathan Nimmo for hospitality at the Department of Mathematics, University of Glasgow and to the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan for a research fellowship.
[99]{}
K. Pohlmeyer, *Integrable hamiltonian systems and interactions through quadratic constraints*, Commun. Math. Phys. **46** (1976) 207.
V. E. Zakharov and A. V. Mikhailov, *Relativistically invariant two-dimensional models in field theory integrable by the* *inverse problem technique*, (In Russian), Sov. Phys. JETP **47** (1978) 1017 \[Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. **74**\] (1978) 1953\].
E. Brezin, C. Itzykson, J. Zinn-Justin and J. B. Zuber, *Remarks about the existence of nonlocal charges in two-dimensional* *models*, Phys. Lett. B **82** (1979) 442.
H. J. de Vega, *Field theories with an infinite number of conservation laws and Backlund transformations in* *two-dimensions*, Phys. Lett. B **87** (1979) 233.
S. Novikov, S. V. Manakov, L. P. Pitaevsky and V. E. Zakharov, *Theory of solitons. The inverse scattering method*, New York, Usa, Consultants Bureau ( 1984) 276 P. ( Contemporary Soviet Mathematics)
L. D. Faddeev and L. A. Takhtajan, ‘Hamiltonian methods in the theory of solitons,” Berlin, Germany: Springer (1987) 592 p. (Springer series in Soviet Mathematics)
L. L. Chau, M. L. Ge, J. C. Shaw and H. C. Yen, *A unified derivation of Backlund transformations for integrable nonlinear equations*, Chinese Journal of Physics **5**, 34 (1996) 1191.
J. M. Evans, M. Hassan, N. J. MacKay and A. J. Mountain, *Local conserved charges in principal chiral models*, Nucl. Phys. B **561** (1999) 385
J. M. Evans, M. Hassan, N. J. MacKay and A. J. Mountain, *Conserved charges and supersymmetry in principal chiral and WZW* *models*, Nucl. Phys. B **580** (2000) 605.
U. Saleem and M. Hassan, *Zero-curvature formalism of supersymmetric principal chiral model,* Eur. Phys. J. C. **38**, (2005).
U. Saleem and M. Hassan, *Lax pair and Darboux transformation of noncommutative* $U\left( N\right) $* principal chiral model,* J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **39** (2006).
J. Kluson, *Current algebra and integrability of principal chiral model on the world-sheet with general metric*, JHEP **704** (2007) 40 \[arXiv:hep-th/0703003\].
I. Bena, J. Polchinski and R. Roiban, *Hidden symmetries of the* $AdS^{5}\times S^{5}$* superstring*, Phys. Rev. D **69** (2004) 046002 \[arXiv:hep-th/0305116\].
M. Hamanaka , *Notes on exact multi-soliton solutions of noncommutative integrable hierarchies ,* JHEP **02** (2007) 094.
C. R. Gilson, J. J. C. Nimmo and Y. Ohta , *Quasideterminant solutions of a non-Abelian Hirota-Miwa equation,* J.Phys.A; Math.Theor. **40** (2007) 12607-12617.
C. R. Gilson and J. J. C. Nimmo, *On a direct approach to quasideterminant solutions of a noncommutative KP equation ,* J.Phys.A; Math.Theor. **40** (2007) 3839-3850.
C. R. Gilson, J. J. C. Nimmo and C. M. Sooman , *On a direct approach to quasideterminant solutions of a noncommutative modified KP equation ,* \[nlin.SI / arXiv:0711.3733v1\].
C. X. Li and J. J. C. Nimmo, *Quasideterminant solutions of a non-Abelian Toda lattice and kink solutions of a matrix sine-Gordon equation ,* \[nlin.SI / arXiv:0711.2594v2\].
C. R. Gilson, M. Hamanaka and J. J. C. Nimmo , *Backlund transformations for noncommutative anti-self-dual Yang-Mills equations,* \[nlin.SI / arXiv:0709.2069v1\].
M. Siddiq, U. Saleem and M. Hassan, *Darboux transformation and multi-soliton solutions of a noncommutative sine-Gordon system ,* To appear in Mod. Phys. Lett. A.
M. Hamanaka, *Commuting flows and conservation laws for noncommutative Lax hierarchies*, J. Math. Phys. **46**, (2005) 052701. (Preprint hep-th/0311206)
M. Hamanaka and K. Toda, *noncommutative Burgers equation,* J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **36** (2003) 11981 (Preprint hep-th/0301213).
U. Saleem, M. Hassan and M. Siddiq, *Non-local continuity equations and binary Darboux transformation of noncommutative (anti)* *self-dual Yang-Mills equations*, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. **40** (2007) 5205-5217.
M. Moriconi and I.C. Carnero, *noncommutative integrable field theories in 2-d*, Nucl. Phys. B**673** (2003) 437.
M.T. Grisaru and S. Penati, *An Integrable noncommutative version of the sine-Gordon system*, Nucl.Phys. B**655** (2003) 250.
K. Takasaki, *Anti-self-dual Yang-Mills equations on noncommutative spacetime*, J. Geom. Phys. **37**, 291 (2001).
U. Saleem, M. Hassan and M. Siddiq, *On noncommutative sinh-Gordon equation*, Chin. Phys. Lett. **22**, 1076 (2005).
U. Saleem, M. Hassan and M. Siddiq, *Conserved quantities in noncommutative principal chiral model with Wess-Zumino term*, J. Phys. A: Math.Gen. **38**, 9241 (2005).
A. Dimakis and F. Mueller Hoissen, *Extension of noncommutative soliton hierarchies*, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. **37**, 4069 (2004).
A. Dimakis and F. M. Hoissen, *Bicomplexes, integrable models, and noncommutative geometry,* Int. J. Mod. Phys. B**14** (2000) 2455.
M. Hamanaka, *On reductions of noncommutative anti-self-dual Yang-Mills equations*, Phys. Lett. B **625**, 324 (2005). (Preprint hep-th/0507112)
M. Hamanaka, *noncommutative Ward’s conjecture and integrable systems,* Nucl. Phys. B **741** 368 (2006) (Preprint hep-th/0601209)
S. Minwalla, M. V. Raamsdonk and N. Seiberg, *noncommutative perturbative dynamics*, J. High Energy Phys. **02** (2000) 020.
N. Seiberg and E. Witten, *String theory and noncommutative geometry*, J. High Energy Phys. **09** (1999) 032.
K. Furuta and T. Inami, *Ultraviolet property of noncommutative Wess-Zumino-Witten model,* Mod. Phys. Lett. A**15** (2000) 997.
Gelfand and V. Retakh, *Determinants of matrices over noncommutative rings*, Funct. Anal. Appl. **25** (1991), no. 2, 91-102.
Gelfand and V. Retakh, *A theory of noncommutative determinants and characteristic functions of graphs,* Funct. Anal. Appl. **26** (1992), no. 4, 1-20.
I. Gelfand and V. Retakh, *A theory of noncommutative determinants and characteristic functions of graphs. I*, Publ. LACIM, UQAM, Montreal 14 (1993), 1-26.
Gelfand and V. Retakh, *Gelfand mathematical seminars 1993-95*, Birkhauser, 1996.
N. V. Ustinov, *The reduced selfdual Yang-Mills equation, binary and infinitesimal Darboux transformations,* J. Math. Phys. **39** (1998) 976.
J. E. Moyal, *Quantum mechanics as a statistical theory,* Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. **45** (1949) 99.
N. Dorey and B. Vicedo, *A symplectic structure for string theory on integrable backgrounds*, JHEP **03** (2007) 045 \[arXiv:hep-th/0606287\].
G. Arutyunov and M. Zamaklar, *Linking Backlund and monodromy charges for strings on* $AdS^{5}\times S^{5}$, JHEP **0507** (2005) 026 \[arXiv:hep-th/0504144\].
L. F. Alday, G. Arutyunov and A. A. Tseytlin, *On integrability of classical superstrings in* $AdS^{5}\times S^{5}$, JHEP **0507** (2005) 002 \[arXiv:hep-th/0502240\].
A. Das, J. Maharana, A. Melikyan and M. Sato, *The algebra of transition matrices for the* $AdS^{5}\times S^{5}$*superstring*, JHEP **0412** (2004) 055 \[arXiv:hep-th/0411200\].
G. Arutyunov and S. Frolov, *Integrable Hamiltonian for classical strings on* $AdS^{5}\times S^{5}$*,* JHEP **0502** (2005) 059 \[arXiv:hep-th/0411089\].
M. Hatsuda and K. Yoshida, *Classical integrability and super Yangian of superstring on* $AdS^{5}\times S^{5}$, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. **9** (2005) 703 \[arXiv:hep-th/0407044\].
R. S. Ward, *On selfdual gauge fields,* Phys. Lett. A **61** (1977) 81.
R. S. Ward, *Integrable and solvable systems, and relations among them*, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A **315** (1985) 451
R. S. Ward, *Multidimensional integrable systems*, (Lect. Notes Phys. vol 280) Springer p 106 (1986)
[^1]: Our conventions are such that the two-dimensional coordinates are related as $x^{\pm }=\frac{1}{2}\left( x^{0}\pm ix^{1}\right) $ and $\partial ^{\pm }=\frac{1}{2}\left( \partial _{0}\pm i\partial _{1}\right) .$
[^2]: Let $A = (a_{ij})$ be a $N{\times}N$ matrix and $B = (b_{ij})$ be the inverse matrix of $A$, that is, $A{\star}B = B{\star}A = 1$. Quasi-determinants of $A$ are defined formally as the inverse of the elements of $B = A^{-1}: |A_{ij}| =
b^{-1}$. Quasi-determinants can be also given iteratively by: $$|A|_{ij}=a_{ij}-\sum a_{ip}{\star}|A_{ij}|_{pq}^{-1}{\star}a_{qj}.$$ The quasi-determinant for a $1\times 1$ matrix $A=(a_{11})$ is $$|A|_{11}=a_{11}$$ For a $2\times 2$ matrix $A=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{11} & a_{12} \\
a_{21} & a_{22}\end{array}\right) ,$ there exist four quasi-determinants given as$$\begin{aligned}
|A|_{11} &=&\left\vert
\begin{array}{cc}
\frame{\fbox{$a_{11}$}} & a_{12} \\
a_{21} & a_{22}\end{array}\right\vert =a_{11}-a_{12}\ \star a_{22}^{-1}\star \ a_{21}, \\
|A|_{21} &=&\left\vert
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{11} & a_{12} \\
\frame{\fbox{$a_{21}$}} & a_{22}\end{array}\right\vert =a_{21}-a_{22}\star \ a_{12}^{-1}\ \star a_{11}, \\
|A|_{12} &=&\left\vert
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{11} & \frame{\fbox{$a_{12}$}} \\
a_{21} & a_{22}\end{array}\right\vert =a_{12}-a_{11}\star \ a_{21}^{-1}\star \ a_{22}, \\
|A|_{22} &=&\left\vert
\begin{array}{cc}
a_{11} & a_{12} \\
a_{21} & \frame{\fbox{$a_{22}$}}\end{array}\right\vert =a_{22}-a_{21}\star \ a_{11}^{-1}\ \star a_{12.}\end{aligned}$$
For more examples and properties of quasi determinants see[@gr]-[@gr3].
[^3]: The coordinates $x_{\mu },\mu =0,1,2,3$ on $4$-dimensional noncommutative Euclidean space $E^{4}$ are related to the coordinates on noncommutative complex Euclidean space as $$\begin{aligned}
y &=&x_{0}+ix_{3},\mbox{ \ \ \ \ }\bar{y}=x_{0}-ix_{3}, \\
z &=&x_{1}+ix_{2},\mbox{ \ \ \ \ }\bar{z}=x_{1}-ix_{2}.\end{aligned}$$The Yang-Mills fields are $N\times N$ matrix-valued $1$-forms representing $U\left( N\right) $ connections with components$$\begin{aligned}
A_{y}^{\star } &=&g^{-1}\star \partial _{y}g,\mbox{ \ \ \ \ }A_{\bar{y}}^{\star }=\bar{g}^{-1}\star \partial _{\bar{y}}\bar{g}, \\
A_{z}^{\star } &=&g^{-1}\star \partial _{z}g,\mbox{ \ \ \ \ }A_{\bar{z}}^{\star }=\bar{g}^{-1}\star \partial _{\bar{z}}\bar{g},\end{aligned}$$where $g,\bar{g}$ and their inverses with respect to $\star $-product $g^{-1},\bar{g}^{-1}$ are functions of $y,\bar{y},z,\bar{z}$ and are matrices belonging to $U\left( N\right) $.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Blind equalization is a classic yet open problem. Statistic-based algorithms, such as constant modulus (CM), were widely investigated. One inherent issue with blind algorithms is the phase ambiguity of equalized signals. In this letter, we propose a novel scheme based on CM criterion and take advantage of the asymmetric property in a class of LDPC codes to resolve the phase ambiguity. Specifically, a new formulation with modified CM objective function and relaxed code constraints is presented.'
author:
- 'Kun Wang, and Zhi Ding, [^1] [^2]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'mybibfile.bib'
title: Semidefinite Relaxation Based Blind Equalization using Constant Modulus Criterion
---
Introduction
============
In digital and especially wireless communications, the channels introduce distortions that can hamper accurate signal recovery at receivers. In particular, the single-input single-output (SISO) dispersive channels can incur inter-symbol interference (ISI). Besides ISI, the signals transmitted in the multi-input multi-output (MIMO) systems suffer from co-channel interference (CCI) from other data streams. Both of them require channel equalization at the receiver to avoid errors in data detection [@qureshi1985adaptive; @proakisdigital]. Among various channel equalization methods, linear equalization admits the simplest form by applying feed-forward linear filters to compensate the channel distortions. Typically, the transmitters need to insert known pilot symbols within data frames for channel estimation or equalizer training. Nonetheless, pilot symbols are not available in some scenarios and also training decreases the overall system throughput. By eliminating training data and maximizing channel capacity for data-bearing transmissions, blind channel equalization presents a bandwidth efficient solution to the distortion compensation.
There has been a plethora of research papers on blind channel equalization and related topics, e.g., blind source separation (BSS); cf. [@ding2001blind]. A vast amount of early works are done under the framework of statistical analysis. Specifically, a lot of blind equalization schemes are achieved by exploiting second-order [@tong1994blind; @abed1997prediction] or higher-order statistics (HOS) [@mendel1991tutorial; @chi2003batch]. These statistics based algorithms, such as the well-known constant modulus algorithm (CMA) [@johnson1998blind] and the super-exponential algorithm (SEA) [@shalvi1993super], directly minimize special non-convex cost functions, and thus tend to exhibit local convergence[@ding1992whereabouts; @li1995convergence]. Even though HOS algorithms may provide satisfactory performance in a certain cases, a relatively large number of samples are needed due to the nature of higher-order statistics. This drawback limits their applications when the environment is fast time-varying.
As recent advancement in the field of optimization, many non-convex and NP-hard quadratically constrained quadratic program (QCQP) can be reformulated as semidefinite program (SDP) with the rank-1 relaxation, which leads to the so-called semidefinite relaxation (SDR)[@luo2010semidefinite; @palomar2010convex]. To tackle the issues of local convergence and large sample requirements, this SDR technique is widely used in detection and equalization, since it can generate a provably approximately optimal solution with a randomized polynomial time complexity. The SDR MIMO detection in BPSK and QPSK shows promising performance [@wang2018non; @tan2001application; @wang2018iterative] and are extended to other constellations [@ma2004semidefinite; @mobasher2007near]. Specifically, blind channel equalization, blind source separation and blind MIMO detection are treated in [@li2001blind; @li2003blind; @ma2006blind], respectively. In [@li2001blind], the authors take advantage of the minimum mean square error (MMSE) criterion to formulate the blind channel equalization problem into a quadratic optimization with binary constraints. Later on, this idea is extended to BSS problem in [@li2003blind] with the exploitation of known input alphabets. On another front, efficient high-performance implementations for blind maximum-likelihood (ML) detection of orthogonal space-time block code (OSTBC) is investigated in [@ma2006blind].
In this work, we intend to utilize the *constant modulus* (CM) criterion. Scanning the literature, we note that a similar work by Mariere *et. al* converts the original CM cost function into a SDP by equating the corresponding polynomial coefficients [@mariere2003blind]. The resulting SDP is of high notational and computational complexities, and requires an alternating projection algorithm as post-processing to compute the final equalizer vector. To deal with the complexity, we modify the original CM objective function by changing the $\ell_2$ norm into $\ell_1$ norm, which leads to a substantially simpler form of SDP. Moreover, in the blind equalization community, it is generally acknowledged that scalar multiplicative and phase rational ambiguities are inherent in the equalized symbols. What’s more, the blind algorithms may recover a different data stream in MIMO detection, although the prior information of the interested stream is provided [@chi2003batch]. The aforementioned algorithms including both HOS-based and optimization-based methods, however, do not address these critical issues. The scalar multiplicative issue is relatively easy to solve by rescaling the power of the equalizer output, whereas the phase ambiguity is quite challenging since almost all the blind cost functions are insensitive to the phase rotations. The usual way for fixing phase is to utilize a reference symbol [@zia2010linear], which essentially also reduces the information data rate. Since most current wireless systems already employ forward error correction (FEC) codes, we plan to exploit the information embedded in the FEC code (LDPC code in our case). One noticeable property of *asymmetric* LDPC code is that the negation of any valid codeword does not belong to the code [@scherb2003phase; @scherb2005phase]. To take advantage of the code information, we will use the relaxed code constraints in real/complex domain [@feldman2005using]. Actually, this set of code constraints have been widely used in our works: space-time code is concatenated with LDPC code in [@wang2014joint; @wang2015joint]; partial channel information is treated in [@wang2015diversity; @wang2016diversity]; multi-user scenario with different channel codes or different interleaving patterns are handled in [@wang2016robust; @wang2016diversity]; SDR-based MIMO detector is proposed in [@wang2018integrated] that can approach ML performance. Different from previous works [@wang2017galois], the asymmetry property will be explored in this work to resolve the phase ambiguity.
SDP Formulations
================
Here we consider a transmission that takes the form $$\mathbf{x}[n] = \mathbf{H} \mathbf{s}[n] + \mathbf{v}[n], \quad 1 \leq n \leq N$$ where $\mathbf{H}$ is the (equivalent) communication channel, $\mathbf{s}[n]$ is the transmitted signal, $\mathbf{x}[n]$ is the received signal, and $\mathbf{v}[n]$ is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at the receiver. These vectors and matrix are of appropriate size. Note that this system model is quite general in the sense that it incorporates spatial multiplexing MIMO, space-time coded MIMO in the *equivalent spatial diversity* model, and SISO transmission in frequency-selective channel with $\mathbf{H}$ being a Toeplitz matrix.
To begin with the algorithm development, we denote the desired equalizer vector by $\mathbf{w}$. In MIMO detection, this equalizer is aimed for a certain stream and length of the equalizer is equal to the number of receive antennas; for SISO ISI equalization, the equalizer length is related to the channel delay spread. Let $y[n]$ be the equalized symbol, that is, $y[n] = \mathbf{w}^H \mathbf{x}[n]$ for flat-fading MIMO channel and $y[n] = w[n] \ast x[n]$ for SISO ISI channel. In the sequel, we only consider the SISO ISI channel for derivation simplicity. Without loss of generality, assume the equalizer is $(L+1)$ in length. In order to have a compact form for SISO ISI case, denote $\mathbf{x}_n = [x_n, x_{n-1}, \ldots, x_{n-L}]^T$ and thus $y[n] = \mathbf{w}^H \mathbf{x}_n$.
Basic CM-based SDP Formulation
------------------------------
If perfect equalization is achieved, the sequence $y[n]$ will be of the same modulus as channel input signal $s[n]$. For BPSK or QPSK, the modulus of $y[n]$ is expected to be 1 and consequently a natural formulation of the blind CM equalization is $$\label{CM_cost}
\text{min.} \quad \mathbf{J}(\mathbf{w})
= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \left| |y[n]|^2 - 1\right|
= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^{N} \left| \mathbf{w}^H \mathbf{X}_n \mathbf{w} - 1 \right|$$ where the second equality follows $$\vert y[n] \vert ^2 = \mathbf{w}^H \mathbf{x}_n \mathbf{x}_n^H \mathbf{w} = \mathbf{w}^H \mathbf{X}_n \mathbf{w}$$
By introducing auxiliary variable $\tau_n$, we can transform the unconstrained problem (\[CM\_cost\]) to the following constrained problem $$\label{cm_qcqp}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathbf{w}}{\text{min.}}
& & \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \tau_n \\
& \text{s.t.}
& & \mathbf{w}^H \mathbf{X}_n \mathbf{w} - \tau_n \leq 1, \; 1 \leq n \leq N \\
&
& & \mathbf{w}^H \mathbf{X}_n \mathbf{w} + \tau_n \geq 1, \; 1 \leq n \leq N
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{w}$ and $\tau_n$’s are optimization variables. However, notice that the second quadratic constraints do not define a convex set, and therefore this QCQP is non-convex. Let $\mathbf{W} = \mathbf{w} \mathbf{w}^H$ and then this QCQP can be transformed into a convex SDP without the rank-1 requirement of $\mathbf{W}$, shown as follows $$\label{cm_sdp}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathbf{w}}{\text{min.}}
& & \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \tau_n \\
& \text{s.t.}
& & \text{tr} (\mathbf{X}_n \mathbf{W}) - \tau_n \leq 1, \; 1 \leq n \leq N \\
&
& & \text{tr} (\mathbf{X}_n \mathbf{W}) + \tau_n \geq 1, \; 1 \leq n \leq N
\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{W}$ and $\tau_n$’s are optimization variables. Upon obtaining the optimal solution $\mathbf{W}^*$, rank-1 approximation or randomization can be used to find the desired equalizer $\mathbf{w}^*$ in $\epsilon$-accuracy [@ye1999approximating].
Integration of LDPC Code Constraints
------------------------------------
The linear programming decoding proposed by Feldman *et. al* opens a gateway for the unification of the detection and decoding processes [@feldman2005using]. Specifically, Consider an LDPC code $\mathcal{C}$. Let $\mathcal{M}$ and $\mathcal{N}$ be the set of check nodes and variable nodes of the parity check matrix $\mathbf{H}$, respectively. Denote the set of neighbors of the $m$-th check node as $\mathcal{N}_m$. For a subset $\mathcal{F} \subseteq \mathcal{N}_m$ with odd cardinality $|\mathcal{F}|$, the explicit constraints on the coded bits $f[n]$ are given by the following parity check inequalities $$\label{eq:parity_ineq}
\sum_{ n \in \mathcal{F} } f[n] - \sum_{ n \in (\mathcal{N}_m \backslash \mathcal{F})} f[n] \leq |\mathcal{F}| - 1, \quad \forall m \in \mathcal{M}, \mathcal{F} \subseteq \mathcal{N}_m, |\mathcal{F}| \, \text{odd}$$ and box constraints $$\label{eq:box_ineq}
0 \leq f[n] \leq 1, \quad \forall n \in \mathcal{N}.$$
It is worthwhile to note that the negation of a valid codeword may still be valid for a generic LDPC code $\mathcal{C}$, and thus the above code constraints cannot fix the phase rotations. However, one special class of LDPC code with the asymmetry property can help to prevent such bad configurations. Its definition is stated in [@scherb2003phase] and repeated here.
A channel code is called asymmetric if the negation of an arbitrary valid codeword is not a valid codeword, i.e. $\mathbf{c} \in \mathcal{C} \Rightarrow \overline{\mathbf{c}} \notin \mathcal{C}$.
Obviously, a code is asymmetric if an arbitrary parity check sum node includes an odd number of neighbors, that is, $| \mathcal{N}_m |$ is odd for every $m \in \mathcal{M}$. This observation is formalized in the following theorem [@scherb2005phase].
If there exists an arbitrary row or an arbitrary linear combination of rows in $\mathbf{H}$ such that the number of 1’s is odd, then this code is asymmetric.
However, to further integrate the LDPC code constraints, we need to explicitly have the variable $\mathbf{w}$ in the optimization problem. Ideally, we want to impose the constraint $\mathbf{W} = \mathbf{w} \mathbf{w}^H$. Nonetheless, this constraint is not convex. As inspired by [@vandenberghe1996semidefinite], we approximate the exact constraint by a convex constraint in the form $\mathbf{W} \succeq \mathbf{w} \mathbf{w}^H$, which is equivalent to $$\label{eq:psd}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{W} & \mathbf{w} \\
\mathbf{w}^H & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\succeq 0.$$
The last step for this integration is to use the squeezing box constraints and symbol-to-bit mapping constraints. In particular, for BPSK, the two kinds of constraints are $$\label{eq:squeeze}
\left| \mathbf{w}^H \mathbf{x}_n - z[n] \right| \leq t_n, \quad 1 \leq n \leq N$$ and $$\label{eq:mapping}
z[n] = 2 f[n] - 1, \quad 1 \leq n \leq N$$ where $z[n]$ is a dummy variable which represents the point on data constellation, and $t_n$ is the variable to be lifted into the cost function for squeezing box. For simplification, the constraints (\[eq:psd\]), (\[eq:squeeze\]) and (\[eq:mapping\]) can be categorized as connection constraints.
To this end, the SDP with code constraints for fixing phase rotation is as follows $$\label{cm_code_sdp}
\begin{aligned}
& \underset{\mathbf{w}}{\text{min.}}
& & \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \tau_n + \sum_{n=1}^N t_n \\
& \text{s.t.}
& & \text{tr} (\mathbf{X}_n \mathbf{W}) - \tau_n \leq 1, \; 1 \leq n \leq N \\
&
& & \text{tr} (\mathbf{X}_n \mathbf{W}) + \tau_n \geq 1, \; 1 \leq n \leq N \\
&
& & [\text{Connection Constraints (\ref{eq:psd}), (\ref{eq:squeeze}) and (\ref{eq:mapping})}] \\
&
& & [\text{LDPC Code Constraints (\ref{eq:parity_ineq}) and (\ref{eq:box_ineq})}]
\end{aligned}$$
Summary
=======
In this letter, we first reformulate the non-convex CM cost function into a convex SDP with rank-1 relaxation. We further attempt to address the inherent issue of phase rotation by integrating LDPC code constraints. It is a novel way and a seemingly promising approach of using the prior information embedded in asymmetric LDPC code instead of reference symbol. The remaining works are to extend this formulation to higher-order modulations, which is non-trivial, and to exploit other a priori information in the transmission. Preliminary tests are yet to come.
[^1]: K. Wang is with Qualcomm, Inc, Santa Clara, CA 95051. Email: [email protected].
[^2]: Z. Ding is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA. Email: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present new imaging polarimetric observations of two Main Belt asteroids, (234) Barbara and (387) Aquitania, taken in the first half of 2008 using the Dual-Beam Imaging Polarimeter on the University of Hawaii 2.2 meter telescope, located on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Barbara had been previously shown to exhibit a very unusual polarization-phase curve by @cellino06. Our observations confirm this result and add Aquitania to the growing class of large inversion angle objects. Interestingly, these asteroids show spinel features in their IR spectra suggesting a mineralogical origin to the phase angle-dependent polarimetric features. As spinel is associated with calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions and carbonaceous chondrites, these large inversion angle asteroids may represent some of the oldest surfaces in the solar system. Circular as well as linear polarization measurements were obtained but circular polarization was not detected.'
author:
- 'Joseph Masiero, Alberto Cellino'
title: 'Polarization of asteroid (387) Aquitania: the newest member of a class of large inversion angle asteroids'
---
Introduction
============
The radiation we receive from asteroids at visible wavelengths is sunlight scattered by the solid surfaces of the objects. The scattering process polarizes the emerging photon flux, with the most general state of polarization being partial elliptical polarization. In the case of asteroid scattering, linear polarization dominates over circular and is modulated by the properties of the surface (e.g. albedo, texture, composition, regolith size) and the illumination conditions. Measuring the degree of linear polarization can diagnose physical conditions of the scattering surface and is complementary to photometry and spectroscopy for the remote analysis of small solar system objects.
A common way to quantify the polarization of light is by using the Stokes vectors $I$, $Q$, $U$, & $V$, where $I$ is the total intensity, $Q$ the amount of light polarized in the $0^\circ$ or $90^\circ$ planes, $U$ the light in the $45^\circ$ or $-45^\circ$ planes, and $V$ the light polarized circularly with left- or right-handedness. In particular, Stokes $Q$ and $U$ fully describe the state of linear polarization. For cases of linear polarization, $Q$ and $U$ can be converted into a measure of the total degree of polarization ($P$) and the position angle of polarization ($\theta$) using: $P = \frac{\sqrt{Q^2+U^2}}{I}$ and $\theta =
\frac{1}{2} \arctan{U/Q}$.
The reference for the position angle of polarization is typically celestial north, though definitions in the instrument frame or the galactic frame can also be used if convenient. In asteroid polarimetry it is found that with few exceptions the orientation of the plane of linear polarization is perpendicular or parallel to the scattering plane: the plane encompassing the Sun, the target, and the observer. Since most scattering cases result in light polarized perpendicular to the scattering plane we define that direction as the reference for polarization position angle. The new degree of polarization is then defined as $$P_r =
\frac{(I_{\perp}-I_{\parallel})}{(I_{\perp}+I_{\parallel})}$$ where $I_{\perp}$ and $I_{\parallel}$ are the intensities of light perpendicular and parallel to the scattering plane, respectively. For this definition, $P_r$ will be positive for the “normal” scattering case, or negative if the scattered light is polarized in the plane of scattering. This allows us to refer to polarization of an asteroid as either “positive” or “negative” and still be completely descriptive.
The primary observable in asteroid polarimetric studies is the change in percent polarization $P_r$ as a function of phase angle (the angle between the Sun and the Earth as seen from the asteroid). Close to zero phase angle $P_r$ tends to zero, but as the phase angle increases $P_r$ becomes increasingly negative. This is the so-called branch of negative polarization. After reaching a maximum negative value usually between $8^\circ$ and $10^\circ$ phase angle, $P_r$ decreases in absolute value (that is, becomes depolarized) and reaches zero at the so-called inversion angle ($\alpha_0$) usually between $15^\circ$ and $20^\circ$ phase. The maximum value of negative polarization is an important parameter, usually indicated as $P_{min}$, and varies mostly between $-0.5\%$ and $-2.0\%$. Measurements of $P_{min}$ can be used to calculate albedo [@zg76], and can be used along with inversion angle as an indication of surface texture [@dz79].
Beyond the inversion angle $P_r$ becomes re-polarized in the positive sense, increasing nearly linearly with phase. The slope ($h$) of the branch of positive polarization for phase angles greater than the inversion angle is another important parameter, since it is known to be diagnostic of the albedo of the surface [see, e.g. @cellino99 and references therein]. The maximum value of positive polarization is reached at values of phase which are well beyond the maximum values attainable by main belt asteroids observed from Earth. Only near-Earth objects are occasionally visible over very large intervals of phase angle, and the maximum value of positive polarization is observed in some cases to occur at phase angles of the order of $80$ - $100$ degrees.
@shkuratov94 review the many possible physical models that have been used to try to explain the negative polarization seen in asteroid phase curves. The most promising are the coherent backscattering models, described in e.g. @muinonen89, which can explain both the photometric opposition surge observed for atmosphereless bodies as well as the negative polarization seen for asteroids at small phase angles. The polarimetric effect in this theory has a strong dependence on the size and spacing of the scattering particles meaning that surface chemistry and mineralogy should play a large role in determining the polarization as a function of phase. According to @muinonen02, coherent backscattering is the key physical process generating both these effects.
As part of an extensive campaign to characterize the polarization-phase curves of over $100$ asteroids @cellino05 [@cellino06] found an interesting case in the asteroid (234) Barbara, which was found to exhibit an unusual polarimetric behavior. Whereas most asteroids have an inversion angle of around $20^\circ$ Barbara shows strong negative polarization ($\sim-1\%$) for phase angles larger than $25^\circ$. The authors proposed that this strange behavior was due to unusual surface properties, likely the surface mineralogy driving the rare Ld-type classification. @gilhutton08 performed a follow-up investigation of other L/Ld-type asteroids, finding four that show these unusual polarization properties. While not all L-type asteroids show this effect (e.g. (12) Victoria, see @cellino05), both Barbara and (980) Anacostia from @gilhutton08’s survey show strong spinel features in their IR spectra [@sunshine07]. @burbine92 identified strong spinel features in the IR spectra of both (387) Aquitania and Anacostia, so we investigated Aquitania to look for the same strange polarization signatures seen in other spinel-rich L-types.
Observations {#obs}
============
Observations of the asteroids (387) Aquitania and (234) Barbara were conducted on four nights spread from January to June 2008 on the University of Hawaii $2.2~$m telescope located on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Polarizations were measured with the Dual-Beam Imaging Polarimeter (DBIP, @dbip), a broad-band CCD imaging system sensitive to both linear and circular polarizations simultaneously. DBIP has very low instrumental systematics and can reach polarization precisions of better than $0.1\%$. DBIP uses an IR-blocked clear filter which transmits from $400-700~$nm, a close approximation to a Sloan $g'+r'$ filter. Although there is some evidence for color dependence of polarization [@cellino05], the difference in measured polarization between P$_V$ and P$_R$ is usually within error. V and R band polarizations of Barbara showing this consistency can be seen in Fig \[fig.obs\]. Using a broader filter does not impair our measurements of the bulk polarization properties.
Stokes parameters were measured for our targets using a beam-swapping pattern of waveplate alignments. Each image measured complimentary values of a single Stokes vector (i.e. $I+Q$ in the north beam and $I-Q$ in the south beam; $I+U$ north and $I-U$ south; or $I+V$ north and $I-V$ south) which were then swapped in a second image. By combining both images we were able to completely remove time-dependent and flat-field effects on the measured polarization values. Individual exposure times were adjusted so that each image of our target had a peak count value on the CCD between $20,000$ and $40,000$ counts per pixel to provide enough photons for good statistics while avoiding non-linear issues near saturation. Image reduction was completed as described in @dbip.
DBIP’s native polarization measurement is of the fractional values $Q/I=q$ and $U/I=u$, which can be converted to $P$ and $\theta$, as well as $V/I=v$. Table \[tab.obs\] presents the asteroid name, UT date of observation, apparent V magnitude, total exposure time, phase angle ($\alpha$), measured linear polarization ($P_r$), angle of polarization ($\theta$) and measured circular polarization. Total listed exposure time includes all six waveplate positions needed to develop a full measurement of $q$, $u$, and $v$. The linear polarization measurements and angles of polarization have been rotated into the frame of the asteroid scattering plane. The circular polarization values in all cases are consistent with a zero signal to within $2.5\sigma$, and thus we do not detect any circular polarization of the light scattered from these asteroids. Circular polarization is predicted to appear on asteroids that have surfaces containing powdered metals, especially those with highly irregular shapes [@degtjarev], however circular polarization as of yet has not been detected from an asteroid [e.g., @muinonen02].
Polarized and unpolarized standard star measurements were taken each night in addition to the asteroid observations. Standards were drawn from @fossati07 as well as the standard list published for Keck/LRISp[^1] which includes the [*Hubble*]{} standards [@hubbleSTD2]. Standard measurements showed that induced instrumental polarization, systematic depolarization and instrumental crosstalk were all below the $0.1\%$ level, and so are not included in the data tables. See § \[calib\] for further discussion on systematic error determination.
Our linear polarization data are shown in Figure \[fig.obs\] along with the Barbara data presented in @cellino06, @cellino07 (these data also published in @gilhutton08 as the Torino observations), and the CASPROF data from @gilhutton08. In addition, two comparison phase curves are also plotted. The first is the fit by @muinonen02 to polarization data from (24) Themis, a member of the B taxonomic class. B-type and C-type asteroids typically show the deepest negative polarization branches. The other curve is a fit by @gilhutton08 of data for (12) Victoria, a typical L-class object. Although different fitting models were used in these two cases, both models are qualitatively the same at the phase angles of interest. Note that Aquitania was classified as an L-class and Barbara as an Ld-class by @busclass whereas both are now L-class under the classification system of @demeo but show very different polarization features from other L-class objects.
Instrumental Polarization Calibration {#calib}
=====================================
Following the calibrations reported in @dbip a quarterwave retarder was added in series with the halfwave retarder affecting the instrumental systematics, especially crosstalk between linear and circular polarization. To quantify these instrumental errors, extensive lab bench crosstalk calibrations were performed. Details of the calibration procedure can be found in @dbip2, and are briefly summarized here.
Figure \[fig.crosstalk\] shows the measured polarization state for an input of pure linear polarization stepped through $360~$degrees both without and with a fixed quarterwave plate in the light path (Figs \[fig.crosstalk\]a and \[fig.crosstalk\]b, respectively). Ideally the former test should show pure $Q$ and $U$ polarization as offset sinusoids peaking at $100\%$ with zero $V$ polarization, while the latter test should show offset $Q$ and $V$ (in this case, the $U$ that is in the same phase as $Q$ indicates a slight misalignment of the quarterwave plate at the input, while the out of phase $U$ indicates crosstalk). A chi-squared minimizer was used to fit the measured variations in the Stokes vectors to determine crosstalk and depolarization. In all cases, the crosstalk and depolarization were found to be a few percent of the input polarization, so that for sources with “typical” polarizations (i.e. $5-10\%$) the errors are comparable to the desired statistical errors of $\sim0.1\%$ polarization, as has been measured for polarized and unpolarized standards.
Discussion {#disc}
==========
The new measurements of (234) Barbara presented here agree with those from @cellino06 and @cellino07. Despite very different optical designs, data acquisition methods, observing circumstances, and physical locations, the consistency between our results and those from previous work (e.g. @cellino06) indicate that comparisons and combinations of results from these instruments are legitimate.
The similarity between the Barbara and (387) Aquitania polarization values clearly point toward Aquitania being a member of the new class of large inversion angle (LIA, or “Barbarian”) asteroids that includes Barbara, (172) Baucis, (236) Honoria, (679) Pax and (980) Anacostia [@gilhutton08]. Barbara, Aquitania, and Anacostia all show strong $2\mu$ spinel features in their IR spectra [@sunshine07; @burbine92] implying a mineralogical origin to the unusual polarization properties of these asteroids. The other three LIA objects do not currently have published IR spectral coverage at $2\mu$, but we predict that they too will show the same spinel feature. @sunshine07 explain that a spinel-rich spectrum can be used as a tracer of Calcium-Aluminum-Rich Inclusions (CAIs), one of the oldest known materials in the Solar System, as determined from meteorite chemical analysis (e.g. @sunshine08).
@gilhutton08 propose that the surfaces of these bodies may be coarse regoliths of a dark matrix mixed with smaller white inclusions. This mixing of two components with different albedos can alter the behavior of bulk polarization as a function of phase and explain the large inversion angle seen in these objects. The authors point out that their sample of LIA asteroids covers a wide range of semimajor axis-space ($2.38-2.80~$AU) and thus cannot be fragments from a single parent body.
Table \[tab.ast\] shows that Aquitania has orbital and physical properties fairly similar to those of Anacostia [@gilhutton08]. This similarity was also pointed out by @burbine92 when they were both identified as spinel-bearing asteroids. However, it is very unlikely that these two objects originate from the same parent body, based on the velocity spread between their orbits compared to those seen for other disrupted bodies and dynamical families [@willmanPC; @zappala95]. In other words, if both Aquitania and Anacostia were fragments from the collisional disruption of a common parent body, the difference in orbital elements would imply unrealistic ejection velocities of the order of many km/sec. Moreover, given the non-negligible sizes of Aquitania and Anacostia, such a collisional event should also be expected to have generated an important dynamical family that should be possible to identify even after a very long time. Such a family, however, is simply not found.
It is worth noting that of the six asteroids now identified as LIA objects four have periods longer than $20$ hours when the average for these sizes is $\sim10-15~$hours. Though still a victim of small number statistics, if this trend of long rotation periods holds for other LIA asteroids it may indicate that they are characterized by rotation periods significantly longer than the typical values found for most large Main Belt asteroids [@pravecAIII]. This would imply a highly porous, “fluffy” internal structure that is very efficient at absorbing energy from impacts without transferring it into an increase in rotation rate. This kind of structure is similar to what was observed for the Tagish Lake meteorite [@zolensky] and what is expected for carbonaceous chondrites in which all CAIs found thus far have been observed [@burbine02]. This would support the theory proposed by @sunshine08 that spinel-bearing asteroids, and thus probably all LIAs, are composed of pristine material from the beginning of the solar system. We note also that long spin periods might also be diagnostic of binarity, although any physical reason for a correlation between binarity and anomalous polarimetric properties remains unknown.
Acknowledgments
===============
The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit on Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this sacred mountain. We appreciate the helpful comments from reviewers R. Gil-Hutton and I. Belskaya which greatly improved this paper. We also would like to thank R. Jedicke for editing and comments on the manuscript. J.M. was partially supported under NASA PAST grant NNG06GI46G. A.C. was supported under ASI contract \*I/015/07/0 \*.
[XXX]{}
Burbine, T.H., McCoy, T.J., Meibom, A., Gladman, B. & Keil, K., 2002, “Meteoritic Parent Bodies: Their Number and Identification”, Asteroids III, ed. Bottke, Cellino, Paolicchi & Binzel (Univ of Arizona Press), 653.
Burbine, T.H., Gaffey, M.J. & Bell, J.F., 1992, “S-asteroids 387 Aquitania and 980 Anacostia - Possible fragments of the breakup of a spinel-bearing parent body with CO3/CV3 affinities”, Meteoritics, 27, 424.
Bus, S. & Binzel, R., 2002, “Phase II of the Small Main-Belt Asteroid Spectroscopic Survey: A Feature-Based Taxonomy”, Icarus, 158, 146.
Cellino, A., di Martino, M., Levasseur-Regourd, A.-C., Belskaya, I.N., Bendjoya, Ph. & Gil Hutton, R., 2007, “Asteroid compositions: Some evidence from Polarimetry”, Advances in Geosciences, 7, 21.
Cellino, A., Belskaya, I.N., Bendjoya, Ph., di Martino, M., Gil Hutton, R., Muinonen, K. & Tedesco, E.F., 2006, “The strange polarimetric behavior of Asteroid (234) Barbara”, Icarus, 180, 565.
Cellino, A., Gil Hutton, R., di Martino, M., Bendjoya, Ph., Belskaya, I.N. & Tedesco, E.F., 2005, “Asteroid polarimetric observations using the Torino UBVRI photopolarimeter”, Icarus, 179, 304.
Cellino, A., Gil Hutton, R., Tedesco, E.F., di Martino, M. & Brunini, A., 1999, “Polarimetric Observations of Small Asteroids: Preliminary Results”, Icarus, 138, 129.
Degtjarev, V.S. & Kolokolova, L.O., 1992, “Possible application of circular polarization for remote sensing of cosmic bodies”, EM&P, 57, 213.
DeMeo, F.E., 2007, “DeMeo Taxonomy: Categorization of Asteroids in the Near-Infrared”, S.M. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Dollfus, A. & Zellner, B., 1979, “Optical polarimetry of asteroids and laboratory samples”, Asteroids (Univ of Arizona Press), 170.
Fossati, L., Bagnulo, S., Mason, E., Landi Del’Innocenti, E., 2007, “Standard Stars for Linear Polarization Observed with FORS1”, ASP Conf., 364, 503.
Gil-Hutton, R., Mesa, V., Cellino, A., Bendjoya, P., Penaloza, L. & Lovos, F., 2008, “New cases of unusual polarimetric behavior in asteroids”, A&A, 482, 309.
Masiero, J., Hodapp, K.-W., Harrington, D. & Lin, H., 2007, “Commissioning of the Dual-Beam Imaging Polarimeter for the UH 88-inch telescope”, PASP, 119, 1126.
Masiero, J., Hodapp, K.-W., Harrington, D. & Lin, H., 2008, “Extended Commissioning and Calibration of the Dual-Beam Imaging Polarimeter”, to appear in ASP Conf. Series for Astronomical Polarimetry 2008; arXiv:0809.4313.
Muinonen, K., 1989, “Electromagnetic Scattering by Two Interacting Dipoles”, Proc. URSI International Symp. on Electromagnetic Theory, 428.
Muinonen, K., Piironen, J., Shkuratov, Y., Ovcharenko, A. & Clark, B., 2002, “Asteroid Photometric and Polarimetric Phase Effects”, Asteroids III, ed. Bottke, Cellino, Paolicchi & Binzel (Univ of Arizona Press), 123.
Pravec, P., Harris, A.W. & Michalowski, T., 2002, “Asteroid Rotations”, Asteroids III, ed. Bottke, Cellino, Paolicchi & Binzel (Univ of Arizona Press), 113.
Schmidt, G.D., Elston, R., & Lupie, O.L., 1992, “The Hubble Space Telescope Northern-Hemisphere Grid of Stellar Polarimetric Standards”, AJ, 104, 1563.
Shkuratov, Yu.G., Muinonen, K., Bowell, E., Lumme, K., Peltoniemi, J.I., Kreslavsky, M.A., Stankevich, D.G., Tishkovetz, V.P., Opanasenko, N.V., & Melkumova, L.Y., 1994, “A Critical Review of Theoretical Models of Negatively Polarized Light Scattered by Atmosphereless Solar System Bodies”, EM&P, 65, 201.
Sunshine, J.M., Connolly, H.C., McCoy, T.J., Bus, S.J., La Croix, L., 2007, “Identification of Refractory-rich Asteroids: Evidence for the Earliest Accreted Bodies in the Solar System”, LPI, 38, 1613.
Sunshine, J.M., Connolly, H.C., McCoy, T.J., Bus, S.J., La Croix, L.M., 2008, “Ancient Asteroids Enriched in Refractory Inclusions”, Science, 320, 514.
Tedesco, E.F., Noah, P.V., Noah, M. & Price, S.D., 2002, “The Supplemental IRAS Minor Planet Survey”, AJ, 123, 1056.
Willman, M., 2008, Private Communication.
Zappala, V., Bendjoya, Ph., Cellino, A., Farinella, P. & Froeschle, C., 1995, “Asteroid families: Search of a 12,487-asteroid sample using two different clustering techniques”, Icarus, 116, 291.
Zellner, B. & Gradie, J., 1976 “Minor planets and related objects. XX - Polarimetric evidence for the albedos and compositions of 94 asteroids”, AJ, 81, 262.
Zolensky, M.E., Nakamura, K., Gounelle, M., Mikouchi, T., Kasama, T., Tachikawa, O. & Tonui, E., 2002, “Mineralogy of Tagish Lake: An ungrouped type 2 carbonaceous chondrite”, M&PS, 37, 737.
[cccccccc]{} 387 Aquitania & 2008-01-17 & 12.7 & 360 & $21.2^\circ$ & $-0.97 \pm 0.06$ & $91.36 \pm 2.57$ & $0.03 \pm 0.02$\
& 2008-03-12 & 11.7 & 72 & $15.6^\circ$ & $-1.42 \pm 0.06$ & $88.95 \pm 1.84$ & $-0.07 \pm 0.04$\
& 2008-05-14 & 11.3 & 72 & $17.1^\circ$ & $-1.31 \pm 0.06$ & $89.58 \pm 1.35$ & $0.00 \pm 0.03 $\
& 2008-06-11 & 11.7 & 60 & $23.3^\circ$ & $-0.82 \pm 0.07$ & $90.16 \pm 2.54$ & $-0.03 \pm 0.04$\
234 Barbara & 2008-01-17 & 14.3 & 1620 & $19.9^\circ$ & $-1.24 \pm 0.06$ & $92.11 \pm 2.80$ & $0.06 \pm 0.03$\
& 2008-03-12 & 13.6 & 720 & $23.6^\circ$ & $-0.93 \pm 0.04$ & $89.33 \pm 1.61$ & $0.08 \pm 0.03$\
& 2008-05-14 & 12.2 & 270 & $13.7^\circ$ & $-1.53 \pm 0.09$ & $87.98 \pm 2.70$ & $-0.01 \pm 0.03$\
& 2008-06-11 & 12.0 & 108 & $13.3^\circ$ & $-1.67 \pm 0.13$ & $89.07 \pm 2.45$ & $0.06 \pm 0.03$\
0.05in . \[tab.obs\]
[cccccccc]{} 387 Aquitania & 2.739 & 0.237 & 18.14 & 7.41 & 100.51 & 24.144\
980 Anacostia & 2.743 & 0.200 & 15.90 & 7.85 & 86.19 & 20.117\
0.05in . \[tab.ast\]
![ Polarization crosstalk measurements for DBIP for two cases: (a) for input of pure linear polarization rotated through 360 degrees, and (b) for input of rotated linear polarization passed through a fixed quarterwave plate. Sinusoids for both cases were fitted using a chi-squared minimizer, and are labeled with the Stokes vectors they represent. From @dbip2[]{data-label="fig.crosstalk"}](crosstalk.eps)
[^1]: http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/inst/lris/polarimeter/polarimeter.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently R. Pandharipande, J. Solomon and R. Tessler initiated a study of the intersection theory on the moduli space of Riemann surfaces with boundary. They conjectured that the generating series of the intersection numbers is a specific solution of a system of PDEs, that they called the open KdV equations. In this paper we show that the open KdV equations are closely related to the equations for the wave function of the KdV hierarchy. This allows us to give an explicit formula for the specific solution in terms of Witten’s generating series of the intersection numbers on the moduli space of stable curves.'
address: 'A. Buryak:Department of Mathematics, ETH Zurich,Ramistrasse 101 8092, HG G 27.1, Zurich, Switzerland.'
author:
- 'A. Buryak'
title: Open intersection numbers and the wave function of the KdV hierarchy
---
Introduction
============
Denote by ${\mathcal M}_{g,n}$ the moduli space of smooth complex algebraic curves of genus $g$ with $n$ distinct marked points. In [@DM69] P. Deligne and D. Mumford defined a natural compactification ${\mathcal M}_{g,n}\subset{\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,n}$ via stable curves (with possible nodal singularities). The moduli space ${\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,n}$ is a nonsingular complex orbifold of dimension $3g-3+n$.
A new direction in the study of the moduli space ${\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,n}$ was opened by E. Witten [@Wit91]. The class $\psi_i\in H^2({\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,n};{\mathbb C})$ is defined as the first Chern class of the line bundle over ${\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,n}$ formed by the cotangent lines at the $i$-th marked point. Intersection numbers ${\left <}\tau_{k_1}\tau_{k_2}\ldots\tau_{k_n}{\right >}^c_g$ are defined as follows: $${\left <}\tau_{k_1}\tau_{k_2}\ldots\tau_{k_n}{\right >}^c_g:=\int_{{\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,n}}\psi_1^{k_1}\psi_2^{k_2}\ldots\psi_n^{k_n}.$$ The superscript $c$ here signals integration over the moduli of closed Riemann surfaces. Let us introduce variables $u,t_0,t_1,t_2,\ldots$ and consider the generating series $$F^c(t_0,t_1,\ldots;u):=\sum_{\substack{g\ge 0,n\ge 1\\2g-2+n>0}}\frac{u^{2g-2}}{n!}\sum_{k_1,\ldots,k_n\ge 0}{\left <}\tau_{k_1}\tau_{k_2}\ldots\tau_{k_n}{\right >}^c_gt_{k_1}t_{k_2}\ldots t_{k_n}.$$ E. Witten ([@Wit91]) conjectured that the exponent $\exp(F^c)$ is a tau-function of the KdV hierarchy. Witten’s conjecture was proved by M. Kontsevich ([@Kon92]). There was a later reformulation of Witten’s conjecture due to R. Dijkgraaf, E. Verlinde and H. Verlinde ([@DVV91]). They defined certain quadratic differential operators $L_n$, $n\ge -1$, and proved that Witten’s conjecture is equivalent to the equations $L_n\exp(F^c)=0$, that are called the Virasoro equations.
In [@PST14] the authors initiated a study of the intersection theory on the moduli space of Riemann surfaces with boundary. They introduced intersection numbers on this moduli space and called them the open intersection numbers. The authors completely described them in genus $0$. In higher genera they conjectured that the generating series of the open intersection numbers satisfies certain partial differential equations that are analogous to the KdV and the Virasoro equations. In [@PST14] these equations were called the open KdV and the open Virasoro equations.
In [@Bur14] we studied the open KdV equations in detail. First, we proved that the system of the open KdV equations together with the initial condition, that corresponds to the simplest open intersection numbers in genus $0$, has a unique solution. We call this solution the open potential $F^o$. Second, in [@Bur14] we showed that the open potential $F^o$ satisfies the open Virasoro equations. Therefore we proved that the open KdV and the open Virasoro equations give equivalent descriptions of the intersection numbers on the moduli space of Riemann surfaces with boundary. This was left in [@PST14] as a conjecture.
In this paper we show that the system of the open KdV equations is closely related to the system of equations for the wave function of the KdV hierarchy. This allows us to give an explicit formula for the open potential $F^o$ in terms of the Witten potential $F^c$.
In [@PST14] the authors didn’t consider the contangent line bundles at boundary marked points, so the generating series of the open intersection numbers depends only on the variables $t_0,t_1,\ldots$ and $s$. In [@Bur14] we suggested a natural way to introduce new variables $s_1,s_2,\ldots$ in the open potential $F^o$. The resulting power series is called the extended open potential. The new variables $s_1,s_2,\ldots$ can be viewed as descendants of boundary points. Actually, in this paper we derive an explicit formula for the extended open potential. We also construct Virasoro type equations for the extended open potential. Surprisingly, our new Virasoro equations are even simpler then the open Virasoro equations for the potential $F^o$.
Moduli of Riemann surfaces with boundary {#subsection:open moduli}
----------------------------------------
Here we briefly recall the main definitions from [@PST14].
Let $\Delta\in{\mathbb C}$ be the open unit disk, and let $\overline\Delta$ be its closure. An extendable embedding of the open disk $\Delta$ in a compact Riemann surface $f\colon\Delta\to C$ is a holomorphic map which can be extended to a holomorphic embedding of an open neighborhood of $\overline\Delta$. Two extendable embeddings are disjoint, if the images of $\overline\Delta$ are disjoint.
A Riemann surface with boundary $(X,\d X)$ is obtained by removing a finite positive number of disjoint extendable open disks from a connected compact Riemann surface. A compact Riemann surface is not viewed here as Riemann surface with boundary.
To a Riemann surface with boundary $(X,\d X)$, we can canonically construct the double via the Schwartz reflection through the boundary. The double $D(X,\d X)$ of $(X,\d X)$ is a compact Riemann surface. The doubled genus of $(X,\d X)$ is defined to be the usual genus of $D(X,\d X)$.
On a Riemann surface with boundary $(X,\d X)$, we consider two types of marked points. The markings of interior type are points of $X\backslash\d X$. The markings of boundary type are points of $\d X$. Let ${\mathcal M}_{g,k,l}$ denote the moduli space of Riemann surfaces with boundary of doubled genus $g$ with $k$ distinct boundary markings and $l$ distinct interior markings. The moduli space ${\mathcal M}_{g,k,l}$ is defined to be empty unless the stability condition $$2g-2+k+2l>0$$ is satisfied. The moduli space ${\mathcal M}_{g,k,l}$ is a real orbifold of real dimension $3g-3+k+2l$.
The cotangent line classes $\psi_i\in H^2({\mathcal M}_{g,k,l};{\mathbb C})$ are defined (as before) as the first Chern classes of the cotangent line bundles associated to the interior markings. In [@PST14], cotangent lines at the boundary points are not considered. Open intersection numbers are defined by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq: open intersections}
\left<\tau_{a_1}\tau_{a_2}\ldots\tau_{a_l}\sigma^k\right>^o_g:=\int_{{\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,k,l}}\psi_1^{a_1}\psi_2^{a_2}\ldots\psi_l^{a_l}.\end{gathered}$$ To rigorously define the right-hand side of , at least three significant steps must be taken:
- A natural compactification ${\mathcal M}_{g,k,l}\subset{\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,k,l}$ must be constructed. Candidates for ${\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,k,l}$ are themselves real orbifolds with boundary $\d{\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,k,l}$;
- For integration over ${\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,k,l}$ to be well-defined, boundary conditions of the integrand along $\d{\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,k,l}$ must be specified;
- Orientation issues should be resolved, since the moduli space ${\mathcal M}_{g,k,l}$ is in general non-orientable.
All three steps are completed in genus $0$ in [@PST14]. The higher genus constructions will appear in upcoming work of J. P. Solomon and R. J. Tessler [@ST].
Open KdV equations
------------------
Here we recall the open KdV equations and formulate the main conjecture from [@PST14].
Let $F$ be a formal power series in the variables $t_0,t_1,\ldots$ and $s$ with the coefficients from ${\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}]$. The open KdV equations are the following partial differential equations: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:open kdv}
\frac{2n+1}{2}\frac{\d F}{\d t_n}=u\frac{\d F}{\d s}\frac{\d F}{\d t_{n-1}}+u\frac{\d^2 F}{\d s\d t_{n-1}}+\frac{u^2}{2}\frac{\d F}{\d t_0}\frac{\d^2 F^c}{\d t_0\d t_{n-1}}-\frac{u^2}{4}\frac{\d^3 F^c}{\d t_0^2\d t_{n-1}},\quad n\ge 1.\end{gathered}$$ In [@PST14] the authors conjectured, that the generating series $$F^{o,geom}(t_0,t_1,\ldots,s;u):=\sum_{\substack{g,k,l\ge 0\\2g-2+k+2l>0}}\sum_{a_1,\ldots,a_l\ge 0}\frac{u^{g-1}}{k!l!}\left<\tau_{a_1}\tau_{a_2}\ldots\tau_{a_l}\sigma^k\right>^o_g s^k \prod_{i=1}^lt_{a_i}$$ satisfies the open KdV equations. The following initial condition follows easily from the definitions: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:initial conditions}
\left.F^{o,geom}\right|_{t_{\ge 1}=0}=u^{-1}\left(\frac{s^3}{6}+t_0 s\right).\end{gathered}$$ It is clear that the open KdV equations together with this initial condition and the closed potential $F^c$ completely determine the power series $F^{o,geom}$. Denote by $F^o$ a unique solution of the system , that satisfies the initial condition . The existence of such a solution is non-trivial and was proved in [@Bur14]. The power series $F^o$ will be called the open potential. So the main conjecture from [@PST14] can be formulated as the equation $F^{o,geom}=F^o$.
In [@Bur14] we proved, that the power series $F^o$ satisfies also the following equation: $${\frac{\d F^o}{\d s}}=u\left(\frac{1}{2}\left({\frac{\d F^o}{\d t_0}}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\d^2 F^o}{\d t_0^2}+\frac{\d^2 F^c}{\d t_0^2}\right).$$ This equation allows us to eliminate the derivatives by $s$ on the right-hand side of . Therefore the potential $F^o$ has the following equivalent description. It is a unique solution of the system $$\begin{aligned}
F_s&=u\left(\frac{1}{2}F_0^2+\frac{1}{2}F_{0,0}+F^c_{0,0}\right),\label{eq:s-equation}\\
\frac{2n+1}{2u^2}F_n&=\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\d^2}{\d t_0^2}+F_0\frac{\d}{\d t_0}+\frac{1}{2}F_0^2+\frac{1}{2}F_{0,0}+F^c_{0,0}\right)F_{n-1}+\frac{1}{2}F_0 F^c_{0,n-1}+\frac{3}{4}F^c_{0,0,n-1},\,n\ge 1,\label{eq:first half}\end{aligned}$$ with the initial condition $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:initial condition2}
\left.F\right|_{\substack{t_{\ge 1}=0\\s=0}}=0.\end{gathered}$$ Here we use the subscript $n$ for the partial derivative by $t_n$.
Consider variables $s_0,s_1,s_2,\ldots$ and let $s_0:=s$. Let $F$ be a formal power series in the variables $t_0,t_1,\ldots$, $s_0,s_1,\ldots$ with the coefficients from ${\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}]$. In [@Bur14] we introduced the following equations: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:second half}
\frac{n+1}{u^2}F_{s_n}=\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\d^2}{\d t_0^2}+F_0\frac{\d}{\d t_0}+\frac{1}{2}F_0^2+\frac{1}{2}F_{0,0}+F^c_{0,0}\right)F_{s_{n-1}},\quad n\ge 1.\end{gathered}$$ We proved that the system - together with has a unique solution for an arbitrary initial condition of the form $\left.F\right|_{\substack{t_{\ge 1}=0\\s_*=0}}=p(t_0)$, where $p$ is a polynomial in $t_0,u,u^{-1}$. Let us denote by $F^{o,ext}$ a unique solution of this big system, that is specified by the initial condition $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:extended initial condition}
\left.F\right|_{\substack{t_{\ge 1}=0\\s_*=0}}=0.\end{gathered}$$ We call this solution the extended open potential. We obviously have $$\left.F^{o,ext}\right|_{s_{\ge 1}=0}=F^o.$$
The main observation of this paper is that the system of equations , and is in fact not new. If we rewrite it for the exponent $\exp(F)$, we get the system that coincides with the system of equations for the wave function of the KdV hierarchy. This allows us to derive an explicit formula for $F^{o,ext}$ that we present in the next section.
Explicit formula for $F^{o,ext}$ {#subsection:explicit formula}
--------------------------------
In this section we formulate the main result of the paper – an explicit formula for the potential $F^{o,ext}$.
Denote by $G_z$ the shift operator that acts on a power series $f(t_0,t_1,\ldots)\in{\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}][[t_0,t_1,\ldots]]$ as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
G_z(f)(t_0,t_1,\ldots):=f\left(t_0-\frac{k_0}{z},t_1-\frac{k_1}{u^2 z^3},t_2-\frac{k_2}{u^4z^5},\ldots\right),\end{gathered}$$ where $k_n:=(2n-1)!!$ and, by definition, we put $(-1)!!:=1$. Let $$\xi(t_0,t_1,\ldots,s_0,s_1,\ldots;z):=\sum_{i\ge 0}\frac{t_i u^{2i} z^{2i+1}}{(2i+1)!!}+\sum_{i\ge 0}\frac{s_i u^{2i+1} z^{2i+2}}{2^{i+1}(i+1)!}.$$ Let us also introduce a Laurent series $D(z)\in{\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}][[z^{-1}]]$. Define the numbers $a_0,a_1,\ldots$ and $d_0,d_1,d_2,\ldots$ by $$\begin{aligned}
&a_n:=(-1)^n\frac{(6n)!}{288^n(2n)!(3n)!},\notag\\
&d_n:=\sum_{i=0}^n 3^i|a_{n-i}|\prod_{k=1}^i\left(n+{\frac{1}{2}}-k\right)\label{eq:definition of D}.\end{aligned}$$ The Laurent series $D(z)$ is defined by $D(z):=1+\sum_{i\ge 1}\frac{d_i}{u^{2i} z^{3i}}$. Now we are ready to formulate our main theorem.
\[theorem:main\] We have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:main formula}
\exp(F^{o,ext})=\Coef_{z^0}\left[D(z)\frac{G_z(\exp\left(F^c)\right)}{\exp(F^c)}\exp(\xi)\right].\end{gathered}$$
We see that $D(z)\frac{G_z(\exp\left(F^c)\right)}{\exp(F^c)}$ is a power series in $z^{-1}$. On the other hand, $\exp(\xi)$ is a power series in $z$. In general one can have problems with the multiplication of two such series. In our case the issue can be solved as follows. Let us introduce a gradation in the ring ${\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}][[t_0,t_1,\ldots,s_0,s_1,\ldots]]$ assigning to $t_i$ degree $2i+1$ and to $s_i$ degree $2i+2$. Since the degree of the coefficient of $z^i$ in $\exp(\xi)$ grows as $i$ grows, the product in the square brackets on the right-hand side of is well-defined.
Extended open Virasoro equations
--------------------------------
Here we recall the open Virasoro equations from [@PST14] and construct Virasoro type equations for the extended potential $F^{o,ext}$.
The Virasoro operators $L_n,n\ge -1$, are defined as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
L_n:=\sum_{i\ge 0}\frac{(2i+2n+1)!!}{2^{n+1}(2i-1)!!}(t_i-\delta_{i,1})\frac{\d}{\d t_{i+n}}+\frac{u^2}{2}\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\frac{(2i+1)!!(2n-2i-1)!!}{2^{n+1}}\frac{\d^2}{\d t_i\d t_{n-1-i}}\\
+\delta_{n,-1}\frac{t_0^2}{2 u^2}+\delta_{n,0}\frac{1}{16}.\end{gathered}$$ The Witten potential $F^c$ satisfies the so-called Virasoro equations (see [@DVV91]): $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:closed virasoro}
L_n\exp(F^c)=0,\quad n\ge -1.\end{gathered}$$ The equation $L_{-1}\tau^c=0$ is called the string equation.
In [@PST14] the authors introduced the following modified operators: $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal L}_n:=L_n+u^n s\frac{\d^{n+1}}{\d s^{n+1}}+\frac{3n+3}{4}u^n\frac{\d^n}{\d s^n},\quad n\ge -1,\end{gathered}$$ and conjectured that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:open Virasoro equations}
{\mathcal L}_n\exp(F^o+F^c)=0,\quad n\ge -1.\end{gathered}$$ These equations are called the open Virasoro equations. We proved this conjecture in [@Bur14].
Introduce operators ${\mathcal L}_n^{ext}$, $n\ge -1$, by $${\mathcal L}_n^{ext}:=L_n+\sum_{i\ge 0}\frac{(i+n+1)!}{i!}s_i\frac{\d}{\d s_{n+i}}+\frac{3(n+1)!}{4}u\frac{\d}{\d s_{n-1}}+\delta_{n,-1}u^{-1}s+\delta_{n,0}\frac{3}{4}.$$ Here we, by definition, put $\frac{\d}{\d s_{-2}}:=\frac{\d}{\d s_{-1}}:=0$. Our second result is the following theorem.
\[theorem:virasoro\] For any $n\ge -1$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:new virasoro}
{\mathcal L}_n^{ext}\exp(F^{o,ext}+F^c)=0.\end{gathered}$$
We call these equations the extended open Virasoro equations. At first glance, our new Virasoro operators ${\mathcal L}_n^{ext}$ look quite different from the operators ${\mathcal L}_n$. Actually, we will show that the open Virasoro equations can be easily derived from the extended open Virasoro equations .
Organization of the paper
-------------------------
In Section \[section:kdv hierarchy\] we recall all necessary facts about the KdV hierarchy. In Section \[section:open kdv and wave function\] we show that the exponent $\exp\left(F^{o,ext}\right)$ satisfies the same equations as the wave function of the KdV hierarchy. Section \[section:main theorem\] is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[theorem:main\]. In Section \[section:virasoro equations\] we prove Theorem \[theorem:virasoro\]. Appendix \[section:technical lemmas\] contains some technical statements that we use in Sections \[section:open kdv and wave function\] and \[section:main theorem\].
Acknowledgments
---------------
We thank G. Carlet, R. Pandharipande, S. Shadrin, J. Solomon and R. Tessler for discussions related to the work presented here.
We would like to thank the anonymous referee for valuable remarks and suggestions that allowed us to improve the exposition of this paper.
This work was supported by grant ERC-2012-AdG-320368-MCSK in the group of R. Pandharipande at ETH Zurich, by the Russian Federation Government grant no. 2010-220-01-077 (ag. no. 11.634.31.0005), the grants RFFI 13-01-00755 and NSh-4850.2012.1.
Part of the work was completed during the visit of the author to the Einstein Institute of Mathematics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2014.
Note added in proof
-------------------
We would like to mention several papers [@Ale14a; @Ale14b; @BY14; @BH15; @BT15] that are related to the present work and that appeared while this paper was under consideration in the journal. In [@Ale14b] (see also [@Ale14a]) A. Alexandrov used Theorem \[theorem:main\] and derived a matrix model for the extended open potential $F^{o,ext}$. He also proved that after a certain simple change of variables the exponent $e^{F^{o,ext}}$ becomes a tau-function of the KP hierarchy. In [@BY14] M. Bertola and D. Yang suggested a natural candidate for the generating series of open $r$-spin intersection numbers and found a generalization of our Theorem \[theorem:main\]. In [@BT15], together with R. Tessler we proved the main conjecture from [@PST14] that the generating series of open intersection numbers satisfies the open KdV equations.
Lax form of the KdV hierarchy {#section:kdv hierarchy}
=============================
Here we recall the Lax formalism in the theory of the KdV hierarchy. The book [@Dic03] is a very good reference to this subject. Our notations are slightly different, because we rescale the flows of the KdV hierarchy and also we insert the formal variable $u$ in the coefficients of the equations of the hierarchy. Similar notations are used in [@CvdLS14].
Pseudo-differential operators
-----------------------------
A pseudo-differential operator $A$ is a Laurent series $$A=\sum_{n=-\infty}^m a_n(t)\d_x^n,$$ where $m$ is an arbitrary integer and $a_n$ are formal power series in $t_0,t_1,\ldots$ with the coefficients from ${\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}]$. We will always identify $t_0$ with $x$. Let $$\begin{gathered}
A_+:=\sum_{n=0}^m a_n\d_x^n,\quad\text{and}\quad A_-:=A-A_+.\end{gathered}$$ The product of pseudo-differential operators is defined by the following commutation rule: $$\begin{gathered}
\d_x^k\circ f:=\sum_{l=0}^\infty\frac{k(k-1)\ldots(k-l+1)}{l!}\frac{\d^l f}{\d x^l}\d_x^{k-l},\end{gathered}$$ where $k\in{\mathbb Z}$ and $f\in{\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}][[t_0,t_1,\ldots]]$. The conjugate $A^*$ of a pseudo-differential operator $A=\sum_{n=-\infty}^m a_n\d_x^n$ is defined by $$A^*:=\sum_{n=-\infty}^m (-1)^n\d_x^n\circ a_n.$$
It is not hard to check that, for any pseudo-differential operator $P$ of the form $P=1+\sum_{n\ge 1}p_n(t)\d_x^{-n}$, there exists a unique inverse operator $P^{-1}$ of the same form $P^{-1}=1+\sum_{n\ge 1}\widetilde p_n(t)\d_x^{-n}$.
Let $m\ge 2$. Consider a pseudo-differential operator $A$ of the form $$A=\d_x^m+\sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n\d_x^{m-n}.$$ It is not hard to see that there exists a unique pseudo-differential operator $A^{\frac{1}{m}}$ of the form $$A^{\frac{1}{m}}=\d_x+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \widetilde{a}_n\d_x^{m-n},$$ such that $\left(A^{\frac{1}{m}}\right)^m=A$. This operator is called the $m$-th root of $A$.
Lax form of the KdV hierarchy {#lax-form-of-the-kdv-hierarchy}
-----------------------------
Let $$L:=\d_x^2+2w,\quad w\in{\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}][[t_0,t_1,\ldots]].$$ It is easy to check that, for any $n\ge 1$, the commutator $\left[\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_+,L\right]$ doesn’t have terms with positive powers of $\d_x$. The KdV hierarchy is the following system of partial differential equations for the power series $w$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Lax equations}
\frac{\d L}{\d t_n}=\frac{u^{2n}}{(2n+1)!!}\left[\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_+,L\right],\quad n=1,2,\ldots\end{gathered}$$ This form of the KdV equations is called the Lax form.
Dressing operator
-----------------
Let $L$ be a solution of the Lax equations . Then there exists a pseudo-differential operator $P$ of the form $$\begin{gathered}
\label{dressing operator}
P=1+\sum_{n\ge 1}p_n(t)\d_x^{-n},\end{gathered}$$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&L=P\circ\d_x^2\circ P^{-1},\quad\text{and}\label{L from dressing operator}\\
&\frac{\d P}{\d t_n}=-\frac{u^{2n}}{(2n+1)!!}\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_-\circ P,\quad n=1,2\ldots.\label{eq:Sato-Wilson equations}\end{aligned}$$ The operator $P$ is called the dressing operator and the Laurent series $$\widehat P(t;z):=1+\sum_{n\ge 1}p_n(t)z^{-n},$$ is called the symbol of the dressing operator $P$. Equations are called the Sato-Wilson equations.
We also have the following converse statement. Let $P$ be a pseudo-differential operator of the form . Suppose that the operator $P$ satisfies the equations $$\frac{\d P}{\d t_n}=-\frac{u^{2n}}{(2n+1)!!}\left(P\circ\d_x^{2n+1}\circ P^{-1}\right)_-\circ P,\quad n=1,2\ldots,$$ and has the property $\left(P\circ\d_x^2\circ P^{-1}\right)_-=0$. Define an operator $L$ by . Then the operator $L$ has the form $L=\d_x^2+2w$ for some power series $w\in{\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}][[t_0,t_1,\ldots]]$ and it satisfies the Lax equations .
Wave function
-------------
Let $P=1+\sum_{n\ge 1}p_n(t)\d_x^{-n}$ be the dressing operator for some solution $L$ of the Lax equations . It is convenient to introduce variables $t_n$ with $n\in\frac{1}{2}+{\mathbb Z}_{\ge 0}$ and put $t_{\frac{1}{2}+n}:=s_n$. Then the power series $\xi(t_*,s_*;z)$, that we defined in Section \[subsection:explicit formula\], can be written as follows: $$\xi(t;z)=\sum_{i\in\frac{1}{2}{\mathbb Z}_{\ge 0}}\frac{t_i u^{2i} z^{2i+1}}{(2i+1)!!}.$$ Here $(2n)!!:=2^n n!$. The product $$\psi(t;z):=\widehat P(t;z)\exp(\xi(t;z))$$ is called the wave function of the KdV hierarchy. It satisfies the following equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\d\psi}{\d t_n}&=\frac{u^{2n}}{(2n+1)!!}\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_+\psi,\quad n\in{\frac{1}{2}}{\mathbb Z}_{\ge 1};\label{eq:equations for the wave function}\\
L\psi&=z^2\psi.\label{eq:second equation for the wave function}\end{aligned}$$
Tau-function
------------
Let $L$ be a solution of the Lax equations . Then there exists a power series $\tau\in{\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}][[t_0,t_1,\ldots]]$ such that $\left.\tau\right|_{t_*=0}=1$ and the power series $$\frac{G_z(\tau)}{\tau}\in{\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}][[z^{-1},t_0,t_1,\ldots]]$$ is the symbol of the dressing operator for the operator $L$. The power series $\tau$ is called the tau-function of the KdV hierarchy. The tau-function has the following property: $$\frac{\d^2\ln\tau}{\d t_0^2}=w.$$
Witten’s conjecture
-------------------
Let $L=\d_x^2+2 F^c_{0,0}$. Witten’s conjecture says that the operator $L$ is a solution of the Lax equations and the exponent $\exp(F^c)$ is the corresponding tau-function.
Open KdV equations and the equations for the wave function of the KdV hierarchy {#section:open kdv and wave function}
===============================================================================
In this section we show that the exponent $\exp(F^{o,ext})$ satisfies equations for the wave function of the KdV hierarchy.
Let $w:=F^c_{0,0}$ and $L:=\d_x^2+2w$. By Witten’s conjecture, the operator $L$ is a solution of the Lax equations and the exponent $\exp(F^c)$ is the corresponding tau-function. Recall that we have introduced the variables $t_n$ with $n\in{\frac{1}{2}}+{\mathbb Z}_{\ge 0}$ and put $t_{k+{\frac{1}{2}}}:=s_k$.
\[theorem:open kdv and the wave function\] For any $n\in\frac{1}{2}{\mathbb Z}_{\ge 0}$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:open kdv and the wave function}
\frac{\d}{\d t_n}\exp(F^{o,ext})=\frac{u^{2n}}{(2n+1)!!}\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_+\exp(F^{o,ext}).\end{gathered}$$
Recall that we identify $x$ with $t_0$.
The proof is by induction on $n$. Suppose $n$ is a half-integer, $n=k+{\frac{1}{2}}$. If $k=0$, then, by , $${\frac{\d }{\d t_{\frac{1}{2}}}}F^{o,ext}={\frac{\d }{\d s}}F^{o,ext}=u\left({\frac{1}{2}}F^{o,ext}_{0,0}+{\frac{1}{2}}(F^{o,ext}_0)^2+w\right).$$ Therefore, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:s-equation for exp}
{\frac{\d }{\d t_{{\frac{1}{2}}}}}\exp(F^{o,ext})=\frac{u}{2}\left(\d_x^2+2w\right)\exp(F^{o,ext}).\end{gathered}$$ This is exactly equation for $n={\frac{1}{2}}$.
Suppose $k$ is a positive integer. We compute that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{k+1}{u^2}{\frac{\d }{\d t_{k+{\frac{1}{2}}}}}&\exp(F^{o,ext})=\frac{k+1}{u^2}{\frac{\d }{\d s_k}}\exp(F^{o,ext})=\frac{k+1}{u^2}F^{o,ext}_{s_k}\exp(F^{o,ext})\stackrel{\text{by \eqref{eq:second half}}}{=}\\
=&\left[\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\d^2}{\d t_0^2}+F^{o,ext}_0\frac{\d}{\d t_0}+\frac{1}{2}\left(F^{o,ext}_0\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}F^{o,ext}_{0,0}+w\right)F^{o,ext}_{s_{k-1}}\right]\exp(F^{o,ext})\stackrel{\text{by \eqref{eq:s-equation}}}{=}\\
=&u^{-1}\left(F^{o,ext}_{s,s_{k-1}}+F^{o,ext}_sF^{o,ext}_{s_{k-1}}\right)\exp(F^{o,ext})=u^{-1}\frac{\d^2}{\d s\d s_{k-1}}\exp(F^{o,ext})\stackrel{\substack{\text{by the induction}\\\text{assumption}}}{=}\\
=&u^{-1}\frac{\d}{\d s}\left[\frac{u^{2k-1}}{(2k)!!}L^k\exp(F^{o,ext})\right]\stackrel{\text{by~\eqref{eq:s-equation for exp}}}{=}\frac{u^{2k-1}}{2(2k)!!}L^{k+1}\exp(F^{o,ext}).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, equation is proved for half-integers.
Suppose $n$ is an integer. For $n=0$ equation is obvious. Suppose that $n\ge 1$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2n+1}{2}{\frac{\d }{\d t_n}}&\exp(F^{o,ext})=\frac{2n+1}{2}F^{o,ext}_n\exp(F^{o,ext})\stackrel{\text{by \eqref{eq:open kdv}}}{=}\\
=&\left[uF^{o,ext}_{s,n-1}+u F^{o,ext}_s F^{o,ext}_{n-1}+\frac{u^2}{2}F^c_{0,n-1}F^{o,ext}_0-\frac{u^2}{4}F^c_{0,0,n-1}\right]\exp(F^{o,ext})=\\
=&\left(u\frac{\d^2}{\d s\d t_{n-1}}+\frac{u^2}{2}F^c_{0,n-1}\frac{\d}{\d t_0}-\frac{u^2}{4}F^c_{0,0,n-1}\right)\exp(F^{o,ext})\stackrel{\substack{\text{by the induction}\\\text{assumption and \eqref{eq:s-equation for exp}}}}{=}\\
=&\left(\frac{u^{2n}}{2(2n-1)!!}(L^{n-{\frac{1}{2}}})_+\circ L+\frac{u^2}{2}F^c_{0,n-1}\d_x-\frac{u^2}{4}F^c_{0,0,n-1}\right)\exp(F^{o,ext})\stackrel{\text{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:recursion lemma}}}{=}\\
=&\frac{u^{2n}}{2(2n-1)!!}(L^{n+{\frac{1}{2}}})_+\exp(F^{o,ext}).\end{aligned}$$ The theorem is proved.
Proof of Theorem \[theorem:main\] {#section:main theorem}
=================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[theorem:main\] and show that ${\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}\exp(F^{o,ext}+F^c)=0$.
Let $\tau^c:=\exp(F^c)$. By Witten’s conjecture, $\tau^c$ is a tau-function of the KdV hierarchy. Therefore the series $\psi$, defined by $$\begin{gathered}
\psi:=\frac{G_z(\tau^c)}{\tau^c}\exp\left(\xi\right),\end{gathered}$$ is the wave function of the KdV hierarchy. Let $w:=F^c_{0,0}$, $L:=\d_x^2+2w$ and $$H(t;z):=G_z(\tau^c)\exp(\xi)=\tau^c\psi.$$ The proof of Theorem \[theorem:main\] is based on the following proposition.
\[proposition:main proposition\] We have ${\mathcal L}^{ext}_{-1}\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot H)=0$.
It is easy to compute that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}H=&G_z(L_{-1}\tau^c)\exp(\xi)+\\
&+\left(\sum_{i\ge 0}\frac{(2i+1)!!}{u^{2i+2}z^{2i+3}}F^c_i+\sum_{i\ge 0}t_i\frac{u^{2i-2}z^{2i-1}}{(2i-1)!!}+\sum_{i\ge 0}s_i\frac{u^{2i-1}z^{2i}}{2^i i!}-\frac{1}{2u^2z^2}-z\right)H,\\
\frac{1}{u^2 z}{\frac{\d }{\d z}}H=&\left(\sum_{i\ge 0}\frac{(2i+1)!!}{u^{2i+2}z^{2i+3}}F^c_i+\sum_{i\ge 0}t_i\frac{u^{2i-2}z^{2i-1}}{(2i-1)!!}+\sum_{i\ge 0}s_i\frac{u^{2i-1}z^{2i}}{2^i i!}\right)H.\end{aligned}$$ Since $L_{-1}\tau^c=0$, we get $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:tmp4}
\frac{{\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}H}{\tau^c}=(\tau^c)^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{u^2 z}{\frac{\d }{\d z}}-\frac{1}{2u^2z^2}-z\right)H=\left(\frac{1}{u^2 z}{\frac{\d }{\d z}}-\frac{1}{2u^2z^2}-z\right)\psi.\end{gathered}$$ Denote the operator $\frac{1}{u^2 z}{\frac{\d }{\d z}}-\frac{1}{2u^2z^2}-z$ by $S_z$. We see that we have to prove that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:zero equality}
\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot S_z\psi)=0.\end{gathered}$$
Let $\mathcal F\in{\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}][[t_0,t_{\frac{1}{2}},t_1,t_{\frac{3}{2}},\ldots]]$. Consider the following system: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:equations for F}
\frac{\d\mathcal F}{\d t_n}=\frac{u^{2n}}{(2n+1)!!}\left(L^{n+{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)_+\mathcal F,\quad n\in{\frac{1}{2}}{\mathbb Z}_{\ge 1}.\end{gathered}$$ From it follows that the series $\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot S_z\psi)$ is a solution of this system. Therefore, in order to prove , it is sufficient to prove that $$\left.\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot S_z\psi)\right|_{t_{>0}=0}=0.$$ Let $y:=z^{-1}$ and $f(x,y):=\left.\psi\right|_{\substack{t_{>0}=0\\z=y^{-1}}}$. Since $\left.F^c\right|_{t_{>0}=0}=\frac{x^3}{6u^2}$, we have $$f(x,y)=\frac{\exp\left(F^c\left(x-y,-\frac{y^3}{u^2},-\frac{3!!y^5}{u^4},\ldots\right)\right)}{\exp\left(\frac{x^3}{6u^2}\right)}\exp\left(\frac{x}{y}\right).$$ Denote by $S_y$ the operator $-S_z$, rewritten in the $y$-coordinate. We have $$S_y=\frac{y^3}{u^2}\d_y+\frac{y^2}{2u^2}+\frac{1}{y}.$$ We have to prove that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:zero equality2}
\Coef_{y^0}(D\cdot S_y f)=0.\end{gathered}$$ In the next three lemmas we describe several properties of the series $f$.
\[lemma:homogeneity\] The series $f$ satisfies the homogeneity condition $\left(x{\frac{\d }{\d x}}+y{\frac{\d }{\d y}}+\frac{3}{2}u{\frac{\d }{\d u}}\right)f=0$.
Let $O:=x{\frac{\d }{\d x}}+y{\frac{\d }{\d y}}+\frac{3}{2}u{\frac{\d }{\d u}}$. A correlator ${\left <}\tau_{d_1}\ldots\tau_{d_n}{\right >}^c_g$ can be non-zero, only if $d_1+\ldots+d_n=3g-3+n$. Therefore we have $$\left(\sum_{i\ge 0}(1-i)t_i{\frac{\d }{\d t_i}}+\frac{3}{2}u{\frac{\d }{\d u}}\right)F^c=0.$$ This equation easily implies that $O F^c(x-y,-\frac{y^3}{u^2},-\frac{3!!y^5}{u^4},\ldots)=0$. Since $O(\frac{x^3}{6u^2})=O(\frac{x}{y})=0$, we get $O f=0$.
\[lemma:dx-derivative\] We have $\frac{\d f}{\d x}=S_y f$.
By , $(\tau^c)^{-1}{\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}H=S_z\psi$. It is easy to see that $$\begin{gathered}
\left.\left((\tau^c)^{-1}{\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}H\right)\right|_{t_{>0}=0}=e^{-\frac{t_0^3}{6u^2}}\left(-\frac{\d}{\d t_0}+\frac{t_0^2}{2u^2}\right)\left(\left.H\right|_{t_{>0}=0}\right)=\\
=-\frac{\d}{\d t_0}\left(e^{-\frac{t_0^3}{6u^2}}\left.H\right|_{t_{>0}=0}\right)=-\left.\left(\frac{\d\psi}{\d t_0}\right)\right|_{t_{>0}=0}.\end{gathered}$$ Therefore, $\frac{\d f}{\d x}=S_y f$.
Now we want to compute $\left.f\right|_{x=0}$. Recall that the numbers $a_n$, $n\ge 0$, are defined by $$a_n:=(-1)^n\frac{(6n)!}{288^n(2n)!(3n)!}.$$ Introduce the power series $A(y)$ by $$A(y):=1+\sum_{i\ge 1}a_i\frac{y^{3i}}{u^{2i}}.$$
\[lemma:specialization\] We have $\left.f\right|_{x=0}=A(y)$.
It is possible to get the proof from the results of [@Kon92] or [@KS91], but we decide to present a simple direct argument here. First of all, from Lemma \[lemma:homogeneity\] it follows that the series $\left.f\right|_{x=0}$ has the form $$\left.f\right|_{x=0}=1+\sum_{i\ge 1}f_i\frac{y^{3i}}{u^{2i}},$$ where $f_i$ are some complex coefficients. From Lemma \[lemma:dx-derivative\] it follows that $\frac{\d^2}{\d x^2}f=S_y^2 f$. By , $$(\d_x^2+2x)f=\frac{1}{y^2}f.$$ So we get $$S_y^2\left(\left.f\right|_{x=0}\right)=\frac{1}{y^2}\left(\left.f\right|_{x=0}\right).$$ From Lemma \[lemma:main property of A\] it follows that $\left.f\right|_{x=0}=A(y)$.
In order to prove equation , we have to prove that, for any $n\ge 0$, we have $$\left.\Coef_{y^0}\left(D\cdot{\frac{\d ^n}{\d x^n}}S_y f\right)\right|_{x=0}=0.$$ By Lemmas \[lemma:dx-derivative\] and \[lemma:specialization\], we have $$\left.\Coef_{y^0}\left(D\cdot{\frac{\d ^n}{\d x^n}}S_y f\right)\right|_{x=0}=\Coef_{y^0}(D\cdot S_y^{n+1}A(y)).$$ Let ${\widehat S}_y:=-\frac{y^3}{u^2}\d_y-\frac{3y^2}{2u^2}+\frac{1}{y}$.
\[lemma:move the operator\] For any two Laurent series $p,q\in{\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}][y^{-1},y]]$ we have $$\Coef_{y^0}\left(p\cdot S_y q\right)=\Coef_{y^0}\left({\widehat S}_y p\cdot q\right).$$
We have $$\begin{gathered}
\Coef_{y^0}\left(p\cdot\frac{y^3}{u^2}{\frac{\d q}{\d y}}\right)=\Coef_{y^{-1}}\left(p\cdot\frac{y^2}{u^2}{\frac{\d q}{\d y}}\right)=\\
=\Coef_{y^{-1}}\left({\frac{\d }{\d y}}\left(p\cdot\frac{y^2}{u^2}q\right)\right)-\Coef_{y^{-1}}\left({\frac{\d }{\d y}}\left(\frac{y^2}{u^2}p\right)\cdot q\right)=\Coef_{y^0}\left(\left(-\frac{y^3}{u^2}{\frac{\d }{\d y}}-\frac{2y^2}{u^2}\right)p\cdot q\right).\end{gathered}$$ The lemma is clear now.
Using this lemma we get $$\Coef_{y^0}(D\cdot S_y^{n+1}A(y))=\Coef_{y^0}({\widehat S}_yD\cdot S_y^n A(y))\stackrel{\text{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:equation for D}}}{=}\Coef_{y^0}\left(\frac{A(-y)}{y}\cdot S_y^n A(y)\right).$$ Define the power series $B(y)$ by $B(y):=yS_y A(y)$. It is easy to see that $$B(y)=1+\sum_{i\ge 1}b_i\frac{y^{3i}}{u^{2i}},\quad\text{where}\quad b_i=-\frac{6i+1}{6i-1}a_i.$$ By Lemma \[lemma:QR coefficients\], we have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:tmp equation}
\Coef_{y^0}\left(\frac{A(-y)}{y}\cdot S_y^n A(y)\right)=\Coef_{y^0}\left(\frac{Q_n}{y}A(-y)A(y)+\frac{R_n}{y^2}A(-y)B(y)\right),\end{gathered}$$ where $Q_n,R_n\in{\mathbb C}[u^{-1},y^{-1}]$ are even Laurent polynomials in $y$. Since $A(-y)A(y)$ is even, we get $\Coef_{y^0}\left(\frac{Q_n}{y}A(-y)A(y)\right)=0$. We also have the following identity (see e.g. [@PPZ13 page 36]): $$A(y)B(-y)+A(-y)B(y)=2.$$ Therefore, $\Coef_{y^0}\left(\frac{R_n}{y^2}A(-y)B(y)\right)=0$. We conclude that the right-hand side of is equal to zero. The proposition is proved.
Let us prove Theorem \[theorem:main\]. By equation and Theorem \[theorem:open kdv and the wave function\], the both series $\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot\psi)$ and $\exp(F^{o,ext})$ are solutions of system . Therefore it is sufficient to check that $$\left.\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot\psi)\right|_{t_{>0}=0}=\left.\exp(F^{o,ext})\right|_{t_{>0}}.$$ Since the potential $F^{o,ext}$ satisfies the initial condition , it remains to prove that $$\left.\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot\psi)\right|_{t_{>0}=0}=1.$$ We can easily see that $\left.\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot\psi)\right|_{t_*=0}=1$. Proposition \[proposition:main proposition\] and the string equation $L_{-1}\tau^c=0$ imply that $$\left(-\frac{\d}{\d t_0}+\sum_{n\in{\frac{1}{2}}{\mathbb Z}_{\ge 0}}t_{n+1}{\frac{\d }{\d t_n}}+u^{-1}t_{\frac{1}{2}}\right)\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot\psi)=0.$$ Thus, $\frac{\d}{\d t_0}\left(\left.\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot\psi)\right|_{t_{>0}=0}\right)=0$, and the theorem is proved.
Obviously, Proposition \[proposition:main proposition\] and Theorem \[theorem:main\] imply the following corollary.
\[corollary:extended open string\] We have ${\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}\exp(F^{o,ext}+F^c)=0$.
Extended open Virasoro equations {#section:virasoro equations}
================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[theorem:virasoro\] and show that the open Virasoro equations can be easily derived from it.
Proof of Theorem \[theorem:virasoro\]
-------------------------------------
By Corollary \[corollary:extended open string\], we already know that ${\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}\exp(F^{o,ext}+F^c)=0$. By Theorem \[theorem:main\], we have $\exp(F^{o,ext}+F^c)=\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot H)$. A direct computation shows that, for any $n\ge -1$, we have $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal L}_n^{ext}H=G_z(L_n\tau^c)\exp(\xi)+\frac{u^{2n+2}z^{2n+2}}{2^{n+1}}\left({\mathcal L}^{ext}_{-1}H-G_z(L_{-1}\tau^c)\exp(\xi)\right)+\frac{n+1}{2^n}u^{2n}z^{2n}H.\end{gathered}$$ By equation , $L\psi=z^2\psi$. Using also the closed Virasoro equations , we get $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal L}_n^{ext}H=\frac{u^{2n+2}}{2^{n+1}}\left({\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}\circ\tau^c\circ L^{n+1}\circ(\tau^c)^{-1}\right)H+\frac{u^{2n}(n+1)}{2^n}\left(\tau^c\circ L^n\circ(\tau^c)^{-1}\right)H\label{eq:tmp1}.\end{gathered}$$ Let ${\widetilde{\mathcal L}}_{-1}^{ext}:={\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}-\frac{x^2}{2u^2}$. From the string equation $L_{-1}\tau^c=0$ it follows that $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}\circ\tau^c=\tau^c\circ{\widetilde{\mathcal L}}_{-1}^{ext},\qquad \left[{\widetilde{\mathcal L}}_{-1}^{ext},L\right]=-\frac{2}{u^2}.\end{gathered}$$ Combining these equations with equation , we get $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal L}_n^{ext}H=&\frac{u^{2n+2}}{2^{n+1}}\left(\tau^c\circ{\widetilde{\mathcal L}}_{-1}^{ext}\circ L^{n+1}\circ(\tau^c)^{-1}\right)H+\frac{u^{2n}(n+1)}{2^n}\left(\tau^c\circ L^n\circ(\tau^c)^{-1}\right)H=\\
=&\frac{u^{2n+2}}{2^{n+1}}\left(\tau^c\circ L^{n+1}\circ{\widetilde{\mathcal L}}_{-1}^{ext}\circ(\tau^c)^{-1}\right)H=\frac{u^{2n+2}}{2^{n+1}}\left(\tau^c\circ L^{n+1}\circ(\tau^c)^{-1}\right){\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}H.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\exp(F^{o,ext}+F^c)=\Coef_{z^0}(D\cdot H)$, we obtain $${\mathcal L}_n^{ext}\exp(F^{o,ext}+F^c)=\frac{u^{2n+2}}{2^{n+1}}\left(\tau^c\circ L^{n+1}\circ(\tau^c)^{-1}\right){\mathcal L}_{-1}^{ext}\exp(F^{o,ext}+F^c)=0.$$ The extended open Virasoro equations are proved.
Open Virasoro equations from the extended open Virasoro equations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Let us derive the open Virasoro equations from the extended open Virasoro equations . We have $F^o=\left.F^{o,ext}\right|_{s_{\ge 1}=0}$. From Theorem \[theorem:open kdv and the wave function\] it follows that $$\frac{\d}{\d s_n}\exp(F^{o,ext})=\frac{u^n}{(n+1)!}\frac{\d^{n+1}}{\d s^{n+1}}\exp(F^{o,ext}).$$ We see that $$\left.\left({\mathcal L}^{ext}_n\exp(F^{o,ext}+F^c)\right)\right|_{s_{\ge 1}=0}=\left.\left({\mathcal L}_n\exp(F^{o,ext}+F^c)\right)\right|_{s_{\ge 1}=0}={\mathcal L}_n\exp(F^o+F^c).$$ Theorem \[theorem:virasoro\] implies that ${\mathcal L}_n\exp(F^o+F^c)=0$. The open Virasoro equations are proved.
Technical lemmas {#section:technical lemmas}
================
In this section we collect several technical facts and lemmas that we used in Sections \[section:open kdv and wave function\] and \[section:main theorem\]. In Section \[subsection:appendix,tau-function\] we list some properties of a tau-function of the KdV hierarchy. Section \[subsection:A,B and D\] is devoted to properties of the power series $A,B$ and $D$.
Tau-function {#subsection:appendix,tau-function}
------------
Let $L=\d_x^2+2w$ be a solution of the Lax equations and $\tau$ be the tau-function. Denote the logarithm $\ln\tau$ by $F$.
### Second derivatives $F_{i,j}$
Suppose $f$ is a power series in $t_0,t_1,\ldots$ with the coefficients from ${\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}]$. We will say that the power series $f$ is a differential polynomial in $w$, if it can be expressed as a polynomial in $w,w_x,w_{xx},\ldots$ with the coefficients from ${\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}]$. We will sometimes denote $\d_x^i w$ by $w_i$.
For any $i,j\ge 0$ there exists a universal polynomial $P_{i,j}\in{\mathbb C}[u,u^{-1}][v_0,v_1,v_2,\ldots]$ in formal variables $v_0,v_1,v_2,\ldots$ such that $$F_{i,j}=\left.P_{i,j}\right|_{v_k=w_k}.$$ The polynomial $P_{i,j}$ is universal in the sense, that it doesn’t depend on a solution $L$ of the Lax equations and on the choice of a $\tau$-function. The polynomials $P_{i,j}$ have the property $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:zero}
\left.P_{i,j}\right|_{v_*=0}=0.\end{gathered}$$
For example, $P_{0,0}=v_0$. Therefore, $F_{0,0}=w$.
### Recursion for the operators $(L^{n+{\frac{1}{2}}})_+$
For any $n\in{\mathbb Z}_{\ge 0}$ we have $$\begin{gathered}
L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_++\frac{(2n+1)!!}{u^{2n}}F_{0,n}\d_x^{-1}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{(2n+1)!!}{u^{2n}}F_{0,0,n}\d_x^{-2}+\ldots.\end{gathered}$$
Let $$\begin{gathered}
L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}=\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_++a_n\d_x^{-1}+b_n\d_x^{-2}+\ldots.\end{gathered}$$ We have $[L^{n+\frac{1}{2}},L]=0$, therefore, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:eq1}
\left[\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_++a_n\d_x^{-1}+b_n\d_x^{-2},\d_x^2+2w\right]_+=0.\end{gathered}$$ Since $w=F_{0,0}$, we have $\frac{u^{2n}}{(2n+1)!!}\left[\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_+,L\right]=2F_{0,0,n}$. Expanding we get $$2\frac{(2n+1)!!}{u^{2n}}F_{0,0,n}-2\d_x a_n=0.$$ Note that $a_n$ is a universal differential polynomial in $w,w_x,w_{xx},\ldots$. It is also easy to see that $a_n$ is equal to zero, if $w$ is zero. Therefore, we conclude that $a_n=\frac{(2n+1)!!}{u^{2n}}F_{0,n}$.
Let us compute $b_n$. We have $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:recursion1}
\left(L^{n+\frac{3}{2}}\right)_+=\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_+\circ L+a_n\d_x+b_n.\end{gathered}$$ Note that for any non-negative integer $k$ we have $$\left(L^{\frac{k}{2}}\right)^*_+=(-1)^k\left(L^{\frac{k}{2}}\right)_+.$$ Thus, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:conjugate}
-\left(L^{n+\frac{3}{2}}\right)_+=-L\circ\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_+-\d_xa_n-a_n\d_x+b_n.\end{gathered}$$ Summing and , we obtain $$\left[\left(L^{n+\frac{1}{2}}\right)_+,L\right]-\d_x a_n+2b_n=0.$$ Thus, $b_n=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{(2n+1)!!}{u^{2n}}F_{0,0,n}$. The lemma is proved.
\[lemma:recursion lemma\] For any $n\in{\mathbb Z}_{\ge 1}$ we have $$\left(L^{n+{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)_+=\left(L^{n-{\frac{1}{2}}}\right)_+\circ L+\frac{(2n-1)!!}{u^{2n-2}}F_{0,n-1}\d_x-\frac{1}{2}\frac{(2n-1)!!}{u^{2n-2}}F_{0,0,n-1}.$$
This is just equation with $n$ replaced by $n-1$.
Properties of the series $A,B$ and $D$ {#subsection:A,B and D}
--------------------------------------
Recall that $S_y:=\frac{y^3}{u^2}{\frac{\d }{\d y}}+\frac{y^2}{2u^2}+\frac{1}{y}$, ${\widehat S}_y:=-\frac{y^3}{u^2}{\frac{\d }{\d y}}-\frac{3y^2}{2u^2}+\frac{1}{y}$, $A(y):=1+\sum_{i\ge 1}a_i\frac{y^{3i}}{u^{2i}}$ and $D:=1+\sum_{i\ge 1}d_i\frac{y^{3i}}{u^{2i}}$.
Let $C$ be a power series of the form $C=1+\sum_{i\ge 1}c_i\frac{y^{3i}}{u^{2i}}$, where $c_i$ are some complex coefficients. Consider the differential equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:differential equation for A}
S_y^2C=\frac{1}{y^2}C.\end{gathered}$$
\[lemma:main property of A\] The series $A(y)$ is a unique solution of equation .
Equation implies that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:tmp3}
\left(\frac{\d^2}{\d y^2}+\left(\frac{4}{y}+\frac{2u^2}{y^4}\right)\frac{\d}{\d y}+\frac{5}{4y^2}\right)C=0.\end{gathered}$$ The fact, that the series $A(y)$ is a unique solution of , can be checked by a simple direct computation.
\[lemma:equation for D\] The series $D$ satisfies the differential equation ${\widehat S}_y D=\frac{A(-y)}{y}$.
From it immediately follows that for any $n\ge 1$ we have $$d_n=\left(3n-\frac{3}{2}\right)d_{n-1}+|a_n|.$$ This easily implies the statement of the lemma.
Recall that the series $B(y)$ is defined by $B(y):=y S_yA(y)$.
\[lemma:square operator\] We have $S_y\left(\frac{B(y)}{y}\right)=\frac{A(y)}{y^2}$.
The equation is equivalent to the equation $S_y^2 A(y)=\frac{A(y)}{y^2}$, that follows from Lemma \[lemma:main property of A\].
\[lemma:QR coefficients\] For any $n\ge 0$ we have $$S_y^n A(y)=Q_n A(y)+R_n \frac{B(y)}{y}$$ for some Laurent polynomials $Q_n,R_n\in{\mathbb C}[u^{-1},y^{-1}]$, that are even as functions of $y$.
Define a sequence of Laurent polynomials $Q_n,R_n\in{\mathbb C}[u^{-1},y,y^{-1}]$, $n\ge 0$, by $$\begin{aligned}
& Q_0=1, && R_0=0,\\
& Q_{n+1}=\frac{y^3}{u^2}\frac{\d Q_n}{\d y}+\frac{1}{y^2}R_n, && R_{n+1}=Q_n+\frac{y^3}{u^2}\frac{\d R_n}{\d y}.\end{aligned}$$ This recursion immediately implies that $Q_n$ and $R_n$ are even as functions of $y$. Using this fact it is easy to see that, actually, $Q_n,R_n\in{\mathbb C}[u^{-1},y^{-1}]$. Let us check that $$S_y^n A(y)=Q_n A(y)+R_n\frac{B(y)}{y}.$$ The proof is by induction on $n$. This equation is obviously true for $n=0$. For an arbitrary $n$ we compute $$S_y\left(Q_n A(y)+R_n\frac{B(y)}{y}\right)\stackrel{\text{by Lemma~\ref{lemma:square operator}}}{=}\left(\frac{y^3}{u^2}\frac{\d Q_n}{\d y}+\frac{1}{y^2}R_n\right)A(y)+\left(Q_n+\frac{y^3}{u^2}\frac{\d R_n}{\d y}\right)\frac{B(y)}{y}.$$ The lemma is proved.
[CvdLS14]{}
A. Alexandrov. Open intersection numbers, matrix models and MKP hierarchy. [*arXiv:1410.1820*]{}.
A. Alexandrov. Open intersection numbers, Kontsevich–Penner model and cut-and-join operators. [*arXiv:1412.3772*]{}.
M. Bertola, D. Yang. The partition function of the extended $r$-reduced Kadomtsev-Petviashvili hierarchy. [*arXiv:1411.5717*]{}.
A. Buryak. Equivalence of the open KdV and the open Virasoro equations for the moduli space of Riemann surfaces with boundary. [*arXiv:1409.3888*]{}.
A. Buryak, R. J. Tessler. Matrix models and a proof of the open analog of Witten’s conjecture. [*arXiv:1501.07888*]{}.
E. Brezin, S. Hikami. Random Matrix, Singularities and Open/Close Intersection Numbers. [*arXiv:1502.01416*]{}.
G. Carlet, J. van de Leur, H. Posthuma, S. Shadrin. Towards Lax Formulation of Integrable Hierarchies of Topological Type. [*Communications in Mathematical Physics*]{} [**326**]{} (2014), no. 3, 815-849.
P. Deligne, D. Mumford. The irreducibility of the space of curves of given genus. [*Publications mathématiques de l’I.H.É.S.*]{} [**36**]{} (1969), 75-109.
L. A. Dickey. Soliton equations and Hamiltonian systems. Second edition. Advanced Series in Mathematical Physics, 26. World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 2003. xii+408 pp.
R. Dijkgraaf, H. Verlinde, E. Verlinde. Loop equations and Virasoro constraints in non-perturbative two-dimensional quantum gravity. [*Nuclear Physics B*]{} [**348**]{} (1991), no. 3, 435-456.
V. Kac, A. Schwarz. Geometric interpretation of the partition function of 2D gravity. [*Physics Letters B*]{} [**257**]{} (1991), no. 3-4, 329-334.
M. Kontsevich. Intersection Theory on the Moduli Space of Curves and the Matrix Airy Function. [*Communications in Mathematical Physics*]{} [**147**]{} (1992), 1-23.
R. Pandharipande, A. Pixton, D. Zvonkine. Relations on ${\overline{\mathcal M}}_{g,n}$ via $3$-spin structures. [*Journal of the American Mathematical Society*]{} [**28**]{} (2015), no. 1, 279-309.
R. Pandharipande, J. P. Solomon, R. J. Tessler. Intersection theory on moduli of disks, open KdV and Virasoro. [*arXiv:1409.2191*]{}.
J. P. Solomon and R. J. Tessler, [*in preparation*]{}.
E. Witten. Two-dimensional gravity and intersection theory on moduli space. Surveys in differential geometry (Cambridge, MA, 1990), 243-310, Lehigh Univ., Bethlehem, PA, 1991.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Annalisa Baldi\
Bruno Franchi\
Pierre Pansu
bibliography:
- 'BFP2\_submitted.bib'
title: Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities for differential forms in Heisenberg groups
---
**Abstract**
Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities for differential forms on Heisenberg balls, involving Rumin’s differentials, are given. Furthermore, a global homotopy of Rumin’s complex which improves differentiability of Rumin forms is provided on any bounded geometry contact manifold.
Introduction
============
Sobolev and Poincaré inequalities for differential forms
--------------------------------------------------------
Sobolev inequality in ${\mathbb R}^n$ deals with compactly supported 0-forms, i.e. functions $u$ on ${\mathbb R}^n$, and 1-forms, their differentials $du$. It states that $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_q \leq C_{p,q,n}\|du\|_p\end{aligned}$$ whenever $$\begin{aligned}
1\leq p,q< +\infty,\quad \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{n}.\end{aligned}$$
A local version, for functions supported in the unit ball, holds under the weaker assumption $$\begin{aligned}
1\leq p,q< +\infty,\quad \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\leq\frac{1}{n}.\end{aligned}$$
Poincaré’s inequality is a variant for functions $u$ defined on but not necessarily compactly supported in the unit ball $B$. It states that there exists a real number $c_u$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|u-c_u\|_q \leq C_{p,q,n}\|du\|_p.\end{aligned}$$ Alternatively, given a closed 1-form $\omega$ on $B$, there exists a function $u$ on $B$ such that $du=\omega$ on $B$, and such that $$\begin{aligned}
\|u\|_q \leq C_{p,q,n}\|\omega\|_p.\end{aligned}$$ This suggests the following generalization for higher degree differential forms.
Let $M$ be a Riemannian manifold. We say that a *strong Poincaré inequality* $(p,q)$-Poincaré$(k)$ holds on $M$, if there exists a positive constant $C=C(M,p,q)$ such that for every closed $k$-form $\omega$ on $M$, belonging to $L^p$, there exists a $k-1$-form $\phi$ such that $d\phi=\omega$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\phi\|_q \leq C\,\|\omega\|_p.\end{aligned}$$ A *strong Sobolev inequality* $(p,q)$-Sobolev$(k)$ holds on $M$, if for every closed compactly supported $k$-form $\omega$ on $M$, belonging to $L^p$, there exists a compactly supported $k-1$-form $\phi$ such that $d\phi=\omega$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\phi\|_q \leq C\,\|\omega\|_p.\end{aligned}$$ Both statements should be thought of as quantitative versions of the statement that every closed $k$-form is exact.
For Euclidean domains, the validity of Poincaré inequality is sensitive to irregularity of boundaries. One way to eliminate such a dependance is to allow a loss on domain. Say an *interior Poincaré inequality* $(p,q)$-Poincaré$(k)$ holds on $M$ if for every small enough $r>0$ and large enough $\lambda\geq 1$, there exists a constant $C=C(M,p,q,r,\lambda)$ such that for every $x\in M$ and every closed $k$-form $\omega$ on $B(x,\lambda r)$, belonging to $L^p$, there exists a $(k-1)$-form $\phi$ on $B(x,r)$ such that $d\phi=\omega$ on $B(x,r)$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\phi\|_{L^q(B(x,r))} \leq C\,\|\omega\|_{L^p(B(x,\lambda r))}.\end{aligned}$$ For *interior Sobolev inequalities*, merely add the word compactly supported. Both properties should be thought of as quantitative versions of the statement that, locally, every closed $k$-form is exact.
It turns out that in several situations, the loss on domain is harmless. This is the case for $L^{q,p}$-cohomological applications, see [@Pcup].
Contact manifolds
-----------------
A contact structure on a manifold $M$ is a smooth distribution of hyperplanes $H$ which is maximally nonintegrable in the following sense: if $\theta$ is a locally defined smooth 1-form such that $H=\mathrm{ker}(\theta)$, then $d\theta$ restricts to a non-degenerate 2-form on $H$. A contact manifold is the data of a smooth manifold $M$ and a contact structure $H$ on $M$. $M$ must be odd-dimensional. Contactomorphisms are contact structure preserving diffeomorphisms between contact manifolds. The prototype of a contact manifold is the Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$, the simply connected Lie group whose Lie algebra is the central extension $\mathfrak{h}=\mathfrak{h}_1\oplus\mathfrak{h}_2$, $\mathfrak{h}_2={\mathbb R}=Z(\mathfrak{h})$, with bracket $\mathfrak{h}_1\otimes\mathfrak{h}_1\to\mathfrak{h}_2={\mathbb R}$ being a non-degenerate skew-symmetric 2-form. The contact structure is obtained by left-translating $\mathfrak{h}_1$. According to Darboux, every contact manifold is locally contactomorphic to ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$. The Heisenberg Lie algebra admits a one parameter group of automorphisms $\delta_t$, $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_t=t\textrm{ on }\mathfrak{h}_1,\quad \delta_t=t^2 \textrm{ on }\mathfrak{h}_2,\end{aligned}$$ which are analogues of Euclidean homotheties. However, differential forms on $\mathfrak{h}$ split into 2 eigenspaces under $\delta_t$, therefore de Rham complex lacks scale invariance under these anisotropic dilations.
A substitute for de Rham’s complex, that recovers scale invariance under $\delta_t$ has been defined by M. Rumin, [@rumin_jdg]. It makes sense for arbitrary contact manifolds $(M,H)$. Let $\Omega^\bullet$ denote the space of smooth differential forms on $M$, let $\mathcal{I}^\bullet$ denote the differential ideal generated by 1-forms that vanish on $H$, let $\mathcal{J}^\bullet$ denote its annihilator. Exterior differential $d:\Omega^\bullet\to\Omega^\bullet$ descends to first order differential operators $d_c:\Omega^\bullet/\mathcal{I}^\bullet\to\Omega^\bullet/\mathcal{I}^\bullet$ and $d_c:\mathcal{J}^\bullet\to \mathcal{J}^\bullet$. It turns out that $\Omega^h/\mathcal{I}^h=0$ for $h\geq n+1$ and $\mathcal{J}^h=0$ for $h\leq n$. If $\omega\in \Omega^n/\mathcal{I}^n$, there is a unique lift $\tilde\omega\in\Omega^n$ such that $d\tilde\omega\in\mathcal{J}^{n+1}$. Set $d_c\omega=d\tilde\omega$. This defines a linear second order differential operator $\Omega^n/\mathcal{I}^{n+1}\to\mathcal{J}^{n+1}$ which completes Rumin’s complex, which is homotopic to de Rham’s complex. The homotopy is a first order differential operator.
Elements of $\Omega^\bullet/\mathcal{I}^\bullet$ and $\mathcal{J}^\bullet$ can be viewed as smooth sections of sub-bundles $\mathcal{E}_0^\bullet$ of $\Lambda^\bullet H^*$ and $\Lambda^\bullet H^*\otimes (TM/H)$ respectively. A Euclidean norm on $H$ determines Euclidean norms on $\Lambda^\bullet H^*$. Locally, a 1-form $\theta$ vanishing on $H$ such that $|d\theta_{|H}|=1$ is uniquely determined up to sign, hence a norm on $TM/H$. The measure on $M$ defined by the locally defined top degree form $\theta\wedge(d\theta)^n$ only depends on the norm on $H$ as well. Whence $L^p$-norms on spaces of sections of bundles $\mathcal{E}_0^\bullet$.
The data of $(M,H)$ equipped with a Euclidean norm defined on sub-bundle $H$ only is called a *sub-Riemannian* contact manifold. Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities for differential forms make sense on contact sub-Riemannian manifolds: merely replace $d$ with $d_c$. All left-invariant sub-Riemannian metrics on Heisenberg group are bi-Lipschitz equivalent, hence we may refer to sub-Riemannian Heisenberg group without referring to a specific left-invariant metric. On the other hand, in absence of symmetry assumptions, large scale behaviours of sub-Riemannian contact manifolds are diverse.
Results on Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities
--------------------------------------------
In this paper, we prove strong contact Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities and interior contact Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities in Heisenberg groups, where the word “contact” is meant to stress that the exterior differential is replaced by Rumin’s $d_c$. The range of parameters differs slightly from the Euclidean case, due to the fact that $d_c$ has order 2 in middle dimension. Let $h\in \{0,\ldots,2n+1\}$. Say that assumption $E(h,p,q,n)$ holds if $1<p\leq q<\infty$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}=\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2n+2} & \text{ if }h\not=n+1, \\
\frac{2}{2n+2} & \text{ if }h=n+1.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Say that assumption $I(h,p,q,n)$ holds if $1<p\leq q<\infty$ satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\leq\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{2n+2} & \text{ if }h\not=n+1, \\
\frac{2}{2n+2} & \text{ if }h=n+1.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
\[strongglobal\] Under assumption $E(h,p,q,n)$, strong $(p,q)$-Poincaré and $(p,q)$-Sobolev inequalities hold for $h$-forms on ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$.
Under assumption $I(h,p,q,n)$, interior $(p,q)$-Poincaré and $(p,q)$-Sobolev inequalities hold for $h$-forms on ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$.
Precise formulations of interior Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities are given in section \[poincare\].
Here is a sample consequence of these results. Combining both theorems with results from [@Pcup], we get
Under assumption $E(h,p,q,n)$, the $\ell^{q,p}$-cohomology in degree $h$ of ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ vanishes.
Bounded geometry and smoothing
------------------------------
Along the way, we construct local smoothing operators for differential forms. They can be combined to yield a global smoothing operator on sub-Riemannian contact manifolds, which has independent interest (see Theorem \[1.5\] below). This operator is bounded on $L^p$ provided the sub-Riemannian metric has bounded geometry in the following sense.
\[contact\] Let $k\geq 2$. Let $B(e,1)$ denote the unit sub-Riemannian ball in ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$. We say that a sub-Riemannian contact manifold $(M,H,g)$ has *bounded $C^k$-geometry* is there exist constants $r>0$, $C$ such that, for every $x\in M$, if we denote by $B(x,r)$ the sub-Riemannian ball for $(M,H,g)$ centered at $x$ and of radius $r$, there exists a contactomorphism (i.e. a diffeomorphism preserving the contact forms) $\phi_x : B(e,1)\to M$
1. $B(x,r)\subset\phi_x(B(e,1))$.
2. $\phi_x$ is $C$-bi-Lipschitz.
3. Coordinate changes $\phi_x\circ\phi_y^{-1}$ and their first $k$ derivatives with respect to unit left-invariant horizontal vectorfields are bounded by $C$.
On sub-Riemannian Heisenberg balls, Sobolev spaces can be defined as follows. Fix an orthonormal basis of left-invariant vector fields $W_i$. Express forms in this frame, and differentiate along these vector-fields only. Let $\ell=0,\ldots,k$. Say that a differential form on unit ball $B$ belongs to $W^{\ell,p}$ if all derivatives up to order $k$ of its components belong to $L^p(B)$. Using $C^k$-bounded charts, this local notion extends to $C^k$-bounded geometry sub-Riemannian contact manifolds $M$, and the global $W^{k,p}$ norm on globally defined differential forms is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\sum_j\|\omega_{|B(x_j,r)}\|_{W^{k,p}(B(x_j,r))}\right)^{1/p},\end{aligned}$$ where $x_i$ is an $r$-dense uniformly discrete subset of $M$ (it will be shown in section \[function spaces\] that this norm does not depend on choices, up to multiplicative constants). By duality, Sobolev spaces with negative $\ell=-k+1,\ldots,-1$ can be defined.
\[1.5\] Let $(M,H,g)$ be a sub-Riemannian contact manifold of bounded $C^k$-geometry. Under assumption $I(h,p,q,n)$, there exist operators $S$ and $T$ on $h$-forms on $M$ which are bounded from $W^{j-1,p}$ to $W^{j,q}$ for all $0\leq j\leq k$, and such that $1=S+d_c T +Td_c$.
Iterating $S$ yields an operator which is bounded from $L^{p}$ to $W^{k,q}$, and still acts trivially on cohomology. For instance, this allows to replace a closed form, up to adding a controlled exact form, with a much more regular differential form.
Questions
---------
Keeping in mind the analogous inequalities in the scalar case, the following questions naturally arise.
- Do balls is Heisenberg group satisfy strong $(p,q)$-Poincaré and $(p,q)$-Sobolev inequalities? In other words, do Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities hold without lack on domain?
- Do interior $(p,q)$-Poincaré and $(p,q)$-Sobolev inequalities hold for limiting values, i.e. for $p=1$ or $q=\infty$?
- How much of these results does extend to more general Carnot groups?
Scheme of proof
===============
Global homotopy operators
-------------------------
The most efficient way to prove a Poincaré inequality is to find a homotopy between identity and 0 on the complex of differential forms, i.e. a linear operator $K$ that raises the degree by 1 and satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
1=dK+Kd.\end{aligned}$$ More generally, we shall deal with homotopies between identity and other operators $P$, i.e. of the form $$\begin{aligned}
1-P=dK+Kd.\end{aligned}$$
In Euclidean space, the Laplacian provides us with such a homotopy. Write $\Delta=d\delta+\delta d$. Denote by $\Delta^{-1}$ the operator of convolution with the fundamental solution of the Laplacian. Then $\Delta^{-1}$ commutes with $d$ and its adjoint $\delta$, hence $K_e=\delta \Delta^{-1}$ satisfies $1=dK_e+K_ed$ on globally defined $L^p$ differential forms. Furthermore, $K_e$ is bounded $L^p\to W^{1,q}$ provided $\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}=\frac{1}{n}$. This proves the strong $(p,q)$-Poincaré inequality for Euclidean space. Rumin defines a Laplacian $\Delta_c$ by $\Delta_c=d_c\delta_c+\delta_c d_c$ when both $d_c$’s are first order, and by $\Delta_c=(d_c\delta_c)^2+\delta_c d_c$ or $\Delta_c=d_c\delta_c+(\delta_c d_c)^2$ near middle dimension, when one of them has order 2. This leads to a homotopy of the form $K_0=\delta_c \Delta_c^{-1}$ or $K_0=\delta_c d_c\delta_c \Delta_c^{-1}$ depending on degree. Again, $K_0$ is bounded $L^p\to W^{1,q}$ under assumption $E(h,p,q,n)$. This proves the strong contact $(p,q)$-Poincaré$(h)$ inequality for Heisenberg group, Theorem \[strongglobal\].
Local homotopy operators
------------------------
We pass to local results. In Euclidean space, Poincaré’s Lemma asserts that every closed form on a ball is exact. We need a quantitative version of this statement. The standard proof of Poincaré’s Lemma relies on a homotopy operator which depends on the choice of an origin. Averaging over origins yields a bounded operator $K:L^p\to L^q$, as was observed by Iwaniec and Lutoborski, [@IL]. This proves the strong Euclidean $(p,q)$-Poincaré$(h)$ inequality for convex Euclidean domains. A support preserving variant $J:L^p\to L^q$ appears in Mitrea-Mitrea-Monniaux, [@mitrea_mitrea_monniaux] and this proves the strong Euclidean $(p,q)$-Sobolev inequality for bounded convex Euclidean domains. Incidentally, since, for balls, constants do not depend on the radius of the ball, this reproves the strong Euclidean $(p,q)$-Sobolev inequality for Euclidean space.
In this paper a sub-Riemannian counterpart is obtained using the homotopy of de Rham’s and Rumin’s complexes. Since this homotopy is a differential operator, a preliminary smoothing operation is needed. This is obtained by localizing (multiplying the kernel with cut-offs) the global homotopy $K_0$ provided by the inverse of Rumin’s (modified) Laplacian.
Hence the proof goes as follows (see Section \[poincare\]):
1. Show that the inverse $K_0$ of Rumin’s modified Laplacian on all of ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ is given by a homogeneous kernel $k_0$. Deduce bounds $L^p\to W^{1,q}$. Conclude that $K_0$ is an exact homotopy for globally defined $L^p$ forms.
2. Split $k_0=k_1+k_2$ where $k_1$ has small support and $k_2$ is smooth. Hence $T=K_1$ is a homotopy on balls (with a loss on domain) of identity to $S=d_c K_2+K_2d_c$ which is smoothing. This provides the required local smoothing operation.
3. Compose Iwaniec and Lutoborski’s averaged Poincaré homotopy for the de Rham complex and Rumin’s homotopy, and apply the result to smoothed forms. This proves an interior Poincaré inequality in Heisenberg group. Replacing Iwaniec and Lutoborski’s homotopy with Mitrea-Mitrea-Monniaux’s homotopy leads to an interior Sobolev inequality.
Global smoothing
----------------
Let $(M,H,g)$ be a bounded $C^k$-geometry sub-Riemannian contact manifold. Pick a uniform covering by equal radius balls. Let $\chi_j$ be a partition of unity subordinate to this covering. Let $\phi_j$ be the corresponding charts from the unit Heisenberg ball. Let $S_j$ and $T_j$ denote the smoothing and homotopy operators transported by $\phi_j$. Set $$\begin{aligned}
T=\sum_j T_j \chi_j ,\quad S=\sum_j S_j \chi_j +T_j[\chi_j,d_c].\end{aligned}$$ When $d_c$ is first order, the commutator $[\chi_j,d_c]$ is an order 0 differential operator, hence $T_j[\chi_j,d_c]$ gains 1 derivative. When $d_c$ is second order, $[\chi_j,d_c]$ is a first order differential operator. It turns out that precisely in this case, $T_j$ gains 2 derivatives, hence $T_j[\chi_j,d_c]$ gains 1 derivative in this case as well.
This is detailed in section \[final\].
Heisenberg groups and Rumin’s complex $(E_0^\bullet,d_c)$ {#Rumin}
=========================================================
Differential forms on Heisenberg group
--------------------------------------
We denote by ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ the $n$-dimensional Heisenberg group, identified with ${{\mathbb R}^{2n+1}}$ through exponential coordinates. A point $p\in {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ is denoted by $p=(x,y,t)$, with both $x,y\in{{\mathbb R}^{n}}$ and $t\in{\mathbb R}$. If $p$ and $p'\in {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$, the group operation is defined by $$p\cdot p'=(x+x', y+y', t+t' + \frac12 \sum_{j=1}^n(x_j y_{j}'- y_{j} x_{j}')).$$ The unit element of ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ is the origin, that will be denote by $e$.
For a general review on Heisenberg groups and their properties, we refer to [@Stein], [@GromovCC] and to [@VarSalCou]. We limit ourselves to fix some notations, following [@FSSC_advances].
The Heisenberg group ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ can be endowed with the homogeneous norm (Korányi norm) $$\label{gauge}
\varrho (p)=\big(|p'|^4+p_{2n+1}^2\big)^{1/4},$$ and we define the gauge distance (a true distance, see [@Stein], p.638, that is equivalent to Carnot–Carathéodory distance) as $$\label{def_distance}
d(p,q):=\varrho ({p^{-1}\cdot q}).$$ Finally, set $B_{\rho}(p,r)=\{q \in {{\mathbb H}^{n}}; \; d(p,q)< r\}$.
A straightforward computation shows that there exists $c_0>1$ such that $$\label{c0}
c_0^{-2} |p| \le \rho(p) \le |p|^{1/2},$$ provided $p$ is close to $e$. In particular, for $r>0$ small, if we denote by $B_{\mathrm{Euc}}(e,r)$ the Euclidean ball centred ad $e$ of radius $r$, $$\label{balls inclusion}
B_{\mathrm{Euc}}(e,r^2) \subset B_{\rho}(e,r) \subset B_{\mathrm{Euc}}(e, c_0^2 r).$$
It is well known that the topological dimension of ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ is $2n+1$, since as a smooth manifold it coincides with ${\mathbb R}^{2n+1}$, whereas the Hausdorff dimension of $({{\mathbb H}^{n}},d)$ is $Q:=2n+2$.
We denote by ${\mathfrak}h$ the Lie algebra of the left invariant vector fields of ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$. The standard basis of ${\mathfrak}h$ is given, for $i=1,\dots,n$, by $$X_i := \partial_{x_i}-\frac12 y_i \partial_{t},\quad Y_i :=
\partial_{y_i}+\frac12 x_i \partial_{t},\quad T :=
\partial_{t}.$$ The only non-trivial commutation relations are $
[X_{j},Y_{j}] = T $, for $j=1,\dots,n.$ The [*horizontal subspace*]{} ${\mathfrak}h_1$ is the subspace of ${\mathfrak}h$ spanned by $X_1,\dots,X_n$ and $Y_1,\dots,Y_n$. Coherently, from now on, we refer to $X_1,\dots,X_n,Y_1,\dots,Y_n$ (identified with first order differential operators) as to the [*horizontal derivatives*]{}. Denoting by ${\mathfrak}h_2$ the linear span of $T$, the $2$-step stratification of ${\mathfrak}h$ is expressed by $${\mathfrak}h={\mathfrak}h_1\oplus {\mathfrak}h_2.$$
The stratification of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak}h$ induces a family of non-isotropic dilations $\delta_\lambda$, $\lambda>0$ in ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$. The homogeneous dimension of ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ with respect to $\delta_\lambda$, $\lambda>0$ equals $Q$.
The vector space $ {\mathfrak}h$ can be endowed with an inner product, indicated by ${\langle {\cdot} , {\cdot}\rangle_{}} $, making $X_1,\dots,X_n$, $Y_1,\dots,Y_n$ and $ T$ orthonormal.
Throughout this paper, we write also $$\label{campi W}
W_i:=X_i, \quad W_{i+n}:= Y_i, \quad W_{2n+1}:= T, \quad \text
{for }i =1, \cdots, n.$$
The dual space of ${\mathfrak}h$ is denoted by ${{\bigwedge\nolimits^{1}{{\mathfrak}h}}}$. The basis of ${{\bigwedge\nolimits^{1}{{\mathfrak}h}}}$, dual to the basis $\{X_1,\dots , Y_n,T\}$, is the family of covectors $\{dx_1,\dots, dx_{n},dy_1,\dots, dy_n,\theta\}$ where $$\theta
:= dt - \frac12 \sum_{j=1}^n (x_jdy_j-y_jdx_j)$$ is called the [*contact form*]{} in ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$.
We indicate as ${\langle {\cdot} , {\cdot}\rangle_{}} $ also the inner product in ${{\bigwedge\nolimits^{1}{{\mathfrak}h}}}$ that makes $(dx_1,\dots, dy_{n},\theta )$ an orthonormal basis.
Coherently with the previous notation , we set $$\omega_i:=dx_i, \quad \omega_{i+n}:= dy_i, \quad \omega_{2n+1}:= \theta, \quad \text
{for }i =1, \cdots, n.$$
We put $ {{\bigwedge\nolimits_{0}{{\mathfrak}h}}} := {{\bigwedge\nolimits^{0}{{\mathfrak}h}}} ={\mathbb R}$ and, for $1\leq k \leq 2n+1$, $$\begin{split}
{{\bigwedge\nolimits^{k}{{\mathfrak}h}}}& :=\mathrm {span}\{ \omega_{i_1}\wedge\dots \wedge \omega_{i_k}:
1\leq i_1< \dots< i_k\leq 2n+1\}
.
\end{split}$$
The volume $(2n+1)$-form $ \theta_1\wedge\cdots\wedge \theta_{ 2n+1}$ will be also written as $dV$.
The same construction can be performed starting from the vector subspace ${\mathfrak}h_1\subset {\mathfrak}h$, obtaining the [*horizontal $k$-covectors*]{} $$\begin{split}
{{\bigwedge\nolimits^{k}{{\mathfrak}h_1}}}& :=\mathrm {span}\{ \omega_{i_1}\wedge\dots \wedge \omega_{i_k}:
1\leq i_1< \dots< i_k\leq 2n\}.
\end{split}$$
\[weight\] If $\eta\neq 0$, $\eta\in {{\bigwedge\nolimits^{1}{{\mathfrak}h_1}}}$, we say that $\eta$ has *weight $1$*, and we write $w(\eta)=1$. If $\eta = \theta$, we say $w(\eta)= 2$. More generally, if $\eta\in {{\bigwedge\nolimits^{h}{{\mathfrak}h}}}$, we say that $\eta$ has *pure weight* $k$ if $\eta$ is a linear combination of covectors $\omega_{i_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge\omega_{i_h}$ with $w(\omega_{i_1})+\cdots + w(\omega_{ i_h})=k$.
Notice that, if $\eta,\zeta \in {{\bigwedge\nolimits^{h}{{\mathfrak}h}}}$ and $w(\eta)\neq w(\zeta)$, then ${\langle {\eta} , {\zeta}\rangle}=0$.
Rumin’s complex on Heisenberg groups
------------------------------------
The exterior differential $d$ does not preserve weights. It splits into $$\begin{aligned}
d=d_0+d_1+d_2\end{aligned}$$ where $d_0$ preserves weight, $d_1$ increases weight by 1 unit and $d_2$ increases weight by 2 units. $d_0$ is a differential operator of order 0; in degree $k$, it vanishes on forms of weight $k$ and if $\beta$ is a $k-1$-form of weight $k-1$, $d_0(\theta\wedge\beta)=d\theta\wedge\beta$. A first attempt in trying to invert $d$ is to invert $d_0$. For this, let us pick a complement $\mathcal{W}$ to $\mathrm{ker}(d_0)$ in ${{\bigwedge\nolimits^{\bullet}{{\mathfrak}h}}}$ and a complement $\mathcal{V}$ to $\mathrm{Im}(d_0)$ in ${{\bigwedge\nolimits^{\bullet}{{\mathfrak}h}}}$ containing $\mathcal{W}$. This allows to define $d_0^{-1}$ to be 0 on $\mathcal{V}$ and the inverse of $d_0:\mathcal{W}\to \mathrm{Im}(d_0)$. This defines a left-invariant order 0 operator on smooth forms on ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$. Denote by $V$ (resp. $W$) the space of smooth sections of $\mathcal{V}$ (resp. $\mathcal{W}$).
Rumin shows that $$\begin{aligned}
r=1-d_0^{-1}d-dd_{0}^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ is the projector onto the subspace $$\begin{aligned}
E=V\cap d^{-1}V\end{aligned}$$ along the subspace $$\begin{aligned}
F=W+dW.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, in the sequel, it will be denoted by $\Pi_{E}$. The weight-preserving part of $r$, $$\begin{aligned}
r_0=1-d_0^{-1}d_0-d_0d_{0}^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ has order 0, it is the projector onto $\mathcal{E}_0:=\mathcal{V}\cap\mathrm{ker}(d_0)$ along $\mathcal{W}\oplus\mathrm{Im}(d_0)$. Hence, in the sequel, it will be denoted by $\Pi_{E_0}$, where $E_0$ is the space of smooth sections of $\mathcal{E}_0$. ${\Pi_{E_0}}_{|E}$ and ${\Pi_{E}}_{|E_0}$ are inverses of each other. We use them to conjugate $d_{|E}$ to an operator $$\begin{aligned}
d_c=\Pi_{E_0} d\Pi_{E}\Pi_{E_0}\end{aligned}$$ on $E_0$. By construction, the complex $(E_0,d_c)$ is isomorphic to $(E,d)$, which is homotopic to the full de Rham complex.
Contact manifolds
-----------------
We now sketch Rumin’s construction of the intrinsic complex for general contact manifolds $(M,H)$. Locally, $H$ is the kernel of a smooth contact 1-form $\theta$. Let $L:\bigwedge^\bullet H^*\to\bigwedge^\bullet H^*$ denote multiplication by $d\theta_{|H}$.
It is well known that, for every $h\leq n-1$, $L^{n-h}:\bigwedge^h H^*\to\bigwedge^{2n-h} H^*$ is an isomorphism. It follows that $\mathrm{ker}(L^{n-h+1})$ is a complement of $\mathrm{Im}(L)$ in $\bigwedge^h H^*$, if $h\leq n$, and that $\mathrm{Im}(L)=\bigwedge^h H^*$ if $h\geq n+1$. Therefore we set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{V}^h=\begin{cases}
\{\alpha\in T^*M\,;\,L^{n-h+1}(\alpha_{|H})=0\} & \text{if }h\leq n, \\
\{\alpha\in T^*M\,;\,\alpha_{|H}=0\}& \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $\mathrm{Im}(L^{h-n+1})$ is a complement of $\mathrm{ker}(L)$ in $\bigwedge^h H^*$ if $h\geq n$, and $\mathrm{ker}(L)=\{0\}$ in $\bigwedge^h H^*$ if $h\leq n-1$. Therefore we set $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{W}^h=\begin{cases}
\{\alpha\in T^*M\,;\,\alpha_{|H}=0\} & \text{if }h\leq n-1, \\
\{\alpha\in T^*M\,;\,\alpha\in\theta\wedge \mathrm{Im}(L^{h-n+1})\}& \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Changing $\theta$ to an other smooth 1-form $\theta'=f\theta$ with kernel $H$ does not change $\mathcal{V}$ and $\mathcal{W}$. With these choices, spaces of smooth sections $V$ and $W$ depend only on the plane field $H$. We can define subspaces of smooth differential forms $E=V\cap d^{-1}V$ and $F=W+dW$ and the projector $\Pi_E$. Since no extra choices are involved, $E$, $F$ and $\Pi_E$ are invariant under contactomorphisms.
In degrees $h\geq n+1$, $\mathcal{E}_0=\theta\wedge(\bigwedge^h H^* \cap \mathrm{ker}(L))$ is a contact invariant. Since $$\begin{aligned}
(\Pi_{E_0})_{|E}=((\Pi_E)_{|E_0})^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ the operator $d_c=((\Pi_E)_{|E_0})^{-1}\circ d\circ (\Pi_E)_{|E_0}$ is a contact invariant.
In degrees $h\leq n$, the restriction of differential forms to $H$ is an isomorphism of $\mathcal{E}_0$ to $\mathcal{E}'_0:=\bigwedge^h H^* \cap \mathrm{ker}(L^{n-h+1})$. We note that for a differential form $\omega$ such that $\omega_{|H}\in\mathcal{E}'_0$, $\Pi_E(\omega)$ only depends on $\omega_{|H}$. Indeed, $d_0^{-1}\omega=0$. Furthermore, if $\omega=\theta\wedge\beta$, $d_0^{-1}d\omega=d_0^{-1}(d\theta\wedge\beta)=\omega$, hence $\Pi_E(\omega)=\omega-dd_0^{-1}\omega=0$. It follows that $(\Pi_E)_{|E_0}$ can be viewed as defined on the space $E'_0$ of sections of $\mathcal{E}'_0$, which is a contact invariant. Since $$\begin{aligned}
(\Pi_{E_0})_{|E}=((\Pi_E)_{|E_0})^{-1},\quad \textrm{it follows that }(\Pi_{E'_0})_{|E}=((\Pi_E)_{|E'_0})^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ and $d_c$ viewed as an operator on $E'_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
((\Pi_E)_{|E'_0})^{-1}\circ d\circ (\Pi_E)_{|E'_0}\end{aligned}$$ is a contact invariant. In the sequel, we shall ignore the distinction between $E_0$ and $E'_0$. The connection with the description provided in the introduction is easy.
Alternate contact invariant descriptions of Rumin’s complex can be found in [@Bernig_2017] and [@BEGN].
By construction,
- $d_c^2=0$;
- the complex ${\mathcal }E_0:=(E_0^\bullet,d_c)$ is homotopically equivalent to the de Rham complex $\Omega:= (\Omega^\bullet,d)$. Thus, if $D\subset {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ is an open set, unambiguously we write $H^h(D)$ for the $h$-th cohomology group;
- $d_c: E_0^h\to E_0^{h+1}$ is a homogeneous differential operator in the horizontal derivatives of order 1 if $h\neq n$, whereas $d_c: E_0^n\to E_0^{n+1}$ is an homogeneous differential operator in the horizontal derivatives of order 2.
Since the exterior differential $d_c$ on $E_0^h$ can be written in coordinates as a left-invariant homogeneous differential operator in the horizontal variables of order 1 if $h\neq n$ and of order 2 if $h=n$, the proof of the following Leibniz’ formula is easy.
\[leibniz\] If $\zeta$ is a smooth real function, then
- if $h\neq n$, then on $E_0^h$ we have: $$[d_c,\zeta] = P_0^h(W\zeta),$$ where $P_0^h(W\zeta): E_0^h \to E_0^{h+1}$ is a homogeneous differential operator of degree zero with coefficients depending only on the horizontal derivatives of $\zeta$;
- if $h= n$, then on $E_0^n$ we have $$[d_c,\zeta] = P_1^n(W\zeta) + P_0^n(W^2\zeta) ,$$ where $P_1^n(W\zeta):E_0^n \to E_0^{n+1}$ is a homogeneous differential operator of degree 1 with coefficients depending only on the horizontal derivatives of $\zeta$, and where $P_0^h(W^2\zeta): E_0^n \to E_0^{n+1}$ is a homogeneous differential operator in the horizontal derivatives of degree 0 with coefficients depending only on second order horizontal derivatives of $\zeta$.
Kernels
=======
If $f$ is a real function defined in ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$, we denote by ${{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}f$ the function defined by ${{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}f(p):=
f(p^{-1})$, and, if $T\in{\mathcal }D'({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$, then ${{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}T$ is the distribution defined by ${\langle {{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}T} \vert {\phi}\rangle}
:={\langle {T} \vert {{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}\phi}\rangle}$ for any test function $\phi$.
Following e.g. [@folland_stein], we can define a group convolution in ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$: if, for instance, $f\in{\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$ and $g\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$, we set $$\label{group convolution}
f\ast g(p):=\int f(q)g(q^{-1}\cdot p)\,dq\quad\mbox{for $q\in {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$}.$$ We remind that, if (say) $g$ is a smooth function and $P$ is a left invariant differential operator, then $$P(f\ast g)= f\ast Pg.$$ We remind also that the convolution is again well defined when $f,g\in{\mathcal }D'({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$, provided at least one of them has compact support. In this case the following identities hold $$\label{convolutions var}
{\langle {f\ast g} \vert {\phi}\rangle} = {\langle {g} \vert {{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}f\ast\phi}\rangle}
\quad
\mbox{and}
\quad
{\langle {f\ast g} \vert {\phi}\rangle} = {\langle {f} \vert {\phi\ast {{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}g}\rangle}$$ for any test function $\phi$.
As in [@folland_stein], we also adopt the following multi-index notation for higher-order derivatives. If $I =
(i_1,\dots,i_{2n+1})$ is a multi–index, we set $W^I=W_1^{i_1}\cdots
W_{2n}^{i_{2n}}\;T^{i_{2n+1}}$. By the Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem, the differential operators $W^I$ form a basis for the algebra of left invariant differential operators in ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$. Furthermore, we set $|I|:=i_1+\cdots +i_{2n}+i_{2n+1}$ the order of the differential operator $W^I$, and $d(I):=i_1+\cdots +i_{2n}+2i_{2n+1}$ its degree of homogeneity with respect to group dilations.
Suppose now $f\in{\mathcal }E'({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$ and $g\in{\mathcal }D'({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$. Then, if $\psi\in\mathcal D({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$, we have $$\label{convolution by parts}
\begin{split}
{\langle {(W^If)\ast g} \vert {\psi}\rangle}&=
{\langle {W^If} \vert {\psi\ast {{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}g}\rangle} =
(-1)^{|I|} {\langle {f} \vert {\psi\ast (W^I \,{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}g)}\rangle} \\
&=
(-1)^{|I|} {\langle {f\ast {{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}W^I\,{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}g} \vert {\psi}\rangle}.
\end{split}$$
Following [@folland], we remind now the notion of [*kernel of type $\mu$*]{}.
\[type\] A kernel of type $\mu$ is a homogeneous distribution of degree $\mu-Q$ (with respect to group dilations $\delta_r$), that is smooth outside of the origin.
The convolution operator with a kernel of type $\mu$ is still called an operator of type $\mu$.
\[kernel\] Let $K\in{\mathcal }D'({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$ be a kernel of type $\mu$.
- ${{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}K$ is again a kernel of type $\mu$;
- $WK$ and $KW $ are associated with kernels of type $\mu-1$ for any horizontal derivative $W$;
- If $\mu>0$, then $K\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$.
\[hls folland\] Suppose $0<\alpha<Q$, and let $K$ be a kernel of type $\alpha$. Then
- if $1<p<Q/\alpha$, and $1/q:= 1/p-\alpha/Q$, then $$\| u\ast K\|_{L^q({{\mathbb H}^{n}})} \le C \| u\|_{L^p({{\mathbb H}^{n}})}$$ for all $u\in L^p({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$.
- If $p\ge Q/\alpha$ and $B, B' \subset {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ are fixed balls, then for any $q\ge p$ $$\| u\ast K\|_{L^q(B')} \le C \| u\|_{L^p({{\mathbb H}^{n}})}$$ for all $u\in L^p({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$ with ${\mathrm{supp}\;}u\subset B$.
- If $K$ is a kernel of type 0 and $1<p<\infty$, then $$\| u\ast K\|_{L^p({{\mathbb H}^{n}})} \le C \| u\|_{L^p({{\mathbb H}^{n}})}.$$
For statements i) and iii), we refer to [@folland], Propositions 1.11 and 1.9. As for ii), if $p\ge Q/\alpha$, we choose $1<\tilde p<Q/\alpha$ such that $1/{\tilde p} \le 1/q + \alpha/Q$. If we set $1/{\tilde q}:= 1/{\tilde p} -\alpha/Q<1/q$, then $$\begin{split}
\| u\ast & K\|_{L^{ q}(B')} \le C_{B'}\| u\ast K\|_{L^{ \tilde q}(B')} \le C_{B'}
\| u\ast K\|_{L^{\tilde q}({{\mathbb H}^{n}})}
\\&
\le C'(B') \| u\|_{L^{\tilde p}({{\mathbb H}^{n}})} \le C'(B,B') \| u\|_{L^{ p}(B)}.
\end{split}$$
\[truncation\] Suppose $0< \alpha<Q$. If $K$ is a kernel of type $\alpha$ and $\psi \in {\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$, $\psi\equiv 1$ in a neighborhood of the origin, then the statements i) and ii) of Proposition \[hls folland\] still hold if we replace $K$ by $(1-\psi )K$.
Analogously, if $K$ is a kernel of type 0 and $\psi \in {\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$, then statement iii) of Proposition \[hls folland\] still hold if we replace $K$ by $(\psi-1) K$.
As in [@folland], Proposition 1.11, we have only notice that $|(1-\psi ) K(x)| \le C_\psi |x|^{\alpha-Q}$, so that $(1-\psi ) K \in L^{Q/(Q-\alpha),\infty}({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$, and thereforet i) and ii) hold true.
Suppose now $\alpha=0$. Notice that $(\psi-1)K \in L^{1,\infty}({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$, and therefore also $u\to ((\psi-1)K)\ast u$ is $L^p-L^p$ continuous by Hausdorff-Young Theorem. This proves that iii) holds true.
\[truncation rem\] By Theorem \[hls folland\], Lemma \[truncation\] still holds if we replace $(1-\psi)K$ by $\psi K$.
The following (well known) estimate will be useful in the sequel.
\[pointwise\] Let $g$ be a a kernel of type $\mu>0$. Then, if $f\in {\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$ and $R$ is an homogeneous polynomial of degree $\ell\ge 0$ in the horizontal derivatives, we have $$R( f\ast g)(p)= O(|p|^{\mu-Q-\ell})\quad\mbox{as }p\to\infty.$$ On the other hand, if $g$ is a smooth function in ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}\setminus\{0\}$ that satisfies the logarithmic estimate $|g(p)|\le C(1+|\ln|p|| )$ and in addition its horizontal derivatives are homogeneous of degree $-1$ with respect to group dilations, then, if $f\in {\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$ and $R$ is an homogeneous polynomial of degree $\ell\ge 0$ in the horizontal derivatives, we have $$\begin{aligned}
R( f\ast g)(p)&=&O(|p|^{-\ell})\quad \mbox{as }p\to\infty
\quad\mbox{ if $\ell>0$}; \\
R( f\ast g)(p)&=&O(\ln|p| )\quad \mbox{as }p\to\infty
\quad\mbox{ if $\ell=0$}.\end{aligned}$$
Since we have fixed a left-invariant moving frame for $E_0^\bullet$, a $(N_h\times N_k)$-matrix whose entries are kernels of type $\alpha$ defines in a natural way an operator from $E_0^h$ to $E_0^k$. We still refer to this operator as to an operator associated with a (matrix-valued) kernel of type $\alpha$.
\[rumin laplacian\] In ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$, following [@rumin_jdg], we define the operator $\Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},h}$ on $E_0^h$ by setting $$\Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},h}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lcl}
d_c\delta_c+\delta_c d_c\quad &\mbox{if } & h\neq n, n+1;
\\ (d_c\delta_c)^2 +\delta_cd_c\quad& \mbox{if } & h=n;
\\d_c\delta_c+(\delta_c d_c)^2 \quad &\mbox{if } & h=n+1.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Notice that $-\Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},0} = \sum_{j=1}^{2n}(W_j^2)$ is the usual sub-Laplacian of ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$.
For sake of simplicity, since a basis of $E_0^h$ is fixed, the operator $\Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},h}$ can be identified with a matrix-valued map, still denoted by $\Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},h}$ $$\label{matrix form}
\Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},h} = (\Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},h}^{ij})_{i,j=1,\dots,N_h}: {\mathcal }D'({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, {{\mathbb R}^{N_h}})\to {\mathcal }D'({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, {{\mathbb R}^{N_h}}),$$ where ${\mathcal }D'({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, {{\mathbb R}^{N_h}})$ is the space of vector-valued distributions on ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$.
This identification makes possible to avoid the notion of currents: we refer to [@BFTT] for a more elegant presentation.
It is proved in [@rumin_jdg] that $\Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},h}$ is hypoelliptic and maximal hypoelliptic in the sense of [@HN]. In general, if ${\mathcal }L$ is a differential operator on ${\mathcal }D'({{\mathbb H}^{n}},{{\mathbb R}^{N_h}})$, then ${\mathcal }L$ is said hypoelliptic if for any open set ${\mathcal }V\subset {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ where ${\mathcal }L\alpha$ is smooth, then $\alpha$ is smooth in ${\mathcal }V$. In addition, if ${\mathcal }L$ is homogeneous of degree $a\in\mathbb N$, we say that ${\mathcal }L$ is maximal hypoelliptic if for any $\delta>0$ there exists $C=C(\delta)>0$ such that for any homogeneous polynomial $P$ in $W_1,\dots,W_{2n}$ of degree $a$ we have $$\|P\alpha\|_{L^{ 2}({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, {{\mathbb R}^{N_h}})}\le C
\left(
\|{\mathcal }L\alpha\|_{L^{ 2}({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, {{\mathbb R}^{N_h}})}+\|\alpha\|_{L^{ 2}({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, {{\mathbb R}^{N_h}})}
\right).$$ for any $\alpha\in {\mathcal }D(B_\rho(0,\delta),{{\mathbb R}^{N_h}})$.
Combining [@rumin_jdg], Section 3, and [@BFT3], Theorems 3.1 and 4.1, we obtain the following result.
\[global solution\] If $0\le h\le 2n+1$, then the differential operator $\Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},h}$ is hypoelliptic of order $a$, where $a=2$ if $h\neq n, n+1$ and $a=4$ if $h=n, n+1$ with respect to group dilations. Then
1. for $j=1,\dots,N_h$ there exists $$\label{numero}
K_j =
\big(K_{1j},\dots, K_{N_h j}\big), \quad j=1,\dots N_h$$ with $K_{ij}\in{\mathcal }D'({{\mathbb H}^{n}})\cap {\mathcal }E({{\mathbb H}^{n}} \setminus\{0\})$, $i,j =1,\dots,N$;
2. if $a<Q$, then the $K_{ij}$’s are kernels of type $a$ for $i,j
=1,\dots, N_h$
If $a=Q$, then the $K_{ij}$’s satisfy the logarithmic estimate $|K_{ij}(p)|\le C(1+|\ln\rho(p)|)$ and hence belong to $L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$. Moreover, their horizontal derivatives $W_\ell K_{ij}$, $\ell=1,\dots,2n$, are kernels of type $Q-1$;
3. when $\alpha\in
{\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}},{{\mathbb R}^{N_h}})$, if we set $$\label{numero2}
{\mathcal }K\alpha:=
\big(
\sum_{j}\alpha_j\ast K_{1j},\dots,
\sum_{j}\alpha_j\ast K_{N_hj}\big),$$ then $ \Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},h}{\mathcal }K\alpha = \alpha. $ Moreover, if $a<Q$, also ${\mathcal }K\Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},h} \alpha =\alpha$.
4. if $a=Q$, then for any $\alpha\in
{\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}},{{\mathbb R}^{N_h}})$ there exists $\beta_\alpha:=(\beta_1,\dots,\beta_{N_h})\in {{\mathbb R}^{N_h}}$, such that $${\mathcal }K \Delta_{{{\mathbb H}^{}},h}\alpha - \alpha = \beta_\alpha.$$
\[K\] Coherently with formula , the operator ${\mathcal }K$ can be identified with an operator (still denoted by ${\mathcal }K$) acting on smooth compactly supported differential forms in ${\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, E_0^h)$. Moreover, when the notation will not be misleading, we shall denote by $\alpha \to \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,h }\alpha$ the convolution with ${\mathcal }K$ acting on forms of degree $h$.
\[comm\] If $\alpha\in{\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, E_0^h)$
- $
d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, h}\alpha = \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, h+1} d_c\alpha$, $h=0,1,\dots, 2n$, $h\neq n-1, n+1$.
- $d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n-1}\alpha = d_c\delta_c\Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n} d_c\alpha$ ($h=n-1$).
- $
d_c\delta_c d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n+1}\alpha = \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n+2} d_c\alpha$, ($h=n+1$).
- $\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, h}\alpha = \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, h-1} \delta_c\alpha$ $ h=1,\dots, 2n+1$, $h\neq n, n+2$.
- $\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n+2}\alpha = \delta_c d_c\Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n+1}
\delta_c\alpha$ ($h=n+2$).
- $
\delta_c d_c \delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n}\alpha = \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n-1} \delta_c \alpha$, ($h=n$).
Let us prove i), ii), iii). The remaining assertions will follow by Hodge duality. Put $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_h : &= d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, h}\alpha - \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, h+1} d_c\alpha
\qquad\mbox{if } h\neq n-1, n+1,
\\
\omega_{n-1}: &= d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n-1}\alpha - d_c\delta_c\Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n} d_c\alpha
\\
\omega_{n+1}: &= d_c\delta_c d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n+1}\alpha - \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n+2} d_c\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ We notice first that, by Theorem \[global solution\] and Proposition \[kernel\], for all $h=1,\dots,2n$, $\omega_h= M_h\ast \alpha$, where $M_h$ is a kernel of type 1. Thus, by Lemma \[pointwise\] $$\label{infinity}
\omega_h(x) = O(|x|^{1-Q}) \qquad\mbox{as $ x\to\infty$}.$$
We want to show now that $$\label{harmonic}
\Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, h+1} \omega_h = 0 \qquad\mbox{for } h=1 ,\dots, 2n.$$
Suppose first $h\neq n-1, n, n+1$. By Theorem \[global solution\], we have: $$\begin{split}
\Delta_{\mathbb H, h+1} \omega_h & = d_c \delta_c d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, h}\alpha- d_c\alpha
\\&
= d_c \Delta_{\mathbb H, h} \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, h}\alpha - d_c\alpha = 0.
\end{split}$$
If $h=n-1$, then $$\begin{split}
\Delta_{\mathbb H, n} \omega_{n-1} & =
d_c\delta_c d_c \delta_c \Big(
d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n-1}\alpha - d_c\delta_c\Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n} d_c\alpha\Big)
\\&
=
d_c\delta_c d_c\Delta_{\mathbb H, n-1} \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n-1}\alpha
- d_c\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n} \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n} d_c\alpha = 0.
\end{split}$$
If $h=n$, then (keeping in mind that $d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n}\alpha$ is a form of degree $n+1$ and $ \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n}\alpha$ is a form of degree $n$) $$\begin{split}
\Delta_{\mathbb H, n+1} \omega_n & = ( ( \delta_c d_c)^2+ d_c \delta_c )d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n}\alpha- d_c\alpha
\\&
= d_c ( \delta_c d_c + (d_c\delta_c)^2) \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n}\alpha - d_c\alpha
\\&
= d_c \Delta_{\mathbb H,n} \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n}\alpha - d_c\alpha = 0.
\end{split}$$
Finally, if $h=n+1$, then $$\begin{split}
\Delta_{\mathbb H, n+2} \omega_{n+1} & =
d_c\delta_c d_c\delta_c d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n+1}\alpha - d_c\alpha
\\&
= d_c\Delta_{\mathbb H, n+1} \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n+1}\alpha - d_c\alpha
=0.
\end{split}$$
This proves .
Thus, by [@BFT3], Proposition 3.2, $\omega $ is a polynomial coefficient form. Then, by necessarily $\omega\equiv 0$.
This proves i), ii), iii).
Function spaces {#function spaces}
===============
Sobolev spaces
--------------
Since here we are dealing only with integer order Folland-Stein function spaces, we can give this simpler definition (for a general presentation, see e.g. [@folland]).
\[integer spaces\] If $U\subset {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ is an open set, $1\le p \le\infty$ and $m\in\mathbb N$, then the space $W^{m,p}(U)$ is the space of all $u\in L^p(U)$ such that $$W^Iu\in L^p(U)\quad\mbox{for all multi-indices $I$ with } d(I)=m,$$ endowed with the natural norm.
If $U\subset {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$, $1\le p < \infty$, and $k\in\mathbb N$, then
- $ W^{k,p}(U)$ is a Banach space;
- $ W^{k,p}(U)\cap C^\infty (U)$ is dense in $ W^{k,p}(U)$;
- if $U={{\mathbb H}^{n}}$, then ${\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}})$ is dense in $ W^{k,p}(U)$.
If $1\le p<\infty$, we denote by ${\mathop{W}\limits^\circ{}\!^{{k},{p}}
(U)}$ the completion of ${\mathcal }D(U)$ in $W^{k,p}(U)$. If $U$ is bounded, then by (iterated) Poincaré inequality (see e.g. [@jerison]), it follows that the norms $$\|u\|_{W^{k,p}(U)} \quad\mbox{and}\quad
\sum_{d(I)=k}\| W^I u\|_{ L^p(U)}$$ are equivalent on ${\mathop{W}\limits^\circ{}\!^{{k},{p}}
(U)}$ when $1\le p<\infty$.
Finally, $W^{k,p}_{\mathrm{Euc}}(U)$ denotes the usual Sobolev space.
Negative spaces
---------------
\[negative spaces\] If $U\subset {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ is an open set and $1< p<\infty$, $W^{-k,p}(U)$ is the dual space of ${\mathop{W}\limits^\circ{}\!^{{k},{p'}}
(U)}$, where $1/p+1/p'=1$. It is well known that $$W^{-k,p}(U)=\{f_0+\sum_{d(I)=k}W^If_I, \;f_0, f_I\in
L^p(U) \mbox{ for any $I$ such that } d(I)=k\},$$ and $$\|u\|_{W^{-k,p}(U)}\approx
\inf\{ \| f_0 \|_{L^p(U)} + \sum_I \| f_I \|_{L^p(U)}\,;\,
d(I)=k, f_0+\sum_{d(I)=k}W^If_I =u \}.$$
If $U$ is bounded, then we can take $f_0=0$.
Finally, we stress that $$\{f_0+\sum_{d(I)=k}W^If_I, \;f_0, f_I\in
{\mathcal }D(U) \mbox{ for any $I$ such that } d(I)=k\}$$ is dense in $W^{-k,p}(U)$.
\[dual spaces forms\] If $U\subset {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ is an open set, $0\le h\le 2n+1$, $1\le p\le \infty$ and $m\ge 0$, we denote by $W^{m,p}(U,{{\bigwedge\nolimits^{h}{{\mathfrak}h}}})$ (by ${\mathop{W}\limits^\circ{}\!^{{m},{p}}
(U,{{\bigwedge\nolimits^{h}{{\mathfrak}h}}})}$) the space of all sections of ${{\bigwedge\nolimits^{h}{{\mathfrak}h}}}$ such that their components with respect to a given left-invariant frame belong to $W^{m,p}(U)$ (to ${\mathop{W}\limits^\circ{}\!^{{m},{p}}
(U)}$, respectively), endowed with its natural norm. Clearly, this definition is independent of the choice of the frame itself.
The spaces $W^{m,p}(U,E_0^{h})$ and ${\mathop{W}\limits^\circ{}\!^{{m},{p}}
(U,E_0^h)}$ are defined in the same way.
On the other hand, the spaces $$W^{-m,p}(U,E_0^{h}):= \Big({\mathop{W}\limits^\circ{}\!^{{m},{p'}}
(U,E_0^h)}\Big)^*$$ can be viewed as spaces of currents on $(E_0^\bullet,d_c)$ as in [@BFTT], Proposition 3.14. Again as in [@BFTT], Proposition 3.14, an element of $W^{-m,p}(U,E_0^{h})$ can be identified (with respect to our basis) with a $N_h$-ple $$(T_1,\dots,T_{N_h}) \in \Big( W^{-m,p}(U,E_0^{h})\Big)^{N_h}$$ (this is nothing but the intuitive notion of “currents as differential form with distributional coefficients”). The action of $u\in W^{-m,p}(U,E_0^{h})$ associated with $(T_1,\dots,T_{N_h})$ on the form $\sum_j \alpha_j\xi_j^h\in {\mathop{W}\limits^\circ{}\!^{{m},{p'}}
(U,E_0^h)}$ is given by $${\langle {u} \vert {\alpha}\rangle}:= \sum_j {\langle {T_j} \vert {\alpha_j}\rangle}.$$ On the other hand, suppose for sake of simplicity that $U$ is bounded, then by Definition \[negative spaces\] there exist $f_I^j \in L^p(U)$, $j=1,\dots, N_h$, $i=1,\dots, 2n+1$ such that $$\label{dual spaces forms eq:1}
{\langle {u} \vert {\alpha}\rangle} = \sum_j \sum_{d(I)=m} \int_U f_I^j(x) W^I\alpha_j(x)\, dx.$$
Alternatively, one can express duality in spaces of differential forms using the pairing between $h$-forms and $2n+1-h$-forms defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha,\beta\mapsto\int_{U}\alpha\wedge\beta.\end{aligned}$$ Note that this makes sense for Rumin forms and is a nondegenerate pairing. In this manner, the dual of $L^p(U,E_0^h)$ is $L^{p'}(U,E_0^{2n+1-h})$. Hence $W^{-m,p}(U,E_0^h)$ consists of differential forms of degree $2n+1-h$ whose coefficients are distributions belonging to $W^{-m,p}(U)$.
Contact invariance
------------------
\[pullback\] Let $U$, $V$ be open subsets of ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$. Let $\phi:U\to V$ be a $C^k$-bounded contact diffeomorphism. Let $\ell=-k+1,\ldots,k-1$. Then the pull-back operator $\phi^\sharp$ from $W^{\ell,p}$ forms on $V$ to $W^{\ell,p}$ forms on $U$ is bounded, and its norm depends only on the $C^k$ norms of $\phi$ and $\phi^{-1}$.
When $\ell\geq 0$, this follows from the chain rule and the change of variables formula. According to the change of variables formula $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{U}\phi^{\sharp}\alpha\wedge \phi^{\sharp}\beta=\int_{V}\alpha\wedge\beta,\end{aligned}$$ the adjoint of $\phi^{\sharp}$ with respect to the above pairing is $(\phi^{-1})^{\sharp}$. Hence $\phi^{\sharp}$ is bounded on negative Sobolev spaces of differential forms as well.
Sobolev spaces on contact sub-Riemannian manifolds
--------------------------------------------------
We define Sobolev spaces (involving a positive or negative number of derivatives) on bounded geometry contact sub-Riemannian manifolds.
Let $(M,H,g)$ be a bounded $C^k$-geometry sub-Riemannian contact manifold. Pick a uniform covering $\mathcal{U}$ by equal radius balls (uniform means that distances between centers are bounded below). Let $\phi_j:B\to U_j$ be $C^k$-bounded contact charts from the unit Heisenberg ball. Given a differential form $\omega$ on $M$, let $\omega_j=\phi_j^{\sharp}\omega$. Let $-k+1\leq \ell\leq k-1$ be an integer. Define $$\begin{aligned}
\|\omega\|_{\mathcal{U},\ell,p}=\left(\sum_{j}\|\omega_j\|_{W^{\ell,p}(B)}^p\right)^{1/p}.\end{aligned}$$
Let us show that an other uniform covering $\mathcal{U}'$ and other choices of controlled charts lead to an equivalent norm. Every piece $U$ of $\mathcal{U}$ is covered with boundedly many pieces $U'_i$ of $\mathcal{U}'$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\|\omega_j\|_{W^{\ell,p}}^p\leq \sum\|{\omega_j}_{|{\phi_j}^{-1}(U'_i)}\|_{W^{\ell,p}({\phi_j}^{-1}(U'_i))}^p.\end{aligned}$$ Since ${\omega_j}_{|{\phi_j}^{-1}(U'_i)}$ is the pull-back by the contactomorphism $\phi={\phi_j}\circ{\phi'_i}^{-1}$ of ${\omega_i}_{|{\phi'_i}^{-1}(U_j)}$, Lemma \[pullback\] implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\|{\omega_j}_{|{\phi_j}^{-1}(U'_i)}\|_{W^{\ell,p}({\phi_j}^{-1}(U'_i))}\leq C\,\|{\omega_i}_{|{\phi'_i}^{-1}(U_j)}\|_{W^{\ell,p}({\phi'_i}^{-1}(U_j))},\end{aligned}$$ where the constant only depends on the uniform bound on horizontal derivatives of order $\leq k$ of $\phi$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
\|\omega_j\|_{W^{\ell,p}}^p\leq \sum\|{\omega'_i}\|_{W^{\ell,p}(B)}^p.\end{aligned}$$ When summing over $j$, each term $\|{\omega'_i}\|$ on the right hand side occurs only a bounded number $N$ of times. This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\|\omega\|_{\mathcal{U},\ell,p}\leq CN^{1/p}\|\omega\|_{\mathcal{U'},\ell,p}.\end{aligned}$$
Homotopy formulae and Poincaré and Sobolev inequalities {#poincare}
=======================================================
In this paper we are mainly interested to obtain functional inequalities for differential forms that are the counterparts of the classical $(p,q)$-Sobolev and Poincaré inequalities on a ball $B\subset \mathbb R^n$ with sharp exponents of the form $$\| u - u_{B}\|_{L^q}(B) \le C(r) \|\nabla u\|_{L^p}(B)$$ (as well as of its counterpart for compactly supported functions). In this case, we can choose $q= pn/(n-p)$, provided $p<n$.
\[poincare def\] Take $\lambda >1$ and set $B=B(e,1)$ and $B'=B(e,\lambda)$, where the $B(x,r)$’s are the Korányi balls in $\mathbb H^n$ (in particular the balls centered at $x=e$, and then all balls, are convex). If $1\le k\le 2n+1$ and $q\ge p\ge 1$, we say that the interior $(p,q)$-Poincaré inequality holds in $E_0^k$ if there exists a constant $C$ such that, for every $d_c$-closed differential $k$-form $\omega$ in $L^p(B';E_0^k)$ there exists a differential $k-1$-form $\phi$ in $L^q(B,E_0^{k-1})$ such that $d_c\phi=\omega$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\|\phi\|_{L^{q}(B,E_0^{k-1})}\leq C\,\|\omega\|_{L^{p}(B',E_0^k)} \quad
\mbox{
$\mathrm{interior}\, {{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Poincar\acute{e}}_{p,q}(k))$.
}\end{aligned}$$
\[poincare k=1\] If $k=1$ and $Q>p\ge 1$, then $(\, {{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Poincar\acute{e}}_{p,q}(1))$ is nothing but the usual Poincaré inequality with $\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}= \frac{1}{Q}$ (see e.g. [@FLW_grenoble], [@capdangar], [@MSC]).
If we replace Rumin’s complex $(E_0^\bullet, d_c)$ by the usual de Rham’s complex $(\Omega^\bullet,d)$ in ${{\mathbb R}^{2n+1}}$, then the $(p,q)$-Poincaré inequality holds on Euclidean balls for $k=1$ and $n>p\ge1$. If $k>1$, then the $(p,q)$-Poincaré inequality for $2n+1>p>1$ and $\displaystyle
\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}= \frac{1}{2n+1}$ is proved by Iwaniec & Lutoborski (see [@IL], Corollary 4.2).
The ${{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Poincar\acute{e}}_{p,q}(k)$ inequality (as well as its Euclidean counterpart) can be formulated by duality as follows.
\[equiv Sobolev\] Take $\lambda >1$ and set $B=B(e,1)$ and $B'=B(e,\lambda)$. If $1\le k\le 2n$, $1\le p\le q < \infty $ and $q\ge p$, we say that the (local) ${{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Sobolev}_{p,q}(k)$ inequality holds if there exists a constant $C$ such that for every compactly supported smooth $d_c$-closed differential $k$-form $\omega$ in $L^p(B;E_0^k)$ there exists a smooth compactly supported differential $(k-1)$-form $\phi$ in $L^q(B',E_0^{k-1})$ such that $d_c\phi=\omega$ in $B'$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H Sobolev}
\|\phi\|_{L^{q}(B',E_0^{k-1})}\leq C\,\|\omega\|_{L^{p}(B,E_0^k)}. \quad \end{aligned}$$
Notice that, in this case, we do not distinguish interior inequalities (in other words, we can always assume $B=B'$), basically since, when dealing with compactly supported forms, the structure of the boundary does not affect the estimates.
\[sobolev k=1\] If $k=1$ and $Q>p\ge 1$, then $(\, {{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Sobolev}_{p,q}(1))$ is nothing but the usual Sobolev inequality with $\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}= \frac{1}{Q}$.
In [@IL], starting from Cartan’s homotopy formula, the authors proved that, if $D \subset {{\mathbb R}^{N}}$ is a convex set, $1<p<\infty$, $1<k<N$, then there exists a linear bounded map: $$\label{Keuc}
K_{\mathrm{Euc},k} : L^p(D, {\bigwedge}\vphantom{!}^k)\to W^{1,p}(D, {\bigwedge}\vphantom{!}^{k-1})$$ that is a homotopy operator, i.e. $$\label{may 4 eq:1}
\omega = dK_{\mathrm{Euc},k} \omega + K_{\mathrm{Euc},k+1}d\omega \qquad \mbox{for all
$\omega\in C^\infty (D, {\bigwedge}\vphantom{!}^k)$}$$ (see Proposition 4.1 and Lemma 4.2 in [@IL]). More precisely, $K_{\mathrm{Euc}}$ has the form $$\label{10 maggio eq:1}
K_{\mathrm{Euc},k} \omega (x)= \int_D \psi(y)K_y\omega(x) \, dy,$$ where $\psi \in {\mathcal }D(D)$, $\int_D\psi(y)\, dy=1$, and $$\label{10 maggio eq:2}\begin{split}
&{\langle {K_y\omega(x)} \vert {\xi_1\wedge\cdots
\wedge \xi_{k-1})}\rangle}:=\int_0^1t^{k-1}{\langle {\omega(tx+(1-t)y)} \vert {(x-y)\wedge\xi_1\wedge\cdots
\wedge \xi_{k-1})}\rangle}.
\end{split}$$
Starting from [@IL], in [@mitrea_mitrea_monniaux], Section 4, the authors define a compact homotopy operator $J_{\mathrm{Euc},k}$ in Lipschitz star-shaped domains in the Euclidean space ${{\mathbb R}^{N}}$, providing an explicit representation formulas for $J_{\mathrm{Euc},k}$, together with continuity properties among Sobolev spaces. More precisely, if $D\subset {{\mathbb R}^{N}}$ is a star-shaped Lipschitz domain and $1<k<N$, then there exists $$J_{\mathrm{Euc},k} : L^{p}(D, {\bigwedge}\vphantom{!}^k) \to W^{1,p}_{0}(D, {\bigwedge}\vphantom{!}^{k-1})$$ such that $$\omega = dJ_{\mathrm{Euc},k}\omega + J_{\mathrm{Euc},k+1}d\omega \qquad \mbox{for all $\omega\in
{\mathcal }D(D, {\bigwedge}\vphantom{!}^k)$.}$$
Take now $D=B(e,1)=:B$ and $N=2n+1$. If $\omega\in C^\infty(B,E_0^k)$, then we set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{may 4 eq:2}
K=\Pi_{E_0}\circ \Pi_E \circ K_{\mathrm{Euc}} \circ \Pi_E\end{aligned}$$ (for sake of simplicity, from now on we drop the index $k$ - the degree of the form - writing, e.g., $K_{\mathrm{Euc}}$ instead of $K_{\mathrm{Euc},k}$.
Analogously, we can define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{may 31 eq:2}
J=\Pi_{E_0}\circ \Pi_E \circ J_{\mathrm{Euc}} \circ \Pi_E.\end{aligned}$$
Then $K$ and $J$ invert Rumin’s differential $d_c$ on closed forms of the same degree. More precisely, we have:
\[homotopy 1\] If $\omega$ is $d_c$-closed, then $$\label{homotopy closed}
\omega = d_cK\omega \quad\mbox{if $1\le k\le 2n+1$}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
\omega = d_cJ\omega \quad\mbox{if $1\le k\le 2n$.}$$ In addition, if $\omega$ is compactly supported in $B$, then $J\omega$ is still compactly supported in $B$.
Consider for instance $d_c K\omega$. If $d_c\omega =0$, then $d(\Pi_E\omega)=0$, and hence $$\Pi_E\omega = dK_{\mathrm{Euc}} (\Pi_E\omega),$$ by . By (and recalling that $d \Pi_E= \Pi_Ed$ and $\Pi_E\Pi_{E_0} \Pi_E=\Pi_E$), $$\begin{aligned}
d_cK\omega&=&\Pi_{E_0}d \Pi_E\Pi_{E_0} \Pi_E K_{\mathrm{Euc}} \Pi_E\omega=\Pi_{E_0}d \Pi_E K_{\mathrm{Euc}} \Pi_E\omega
\\
&=&\Pi_{E_0} \Pi_E d K_{\mathrm{Euc}} \Pi_E\omega=\Pi_{E_0} \Pi_E \Pi_E\omega
=\Pi_{E_0} \Pi_E \Pi_{E_0}\omega=\omega\,.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, if $\mathrm{supp}\, \omega
\subset B$, then $\mathrm{supp}\, J \omega
\subset B$ since both $\Pi_E$ and $\Pi_{E_0}$ preserve the support.
\[senza nome\] Put $B=B(e,1)$. Then:
- if $1< p < \infty$ and $k=1,\dots, 2n+1$, then $K :W^{1,p}(B, E_0^k) \to
L^p(B, E_0^{k-1})$ is bounded;
- if $1\le p\le \infty$ and $n+1<k \le 2n+1$, then $K :L^{p}(B, E_0^k) \to
L^p(B, E_0^{k-1})$ is compact;
- if $1< p< \infty$ and $k=n+1$, then $K:L^{p}(B, E_0^{n+1}) \to
L^p(B, E_0^{n})$ is bounded.
Analogous assertions hold for $1\le k\le 2n$ when we replace $K$ by $J$. In addition, $\mathrm{supp}\, J \omega
\subset B$.
By its very definition, $\Pi_E: W^{1,p}(B, E_0^k) \to
L^p(B, E_0^{k})$ is bounded. By , $K_{\mathrm{Euc}}$ is continuous from $L^p(B, E_0^{k})$ to $W^{1,p}(B, E_0^{k-1})$ and hence, in particular, from $L^p(B, E_0^{k})$ to $W^{1,p}(B, E_0^{k-1})$. Then we can conclude the proof of i), keeping again into account that $\Pi_E$ is a differential operator of order $\le 1$ in the horizontal derivatives.
To prove ii) it is enough to remind that $K = \Pi_{E_0}K_{\mathrm{Euc}}$ of forms of degree $h>n$, together with Remark 4.1 in [@IL].
As for iii), the statement can be proved similarly to i), noticing that $K = \Pi_{E_0}\Pi_E K_{\mathrm{Euc}}$ on forms of degree $n+1$.
Finally, $\mathrm{supp}\, J \omega
\subset B$ since both $\Pi_E$ and $\Pi_{E_0}$ preserve the support.
The operators $K$ and $J$ provide a local homotopy in Rumin’s complex, but fail to yield the Sobolev and Poincaré inequalities we are looking for, since, because of the presence of the projection operator $\Pi_E$ (that on forms of low degree is a first order differential operator) they loose regularity as is stated in Lemma \[senza nome\], ii) above. In order to build “good” local homotopy operators with the desired gain of regularity, we have to combine them with homotopy operators which, though not local, in fact provide the “good” gain of regularity.
\[homotopy formulas\] If $\alpha\in {\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, E_0^h)$ for $p>1$ and $h= 1,\dots,2n$, then the following homotopy formulas hold:
- if $h\neq n, n+1$, then $\alpha = d_c K_1 \alpha + \tilde K_1d_c \alpha $, where $K_1$ and $\tilde K_1$ are associated with kernels $k_1, \tilde k_1$ of type 1;
- if $h = n$, then $\alpha = d_c K_1 \alpha + \tilde K_2 d_c\alpha$, where $K_1$ and $\tilde K_2$ are associated with kernels $k_1, \tilde k_2$ of type 1 and 2, respectively;
- if $h = n+1 $, then $\alpha = d_c K_2 \alpha + \tilde K_1 d_c\alpha$, where $K_2$ and $\tilde K_1$ are associated with kernels $k_2, \tilde k_1$ of type 2 and $1$, respectively.
Suppose $h\neq n-1,n,n+1$. By Lemma \[comm\], we have: $$\begin{split}
\alpha &=
\Delta_{\mathbb H,h} \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,h}\alpha = d_c (\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,h})\alpha
+ \delta_c (d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,h})\alpha
\\&
=d_c (\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,h})\alpha +
(\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,h+1})d_c \alpha.
\end{split}$$ where $\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,h}$ and $\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,h+1}$ are associated with a kernel of type $1$ (by Proposition \[kernel\] and Theorem \[global solution\]).
Analogously, if $h=n-1$ $$\begin{split}
\alpha &=
\Delta_{\mathbb H,n-1} \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n-1}\alpha = d_c (\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n-1})\alpha
+ \delta_c (d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n-1})\alpha
\\&
=d_c (\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n-1})\alpha +
(\delta_c d_c\delta_c\Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n} )d_c \alpha.
\end{split}$$ Again $\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n-1}$ and $\delta_c d_c\delta_c\Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H, n}$ are associated with kernels of type $1$.
Take now $h=n$. Then $$\begin{split}
\alpha &= \Delta_{\mathbb H,n} \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n}\alpha = (d_c \delta_c )^2 \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n} \alpha
+ \delta_c (d_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n})\alpha
\\&
= d_c (\delta_c d_c \delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n})\alpha +
\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n+1}d_c \alpha
\end{split}$$ where $\delta_c d_c \delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n}$ and $\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n+1}$ are associated with a kernel of type $1$ and $2$, respectively).
Finally, take $h=n+1$. Then $$\begin{split}
\alpha &= \Delta_{\mathbb H,n+1} \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n+1}\alpha = d_c \delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n+1} \alpha
+ (\delta_c d_c )^2 \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n+1} \alpha
\\&
= d_c \delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n+1} \alpha +
\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n+2} d_c\alpha
\end{split}$$ where $\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n+1} $ and $\delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n+2}$ associated with kernels of type $2$ and $1$, respectively.
The $L^p-L^q$ continuity properties of convolution operators associated with Folland’s kernels yields the following strong ${{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Poincar\acute{e}}_{p,q}(h)$ inequality in ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ (the strong ${{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Sobolev}_{p,q}(h)$ is obtained in Corollary \[strong sobolev\]).
\[strong poincare\] Take $1\le h\le 2n+1$. Suppose $1<p<Q$ if $h\not=n+1$ and $1<p<Q/2$ if $h=n+1$. Let $q\ge p$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kpq 3}
\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q} := \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{Q} & \text{ if }h\not=n+1, \\
\frac{2}{Q} & \text{ if }h=n+1.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Then for any $d_c$-closed form $\alpha\in {\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, E_0^h)$ there exists $\phi\in L^q({{\mathbb H}^{,}} E_0^{h-1})$ such that $d_c\phi=\alpha$ and $$\|\phi\|_{L^q({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, E_0^{h-1})} \le C \|\alpha \|_{L^p({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, E_0^{h-1})}$$ (i.e., the strong ${{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Poincar\acute{e}}_{p,q}(h)$ inequality holds for $1\le h\le 2n+1$).
\[smoothing\] Let $B=B(e,1)$ and $B'=B(e,\lambda)$, $\lambda>1$, be concentric balls of ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$. If $1\le h\le 2n+1$, there exist operators $T$ and $\tilde T$ from $C^\infty(B', E_0^\bullet)$ to $C^\infty(B, E_0^{\bullet-1})$ and $S$ from $C^\infty(B', E_0^\bullet)$ to $C^\infty(B, E_0^\bullet)$ satisfying $$\label{approx homotopy tilde}
d_c T+ \tilde Td_c + S=I\qquad\mbox{on $B$.}$$
In addition
- $\tilde T: W^{-1,p}(B',E_0^{h+1}) \to L^p(B,E_0^{h})$ if $h\neq n$, and $\tilde T: W^{-2,p}(B,E_0^{n+1}) \to L^p(B,E_0^{n})$;
- $T: L^p (B',E_0^{h}) \to W^{1,p}(B,E_0^{h-1})$, $h\neq n+1$, $ T: T: L^p(B',E_0^{n+1}) \to W^{2,p}(B,E_0^{n})$ if $h=n+1$,
- $S:L^p(B',E_0^h)\to W^{s,p}(B,E_0^{h})$,
so that still holds in $L^p(B, E_0^\bullet)$. In addition, for every $(h,p,q)$ satisfying inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kpq}
1 <p\leq q <\infty,\quad \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\leq \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{Q} & \text{ if }h\not=n+1, \\
\frac{2}{Q} & \text{ if }h=n+1,
\end{cases}
$$ we have:
- $T: L^p (B',E_0^{h}) \to L^{q}(B,E_0^{h-1})$;
- $S:L^p(B',E_0^h)\to W^{s,q}(B,E_0^{h})$;
- $W^{1,p}(B',E_0^h)\to W^{s,q}(B,E_0^{h- 1})$ for any $s>0$.
Suppose first $h\neq n,n+1$. We consider a cut-off function $\psi_R$ supported in a $R$-neighborhood of the origin, such that $\psi_R\equiv 1$ near the origin. With the notations of Proposition \[homotopy formulas\], we can write $k_1=k_1\psi_R + (1-\psi_R)k_1$ and $\tilde k_1=\tilde k_1\psi_R + (1-\psi_R)\tilde k_1$. Let us denote by $K_{1,R}$, $\tilde K_{1,R}$ the convolution operators associated with $\psi_R k_1$, $\psi_R \tilde k_1$, respectively. Le us fix two balls $B_0$, $B_1$ with $$\label{varie B}
B\Subset B_0 \Subset B_1\Subset B',$$ and a cut-off function $\chi \in {\mathcal }D(B_1)$, $\chi\equiv 1$ on $B_0$. If $\alpha \in C^\infty(B', E_0^\bullet)$, we set $\alpha_0= \chi\alpha$, continued by zero outside $B_1$.
Keeping in mind and Proposition \[kernel\], we have $$\label{sept 9 eq:1}
\alpha_0 = d_c K_{1,R} \alpha_0 + \tilde K_{1,R}d_c \alpha_0 + S_0\alpha_0,$$ where $S_0$ is $$S_0\alpha_0 := d_c( (1-\psi_R)k_1\ast \alpha_0) + (1-\psi_R)\tilde k_1 \ast d_c\alpha_0.$$ We set $$T\alpha := K_{1,R} \alpha_0, \qquad \tilde T\alpha:= \tilde K_{1,R}d_c \alpha_0, \qquad S\alpha:= S_0\alpha_0.$$ We notice that, provided $R>0$ is small enough, the definition of $T$ and $\tilde T$ does not depend on the continuation of $\alpha$ outside $B_0$. By we have $$\alpha = d_c T\alpha + \tilde Td_c \alpha + S\alpha \qquad\mbox{in $B$}.$$ If $h=n$ we can carry out the same construction, replacing $\tilde k_1$ by $\tilde k_2$ (keep in mind that $\tilde k_2$ is a kernel of type 2). Analogously, if $h=n+1$ we can carry out the same construction, replacing $k_1$ by $ k_2$ (again a kernel of type 2).
Let us prove i). Suppose $h\neq n$, and take $\beta\in W^{-1,p}(B', E_0^{h})$. The operator $\tilde K_{1,R}$ is associated with a matrix-valued kernel $\psi_R ( \tilde{k}_1)_{\ell,\lambda}$ and $\beta$ is identified with a vector-valued distribution $(\beta_1, \dots, \beta_{N_h})$, with $\beta_j = \sum_iW_if^j_i$ as in Definition \[dual spaces forms\] with $$\sum_j \sum_i \| f_i^j\|_{L^p(B')} \le C \| \beta \|_{W^{-1,p}(B', E_0^h)}.$$ Thus $(\beta_0)_j$, the $j$-th component of $\beta_0 = \chi\beta$ has the form $$(\beta_0)_j = \sum_iW_i(\chi f_i^j) - \sum_i (W_i\chi) f^j_i=: \sum_iW_i(f^j_i)_0 - \sum_i (W_i\chi) f^j_i.$$
In order to estimate the norm of $\tilde T \beta$ in $L^p(B, E_0^h)$, we take $$\phi = \sum_j \phi_j \xi_j^h \in {\mathcal }D(B, E_0^h),\qquad\mbox{with\qquad $\sum_j\| \phi_j \|_{L^{p'}(B')} \le 1$,}$$ and we estimate ${\langle {T\beta} \vert {\phi}\rangle}$, that, by , is a sum of terms of the form $$\label{caso 1}
\int_{B} ( \psi_R \kappa\ast f_0) (x) W_i\phi(x)\, dx
= {\langle {\psi_R \kappa\ast W_i f_0} \vert {\phi}\rangle}$$ or of the form $$\label{caso 2}
\int_{B} ( \psi_R \kappa\ast (W_i\chi) f) (x) \phi(x)\, dx,
$$ where $\kappa$ denotes one of the kernels $( \tilde{k}_1)_{\ell,\lambda}$ of type 1 associated with $\tilde{k}_1$, $f$ is one of the $f_i^j$’s and $\phi$ one of the $\phi_j$’s,
As for , by , $$\begin{split}
&{\langle {\psi_R \kappa\ast W_i f_0} \vert {\phi}\rangle} = {\langle { {{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}W^I\,{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}[\psi_R \kappa]\ast f_0} \vert {\phi}\rangle}
\\& \hphantom{xxxxx} =
{\langle {\psi_R {{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}W^I\,{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}\kappa\ast f_0} \vert {\phi}\rangle} - {\langle {( {{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}W^I\,{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}\psi_R) \kappa\ast f_0} \vert {\phi}\rangle}
\end{split}$$ We notice now that $ {{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}W^I\,{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}\kappa$ is a kernel of type 0. Therefore, by Lemma \[truncation\] $$\begin{split}
& {\langle {\psi_R {{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}W^I\,{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}\kappa\ast f_0} \vert {\phi}\rangle}
\le \| \psi_R {{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}W^I\,{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}\kappa\ast f_0\|_{L^p(B)} \|\phi\|_{L^{p'}(B)}
\\& \hphantom{xxxxx} \le
\| \psi_R {{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}W^I\,{{\vphantom i}^{\mathrm v}\!\,}\kappa\ast f_0\|_{L^p(B)}
\le
C \| f_0\|_{L^p(B')}
\\&\hphantom{xxxxx}
\le C \| \beta \|_{W^{-1,p}(B', E_0^h)}.
\end{split}$$ The term in can be handled in the same way, keeping into account Remark . Eventually, combining and we obtain that $$\|\tilde T\beta\|_{L^p(B)} \le C \| \beta \|_{W^{-1,p}(B', E_0^h)}.$$
The assertion for $h=n$ can be proved in the same way, taking into account that $\tilde T$ is built from a kernel of type 2, and that the space $W^{-2,p}(B,E_0^{n+1})$ is characterized by “second order divergences”.
Let us prove now ii). Suppose $h\neq n+1$ and take $\alpha = \sum_j \alpha_j \xi_j^h \in {\mathcal }D(B', E_0^h)$. Arguing as above, in order to estimate $\| T\alpha\|_{W^{1,p}(B,E_0^{h-1})}$ we have to consider terms of the form $$\label{caso 3}
W_\ell(\psi_R \kappa \ast (\chi\alpha_j) ) = \psi_R \kappa \ast (W_\ell(\chi\alpha_j) )$$ (when we want to estimate the the $L^p$-norm of the horizontal derivatives of $T\alpha$), or of the form $$\label{caso 4}
\psi_R \kappa \ast (\chi\alpha_j)$$ (when we want to estimate the $L^p$-norm of $T\alpha$). Both and can be handled as in the case i) (no need here of the duality argument).
We point out that yields a $L^p-L^q$ estimates (since, unlike , involves only kernels of type 1) and then assertion iv) follows.
Let us prove v). Then also iii) will follow straightforwardly.
It is easy to check that $S_0$ can be written as a convolution operator with matrix-valued kernel $s_0$. In turn, each entry of $s_0$ (that we still denote by $s_0$) is a sum of terms of the form $$(1-\psi_R) W_\ell \kappa - (W_\ell \psi_R)\kappa.$$ Thus, the kernels are smooth and then regularizing from ${\mathcal }E'(B')$ to $C^\infty$ of a neighborhood of $B$. Thus $$\| W^I s_0\ast \alpha_j\|_{L^{q}(B)}
\le C\|\alpha_j\|_{L^{p}(B)},$$ for all $p,q$.
\[tenda\] Apparently, in previous theorem, two different homotopy operators $T$ and $\tilde T$ appear. In fact, they coincide when acting on form of the same degree.
More precisely, in Proposition \[homotopy formulas\] the homotopy formulas involve four operators $K_1, \tilde K_1, K_2, \tilde K_2$, where the notation is meant to distinguish operators acting on $d_c\alpha$ (the operators with tilde) from those on which the differential acts (the operators without tilde), whereas the lower index 1 or 2 denotes the type of the associated kernels. Alternatively, a different notation could be used: if $\alpha\in {\mathcal }D({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, E_0^h)$ we can write $$\alpha = d_c K_h + \tilde K_{h+1}d_c\alpha,$$ where the tilde has the same previous meaning, whereas the lower index refers now to the degree of the forms on which the operator acts.
It is important to notice that $$K_{h+1} = \tilde K_{h+1}, \qquad h=1,\dots, 2n.$$ Indeed, take $h<n-1$. Then $\tilde K_{h+1} = \delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,h+1}$ (as it appears in the homotopy formula at the degree $h$), that equals $K_{h+1}$ (as it appears in the homotopy formula at the degree $h+1\le n-1$). Take now $h=n-1$. Then $\tilde K_{n} = \delta_c d_c\delta_c\Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n}$ (as it appears in the homotopy formula at the degree $n$), that equals $K_{n}$ (as it appears in the homotopy formula at the degree $n$). If $h=n$, then $\tilde K_{n+1} = \delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,n+1}$ (as it appears in the homotopy formula at the degree $n$), that equals $K_{n+1}$ (as it appears in the homotopy formula at the degree $n+1$). Finally, if $h>n$, then $\tilde K_{h+1} = \delta_c \Delta^{-1}_{\mathbb H,h+1}$ (as it appears in the homotopy formula at the degree $h$), that equals $K_{h+1}$ (as it appears in the homotopy formula at the degree $h+1$).
Once this point is established, from now on we shall write $$K:= K_{h} =\tilde K_{h}$$ without ambiguity.
Therefore $T=\tilde T$ and the homotopy formula reads as $$\label{approx homotopy}
d_c T+ Td_c + S=I\qquad\mbox{on $B$.}$$
\[smoothing negative\] By the arguments used in the proof of Theorem \[smoothing\], i) the proof of the $L^p - W^{s,q}$ continuity of $S$ can be adapted to prove that $S$ is a smoothing operator, i.e for any $m, s\in \mathbb N\cup\{0\}$, $S$ is bounded from $W^{-m,p}(B',E_0^\bullet)$ to $W^{s,q}(B,E_0^\bullet)$ when holds. In particular, if $\alpha\in W^{-m,p}(B',E_0^\bullet)$ then $S \alpha\in C^\infty(B, E_0^\bullet)$.
\[locality\] It is worth pointing out the following fact: take $\alpha, \beta
\in L^p(B',E_0^\bullet)$, $\alpha\equiv \beta$ on $B_1$ ($B_1$ has been introduced in ). Then $\alpha_0 \equiv \beta_0$ in $B_0$, so that $K_{1,R}\alpha_0 \equiv K_{1,R} \beta_0$ and $\tilde K_{1,R} d_c\alpha_0 \equiv \tilde K_{1,R} d_c \tilde \beta_0$ in $B$. In other words, $(d_c T + Td_c)\alpha = (d_c T + Td_c) \beta$ in $B$. Thus, by , $S\alpha = S\beta$ in $B$.
The following commutation lemma will be helpful in the sequel.
\[S-commuta-d\] We have: $$[S, d_c]=0\qquad \mbox{ in $L^p({{\mathbb H}^{n}}, E_0^\bullet)$.}$$
Take first $\alpha\in C^\infty(B', E_0^h)$, $1\le h\le 2n+1$. By , $Sd_c=d_cS$ on $ {\mathcal }D(B', E_0^h)$.
Take now $\alpha \in L^p (B', E_0^h)$, and let $\chi_1$ be a cut-off function supported in $B'$, $\chi_1\equiv 1$ on $B_1$ ($B_1$ has been defined in ). By convolution with usual Friedrichs’ mollifiers, we can find a sequence $(\alpha_k)_{k\in \mathbb N}$ in ${\mathcal }D(B', E_0^h)$ converging to $\chi_1\alpha$ in $L^p (B', E_0^h)$. By Theorem \[smoothing\], $S\alpha_k \to S(\chi_1\alpha)$ in $W^{2,p}(B,E_0^{h+1})$, and hence $d_c S\alpha_k \to d_cS(\chi_ \alpha)$ in $L^p(B, E_0^h)$ as $k\to\infty$ (obviously, if $h\neq n-1$, it would have been enough to have $S\alpha_k \to S(\chi_1\alpha)$ in $W^{1,p}(B,E_0^{h+1})$). On the other hand, $\chi_1\alpha \equiv \alpha$ in $B_1$, and then by Remark \[locality\] $S(\chi_1\alpha)
= S\alpha$ in $B$, so that $d_c S\alpha_k \to d_cS \alpha$ in $L^p(B, E_0^h)$ as $k\to\infty$. Moreover $d_c\alpha_k\to d_c(\chi_1\alpha)$ in $W^{-1,p}(B',E_0^{h})$ (in $W^{-2,p}(B',E_0^{h})$ if $h=n$) and hence, again by Theorem \[smoothing\], $Sd_c\alpha_k\to Sd_c(\chi_1\alpha)$ in $B$ as $n\to\infty$. Again $d_c(\chi_1\alpha)\equiv d_c\alpha$ in $B_1$ and then, by Remark \[locality\], $Sd_c\alpha_k\to Sd_c\alpha$ in $B$ as $k\to\infty$.
Finally, since $d_cS\alpha_k = Sd_c\alpha_k$ for all $k\in \mathbb N$, we can take the limits as $k\to\infty$ and the assertion follows.
\[pq poincare\] Let $p,q,h$ s in . With the notations of Definitions \[poincare def\], if $1<p<\infty$, then both an interior ${{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Poincar\acute{e}}_{p,q}(h)$ and an interior ${{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Sobolev}_{p,q}(h)$ inequalities hold for $1\le h\le 2n$.
${{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Poincar\acute{e}}_{p,q}(h)$ inequality: let $\omega \in L^p(B',E_0^h)$ be such that $d_c\omega =0$.
By we can write $\omega = d_cT\omega + S\omega$ in $B$. By Remark \[smoothing negative\] and Lemma \[S-commuta-d\], $S\omega\in
{\mathcal }E(B,E_0^h)$, and $d_cS\omega =0$. Thus we can apply to $S\omega$ and we get $S\omega = d_cKS\omega$, where $K$ is defined in . In $B$, put now $$\phi:= (KS+T)\omega.$$ Trivially $d_c\phi = d_cKS\omega + d_cT\omega = S\omega +
\omega - S\omega = \omega$. By Theorem \[smoothing\], $$\label{pq estimates}\begin{split}
\|\phi & \|_{L^q(B,E_0^{h-1})} \le \|KS\omega\|_{L^q(B,E_0^{h-1})}+ \| T\omega\|_{L^q(B,E_0^{h-1})}
\\&
\le \|KS\omega\|_{L^q(B,E_0^{h-1})}+C \| \omega\|_{L^p(B',E_0^{h-1})}
\\&
\le C\{ \|S\omega\|_{W^{1,q}(B,E_0^{h-1})}+ \| \omega\|_{L^p(B',E_0^{h-1})}
\} \qquad\mbox{(by Lemma \ref{senza nome})}
\\&
\le C \| \omega\|_{L^p(B',E_0^{h-1})}.
\end{split}$$
${{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Sobolev}_{p,q}(h)$ inequality: let $\omega \in L^p(B,E_0^h)$ be a compactly supported form such that $d_c\omega =0$. Since $\omega$ vanishes in a neighborhood of $\partial B$, without loss of generality we can assume that it is continued by zero on $B'$. In addition, $\omega=\chi\omega$. By we have $\omega = d_cT\omega + S\omega$. On the other hand, $T\omega$ is supported in $B_0$ (since $R$ is small), so that also $S\omega$ is supported in $B_0$. Again as above $S\omega\in
C^\infty(B,E_0^h)$, and $d_cS\omega =0$. Thus we can apply to $S\omega$ and we get $S\omega = d_cJS\omega$, where $J$ is defined in . By Lemma \[homotopy 1\], $JS\omega$ is supported in $B_0\subset B'$. Thus, if we set $\phi:= (JS+T)\omega$, then $\phi$ is supported in $B'$. Moreover $d_c\phi = d_cKS\omega + d_cT\omega = S\omega +
\omega - S\omega = \omega$. At this point, we can repeat the estimates and we get eventually $$\|\phi \|_{L^q(B',E_0^{h-1})} \le C \| \omega\|_{L^p(B,E_0^{h-1})}.$$ This completes the proof of the theorem.
Let $B(p,r)$ a Korányi ball of center $p\in {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ and radius $r>0$. The map $x\to f(x):= \tau_{p} \delta_{r} (x)$ provides a contact diffeomorphism from $B(e,\rho)$ to $B(p,r\rho)$ for $\rho>0$. Therefore the pull-back $f^\#: E_0^\bullet\to E_0^\bullet$. In addition, if $\alpha\in E_0^h$, then $$f^\# \alpha = r^h \alpha\circ f\qquad\mbox{if $h\le n$}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad f^\# \alpha = r^{h+1} \alpha\circ f\qquad\mbox{if $h> n$.}$$
Take $1\le h\le 2n+1$. Suppose $1<p<Q$ if $h\not=n+1$ and $1<p<Q/2$ if $h=n+1$. Let $q\ge p$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kpq 2}
\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q}\leq \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{Q} & \text{ if }h\not=n+1, \\
\frac{2}{Q} & \text{ if }h=n+1.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Then there exists a constant $C$ such that, for every $d_c$-closed differential $h$-form $\omega$ in $L^p(B(p,\lambda r);E_0^h)$ there exists a $h-1$-form $\phi$ in $L^q(B(p,r),E_0^{h-1})$ such that $d_c\phi=\omega$ and $$\|\phi\|_{L^{q}(B(p,r),E_0^{h-1})}\leq C\, r^{Q/q - Q/p + 1}\,\|\omega\|_{L^{p}(B(p,\lambda r),E_0^h)}\qquad\mbox{if $h\neq n+1$}$$ and $$\|\phi\|_{L^{q}(B(p,r),E_0^{n})}\leq C\, r^{Q/q - Q/p + 2}\,\|\omega\|_{L^{p}(B(p,\lambda r),E_0^{n+1}) }.$$ Analogously there exists a constant $C$ such that, for every compactly supported $d_c$-closed $h$-form $\omega$ in $L^p(B(p,r);E_0^h)$ there exists a compactly supported $(h-1)$-form $\phi$ in $L^q(B(p,\lambda r),E_0^{h-1})$ such that $d_c\phi=\omega$ in $B(p,\lambda r)$ and $$\label{sobolev interior ball}
\|\phi\|_{L^{q}(B(p,\lambda r),E_0^{k-1})}\leq C\,\|\omega\|_{L^{p}(B(p,r),E_0^k)} \quad$$
We have just to take the pull-back $f^\#\omega$ and then apply Theorem \[pq poincare\].
If the choice of $q$ is sharp (i.e. in the equality holds), then the constant on the right hand side of is independent of the radius of the ball, so that a global ${{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Sobolev}_{p,q}(h)$ inequality holds.
\[strong sobolev\] Take $1\le h\le 2n+1$. Suppose $1<p<Q$ if $h\not=n+1$ and $1<p<Q/2$ if $h=n+1$. Let $q\ge p$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kpq 4}
\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{q} := \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{Q} & \text{ if }h\not=n+1, \\
\frac{2}{Q} & \text{ if }h=n+1.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Then ${{\mathbb H}^{}}$-$\mathrm{Sobolev}_{p,q}(h)$ inequality holds for $1\le h\le 2n+1$.
Contact manifolds and global smoothing {#final}
======================================
Throughout this section, $(M,H,g)$ will be a sub-Riemannian contact manifold of bounded $C^k$-geometry as in Definition \[contact\]. We shall denote by $(E_0^\bullet, d_c)$ both the Rumin’s complex in $(M,H,g)$ and in the Heisenberg group.
\[memory\] If $\phi $ is a contactomorphism from an open set ${\mathcal }U\subset {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ to $M$, and we set ${\mathcal }V:= \phi({\mathcal }U)$, we have
- $\phi^\# E_0^\bullet({\mathcal }V) = E_0^\bullet({\mathcal }U) $;
- $d_c\phi^\# = \phi^\# d_c$;
- if $\zeta$ is a smooth function in $M$, then the differential operator in ${\mathcal }U\subset {{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ defined by $v \to \phi^\#[d_c,\zeta] (\phi^{-1})^\#v$ is a differential operator of order zero if $v\in E_0^h({\mathcal }U)$, $h\ne n$ and a differential operator of order 1 if $v\in E_0^n({\mathcal }U)$.
Assertions i) and ii) follow straightforwardly since $\phi$ is a contact map. Assertion iii) follows from Lemma \[leibniz\], since, by definition, $$\phi^\#[d_c,\zeta] (\phi^{-1})^\#v = [d_c,\zeta\circ\phi] v.$$
\[carte\] Let $\{\phi_{x_j}(B(e,1))\}$ a countable locally finite subcovering of $\{\phi_{x}(B(e,1))\, , x\in M\}$. From now on, for sake of simplicity, we shall write $\phi_j:=\phi_{x_j}$. Without loss of generality, we can replace $B(e,1)$ by $B(e,\lambda)$, where $\lambda >1$ is fixed (just to be congruent in the sequel with the notations of previous sections).
Let $\{\chi_j\}$ be a partition of the unity subordinated to the covering $\{\phi_j(B(e,\lambda))\}$ of $M$. As above, without loss of generality, we can assume $\phi_j^{-1}(\mathrm{supp}\;\chi_j) \subset B(e,1)$.
If $u\in L^p(M, E_0^\bullet)$, we write $$u = \sum_j \chi_j u
$$ We can write $$\chi_j u = (\phi_j^{-1})^\#\phi_j^\#(\chi_j u) =: (\phi_j^{-1})^\# v_j.$$ We use now the homotopy formula in ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ (see Theorem \[smoothing\]): $$v_j = d_cT v_j + Td_cv_j + Sv_j \qquad \mbox{in $B(e,1)$.}$$ Without loss of generality, we can assume that $R>0$ in the definition of the kernel of $T$ has been chosen in such a way that the $R$-neighborood of $\phi_j^{-1}(\mathrm{supp}\;\chi_j) \subset B(e,1)$. In particular $v_j - d_cT v_j - Td_cv_j $ is supported in $B(0,1)$ and therefore also $Sv_j$ is supported in $B(0,1)$.
In particular, $ (\phi_j^{-1})^\# \big(
d_cTv_j + Td_cv_j + Sv_j
\big)$ is supported in $\phi_j (B(e,1))$ so that it can be continued by zero on $M$.
Thus $$\begin{split}
u &= \sum_j (\phi_j^{-1})^\# \big(
d_cT v_j + Td_cv_j + S v_j
\big)
\\&=
d_c \sum_j \ (\phi_j^{-1})^\#
T \phi_j^\#(\chi_j u )
\\&+
\sum_j ( (\phi_j^{-1})^\#
T \phi_j^\#\chi_j ) d_c u
-
\sum_j (\phi_j^{-1})^\#
T \phi_j^\#([\chi_j ,d_c] u )
\\&+
\sum_j ( (\phi_j^{-1})^\# (S\phi_j^\# \chi_j )u.
\end{split}$$ We set $$\label{T}
Tu:= \sum_j (\phi_j^{-1})^\#
T \phi_j^\# (\chi_j u)$$ and $$\label{S}
Su:= \sum_j (\phi_j^{-1})^\# S\phi_j^\# ( \chi_j u) -
\sum_j (\phi_j^{-1})^\#
T \phi_j^\#([\chi_j ,d_c] u).$$
The core of this section consists in the following approximate homotopy formula, where the “error term” $S_M$ has the maximal regularising property compatible with the regularity of $M$.
\[homotopy manifold\] Let $(M,H,g)$ be a bounded $C^k$-geometry sub-Riemannian contact manifold, $k\ge 2$. Then $$\label{homotopy M}
I= d_c T_M+ T_Md_c + S_M,$$ where $$T_M:= \big(\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}S^i\big)T, \qquad S_M:= S^{k},$$ and $T$ and $S$ are defined in and .
By definition $$\label{S commuta su M}
d_c Su = S d_c u.$$ In addition, the following maps are continuous:
- $ T_M: W^{-1,p}(M,E_0^{h+1}) \to L^p(M,E_0^{h})$ if $h\neq n$, and $ T_M: W^{-2,p}(M,E_0^{n+1}) \to L^p(M,E_0^{n})$;
- $T_M: L^p (M,E_0^{h}) \to W^{1,p}(M,E_0^{h-1})$, $h\neq n+1$, $ T_M:L^p(M,E_0^{n+1}) \to W^{2,p}(M,E_0^{n})$ if $h=n+1$,
- $S_M:L^p(M,E_0^h)\to W^{k,p}(M,E_0^{h})$.
In order to prove Theorem \[homotopy manifold\], let us prove the following preliminary result:
\[homotopy manifold lemma\] Let $(M,H,g)$ be a bounded $C^k$-geometry sub-Riemannian contact manifold. If $2\le\ell\le k-1$ and $T$ and $S$ are defined in and , then $$\label{homotopy M0}
I= d_c T+ Td_c + S.$$ In addition, the following maps are continuous:
- $ T: W^{-1,p}(M,E_0^{h+1}) \to L^p(M,E_0^{h})$ if $h\neq n$, and $ T: W^{-2,p}(M,E_0^{n+1}) \to L^p(M,E_0^{n})$;
- $T: L^p (M,E_0^{h}) \to W^{1,p}(M,E_0^{h-1})$, $h\neq n+1$, $ T: L^p(M,E_0^{n+1}) \to W^{2,p}(M,E_0^{n})$ if $h=n+1$,
- if $1\le\ell\le k$, then $S: W^{\ell-1,p}(M, E_0^h) \longrightarrow W^{\ell,p}(M, E_0^h)$.
First of all, we notice that, if $\alpha$ is supported in $\phi_j(B(e,\lambda))$, then, by Definition \[contact\] the norms $$\|\alpha\|_{W^{m,p}(M,E_0^\bullet)} \qquad \mbox{and}\qquad \|\phi_j^\#\alpha\|_{W^{m,p}({{\mathbb H}^{n}},E_0^\bullet)}$$ are equivalent for $-k\le m\le k$, with equivalence constants independent of $j$. Thus, assertions i) and ii) follow straightforwardly from Theorem \[smoothing\].
To get iii) we only need to note that the operators $ (\phi_j^{-1})^\#
T \phi_j^\#[\chi_j ,d_c]$ are bounded from $W^{\ell-1,p}(M, E_0^\bullet)\to W^{\ell,p}(M, E_0^\bullet)$ in every degree. Indeed, by Lemma \[leibniz\] above, the differential operator in ${{\mathbb H}^{n}}$ $\phi_j^\#[\chi_j ,d_c](\phi_j^{-1})^\#$ has order 1 if $h=n$, and order 0 if $h\neq n$. Since the kernel of $ T$ can be estimated by kernel of type 2 if acts on forms of degree $h=n$, and of type 1 if acts on forms of degree $h \neq n$, the assertion follows straightforwardly
Summing up in $j$ and keeping into account that the sum is locally finite, we obtain: $$\begin{split}
\| \sum_j & \phi_j^\#
T_j (\phi_j^{-1})^\#[\chi_j ,d_c]\|_{W^{\ell,p}(M)}
\le
\sum_j\| \phi_j^\#
T_j (\phi_j^{-1})^\#[\chi_j ,d_c]\|_{W^{\ell,p}(\phi ({\mathcal }U_j))}
\\&
\le
C \sum_j\|
T_j \phi_j^\#[\chi_j ,d_c]\|_{W^{\ell,p}({\mathcal }U_j) }
\le
C \sum_j
\| \phi_j^\# u\|_{W^{\ell-1,p}(U_j)}
\\&
\le
C \| u\|_{W^{\ell-1,p}(M)}.
\end{split}$$
By $$\begin{split}
d_c T_M &+ T_Md_c + S_M
\\&
= d_c \big(\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}S^i\big)T + \big(\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}S^i\big)\tilde Td_c
+ S^k
\\&
=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}S^i \big(d_cT + Td_c\big)
+S^k
\\&
=\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}S^i \big(I-S)
+S^k =I.
\end{split}$$ Then statements i), ii) and iii) follow straightforwardly from i), ii) and iii) of Lemma \[homotopy manifold lemma\].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
B. F. and A. B. are supported by the University of Bologna, funds for selected research topics, and by MAnET Marie Curie Initial Training Network, by GNAMPA of INdAM (Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica “F. Severi”), Italy, and by PRIN of the MIUR, Italy.
P.P. is supported by MAnET Marie Curie Initial Training Network, by Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANR-10-BLAN 116-01 GGAA and ANR-15-CE40-0018 SRGI. P.P. gratefully acknowledges the hospitality of Isaac Newton Institute, of EPSRC under grant EP/K032208/1, and of Simons Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We examine experimentally the deformation of flexible, microscale helical ribbons with nanoscale thickness subject to viscous flow in a microfluidic channel. Two aspects of flexible microhelices are quantified: the overall shape of the helix and the viscous frictional properties. The frictional coefficients determined by our experiments are consistent with calculated values in the context of resistive force theory. Deformation of helices by viscous flow is well-described by non-linear finite extensibility. Under distributed loading, the pitch distribution is non-uniform and from this, we identify both linear and non-linear behavior along the contour length of a single helix. Moreover, flexible helices are found to display reversible global to local helical transitions at high flow rate.'
author:
- 'Jonathan T. Pham,$^{1,2}$ Alexander Morozov,$^{3}$ Alfred J. Crosby,$^{1}$ Anke Lindner,$^{2}$ and Olivia du Roure$^{2}$'
bibliography:
- 'Pham\_References\_Helices.bib'
title: 'Deformation and shape of flexible, microscale helices in viscous flow'
---
Helices have captured the fascination of many for centuries, from Darwin’s observation of plant tendrils [@Darwin1875] to a child’s play with a toy Slinky. Beyond curiosity, the interaction of small helices with fluids is particularly important because of its relevance to both fundamental science [@Wada2009; @Teran2010; @Rodenborn2013; @Liu2011; @Lauga2009; @Kim2005a; @Fu2007; @Berg1979] and technological applications, such as swimming microrobots or microflow sensors [@Peyer2013; @Attia2009; @Schamel2014; @Tottori2012; @Zhang2009c; @Fischer2011]. Nature has perhaps best demonstrated the importance of small scale helix-fluid interactions through the evolution of helically shaped flagella, which are exploited by swimming microorganisms to move through their surrounding fluids [@Turner2000; @Fujii2008; @Armitage1999]. At these length scales, structures function at low Reynolds number (i.e. inertia is negligible and viscous forces play a dominant role), the helical structure is key to locomotive functionality; however many questions remain with regard to the fluid-helix interactions at these small length scales.
{width="98.00000%"}
While helices in low Reynolds number flows have been considered in several studies over the past couple decades, experimental work has focused mainly on macroscopic, non-deformable helical models in high viscosity fluids [@Liu2011; @Kim2003; @Rodenborn2013], likely due to the difficulties in fabricating and analyzing microscopic systems in a controlled manner. A natural bacterial flagellar filament is on the order of tens of nanometers in diameter and several microns long with bending stiffness in the range of $B \sim 10^{-24}$ to $10^{-21}$ N m$^2$ [@Hoshikawa1985; @Darnton2007; @Trachtenberg1992], values that have been measured through optical tweezer or crude flow experiments. This low flexural stiffness results in drastic changes in shape of bacterial flagella observed experimentally under the motion of fluids [@Hoshikawa1985; @Armitage1999; @Turner2000; @Coombs2002; @Hotani1982]. Moreover, the frictional coefficient that defines the relative resistance of motion between the solid and fluid is an important physical parameter for small helices in flow [@Fu2007; @Kim2005a; @Lauga2007; @Lauga2009; @Lighthill1976; @Wada2009]. Therefore, a microscopic experimental model that examines flexible helices in low Reynolds number flow, with the ability to predict and extract helical shape changes and frictional properties, would be exceedingly beneficial.
In this Communication, we examine the deformation of synthetically fabricated helical ribbons in controlled viscous flow with length scales and mechanical properties flagella and microscale robots [@Turner2000; @Fujii2008] (*i.e.* microscale radius, nanoscale thickness). We discuss our findings in the framework of resistive force theory [@Gray1955; @Lighthill1976] and demonstrate that, as expected, the size, shape and bending stiffness of a helical ribbon defines the axial deformation of microhelices in flow [@Kim2005a; @Lighthill1976]. We quantify the non-uniform shape of a flexible helix deformed by viscous drag, showing that the pitch distribution transitions from linear to non-linear behavior within the same helix as a function of flow velocity. Our measurements allow us to assess validity of the resistive force theory and extract the effective frictional coefficient for microscale, flexible helices.
Consider a helical ribbon defined by its axial length ($H$), contour length ($L$), pitch ($p$), and radius ($R$), as well as its cross-section, which is defined by the ribbon width ($w$) and thickness ($t$), as illustrated in Fig. \[fig1\]a. To create such structures, we recently reported a method that relies on spontaneous formation of helices from initially flat ribbons, driven by 2-phase elastocapillary deformation [@Pham2013]. The ribbons are taken to be inextensible (*i.e.* a fixed contour length), and under the condition that $t/w \ll 1$ and $w/L \ll 1$, helices form by bending in the direction of the nanoscale thickness (Figs. \[fig1\]a ). A key point to emphasize is that the preferred helical radius has a strong dependence on the ribbon thickness [@Pham2013]; hence the bending stiffness, $B=EI$ and the helix radius, $R$ are not independently controlled ($E$ being the Young’s modulus and $I \sim wt^{3}$ being the second moment of area). This approach is advantageous since it provides versatility in controlling the helix geometry through control of fabrication parameters.
In our experiments, a flow rate ($Q$) is applied to a helix that is held in a microfluidic channel. To fabricate the helices, ribbons are first prepared on a flat substrate by an evaporative assembly method [@Lee2013]. We use a common glassy polymer as a model material: poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA, 120k g/mol) with fluorescent dye for imaging. The ribbons are released into a pool of water, at which point they spontaneously form helices through a balance of surface tension and elasticity of the asymmetric cross-sectional geometry. Details on helix formation and fabrication can be found in prior publications [@Pham2013; @Lee2013; @Kim2010a]. A micromanipulator is subsequently used to fix one end of a helix and position it inside a microchannel (Fig. \[fig1\]c) at the vertical center (*i.e.* the center of the Poiseuille flow), which is 600 $\mu$m wide and 100 $\mu$m tall (Fig. \[fig1\]d). The flow velocity ($v$) is taken to be $v_{max}$, where $v_{max}=3 v_{avg}/2$ and $v_{avg} = Q/A$, where $A$ is the channel cross-sectional area.
The designed setup has the advantage of measuring both flow rate and helix geometry simultaneously in real-time with a flow sensor and a fluorescence microscope. In Figs. \[fig1\]e and \[fig1\]f, we present a typical flow cycle experiment to demonstrate helix shape recovery and flow control. When the flow is turned on, the helix deforms along its helical axis in the direction of applied flow and in the absence of flow, the helix returns nearly to its original state. This particular helix is cycled three times from 0 to 5 $\mu$L/min and the flow rate history and the stretch ratio, $\lambda = H/H_{0}$, are plotted along with corresponding micrographs. Here, $H_{0}$ is the axial length of the helix in the absence of flow. At point b, $\lambda \approx 3.4$ and recovers to point c where $\lambda \approx 1.1$ when the flow is turned off for 90 s. On the second cycle (point d), $\lambda \approx 3.4$ and recovers to $\lambda \approx 1.15$ and responds similarly in the third cycle, showing reversibility in our helices. The small, irreversible deformations observed are likely associated with creep deformations within the ribbon material, but as shown below, these slight changes can be considered negligible for the focus of this work.
Deformation of a helix in an external flow is caused by the hydrodynamic drag forces acting at each point along its contour length. Following resistive force theory, the drag force per unit length is given by: $\textbf{f}=-\zeta_{\perp}\left [ \textbf{v}-\left (\textbf{t} \cdot \textbf{v} \right ) \textbf{t} \right ] -\zeta_{\parallel} \left (\textbf{t} \cdot \textbf{v} \right ) \textbf{t}$, where $\textbf{t}$ is the local tangent of the ribbon backbone, $\textbf{v}$ is the velocity of the fluid relative to the ribbon, and $\zeta_{\perp}$ and $\zeta_{\parallel}$ are the frictional coefficients that define the resistance to motion of the surrounding fluid in the normal and tangential directions from the ribbon, respectively [@Wada2009; @Kim2005a]. These frictional coefficients are proportional to the viscosity ($\eta$) and a logarithmic correction dependent on the helical geometry [@Lighthill1976]. In general, for very elongated objects, the ratio $\zeta_{\perp}/\zeta_{\parallel} \approx 2$. For the case of axial extension under flow, Kim and Powers [@Kim2005a] give an expression for the helix extension in the limit that $R/L$ is small and $\zeta_{\perp}/\zeta_{\parallel} \approx 2$: $$\frac{\Delta H}{L} = \frac{\zeta_{\parallel} vR^{2}L}{B}
\label{powers}$$ where the velocity $v$ is in the direction of the helical axis and the axial extension is defined as $\Delta H=H-H_{0}$.
Guided by Eq. \[powers\], we measure $\Delta H$ as a function of $v$. From Fig. \[fig2\]b, the axial extension of the helices is non-linear with increasing flow velocity. We describe this non-linearity phenomenologically with non-linear finite extensibility [@WarnerJr.1972; @Kroger2004] which leads to: $$v=\frac{B}{\zeta_{\parallel} R^{2}L^{2}} \frac{\Delta H}{1-\left (\frac{\Delta H}{\Delta H_{max}} \right )^{2}}
\label{NFE}$$ where the maximum extension is taken to be $\Delta H_{max}=L-H_{0}$. A typical experiment is shown in Fig. \[fig2\]a. Helices with a range of sizes were created to examine the effects of helix and ribbon geometry; these range between $R \approx 3-15 \mu$m, $p \approx 4-20 \mu$m, and $L \approx 55-420 \mu$m. $R$ is controlled by the bending stiffness $B=EI$ [@Pham2013], where $E=2$ GPa is a typical value for PMMA [@Zeng2004]. $R$ and $p$ are measured directly from the microscope images at zero flow rate and $L$ is determined by the helical relationship $L=N \sqrt{4 \pi^{2}R^{2}+p^{2}}$, where $N$ is the number of turns. As expected, the assortment of helices display different flow-extension curves due to their varying shape and size, demonstrated in Fig. \[fig2\]b. The dashed lines represent the fit of Eq. \[NFE\] and our data are well fit to this relation. Using the corresponding $R$ and $L$ values at zero flow rate, Eq. \[NFE\] leads to a best fit for $B/\zeta_{\parallel}$ for all helices. We determine the relationship between $B/\zeta_{\parallel}$ and $R$ for flow experiments by fitting to the expression $B/\zeta_{\parallel}=C\exp{(\alpha R)}$, giving $C=(1.7 \pm 0.7)$x$10^{-18}$ m$^{4}$ s$^{-1}$ and $\alpha=(3.5 \pm 0.4)$x$10^{5}$ m$^{-1}$ (Fig. \[fig2\]d).
![(a) Fluorescent images of a helix with increasing flow velocities. At higher velocity, the helix begins to lose turns by rotating its free end. (b) Flow-extension curves for several helices, showing different extension due to the different helical dimensions (*i.e.* $R$ and $L$). The second magenta data corresponds to (a). Dashed lines are a fit for a helix with non-linear, finite extensibility given in Eq. \[NFE\]. (d) Semilog plot of $B/\zeta_{\parallel}$ determined by the flow experiments as a function of the helix radius $R$. \[fig2\]](Fig2.jpg){width="48.00000%"}
To determine frictional coefficients, we quantify $B$ independently with a recently developed micromechanical tool to measure the end-loaded force-extension relationship of our helices for different helix geometries . Under end-loading conditions in the linear limit, the helical extension is given by [@Kim2005a]: $$\frac{\Delta H}{L} = \frac{F R^{2}}{B}
\label{endloading}$$ At high extension, the force-extension relationship is non-linear and follows expressions developed previously by Pham et al. [@Pham2014][^1]. A plot of $B$ vs. $R$ provides the empirical relation $B=B_{0}\exp{(\beta R)}$ with $B_{0}=(2.6 \pm 1.1)$x$10^{-21}$ N m$^{2}$, and $\beta=(3.5 \pm 0.5)$x$10^5$ m$^{-1}$ . Importantly, we find $\alpha \approx \beta$, demonstrating that $\zeta_{\parallel}$ is independent of $R$ within our experimental resolution and parameter range. Accordingly, a frictional drag coefficient can be quantitatively determined as $\zeta_{\parallel}=B_{0}/C=1.5 \pm 0.6$ mPa.s.
![ \[figSI\]](FigSI.jpg){width="49.00000%"}
While different expressions of $\zeta_{\parallel}$ have been proposed by different researchers [@Wada2009; @Kim2005a; @Lauga2009; @Lighthill1976], the general relevant form for a circular cross-section is given by [@Lighthill1976]: $$\zeta_{\parallel}=\frac{2 \pi \eta}{\ln(2q/a)} \label{zetapar}$$ where $q$ is usually taken as 0.09$p$ and $a$ as the radius of the cylindrical fiber itself. Since our helices’ cross-sections are not circular, but rather a shallow triangular ribbon , we took the ribbon thickness to be the relevant length scale $a$. Although average ribbon dimensions are measured before transformation into helices, determining the nanoscale cross-sectional thickness of specific ribbons in their helical form is not possible with the optical microscope used to record the helix deformations. Thus, the thickness $t$ is determined for specific helices by relating $R$, measured optically, to established relations for $B$ and measured aspect ratios of $t/w$ by AFM and optical profilometry . Taking these values for $t$ and the typical viscosity of water $\eta=1$ mPa.s, we calculate a theoretical $\zeta_{\parallel}$ for each helix using Eq. \[zetapar\], providing $\zeta_{\parallel}=1.6-2.5$ mPa.s. This range is in reasonable agreement with our experimental results: $\zeta_{\parallel}=1.5 \pm 0.6$ mPa.s. It must be noted that since the frictional coefficient $\zeta_{\parallel}$ depends on the geometry of the helix as a logarithmic correction, the range of pitch and radius studied here are unfortunately not sufficient to resolve differences within our experimental resolution.
![(a) Helical ribbon with $R \approx$ 4.5 $\mu$m and $L \approx$ 320 $\mu$m in the absence of flow (top) and at $v=0.625$ mm/s (bottom). (b) Pitch as a function of position on the contour length corresponding to the helix in (a) for different flow velocity. The dotted lines are calculated from Eq. \[pitch\] and the thin black represents the calculated $p_0$. The error on pitch measurements is within the size of the points on the graph ($<1$ $\mu$m). \[fig3\]](Fig4.jpg){width="35.00000%"}
Aside from their global extension, flexible helices display non-uniform shape distributions when deformed in fluid flow, which has also been observed in helical flagella [@Armitage1999; @Hoshikawa1985]. More specifically, it is observed that the turns are most stretched at the fixed end and continuously become less stretched along the helix approaching the free end. This is clearly visualized in an experiment of a long helix with several turns as shown in Fig. \[fig3\], where $L \approx$ 320 $\mu$m and $R \approx$ 4.5 $\mu$m, and at an applied flow velocity of $v=0.625$ mm/s. Such non-uniform shapes are readily explained by distributed loading of helices: under flow, the force applied to a small element of a helix consists of local hydrodynamic drag on the element and the force accumulating along the helix from the free end. Mechanical equilibrium is then ensured by the equal and opposite force applied to the element by the rest of the helix that is further away from the free end. If we assume that the local hydrodynamic drag is independent of the position along the helix, as in the resistive-force theory discussed above, the total force applied to an element of the helix from the free end grows linearly with the contour length $s$, measured from the free end. Consequently, the local pitch of the helix also grows linearly with $s$, as shown below. This situation is analogous to stretching of low-stiffness springs under gravity [@Cross2012; @Miller2014].
To quantitatively examine the shape distribution of our helices, we measure the local pitch $p(s)$ by calculating the distance between the outmost points of neighboring turns along the helix. At zero flow rate, the pitch $p_0$ is constant along the helix within small experimental variations. Under flow, $p(s)$ can be estimated as the difference of the axial displacement of the points $s+l/2$ and $s-l/2$ obtained from Eq. \[powers\]: $$\begin{aligned}
&&p(s) = \Delta H(s+l/2) - \Delta H(s-l/2) +p_0\nonumber \\
&& \qquad = \frac{ 2\zeta_{\parallel} v R^{2}}{B} l s + p_0,
\label{pitch}\end{aligned}$$ where $l$ is the contour length of one pitch, which we assume to be constant. This assumption is justified as long as no turns are lost during the experiment and irreversible deformations are negligible. In Fig. \[fig3\]b, we plot Eq. \[pitch\] with the corresponding values of $\zeta_{\parallel}$, $R$ and $B$ determined by our flow experiment for the different flow velocities. In Fig. \[fig3\]b, one can observe that for small velocities, the pitch vs. position dependence is well described within the experimental errors by Eq. \[pitch\]. Consequently, the approximation of linear axial extension (Eq. \[powers\]) holds at low velocities; however, deviations are observed at high flow velocities. Here the pitch distribution in the helix section experiencing the highest forces (closer to the fixed end) deviates from the linear approximation of Eq. \[pitch\]. In this part of the helix, measured pitches are smaller than predicted, corresponding to geometric strain stiffening at large extension also seen in Fig. \[fig2\]b. Notably, our results demonstrate a spatial manifestation of the crossover between linear and non-linear behavior of a helix under distributed loading.
Finally, we interestingly observe large shape changes in helices at high velocities. Under these stronger forces, the helical shape uncoils to lose turns near the point of attachment (Fig. \[fig2\]a). More evident helical instabilities are observed through localized transitions of coiled to uncoiled helical geometry, as shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. These drastic deformations are reversible; when the flow is turned off, the helix relaxes to a shape that again is nearly identical to the initial helix. Similar transitions of helical and straightened geometries have been observed in torque-free, end-loaded experiments on cholesterol helical ribbons [@Smith2001a] as well as in rods of preferred curvature under gravity [@Miller2014]. Thus, future studies will focus on these helical transitions in viscous flow, which may provide important insight into unstable transitions that exist in helical systems found in nature.
![Qualitative example of a prominent helical transition from a global helical geometry to local uncoiled and coiled configurations at high velocity (of order $\sim 10$ mm/s). \[fig4\]](Fig5.jpg){width="35.00000%"}
Overall, we have introduced a microscopic model system to measure the deformation, shape and frictional properties of flexible helices in low Reynolds number viscous flow and find that the global axial deformation is consistent with existing theory [@Kim2005a]. We demonstrate that with known ribbon properties and helical configurations, the shape distribution can be quantitatively predicted. Moreover, our experimental platform presents opportunities for theoretical advances on flexible helices in low Reynolds number flow; in particular, the effects of fluid viscosity or viscoelasticity, the friction and flow around deformable helices, the global-to-local helical shape transitions, and potentially the effects of cross-sectional geometry. Understanding these general helical behaviors both experimentally and theoretically will lead to fundamental insights on natural helices, like flagella, as well as the development of synthetic helices, like swimming microbots in fluid environments. Well-characterized helices can also be used to measure local forces in flows of simple or complex fluids where local velocities can readily be measured by various techniques, like PIV or particle-tracking, while measuring local stresses presents a significant technological challenge [@Liu2010b].
This work was supported by the Army Research Office (W911NF-14-1-0185) and a Chateaubriand Fellowship granted by the French Embassy in the United States of America. A.M. acknowledges support from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/I004262/1). The authors thank J. Heuvingh and G.M. Grason for thoughtful discussion and J. Gachelin for providing photolithography molds for microchannel fabrication.
[^1]: The expression of non-linearity used for this end-loading experiment is slightly different from the expression used for the flow experiments as the boundary conditions are different. $F= \frac{4\pi^{2}N^{2}BH}{L^{3}} \left [ \frac{\sqrt{1-\left ( H_{0}/L \right )^{2}}}{\sqrt{1-\left ( H/L \right )^{2}}} +M\right ]$ where $F$ is the force and the constant $M=2/(1+\nu)-1$ (where $\nu \approx 0.3$ is the Poisson’s ratio). [@Pham2014] In the small strain limit where $H \ll L$, the force scales as $F\sim N^{2}BH/L^{3}$. A geometric relationship for a helical structure holds that $R\sim L/N$, leading to $F \sim BH/R^{2}L$ used to determine $B$, identical to Eq. \[endloading\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this work, we propose a positivity-preserving scheme for solving two-dimensional advection-diffusion equations including mixed derivative terms, in order to improve the accuracy of lower-order methods. The solution to these equations, in the absence of mixed derivatives, has been studied in detail, while positivity-preserving solutions to mixed derivative terms have received much less attention. A two-dimensional diffusion equation, for which the analytical solution is known, is solved numerically to show the applicability of the scheme. It is further applied to the Fokker-Planck collision operator in two-dimensional cylindrical coordinates under the assumption of local thermal equilibrium. For a thermal equilibration problem, it is shown that the scheme conserves particle number and energy, while the preservation of positivity is ensured and the steady-state solution is the Maxwellian distribution.\
Keywords: Advection-diffusion, Fokker-Planck equation
address:
- 'York Plasma Institute, Department of Physics, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK'
- 'Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, Abingdon, OX14 3DB, UK'
author:
- 'E.J. du Toit'
- 'M.R. O’Brien'
- 'R.G.L. Vann'
title: 'Positivity-preserving scheme for two-dimensional advection-diffusion equations including mixed derivatives'
---
Introduction
============
Two dimensional advection-diffusion equations have widespread applications in physics, engineering and finance, and can generally be written as $$\label{eq:pde}
u_t = A u_{xx} + B u_{xy} + C u_{yy} + D u_x + E u_y + F u
%\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = f\left( x,y,u,\frac{\partial u}{\partial x},\frac{\partial u}{\partial y},\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2}, \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2}, \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x \partial y} \right)$$ where $u = u(x,y,t)$. As these equations are often too difficult to solve analytically, numerical solutions are required. For $F = 0$, these equations can be written in a two-dimensional advection-diffusion form, $$\label{eq:pde:2}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = \nabla \cdot \left( - \vec{a} u + \hat{k} \cdot \nabla u \right)$$ where $u = u(x,y,t)$ is advected by the $2$D vector $\vec{a}(x,y,t)$ and diffused by the tensor $\hat{k}(x,y,t)$. If the initial condition $u(x,y,0) \ge 0$ for all $(x,y)$, then the solution must always be positive, i.e. $u(x,y,t) \ge 0$ for all $(x,y,t)$. A good numerical method will also preserve the monotonicity of the initial condition, but these conditions poses a particular challenge if a change of coordinates, in order to eliminate the mixed derivative terms $u_{xy}$ throughout $(x,y)$ space, is not possible.
A particular application of two-dimensional advection-diffusion equations is the Fokker-Planck collision operator, which can typically be written in the form (\[eq:pde:2\]) and has a wide range of applications in plasmas in the laboratory (e.g. magnetic and inertial thermonuclear fusion), space (e.g. Earth’s magnetosphere), and astrophysics (e.g. solar coronal mass ejections) [@Taitano_2015]. Positivity-preserving solutions to two-dimensional advection and diffusion equations, in the absence of mixed derivative terms, have been studied in detail [@Fazio_2009; @Hundsdorfer_1995], but solutions where mixed derivative terms are present have received much less attention. Recent research have therefore focused on developing improved and refined higher-order methods for solving advection-diffusion equations, as higher-order methods are typically more accurate, but also more complex, than lower-order methods, which are more reliable and robust [@Huynh_2007].
In this paper, we propose a scheme for improving the accuracy of lower-order methods, in particular with respect to the preservation of positivity, when solving two-dimensional advection-diffusion equations in the presence of mixed derivatives. The proposed scheme is applicable to any advection-diffusion equation of the form (\[eq:pde:2\]), as well as equations of the form (\[eq:pde\]) where the solution must remain positive. It is applied to a two-dimensional diffusion equation with mixed derivatives, for which the analytical solution is known, as well as the Fokker-Planck collision operator in cylindrical coordinates.
In our proposed scheme, in order to preserve positivity, the mixed derivative term is rewritten as an advective equation, for which many positivity-preserving solutions exist [@Fazio_2009; @Hundsdorfer_1995; @Huynh_2007; @Arber_2002; @Fijalkow_1999; @Laney_1998]. We show that, compared to central finite-difference methods, this scheme has the same order of accuracy, while ensuring the preservation of positivity.
One-dimensional solutions to the Fokker-Planck collision operator have been studied for decades, but detailed numerical discretizations in two-dimensions, particularly in cylindrical coordinates where mixed derivative terms are present, have only recently been studied. A numerical approximation to the Fokker-Planck collision operator should ensure the conservation of particle number, momentum and energy and the preservation of positivity, and ensure a steady-state Maxwellian distribution under thermal equilibration. The most successful approaches consist of an extension of the one-dimensional Chang and Cooper scheme [@Chang_1970] to two-dimensions, but this method does not guarantee the preservation of positivity if the solution is far from equilibrium [@Yoon_2014]. A fully implicit finite element algorithm, using appropriate flux limiters to ensure the preservation of positivity, the conservation of particle number, momentum, and energy, has also been developed, but is intensive [@Taitano_2015]. A good review of other numerical methods can also be found in [@Taitano_2015].
Here, we present an alternative approach to the Fokker-Planck collision operator in two-dimensional cylindrical coordinates. The solution is based on the proposed positivity-preserving scheme and extends the Chang and Cooper scheme, based on the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, to ensure an accurate steady-state solution is obtained. We approximate the collision operators by assuming the distribution collides with a background Maxwellian distribution, and it is shown that, if this approximation holds, thermal equilibration occurs at the theoretically predicted rate. The proposed scheme conserves particle number and energy, while the preservation of positivity is ensured.
The paper is structured as follows: Section $2$ introduces our proposed positivity-preserving scheme for solving two-dimensional advection-diffusion equations, including the treatment of mixed derivative terms. Section $3$ discusses the Fokker-Planck collision operator in cylindrical coordinates, including the assumption of local thermal equilibrium and thermal equilibration tests, and is followed by a short summary in Section $4$.
$2$D diffusion with mixed derivatives
=====================================
Positivity-preserving solutions to two-dimensional advection and diffusion equations have been studied in detail [@Fazio_2009; @Hundsdorfer_1995], but solving mixed derivative terms have received much less attention. The reason for this is that typically a change of coordinate system can be performed in order to eliminate the mixed derivative terms, or the mixed derivative terms are weak compared to the advection-diffusion terms and can therefore be neglected. If this is not possible, however, a positivity-preserving solution is required for the unmodified equation.
Consider, as an example, the two-dimensional diffusion equation $$\label{eq:example}
u_t = u_{xx} + u_{xy} + u_{yx} + u_{yy}$$ with initial condition $$u(x,y,t=0) = \exp{[-x^2 - y^2]}$$ and open boundary conditions, such that the grid on which we solve $u(x,y,t)$ must be large enough to ensure $u = 0$ at the boundaries always. Typically, this equation will be solved by performing a change of coordinates in order to eliminate the mixed derivative terms $u_{xy}$ and $u_{yx}$. In this way, an analytical solution can be obtained, $$U(x,y,t) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + 8t}} \exp{\left[-\left(\frac{1}{2}x^2 + \frac{1}{2}y^2 - xy \right) - \frac{1}{1 + 8t} \left(\frac{1}{2}x^2 + \frac{1}{2}y^2 + xy \right) \right]}$$
The aim of this section is to introduce a positivity-preserving scheme for solving mixed derivative terms, thereby solving equation (\[eq:example\]) without a change of coordinate system. The numerical solution $u_{i,j}$ is then compared to the analytical solution through an RMS error given by $$E_\text{rms} = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N^2} \sum_{i,j} (u_{i,j} - U_{i,j} )^2}$$ where $N$ is the number of grid points in both the $x$- and $y$-directions and the labels $i,j$ refers to the $i^\text{th}$ node in the $x$-direction and the $j^\text{th}$ node in the $y$-direction.
Although higher-order methods for solving (\[eq:example\]) can be used obtained with the use of flux limiters, these are often complicated and less robust than lower-order methods. Lower-order methods, on the other hand, tend to be less accurate, and, as will be shown, does not guarantee the preservation of positivity. Our proposed scheme improves the accuracy of lower-order methods, especially by ensuring the preservation of positivity. For this reason, we only consider two second-order accurate finite-difference methods. The diffusion terms $u_{xx}$ and $u_{yy}$ are straightforward to solve by taking second-order derivatives, $$\label{eq:diffusion}
u_{xx} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} = \frac{u_{i+1,j} - 2u_{i,j} + u_{i-1,j}}{\Delta x^2} + \mathcal{O}(\Delta x^2)$$ and is second-order accurate and preserves positivity.
The mixed derivatives can be solved with a similar central finite-difference method, where the boundary values are determined as an average, i.e. $$u_{i+1/2} = \frac{1}{2} \bigg( u_i + u_{i+1} \bigg)$$ but, although such a method is second-order accurate, it does not guarantee positivity.
Positivity-preserving schemes exist for linear advection equations, and we therefore aim to rewrite the mixed derivative terms as advection equations in order to employ these schemes and preserve positivity.
Positivity-preserving approximation
-----------------------------------
Positivity-preserving approximations for linear advection equations have been studied in detail [@Fazio_2009; @Hundsdorfer_1995; @Arber_2002; @Fijalkow_1999; @Laney_1998], while such approximations for mixed derivative terms have received much less attention. As central finite-difference method solutions to mixed derivative equations do not preserve positivity, we rewrite these terms as advection equations, and then apply a positivity-preserving approximation. In order to rewrite the mixed derivative terms as advection equations, we define the function $$\label{eq:log:derivative}
v = \frac{1}{u} \frac{\partial u}{\partial y}$$ so that we can write $$\label{eq:mixed:advection}
u_{xy} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \frac{\partial u}{\partial y} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x} v \cdot u$$ where $v = v(x,y,u)$. This results in the mixed derivative term being written as a non-linear advection equation, which can be solved using second-order positivity-preserving schemes, as discussed in \[app:Hundsdorfer\]. Higher-order methods exist, but as these methods are more complicated and less robust than lower-order methods, and as we aim to compare our numerical approximation to a second-order central finite-difference method, we use a second-order positivity-preserving scheme. The non-linearity can be resolved through Picard iteration, discussed later. A more straightforward solution is through Picard linearizing, where the function $v$ is determined from the known values of $u^{n}$ in order to find the solution $u^{n+1}$ at the next time step.
The function $1/u \to \infty$ as $u \to 0$, which can lead to singularities. In order to deal with such singularities, it is assumed that the grid is fine enough and the function smooth enough such that the difference between neighbouring nodes is small, such that $u_{j+1} - u_{j-1} \ll u_j$, and the function $$v = \frac{1}{u} \frac{\partial u}{\partial y} = \frac{1}{2\Delta y} \frac{u_{j+1} - u_{j-1}}{u_j} \approx 0$$ if $u_j < \epsilon$, where $\epsilon \ll 1$. We therefore set $v = 0$ if $u_j < \epsilon$, where $\epsilon = 10^{-16}$. The value of $\epsilon$ will depend on the particular problem, as well as the relative values of $u$ and the coarseness of the grid. In the problems we consider, the solutions approach zero exponentially and $\epsilon = 10^{-16}$ is small enough.
Time evolution
--------------
The time evolution will be solved implicitly. For example, the diffusion equation (\[eq:diffusion\]) is solved as $$u_t = \frac{1}{\Delta t} \bigg[ u^{n+1} - u^n \bigg] = \frac{1}{\Delta x^2} \bigg[ u_{i+1,j}^{n+1} - 2u_{i,j}^{n+1} + u_{i-1,j}^{n+1} \bigg] + \mathcal{O}(\Delta t)$$ which is first-order accurate in time, unconditionally stable and independent of the Courant number [@Courant_1928].
Numerical results
-----------------
We solve equation (\[eq:example\]) on a uniform grid with size $x,y \in (-10,10)$ and $\Delta x = \Delta y = 20/N$, with $\Delta t = 0.1$ for $20$ timesteps. We use only a single Picard iteration, in which the coefficients $v$ are calculated from the known $u^n$ to obtain $u^{n+1}$. Comparisons between the analytical and numerical solutions are shown in figure \[fig:example:y\].
As expected, the central finite-difference scheme does not preserve positivity, while both the first-order donor-cell upwind (DCU) scheme and second-order Hundsdorfer scheme (\[app:Hundsdorfer\]) preserve positivity. The accuracy of the central finite-difference and Hundsdorfer schemes are both second-order, while the DCU scheme is first-order accurate, as expected. For small $N$, the grid is very coarse, such that variations between neighbouring cells are great, and the Hundsdorfer scheme is effectively first-order as the flux-limiter $\phi \approx 0$ due to large variations between neighbouring nodes. When increasing $N$ the Hundsdorfer scheme improves to become second-order accurate.
Fokker-Planck collision operator in cylindrical coordinates
===========================================================
The Fokker-Planck collision operator describes the local collisional relaxation process of distribution functions in plasmas under the assumption of binary, small-angle collisions [@Rosenbluth_1957; @Landau_1937; @Chandrasekhar_1943] and is regarded, along with Vlasov and Maxwell’s equations, as the basis for weakly-coupled plasmas in all collisionality regimes. It conserves particle number, momentum and energy, preserves positivity of the distribution function, and satisfies the Boltzmann H-theorem, such that the steady-state solution is given by the Maxwellian distribution function. Despite this, however, it is a stiff advection-diffusion operator in velocity space, and nonlinear when solving the collision operators using the Landau integral [@Landau_1937] or the Rosenbluth potentials [@Rosenbluth_1957], which leads to several difficulties in dealing with it numerically [@Taitano_2015].
In the presence of a strong magnetic field, the gyrofrequency exceeds all frequencies of interest, such that the dependence of the distribution function on the gyroangle can be neglected. The Fokker-Planck collision operator is normally solved in spherical coordinates $(v,\theta)$ where it contains no mixed derivative terms. In some cases, however, the distribution function must be solved under multiple effects, some of which may be best described in cylindrical coordinates $(v_\parallel,v_\perp)$, such as radiofrequency current drive [@OBrien_1986; @Karney_1986; @Maekawa_2012], and an approximation to the collision operator in cylindrical coordinates is therefore required. The Fokker-Planck collision operator in cylindrical coordinates is therefore considered, $$\label{eq:collisions:cylindrical}
\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \frac{1}{v_\perp} \frac{\partial}{\partial v_\perp} v_\perp &\bigg[ D_{\perp \perp} \frac{\partial f}{\partial v_\perp} + D_{\perp \parallel} \frac{\partial f}{\partial v_\parallel} - F_\perp f \bigg] \\
+ \frac{\partial}{\partial v_\parallel} &\bigg[ D_{\parallel \parallel} \frac{\partial f}{\partial v_\parallel} + D_{\parallel \perp} \frac{\partial f}{\partial v_\perp} - F_\parallel f \bigg]
\end{aligned}$$ where $v_\parallel$ is the velocity parallel and $v_\perp$ is the velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field and $f = f(v_\parallel,v_\perp,t)$ is the electron distribution function. For simplicity, the collision operators $D$ and $F$ are taken to be those for an isotropic, background Maxwellian [@Karney_1986]. This assumption implies that energy will only be conserved if the distribution collides with a background Maxwellian; otherwise only particle number will be conserved, while the preservation of positivity is ensured by the numerical scheme. In general, the collision operators could be determined from the Landau integral [@Landau_1937] or the Rosenbluth potentials [@Rosenbluth_1957], but this is not considered in this work.
The solution to the Fokker-Planck equation (\[eq:collisions:cylindrical\]) is obtained using the positivity-preserving method discussed earlier, but using the first-order DCU scheme (\[app:Hundsdorfer\]) for solving the advective equations. This simplifies the extension of the Chang and Cooper scheme, which ensures the correct equilibrium solution under the assumption of local thermal equilibrium. The result is a first-order solution that always conserves particle number and preserves positivity, while energy is conserved if the assumptions in calculating the collision operator are satisfied.
$\delta$-splitting
------------------
The equilibrium solution to the collision operator is a Maxwellian distribution function, which is a strongly (exponentially) varying function of $v$. In order to ensure the conservation of particle number, Chang and Cooper [@Chang_1970] introduced a weighted averaging scheme based on the assumption of local thermal equilibrium. We employ a similar scheme, but, as we employ a flux-conserving scheme for discretising the advection-diffusion equation, particle number is conserved by construction. In this case, the assumption of local thermal equilibrium ensures the correct steady-state distribution and greatly improves the accuracy of the time evolution of the distribution function.
In general, the time evolution of the distribution function can be solved under multiple effects, such as collisions, electric fields and plasma-wave interactions [@OBrien_1986; @Karney_1986; @Maekawa_2012], and this method could easily be extended to include these additional terms. We will only consider the effect of collisions, for which the Fokker-Planck equation can be written as the divergence of a flux, $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \nabla \cdot \vec{S}_c$$
If we assume steady-state, or that the distribution is in local thermal equilibrium, particle number is exactly conserved if the flux $\vec{S}_c = 0$. If we consider the $v_\perp$ part of the collision operator, i.e. the first term on the right-hand side of equation (\[eq:collisions:cylindrical\]), $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \frac{1}{v_\perp} \frac{\partial}{\partial v_\perp} v_\perp \bigg[ D_{\perp \perp} \frac{\partial f}{\partial v_\perp} + D_{\perp \parallel} \frac{\partial f}{\partial v_\parallel} - F_\perp f \bigg]$$ for which the flux is $$\label{eq:flux}
D_{\perp \perp} \frac{\partial f}{\partial v_\perp} + D_{\perp \parallel} \frac{\partial f}{\partial v_\parallel} - F_\perp \, f$$.
This can be rewritten, under the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, to obtain $$\label{eq:flux2}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial v_\perp} = \frac{1}{D_{\perp \perp}} \bigg( F_\perp - D_{\perp \parallel} \cdot g \bigg) f$$ where $$g = \frac{1}{f} \frac{\partial f}{\partial v_\parallel}$$ is equivalent to equation (\[eq:log:derivative\]). Equation (\[eq:flux2\]) can be solved to obtain the solution $$\label{eq:f_i+1}
\begin{aligned}
f_{i,j+1} &\sim f_{i,j} \exp \bigg[ \frac{ F_\perp - D_{\perp \parallel} \cdot g }{D_{\perp \perp}} \Delta v_\perp \bigg] \\
&= f_{i,j} \exp \bigg[ A_g - B_g \bigg]
\end{aligned}$$ where the labels $(i,j)$ refers to the $i^\text{th}$ node in the parallel direction and the $j^\text{th}$ node in the perpendicular direction. The functions $A_g$ and $B_g$ are defined as $$\label{eq:delta:perp:AB}
A_g = \frac{F_\perp}{D_{\perp \perp}} \Delta v_\perp \quad \quad \quad ; \quad \quad \quad B_g = \frac{ D_{\perp \parallel} \cdot g }{D_{\perp \perp}} \Delta v_\perp$$
For simplicity, the advective and mixed derivative terms are approximated using the first-order DCU scheme (see \[app:Hundsdorfer\]). We then rewrite the $F_\perp$-term (for $F_\perp < 0$), as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = \frac{1}{\Delta v} \bigg[ &\left( \frac{v_\perp - \Delta v/2}{v_\perp} \right) F_\perp \left(v_\parallel, v_\perp - \frac{\Delta v}{2} \right) \delta_\perp f_{i,j} \\
&- \left( \frac{v_\perp + \Delta v/2}{v_\perp} \right) F_\perp \left(v_\parallel, v_\perp + \frac{\Delta v}{2} \right) \delta_\perp f_{i,j+1} \bigg]
\end{aligned}$$ and solve for $\delta_\perp$ from equation (\[eq:flux\]). We do this by considering the flux across the $(v_\perp + \Delta v/2)$-boundary, for $D_{\perp \parallel} \cdot g > 0$, $$\frac{1}{\Delta p} D_{\perp \perp,j+1/2} (f_{i,j+1} - f_{i,j}) + D_{\perp \parallel, j+1/2} \cdot g_{j+1/2} \cdot f_{i,j+1} - F_{\perp,j+1/2} \cdot f_{i,j+1} \cdot \delta_\perp = 0$$ which can be used to obtain, along with (\[eq:f\_i+1\]), $$f_{ij} e^{A_g} e^{-B_g} - f_{ij} + B_g \, f_{ij} e^{A_g} e^{-B_g} - A_g e^{A_g} e^{-B_g} f_{ij} \, \delta_\perp = 0$$ and therefore, $$\delta_\perp = \frac{1}{A_g} \bigg( 1 + B_g - e^{-A_g} e^{B_g} \bigg)$$ with the same result obtained for the flux across the $(v_\perp - \Delta v/2)$-boundary.
For $D_{\perp \parallel} \cdot g < 0$ (and $F_\perp < 0$), the solution to $\delta_\perp$ is given by $$\delta_\perp = \frac{1}{A_g} \bigg( 1 + B_g e^{-A_g} e^{B_g} - e^{-A_g} e^{B_g} \bigg)$$ with $A_g$ and $B_g$ given by (\[eq:delta:perp:AB\]). A similar approach is used for the flux in the $v_\parallel$-direction in order to obtain solutions for $\delta_\parallel$, but in this case there are four possibilities,
$F_\parallel$ $D_{\parallel \perp} \cdot h$ $\delta_\parallel$
--------------- ------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
$ > 0$ $ > 0$ $\frac{1}{A_h} \bigg( e^{A_h-B_h} + B_h e^{A_h-B_h} - 1 \bigg)$
$ < 0$ $ > 0$ $\frac{1}{A_h} \bigg( 1 + B_h - e^{B_h-A_h} \bigg)$
$ > 0$ $ < 0$ $\frac{1}{A_h} \bigg( e^{A_h-B_h} - 1 + B_h \bigg)$
$ < 0$ $ < 0$ $\frac{1}{A_h} \bigg( 1 - e^{B_h-A_h} + B_h e^{B_h-A_h} \bigg)$
with the functions $A_h$ and $B_h$ defined as $$A_h = \frac{F_\parallel}{D_{\parallel \parallel}} \Delta v \quad \quad \quad ; \quad \quad \quad B_h = \frac{ D_{\parallel \perp } \cdot h }{D_{\parallel \parallel}} \Delta v$$ and $$h(p_\parallel, p_\perp) = \frac{1}{f} \frac{\partial f}{\partial p_\perp}$$ which is equivalent to equation (\[eq:log:derivative\]).
Note that, as $N \to \infty$, $\Delta v \to 0$, so $A,B \to 0$ and $\delta \to 1$, such that the effect of $\delta$-splitting is negligible. Of course, as $N \to \infty$, the differences in $f$ between two neighbouring nodes becomes negligible, and therefore $\delta$-splitting is no longer required. The introduction of this $\delta$-splitting technique therefore acts to improve the solution for coarse grids, while $\delta \approx 1$ for sufficiently fine grids.
Numerical stability
-------------------
The $\delta$-splitting method has been introduced to ensure the steady-state solution of the electron distribution function under the effect of only the Fokker-Planck collision operator is a Maxwellian distribution, due to the distribution being a strongly (exponentially) varying function of $v$. The introduction of $\delta$, however, leads to a stability issue. Consider, for example, if $f$ is a Maxwellian, $$f \sim \exp{(-v^2)}$$ and therefore $$g \sim -v$$
In the limit $v \to \infty$, we have $A \to 0$, but $B \to \mp \infty$, such that $\delta \to \infty$. Numerically, this introduces problems, as large terms lead to instabilities by creating ill-conditioned matrices. The value of $\delta$ must therefore be limited to some maximum $\delta_\textrm{max}$. Fortunately there is the competing effect that $\delta \to 1$ for increasing $N$, such that, if $N$ is large enough, the value of $\delta_\textrm{max}$ is irrelevant as $\delta$ is always small enough for a stable solution, while the cutoff value $\delta_\textrm{max}$ only comes into effect at large $v$ where there are very few particles.
As an example, consider the case of an initial Maxwellian distribution with $T_e = 20 \, \text{eV}$ colliding with a fixed background distribution at $T_b = 10 \, \text{eV}$ with density $n_e = 10^{14} \, \text{m}^{-3}$. The number of grid points ($N = 150$) is chosen in order to demonstrate the effect of $\delta_\textrm{max}$, as increasing the number of grid points can eliminate the need for $\delta_\textrm{max}$.
Equilibrium is reached after $1 \, \text{s}$, and the distribution functions at this time, as well as the temperature evolution, are compared in figure \[fig:cylindrical:dmax\]. Without $\delta$-splitting ($\delta = 1$), the wrong equilibrium temperature is reached, while for $\delta_\textrm{max} = 2$ and for $\delta_\textrm{max} = 10$ there are no differences in the temperature evolution, and the correct equilibrium temperature is reached, as expected, since $\delta$-splitting ensures that the solution is a Maxwellian.
Comparing the distribution functions to the background distribution shows the effect of $\delta_\textrm{max}$. Firstly, for $\delta = 1$ the final distribution is different from the background distribution, due to the wrong equilibrium temperature being reached. Comparing the $\delta_\textrm{max} = 2$ and $\delta_\textrm{max} = 10$ distributions to the background distribution, it is clear that there are only small differences for $v_\perp < 4 v_t$, where the majority of electrons are, and therefore the correct temperature is obtained. The differences are in the high $v$ tail, with $\delta_\textrm{max} = 2$ underestimating the relaxation, and $\delta_\textrm{max} = 10$ overestimating the relaxation.
Larger values of $\delta_\textrm{max}$ lead to ill-conditioned matrices as equilibrium is approached, so for numerical stability, the value of $\delta_\textrm{max}$ must be relatively small ($\delta \ge 1$ always). Of course, as $N \to \infty$ the value of $\delta \to 1$, and there will be no need for $\delta_\textrm{max}$. In practice, however, the grid will hardly ever be large enough to allow for this to happen, so it will be necessary to specify a value for $\delta_\textrm{max}$. Fortunately, this value will only impact regions of large $v$, where there are very few electrons which does not influence the low-order moments, such as temperature, and a relatively small value for $\delta_\textrm{max}$ suffices.
Temperature equilibration
-------------------------
Consider two electron distributions of equal density colliding with each other. The distributions will equilibrate according to $$\frac{dT_a}{dt} = \nu (T_b - T_a)$$ with $\nu$ the collision frequency, and $$\frac{dT_a}{dt} = -\frac{dT_b}{dt}$$
The collision frequency is given by [@Callen_2006], $$\label{eq:Callen:cylindrical}
\nu = \frac{8}{3 \sqrt{\pi}} \left( \frac{e^2}{4\pi \varepsilon_0} \right)^2 \frac{4 \pi n_e \lambda}{m_e^2 \sqrt{\left( v_{t,a}^2 + v_{t,b}^2 \right)}}$$ where $v_{t,a}^2 = 2T_a/m_e$ is the thermal velocity of distribution $a$, and the Coulomb logarithm is taken to be constant $\lambda = 15$. Consider two distributions, with temperatures $T_a = 20 \, \textrm{eV}$ and $T_b = 10 \, \textrm{eV}$ and densities $n_a = n_b = 10^{14} \, \text{m}^{-3}$ colliding with each other. The resultant temperature evolution, when using $\delta$-splitting, is shown in figure \[fig:equilibration:cylindrical\]. Of course, the assumption that both distributions collide with a background Maxwellian is not always true; colder electrons undergo more collisions than faster electrons, such that the distribution will not always be a Maxwellian. This results in the wrong equilibrium temperature, as the colder distribution heats up faster than the warmer distribution cools down, and energy is not conserved.
By constraining both distributions to always be Maxwellian (by replacing each distribution with a Maxwellian of the same temperature at each time step), the assumption of collisions with a background Maxwellian remains true, and the correct equilibrium temperature is reached at the predicted rate, while energy is conserved.
If the collision operators are calculated through the Rosenbluth potentials [@Rosenbluth_1957] or the Landau integrals [@Landau_1937], it will no longer be necessary to constrain the distributions to be Maxwellian, as this constraint is only necessary to ensure the assumption of background Maxwellians is satisfied. The calculation of the collision operators from the distribution functions, however, adds additional numerical evaluations, and therefore is not considered here.
Time evolution
--------------
The treatment of the mixed derivatives introduces a non-linearity which can be solved through a Picard iteration. Alternatively, by Picard linearizing, an accurate solution can be obtained by using a smaller time step. To illustrate this, consider two initial Maxwellian distributions with $T_a = 20 \, \text{eV}$ and $T_b = 10 \, \text{eV}$ colliding with each other. Let $N = 150$ and $p_\textrm{max} = 45 \times 10^{-3} \, \textrm{MeV}/c$ such that $p_t = 10 \Delta p$, where $p_t = m_e v_t / c$ is the thermal momentum. The density is $n_e = 10^{14} \, \text{m}^{-3}$ such that the collision time $\tau \approx 20 \, \text{ms}$.
The time evolution of the temperature for different values of $\Delta t$ is shown in figure \[fig:cylindrical:time\]. As expected, convergence is achieved for larger time steps when solving the distribution through Picard iteration as compared to Picard linearizing. However, obtaining a solution through Picard iteration is computationally more expensive as we have to iterate over the solution $f^{n+1}$.
Conclusion
==========
Lower-order numerical methods are less accurate, but generally more robust and reliable, than higher-order methods, while higher-order methods are more accurate, but also more complicated. In this paper we propose a scheme that focuses on improving the accuracy of lower-order methods, in particular with respect to the preservation of positivity, for solving two-dimensional advection-diffusion equations of the form $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} = \nabla \cdot \left( - \vec{a} u + \hat{k} \cdot \nabla u \right)$$ where $u = u(x,y,t)$ is advected by the vector $\vec{a}(x,y,t)$ and diffused by the tensor $\hat{k}(x,y,t)$. Numerical solutions to these equations, in the absence of mixed derivatives, have been studied in detail [@Fazio_2009; @Hundsdorfer_1995], but solutions where mixed derivative terms are present have received much less attention. The scheme proposed in this paper allows the mixed derivative terms to be written as an advection-type equation, after which a lower-order positivity-preserving method can be applied. It was discussed by using an example and then applied to the Fokker-Planck collision operator in cylindrical coordinates. Compared to central finite-difference methods, the proposed scheme obtains the same order of accuracy, with the added advantage of the solution being non-negative.
In our text core, the Fokker-Planck collision operator is approximated under the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, which introduces an averaging parameter to ensure an accurate steady-state distribution. The solution is tested with the thermal equilibration of two colliding Maxwellian distributions and compares well with the theoretically predicted rate. The scheme conserves particle number and preserves positivity, but only conserves energy and agrees with the theoretical equilibration rate if the distributions are constrained to be Maxwellian, as the collision operators are calculated under the assumption of a background Maxwellian.
The treatment of the mixed derivatives introduces a non-linearity, which can be solved through Picard iteration. This iteration allows for larger time steps to be taken, but also increases the computational time. For the considered example of studying the thermal equilibration of two electron distribution functions under the Fokker-Planck collision operator, Picard linearizing provides an accurate approximation to the time evolution when the time-step is shorter than the collision time.
In conclusion, the scheme proposed in this paper is ideal when requiring a positive solution under the conservation of particle number or flux, when a small time step is used such that the non-linearity in the mixed derivatives can be solved by Picard linearizing. Although higher-order methods and flux limiting can be used to obtain more accurate solutions, the proposed scheme uses lower-order methods to ensure a reliable and robust method which is less complicated than higher-order methods. The $\delta$-splitting method can, in general, be applied to any advection-diffusion problem to ensure the correct steady-state solution. We show that, for equilibration under the Fokker-Planck collision operator, the scheme ensures the correct equilibrium distribution while conserving particle number and preserving positivity, while energy can be conserved by calculating the collision operators from the Rosenbluth potentials [@Rosenbluth_1957] or the Landau integral [@Landau_1937].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was funded by the RCUK Energy Programme under grant EP/P012450/1, and the University of York, through the Department of Physics and the WW Smith Fund. This work made use of the York Advanced Research Computing Cluster (YARCC) at the University of York.
Positivity-preserving solution to the advection equation {#app:Hundsdorfer}
========================================================
Consider the linear advection equation, $$\label{eq:app:advection}
u_t + (a u)_x = 0$$ which can be discretized, $$(au)_x = \frac{1}{\Delta x} ( F_{i+1/2} - F_{i-1/2} )$$ such that, for $a > 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
F_{i+1/2} &= a_{i+1/2} \bigg( u_i + \frac{1}{2} \phi_{i+1/2} (u_i - u_{i-1}) \bigg) \\
F_{i-1/2} &= a_{i-1/2} \bigg( u_{i-1} + \frac{1}{2} \phi_{i-1/2} (u_{i-1} - u_{i-2}) \bigg)
\end{aligned}$$ where the function $\phi_{i\pm1/2}$ is the flux limiter. If $\phi = 0$, the scheme is first-order accurate, and known as the donor-cell upwind (DCU) scheme. For $\phi = 1$, the scheme is second-order accurate, but does not conserve extrema [@Fazio_2009]. First-order flux-conserving schemes, such as the DCU scheme, always preserves monotonicity, but higher-order schemes only preserves monotonicity with the help of flux limiters.
The flux limiter ensures that one gets the best of both second- and first-order methods. If the second-order scheme creates false extrema, then the first-order scheme is used. In order to ensure the best of both methods, the flux limiter is introduced. There exists a number of flux limiter functions (see, for example [@Fazio_2009]), but in this work we use the flux limiter introduced by Hundsdorfer [@Hundsdorfer_1995], which gives $$\phi_{i+1/2} = \text{max}(0, \text{min}(2r,\text{min}(2,K(r))))$$ where $$r_{i+1/2} = \frac{u_{i+1} - u_i}{u_i - u_{i-1}}$$ and $$K(r) = \frac{1 + 2r}{3}$$ which provides a second-order accurate solution to the advection equation (\[eq:app:advection\]) that preserves positivity in two dimensions.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
W.T. Taitano, L. Chacón, A.N. Simakov and K. Molvig, *J. Comput. Phys.* **297**, 357 (2015).
R. Fazio and A. Jannelli, *IAENG Int. J. Appl. Math.* **39**, 1 (2009).
W. Hundsdorfer, B. Koren, M. van Loon and J.G. Verwer, *J. Comp. Phys.* **117**, 35 (1995).
H.T. Huynh, *18th AIAA Conference Paper*, 2007-4079 (2007).
T.D. Arber and R.G.L. Vann, *J. Comp. Phys.* **180**, 339 (2002).
E. Fijalkow, *Comp. Phys. Comm.* **116**, 319 (1999).
C.B. Laney, *Computational Gasdynamics* (Cambridge University Press, 1998).
J.S. Chang and G. Cooper, *J. Comp. Phys.* **6**, 1 (1970).
E.S. Yoon and C.S. Chang, *Phys. Plasma* **21**, 032503 (2014).
R. Courant, K. Friedrichs and H. Lewy *Math. Ann.* **100**, 32 (1928).
M.N. Rosenbluth, W.M. MacDonald and D.L. Judd, *Phys. Rev.* **107**, 1 (1957).
L.D. Landau, *Zh. Eksper. i Theoret. Fiz.* **7**, 19 (1937).
S. Chandrasekhar, *Rev. Modern Phys.* **15**, 1 (1943).
M.R. O’Brien, M. Cox and D.F.H. Start, *Nucl. Fusion* **26**, 1625 (1986).
C.F.F. Karney, *Comput. Phys. Rep.* **4**, 183 (1986).
T. Maekawa, T. Yoshinaga, M. Uchida, F. Watanabe and H. Tanaka, *Nucl. Fusion* **52**, 083008 (2012).
J. Callen, *Fundamentals of Plasma Physics* (2006) \[ebook\] Available at: http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/ callen/book.html \[Accessed 26 October 2016\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Magnetic fields play a critical role in the propagation of charged cosmic rays. Particular field configurations supported by different astrophysical objects may be observable in cosmic ray maps. We consider a simple configuration, a constant azimuthal field in a disk-like object, that we identify as a [*cosmic magnetic lens*]{}. Such configuration is typical in most spiral galaxies, and we assume that it can also appear at smaller or larger scales. We show that the magnetic lens deflects cosmic rays in a regular geometrical pattern, very much like a gravitational lens deflects light but with some interesting differences. In particular, the lens acts effectively only in a definite region of the cosmic-ray spectrum, and it can be convergent or divergent depending on the (clockwise or counterclockwise) direction of the magnetic field and the (positive or negative) electric charge of the cosmic ray. We find that the image of a point-like monochromatic source may be one, two or four points depending on the relative position of source, observer and center of the lens. For a perfect alignment and a lens in the orthogonal plane the image becomes a ring. We also show that the presence of a lens could introduce low-scale fluctuations and matter-antimatter asymmetries in the fluxes from distant sources. The concept of cosmic magnetic lens that we introduce here may be useful in the interpretation of possible patterns observed in the cosmic ray flux at different energies.'
---
**Cosmic Magnetic Lenses**
Eduardo Battaner, Joaquín Castellano, Manuel Masip
*Departamento de F[í]{}sica Teórica y del Cosmos*\
*Universidad de Granada, E-18071 Granada, Spain*\
`[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]`
Introduction
============
High-energy cosmic rays carry information from their source and from the medium where they have propagated in their way to the Earth. They may be charged particles (protons, nuclei or electrons) or neutral (photons and neutrinos). The main difference between these two types of astroparticles is that the first one loses directionality through interactions with galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields. In particular, random background fields of order $B\approx 1$ $\mu$G in our galaxy will uncorrelate a particle from its source after a distance larger than $$r_g={E\over e c B}\approx {E\over 1\;{\rm TeV}} \times
10^{-3}\;{\rm pc}\;,
\label{rg}$$ where $e$ is the unit charge and $E$ the energy of the particle. As $E$ grows the reach of charged particles increases, extending the distance where they may be used as astrophysical probes. At $E\approx 10^9$ GeV this distance becomes 1 Mpc, and cosmic rays may bring information from an extragalactic source. Of course, it seems difficult to imagine a situation where charged cosmic rays may be used to [*reveal*]{} or characterize an object. In this letter we propose that they can detect the presence of an astophysical object, [*invisible*]{} to high-energy photons and neutrinos, that we name as [*cosmic magnetic lens*]{} (CML).
The term [*magnetic lensing*]{} has already been used in the astrophysical literature to describe, generically, the curved path of charged cosmic rays through a magnetized medium. Harari et al. [@harari2001; @harari2005; @harari2010] studied the effect of galactic fields, showing that they may produce magnification, angular clustering and caustics. Dolag et al. [@dolag2009] considered lensing by the tangled field of the Virgo cluster, assuming that the galaxy M87 was the single source of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays. Shaviv et al. [@shaviv1999] studied the lensing near ultramagnetized neutron stars. Our point of view, however, is different. The CML will be defined by a basic magnetic-field configuration with axial symmetry that could appear in astrophysical objects at any scale: from clusters of galaxies to planetary systems. The effect of the CML on galactic cosmic rays ([*i.e.*]{}, charged particles of energy $E<10^9$ GeV) will not be significantly altered by turbulent magnetic fields if the lens is within the distance $r_g$ in Eq. (\[rg\]) and its magnetic field is substantially stronger than the average background field between its position and the Earth. Since the CML is a definite object, we can separate source, magnetic lens and observer. Although it is not a lens in the geometrical optics sense (the CML does not have a focus), its effects are generic and easy to parametrize, analogous to the ones derived from a gravitational lens (with no focus neither).
A magnetic lens
===============
The basic configuration that we will consider is an azimuthal mean field $\vec B$ in a disc of radius $R$ and thickness $D$. The field lines are then circles of radius $\rho\le R$ around the disk axis. As a first approximation we will take a constant intensity $B$, neglecting any dependence on $\rho$ (notice, however, that a more realistic $B$ should vanish smoothly at $\rho=0$ and be continuous at $\rho=R$). Our assumption will simplify the analysis while providing all the main effects of a magnetic lens. The disk of most spiral galaxies has a large toroidal component of this type [@beck2005], so they are obvious candidates to CML. The configuration describing the CML would be natural wherever there is ionized gas in a region with turbulence, differential rotation and axial symmetry, since in such environment the magnetic field tends to be amplified by the [*dynamo effect*]{} [@parker1971; @brandenburg2005]. We will then assume that it may appear at any scale $R$ with an arbitrary value of $B$.
{width="7.6cm"}
Let us parametrize the magnetic field and its effect on a charged cosmic ray. If the lens lies in the $XY$ plane with the center at the origin (see Fig. 1) $\vec B$ is[^1]
$$\vec B = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\displaystyle
\displaystyle {B\over \rho} \left( y, -x, 0 \right)\;\;\;\;
& \displaystyle
{\rm if}\;\;\rho < R\;\;{\rm and}\;\; |z| < {D\over 2}\;;\\
\\
\displaystyle
0 & {\rm otherwise}\;,
\end{array} \right.
\label{B}$$
with $\rho\equiv \sqrt{x^2+y^2}$. To understand its effect, we will first consider a particle moving in the $YZ$ ($x=0$) plane with direction $\vec u$ (the case depicted in Fig. 1). When it enters the lens the cosmic ray finds an orthogonal magnetic field that curves its trajectory. The particle then rotates clockwise[^2] around the axis $\vec u_B=\vec
B/B$, describing a circle of gyroradius $r_g=E/(ecB)$. The segment of the trajectory inside the lens has a length $l\approx D$, so the total rotation angle $\alpha_0$ when it departs is $$\alpha_0\approx {e c B D\over E}\;. \label{alpha0}$$ The direction of the particle after crossing the lens is then $\vec v =
R_B(\alpha_0) \;\vec u$. The angle $\alpha_0$ will be the only parameter required to describe the effect of this basic lens. An important point is that $\vec B$ and the Lorentz force change sign if the trajectory goes through $y<0$. In that case the deflection is equal in modulus but opposite to the one experience by particles going through $y>0$ (see Fig. 1). Therefore, the effect of this lens is [*convergent*]{}, all trajectories are deflected the same angle $\alpha_0$ towards the axis of the lens. Notice that the lens changes to [*divergent*]{} for particles of opposite electric charge or for particles reaching the lens from the opposite ($z<0$) side.
The effect on a generic trajectory within a plane not necessarily orthogonal to the lens is a bit more involved. It is convenient to separate $$\vec u = \vec u_\parallel + \vec u_\perp\;;\;\;\;
\vec v = \vec v_\parallel + \vec v_\perp\;,$$ where $\vec u_\parallel=(\vec u \cdot \vec u_B)\; \vec u_B$ and $\vec u_\perp = \vec u -\vec u_\parallel $ are parallel and orthogonal to the magnetic field, respectively (and analogously for $\vec v$). In this case the magnetic field will rotate the initial direction $\vec u$ an angle of $\alpha=u_\perp\alpha_0$ around the axis $\vec u_B$: $\vec v=R_B(u_\perp\alpha)\; \vec u$. This means that the parallel components of the initial and the final directions coincide, $$u_\parallel= \vec u \cdot \vec u_B = v_\parallel\;,
\label{parallel}$$ whereas the orthogonal component $\vec u_\perp$, of modulus $u_\perp=\sqrt{1-(\vec u \cdot \vec u_B)^2}$, rotates into $$\vec v_\perp = \cos (u_\perp \alpha_0)\; \vec u_\perp
- \sin (u_\perp \alpha_0)\; \vec u_B\times \vec u_\perp\;.
\label{perp}$$
An important observation concerns the [*chromatic aberration*]{} of the lens. The deviation $\alpha_0$ caused by a given CML is proportional to the inverse energy of the cosmic ray. If $E$ is small and $\alpha_0> \pi/2$, then the lens acts [*randomly*]{} on charged particles, diffusing them in all directions. On the other hand, if $E$ is large the deviation becomes small and is smeared out as the particle propagates to the Earth. Only a region of the cosmic-ray spectrum can [*see*]{} the CML.
Image of a point-like source
============================
Let us now study the image of a localized monochromatic source produced by the CML. We will consider a [*thin*]{} lens $(R\gg D)$ located on the plane $z=0$ (see Fig. 2). Its effect on a cosmic ray can be parametrized in terms of the angle $\alpha_0$ given in Eq. (\[alpha0\]). The rotation axis is $$\vec u_B={1\over \sqrt{x^2+y^2}} (y,-x,0)\;,$$ and the coordinates of source and observer are $S=(s_1,s_2,s_3)$ and $O=(o_1,o_2,o_3)$, respectively. We will use the axial symmetry of the lens to set $s_1=0$.
{width="8.cm"}
The trajectory will intersect the CML at $(x,y,0)$. There the initial direction $\vec u$ will change to $\vec v$, with $$\vec u={(x,y-s_2,-s_3)\over \sqrt{x^2+(y-s_2)^2+s_3^2}}
\;,\;\;\;
\vec v={(o_1-x,o_2-y,o_3)\over \sqrt{(o_1-x)^2+(o_2-y)^2+o_3^2}}
\;.
\label{u-v}$$
![Trajectories with $\beta>\alpha$ ($S_1$), $\beta<\alpha$ ($S_2$) and $\beta=0$ ($S_3$) for an observer at the axis. \[fig3\]](f3.eps){width="8.cm"}
Therefore, given a source $S$, an observer $O$ and a lens producing a deviation $\alpha_0$, we can determine the coordinates $(x,y,0)$ where the rotation $R_B(u_\perp \alpha)$ described in the previous section exactly transforms $\vec u$ into $\vec v$. The first condition on $x$ and $y$, given in Eq. (\[parallel\]), is that $\vec B$ does not change the longitudinal component of the velocity, $$\vec u \cdot \vec u_B = \vec v \cdot \vec u_B \;.$$ The second one, derived from Eq. (\[perp\]), defines the rotation of $\vec u_\perp$ produced by the magnetic field. It can be written ($u_\perp=|\sin \widehat{\vec u \vec B} |$) $$\begin{aligned}
{\vec v_\perp \cdot \vec u_\perp\over u_\perp^2}
& = & \cos\; (u_\perp \alpha_0) \;, \cr
{\vec v_\perp \cdot (\vec u_\perp\times \vec u_B)
\over u_\perp^2}
& = & \sin\; (u_\perp \alpha_0) \;.\end{aligned}$$ The second equation above is necessary to fully specify the rotation. Notice that $\alpha= u_\perp \alpha_0$ has a definite sign: positive for a convergent CML and negative for a divergent one. In addition, the solution must verify that $x^2+y^2<R^2$.
We find that for $R\rightarrow \infty$ and a convergent lens there is always at least one solution, whereas for a divergent one there is a region around the axis that my be [*hidden*]{} by the CML (this region disappears if $B$ goes smoothly to zero at the center of the lens). To illustrate the different possibilities in Fig. 3–left we have placed the observer in the axis at a distance $L$ from the lens, $O=(0,0,-L)$, and have parametrized the position of the source (at a distance $d$ from the lens) as $S=(0,d \sin\beta, d\cos\beta)$. In this case $u_\parallel=0=v_\parallel$ and $u_\perp=1$. If the lens is convergent ($\alpha_0>0$) and $|\beta|>\alpha_0$, then the image of the source is just a single point. For a source at $|\beta|<\alpha_0$ we obtain two solutions, which correspond to trajectories from above or below the center of the lens. For a source in the axis ($\beta=0$) the solution is a ring of radius $$r={d+L\over 2\tan\alpha_0} \left(
\sqrt{1+{4 d L \tan^2\alpha_0\over (d+L)^2}}-1 \right)
\;.
\label{ring}$$
If the observer is located out of the axis but still in the $x=0$ plane the possibilities are similar, but the ring becomes a [*cross*]{} similar to the one obtained through gravitational lensing. Finally, if we take the observer out of the $x=0$ plane there appears always a single solution.
Fluxes from distant sources
===========================
Let us finally explore how the presence of a CML changes the flux $F$ of charged particles from a localized source $S$. It is instructive to consider the case where $S$ is a homogeneous disk of radius $R_S$ placed at a distance $d$ from the lens and the observer $O$ is at a large distance $L$, $$R_s < d,R \ll L\,,
\label{f1}$$ as shown in Fig. 4. In addition, we will assume that the magnetic field defining the lens goes smoothly to zero near the axis, and that the source is monochromatic.
If there were no lens, $O$ would see $S$ under a solid angle $$\Delta \Omega_0 \approx \pi {R_S^2\over L^2}\,.$$ If all the points on $S$ are equally bright and the emission is isotropic, the differential flux ${\rm d}F / {\rm d}\Omega$ from all the directions inside the cone $\Delta \Omega_0$ will be approximately the same, implying a total flux (number of particles per unit area) $$F_0 = \int_{\Delta \Omega_0} {\rm d} \Omega\,
{{\rm d} F \over {\rm d} \Omega}\approx
\pi {R_S^2\over L^2}\,{{\rm d} F \over {\rm d} \Omega}\,.$$
The lens in front of $S$ will deflect an approximate angle $\alpha$ all trajectories crossing far from the axis. In Fig. 4 we have pictured[^3] the limiting directions reaching the observer, that define a cone $$\Delta \Omega_+ \approx \pi {(R_S+d\, \tan\alpha)^2\over L^2}\,.$$ $O$ sees now cosmic rays from directions inside the larger cone $\Delta \Omega_+$ or, in other words, sees the radius $R_S$ of the source [*amplified*]{} to $R_S+d\, \tan\alpha$.
![Cone of trajectories from $S$ to $O$ with and without lens for a homogeneous and monochromatic source. \[fig4\]](f4.eps){width="9.5cm"}
We can then use Liouville’s theorem to deduce how the flux observed by $O$ is affected by the presence of the lens. This theorem, first applied to cosmic rays moving inside a magnetic field by Lemaitre and Vallarta [@lemaitre1933], implies that an observer following a trajectory will always observe the same differential flux (or intensity, particles per unit area and solid angle) along the direction defined by that trajectory. For example, in the case with no lens an observer in the axis at a distance $L'\gg L$ will still observe the same differential flux ${\rm d} F / {\rm d} \Omega$. However, the cone of directions that he sees will be smaller, $\Delta \Omega'_0\approx \pi \,R_S^2/ L'^2$, and the total flux from that source will scale like $F'\approx F\,L^2/L'^2$. The effect of the lens is then just to change the cone of directions reaching $O$ from $S$, without changing the differential flux. This implies an integrated flux $$F_+\approx F_0 {\Delta \Omega_+\over \Delta \Omega_0}
\approx F_0 \left( 1+{d^2\, \tan^2\alpha\over R_S^2}\right)\,.$$ An important point is that the solid angle intervals $\Delta \Omega_{0,+}$ will in general be much smaller than the angular resolution at $O$. As a consequence, an observer trying to measure a differential flux will always include the whole cone $\Delta \Omega_{0,+}$ within the same solid angle bin: only the integrated fluxes $F_{0,+}$ (averaged over the angular resolution) are observable.
Now let us suppose that there are many similar sources at approximately the same distance from the observer and covering a certain range of directions. Cosmic rays emitted from each source will reach $O$ within a very tiny cone $\Delta \Omega_{0}$, and will be observed integrated over that cone and averaged over the angular resolution. If one of the sources has in front a CML, its cone $\Delta \Omega_{+}$ at $O$ and thus its contribution to one of the direction bins will be larger, what would translate into a low-scale anisotropy[^4] within the range of directions covered by the sources (see Fig. 5, left).
![Trajectories from $S$ to $O$ without (left) and with (right) irregular magnetic fields along the trajectory. \[fig5\]](f5.eps){width="8.5cm"}
In principle, this effect would not be erased by irregular magnetic fields from the source to the observer, that deflect the trajectories and tend to [*isotropize*]{} the fluxes (in Fig. 5, right). The contribution from the source behind the CML (reaching now $O$ from a different direction) will still tend to be larger. The effect of the lens is to increase the [*size*]{} $R_S$ of the source to $R_S+ d\, \tan\alpha$; random magnetic fields will change the direction of arrival and the effective distance between $S$ and $O$ ([*i.e.*]{}, the direction and the size of the cone from each source), but not the initial deflection produced by the lens nor (by Liouville’s theorem) the differential flux within each tiny cone. Therefore, the cone from the source behind the lens tends to be larger, and when integrated and averaged over the resolution bin may still introduce a low-scale anisotropy. The effect, however, tends to vanish if the cones are so small that the probability to observe two particles from the same cone of directions is smaller than the probability to observe particles from two disconnected cones with origin in the same source ([*i.e.*]{}, in the deep diffuse regime where trajectories become random walks).
Finally, note that the effect of a divergent CML would be just the opposite. The presence of a lens could then introduce an excess for positive charged particles and a deffect for the negative ones (or a matter–antimatter asymmetry if both species were equally emitted by $S$).
Summary and discussion
======================
It is known that galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields play a very important role in the propagation of charged cosmic rays. Here we have explored the effect of a very simple configuration, a constant azimuthal field in a thin disk, that we identify as a CML. Such object acts on cosmic rays [*like*]{} a gravitational lens on photons, with some very interesting differences. Gravitational lenses are always convergent, whereas if a magnetic lens is convergent for protons and positrons, it changes to divergent for antiprotons and electrons. In addition, the deflection that the CML produces depends on the particle energy, so the lense is only visible in a very definite region (around one decade of energy) of the spectrum.
Our intention has been to introduce the concept of CML and discuss its possible effects leaving the search for possible candidates for future work. Generically, the magnetic-field configuration defining the CML is [*natural*]{} and tends to be established by the dynamo effect. For example, in spiral galaxies $\vec B$ can be pure azimuthal (the one we have assumed), axisymmetric spiral or bisymmetric spiral, with or without reversals [@beck2005; @battaner2008], but in all cases the azimuthal component dominates. Our galaxy is not an exception [@han2009; @ruiz2009], it includes in the disk a spiral magnetic field of $B\approx 4$ $\mu$G. This would actually force that any analysis of magnetic lensing by other galaxies must [*subtract*]{} the effect produced by our own magnetic field. CMLs could also be present in galactic halos, as there are observations of polarized synchrotron emission suggesting the presence of regular fields [@dettmar2006]. Analogous indications [@bonafede2009] can be found for larger structures, like clusters and their halos. Inside our galaxy, the antisymmetric tori placed 1.5 kpc away in both hemispheres discovered by Han et al. [@han1997] would also produce magnetic lensing on ultrahigh energy cosmic rays. At lower scales (20–800 pc) molecular clouds and HII regions [@gonzalez1997] are also potential candidates. Molecular clouds have strong regular fields in the range of $0.1$–$3$ mG [@crutcher2005]. Moreover, many reversals in the field direction observed in our galaxy seem to coincide with HII regions [@wielebinski2005], which would indicate that the field follows the rotation velocity in that region. There are also observations of Faraday screens covering angles of a few minutes of unknown origin [@mitra2003]. Finally, nearby protostellar disks may provide a magnetic analogous of the gravitational microlenses, as they define small objects of $\approx 10^3$ AU diameter with azimuthal magnetic fields [@stepinski1995] of order tens of mG [@goncalves2008]. Therefore, we think it is justified to presume that CMLs may appear at any scales $R$ with different values of $B$.
The lensing produced by a CML will be affected by the turbulent magnetic fields, but under certain conditions they should remain observable. For example, the typical lensing produced by a galaxy on cosmic rays of energy above $10^9$ GeV is caused by a regular magnetic field of order $\mu$G, while the distortions will come from fluctuations of the same order. The region of coherence of these magnetic fluctuations, however, is just around 10–100 pc, varying randomly from cell to cell. Since the regular field that define the lens will act along distances 10–100 times larger, its effect on cosmic rays will dominate, and the expected [*blurring*]{} due to turbulences will be small. For CMLs inside our galaxy one should in general [*subtract*]{} the effect due to the local field at the relevant scale. Suppose, for example, that we have a small lens ($D\approx 10^{-3}$ pc) with a strong magnetic field ($B\approx 1$ mG) at a distance below 10 pc from the Earth. If the magnetic field along the trajectory from the lens to the Earth is of order $\mu$G (with weaker turbulences at smaller scales) then the effects of the lens on $10^6$ GeV cosmic rays can be observed, but from a displaced direction. In any case, the identification of a CML would require a detailed simulation including a full spectrum of magnetic turbulences.
We have studied the image of a point-like source, finding interesting patterns that are the analogous of the gravitational Einstein’s ring and Einstein’s cross. Here the effect would be combined with a strong [*chromatic*]{} dependence, as the deviation is proportional to the inverse energy of the particle. The images would be absent (or placed in a different location) for particles of opposite charge, since they would find a divergent lens. We have also studied the effect of a CML on the flux from a localized source. If the source and the lens are far from the observer ([*i.e.*]{}, if it covers a small solid angle) it seems possible to generate small-scale anisotropies. It would be interesting to study if under certain conditions this type of fluctuations can survive into the diffuse regime (TeV cosmic rays) observed by Milagro[^5] [@abdo2008].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work has been funded by MICINN of Spain (AYA2007-67625-CO2-02, FPA2006-05294, FPA2010-16802, and Consolider-Ingenio [**Multidark**]{} CSD2009-00064) and by Junta de Andalucía (FQM-101/108/437/792).
[99]{}
D. Harari, S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, AIP Conf. Proc. [**566**]{} (2001) 289.
Harari, D., D. Harari, S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, AIP Conf. Proc. [**784**]{} (2005) 763. D. Harari, S. Mollerach and E. Roulet, [*Effects of the galactic magnetic field upon large scale anisotropies of extragalactic cosmic rays*]{} (2010) arXiv:1009.5891.
K. Dolag, M. Kachelriess and D. V. Semikoz, JCAP [**0901**]{} (2009) 033 \[arXiv:0809.5055 \[astro-ph\]\]. N. J. Shaviv, J. S. Heyl and Y. Lithwick, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**306**]{} (1999) 333 \[arXiv:astro-ph/9901376\]. R. Beck, [*Cosmic Magnetic Fields*]{}, p. 41. Springer Verlag, Ed. by R. Beck and R. Wielebinski.
E. Parker, Astrophys. J. [**163**]{} (1971) 279.
A. Brandenburg and K. Subramanian, Phys. Rept. [**417**]{} (2005) 1 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0405052\]. G. Lemaitre and M.S. Vallarta, Phys. Rev. [**43**]{} (1933) 87.
E. Battaner et al. in [*Lecture Notes and Essays in Astrophysics*]{}, Vol. 3, (2008) 83–102.
J. L. Han, in [*Cosmic magnetic fields: from planets to stars and galaxies,*]{} IAU Conf. Proc. 259 (2009) 455 \[arXiv:0901.1165 \[astro-ph\]\]. B. Ruiz-Granados, J.A. Rubiño-Martín, E. Battaner in [*Cosmic magnetic fields: from planets to stars and galaxies,*]{} IAU Conf. Proc. [**259**]{} (2009) 573.
R.J. Dettmar and M. Soida, Astron. Nachr. [**327**]{} (2006) 495.
A. Bonafede [*et al.*]{}, Astron. Astrophys. [**503**]{} (2009) 707 \[arXiv:0905.3552 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. J.L. Han, R.N. Manchester, E.M. Berkhuijsen, R. Beck, Astron. Astrophys. [**352**]{} (1997) 98.
R. González-Delgado, E. Pérez, ApJ SS [**108**]{} (1997) 1.
R.M. Crutcher in [*Magnetic Fields in the Universe: from Laboratory and Stars to the Primordial Structures*]{}. Ed. by E.M. de Gouveia dal Pino et al. AIP Conf. Proc. 784 (2005) 129.
R. Wielebinski in [*The Magnetized Plasma in Galactic Evolution*]{}. Proc. Conference. Ed. By K Chyzy et al. Jagiellonian Univ. Krakow. (2005) p. 125.
D. Mitra, R. Wielebinski, M. Kramer and A. Jessner, Astron. Astrophys. [**398**]{} (2003) 993.
T.F. Stepinski, Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrophys., [**1**]{} (1995) 267.
J. Goncalves, D. Galli and J. M. Girart, Astron. Astrophys. [**490**]{} (2008) 39 \[arXiv:0809.5278 \[astro-ph\]\]. A. A. Abdo [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{} (2008) 221101 \[arXiv:0801.3827 \[astro-ph\]\]. A. A. Abdo [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**698**]{} (2009) 2121 \[arXiv:0806.2293 \[astro-ph\]\]. E. Battaner, J. Castellano and M. Masip, Astrophys. J. [**703**]{} (2009) L90 \[arXiv:0907.2889 \[astro-ph.HE\]\].
[^1]: A continuous field configuration could be modelled just by adding a factor of $\left( 1-\exp \left[ \left( \rho/\rho_0 \right)^{n_0} \right]
\right) \times
\exp\left[ \left(\rho/R \right)^{n_R} \right] \times
\exp\left[ \left(2z/D \right)^{n_D} \right]$. When the integers $n_0$, $n_R$ and $n_D$ are chosen very large and $\rho_0$ very small we recover our disc with a null $B$ at $\rho=0$.
[^2]: We define a positive deviation $\alpha_0$ if the rotation from $\vec u$ to $\vec v$ around the axis $\vec u_B$ is clockwise.
[^3]: A pointlike source in the axis is transformed by the lens into a ring, as explained in Section 4. As the source grows, the ring becomes thicker and eventually closes to a circle, which is the case considered in Fig. 4.
[^4]: The direction of the source would be measured with a gaussian distribution that could take it to adjacent bins.
[^5]: Milagro has also observed a large-scale anisotropy [@abdo2009] that could have a different origin [@battaner2010].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Many relevant statistical and econometric models for the analysis of longitudinal data include a latent process to account for the unobserved heterogeneity between subjects in a dynamic fashion. Such a process may be continuous (typically an AR(1)) or discrete (typically a Markov chain). In this paper, we propose a model for longitudinal data which is based on a mixture of AR(1) processes with different means and correlation coefficients, but with equal variances. This model belongs to the class of models based on a continuous latent process, and then it has a natural interpretation in many contexts of application, but it is more flexible than other models in this class, reaching a goodness-of-fit similar to that of a discrete latent process model, with a reduced number of parameters. We show how to perform maximum likelihood estimation of the proposed model by the joint use of an Expectation-Maximisation algorithm and a Newton-Raphson algorithm, implemented by means of recursions developed in the hidden Markov literature. We also introduce a simple method to obtain standard errors for the parameter estimates and a criterion to choose the number of mixture components. The proposed approach is illustrated by an application to a longitudinal dataset, coming from the Health and Retirement Study, about self-evaluation of the health status by a sample of subjects. In this application, the response variable is ordinal and time-constant and time-varying individual covariates are available.
[Keywords:]{} Expectation-Maximisation algorithm; Hidden Markov model; Latent Markov model; Proportional odds model; Quadrature methods.
author:
- 'Francesco Bartolucci[^1] [^2] , Silvia Bacci$^*$[^3] , Fulvia Pennoni[^4] [^5]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Mixture latent autoregressive models for longitudinal data
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
In the analysis of longitudinal data, an important aspect that can be accounted for is the unobservable heterogeneity between subjects. This form of heterogeneity corresponds to the effect that unobservable factors have on the occasion-specific response variables in addition to the effect of observable covariates. The simplest approach to account for the unobserved heterogeneity is based on the inclusion, in the model of interest, of individual-specific random intercepts, that can have either a continuous or a discrete distribution. Models based on individual parameters having a continuous distribution may be casted in the class of Generalised Linear Mixed models and that of Random Effects models [see @sni:bos:99; @McCu:Sear:01; @gol:03; @skr:rabe:04; @hanc:samu:08]. Models based on discrete random effects may be seen as forms of Latent Class (LC) models [@laza:50; @laza:henr:68; @good:74; @band:migl:zege:rath:97; @huan:band:04]. See also [@hage:mccu:02] for an exhaustive review about the LC model. The approaches mentioned above assume that the effect of unobservable factors on the response variables is time constant. A more general assumption consists of introducing, for each subject, time-varying individual random effects which give rise to a latent process for the unobserved heterogeneity. Even in this case we can disentangle the continuous case from the discrete case. The most common formulation based on a continuous-valued latent process assumes that the individual effects follow an Autoregressive model of order 1 (AR(1)); see [@chi:89] and [@hei:08]. Hereafter, this model is referred to as Latent Autoregressive (LAR) model. On the other hand, models based on a discrete latent process typically assume that the individual effects follow a first-order Markov chain. A Latent Markov (LM) model [@wigg:73] with covariates results; see [@bart:farc:penn:10] for a review.
The debate on which is more appropriate, between the continuous and the discrete latent process formulation, is open. The first formulation is usually more easy to justify from a theoretical point of view; in principle, there is no reason to consider the effect of unobserved factors as discrete. Moreover, a LAR model has a parsimony close to that of the corresponding continuous random effect model (with time-constant individual effects), since it represents the latent structure by only two parameters: correlation index and variance of the individual effects. However, the model estimation may be computationally problematic [@hei:08]. On the other hand, discrete latent variable models may reach a better fit to the analysed data. In particular, the LM model may be seen as a semi-parametric model because, with the suitable number of states, the underlying Markov chain may approximate any (even continuous) process with a first order dependence structure. This advantage is at the cost of a reduced parsimony, since the number of parameters increases with the square of the number of states. Moreover, the interpretation may be more difficult for the same reason mentioned above: it is more natural to consider the effect of unobservable factors or covariates as continuous than discrete.
A debate similar to that described above, between a continuous and a discrete formulation for the latent process, is also present in the literature on models for item responses [@ham:swam:85]; see, for among others, [@lin:91]. A similar debate is also present in the literature about the analysis of certain types of time-series data. In particular, for the analysis of financial data, the Stochastic Volatility (SV) model [@taylor:1982; @shep:96] may be used as an alternative to the hidden Markov [HM, @mac:zuc:97] model. For an interesting comparison between the two approaches see [@tayl:99] and for a comprehensive review see [@tayl:05]. The SV model represents the volatility by an AR(1) process, and then has a structure that recalls that of the LAR model for longitudinal data, whereas the HM model relies on a Markov chain, and then it is very similar to the LM model. In the field of time-series data, which is strongly related to that of longitudinal data, we also have to mention Markov-switching models [see @Fruh:06 Ch. 9-10]. In this field, the interest is also on the the possibility to combine a continuous with a discrete approach; see, among others, [@kita:87], [@cai:94], [@ham:sus:94], [@so:lam:li:98], and [@ros:gal:06]. Although the similarities between the typical formulations of models for time series and longitudinal data, to our knowledge no attempts to combine continuous and discrete process formulations have been made in the context of longitudinal data.
In this paper, we propose a model for longitudinal data which is based on a mixture of latent AR(1) processes to account for the unobserved heterogeneity between subjects in a dynamic fashion. Each component of the mixture has its own mean and correlation coefficient, but these components have a common variance. The proposed model, which can be used with response variables of a different nature (binary, ordinal, or continuous), belongs to the class of continuous latent process models for longitudinal data. As such, it retains the natural interpretation that characterises the LAR model, but it reaches a better fit to the data, since it generalises this model. In particular, the goodness of fit to the data may reach levels close that those of the LM model, but with a reduced number of parameters.
In order to make inference on the proposed model, we show how to compute its likelihood function by a recursion taken for the hidden Markov literature [@bau:70; @mac:zuc:97]; a procedure results which is equivalent to the Sequential Gaussian Quadrature (SGQ) method proposed by [@hei:08]. Through recursions similar to those used for HM models, we also implement an Expectation-Maximisation (EM) algorithm and a Newton-Raphson (NR) algorithm for the maximisation of the likelihood function and, therefore, for the estimation of the model parameters. The NR algorithm is based on the observed information matrix which is obtained by the same numerical method proposed by [@bart:farc:09]. This matrix is also exploited to obtain standard errors for the parameter estimates. Finally, we show how to obtain the prediction of the individual effect for every subject in the sample at each time occasion. Through these predictions we define a criterion to choose the number of components to be used in data analysis. We recall that each component corresponds to a separate AR(1) latent process.
The advantages of the proposed approach are illustrated through an application to a longitudinal dataset concerning the self-evaluation of health status at eight different time periods. The dataset is derived from the the Health and Retirement Study conducted by the University of Michigan. In this case, the response variable observed at each occasion has five ordered categories. The proposed model is implemented by specifying a proportional odds model for global logits. Some observed covariates related with individual characteristics are also included. The model selected for these data is compared with the corresponding LAR and LM models.
The paper is organised as follows. In the next section we introduce the basic notation and describe some relevant approaches for longitudinal data. In Section 3 we outline the proposed model for longitudinal data and, in Section 4, we describe likelihood based inference for this model. The results of the application based on the self evaluation of health status data are illustrated in Section 5. Final conclusions are reported in the Section 6.
Preliminaries {#sec2}
=============
With reference to a sample of $n$ subjects observed at $T$ time occasions, let $y_{it}$ be the response variable for subject $i$ at occasion $t$ and let $\b x_{it}$ be a corresponding column vector of covariates, with $i=1,\ldots,n$ and $t=1,\ldots,T$. We also denote by $\b
y_i=(y_{i1},\ldots,y_{iT})$ the vector of response variables and by $\b X_i=\begin{pmatrix}\b x_{i1} & \cdots & \b x_{iT}\end{pmatrix}$ the matrix of all covariates for subject $i$.
At this stage, we do not restrict the response variable to have a specific nature. Therefore, we introduce a latent continuous variable $y_{it}^*$ underlying each $y_{it}$. In particular, we assume that $$\label{eq:link}
y_{it}=G(y_{it}^*),$$ where $G(\cdot)$ is a parametric function which may depend on specific parameters according to the different nature of $y_{it}$, such as specific cutpoints in the presence of ordinal variables. Hereafter, we use $\b y_i^*=(y_{i1}^*,\ldots,y_{iT}^*)$ to denote the vector of latent response variables corresponding to $\b
y_i$. More details about the possible formulations of $G(\cdot)$ will be given in Section \[sec:parameterizations\].
In the following, we briefly review models which allow us to take into account the unobserved heterogeneity between subjects by introducing time-constant and time-varying individual effects.
Models with time-constant individual effects
--------------------------------------------
The simplest approach to take into account the unobserved heterogeneity is based on the assumption that, for every unit $i$, the latent response variables in $\b y_i^*$ are conditionally independent given the covariates $\b X_i$ and an individual-specific intercept ${\alpha}_i$ ([*local independence*]{}). Moreover, it is assumed that each $y_{it}^*$ only depends on ${\alpha}_i$ and $\b x_{it}$ as follows $$\label{eq:randint}
y_{it}^* = {\alpha}_i+\b x_{it}{^{\prime}}\bbeta +{\varepsilon}_{it},\quad i=1,\ldots,n,\:
t=1,\ldots,T,$$ where the error terms ${\varepsilon}_{it}$ are assumed mutually independent and identically distributed. Note that each vector $\b x_{it}$ may also include the lagged response.
When the individual-specific intercepts ${\alpha}_i$ are treated as random parameters, the same distribution (usually independent of the covariates) is assumed for all subjects, which may be continuous or discrete. In the first case, we typically assume that ${\alpha}_i\sim
N(0,{\sigma}^2)$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$. In the second case, instead, every ${\alpha}_i$ may assume a value among $k$ possible values or support points $\xi_h$ having probabilities $\pi_h$, with $h=1,\ldots,k$. The support points and the corresponding probabilities are typically estimated on the basis of the data, which also drive the choice of $k$. A first model of this type is known as finite mixture of regression models, which is an extension of a mixture of normal distributions with averages expressed as functions of the explanatory variables [@Quan:72; @Quan:Rams:78].
In any case, the assumption of conditional independence of the response variables given the individual-specific intercepts and the covariates allows us to write $$p(\b y_i|{\alpha}_i,\b X_i)=\prod_t p(y_{it}|{\alpha}_i,\b x_{it}),\quad i=1,\ldots,n,
\label{eq:conditional_distibution}$$ where $p(y_{it}|{\alpha}_i,\b x_{it})$ denotes the probability mass or density function of $y_{it}$, given ${\alpha}_i$ and $\b x_{it}$, which, in turn, depends on the adopted parameterisation; see equations (\[eq:link\]) and (\[eq:randint\]). Then, under the random effect approach, the [*manifest distribution*]{} of $\b y_i$ given $\b X_i$ is obtained by marginalising the probability or density in (\[eq:conditional\_distibution\]) with respect to ${\alpha}_i$. With continuous random effects, we have $$p(\b y_i|\b X_i)=\int p(\b y_i|{\alpha}_i,\b X_i)f({\alpha}_i)d{\alpha}_i=
\int\bigg[\prod_t p(y_{it}|{\alpha}_i,\b x_{it})\bigg]f({\alpha}_i)d{\alpha}_i,
\label{eq:marginal_distibution_continuous}$$ where $f({\alpha}_i)$ is the probability density function of every ${\alpha}_i$, which may depend on a specific parameter vector. With discrete random effects, instead, we have $$p(\b y_i|\b X_i)=\sum_h\bigg[\prod_t p(y_{it}|\xi_h,\b x_{it})\bigg]\pi_h.
\label{eq:marginal_distibution_discrete}$$ This distribution is the base for constructing a marginal likelihood to be maximised in order to estimate the model parameters.
Models based on time-varying individual effects {#sec:time-varying}
-----------------------------------------------
The main drawback of the individual-specific random intercept models described above is that they assume the effect of unobservable factors to be time constant. This assumption may be relaxed by the inclusion of individual-time-specific effects ${\alpha}_{it}$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, $t=1,\ldots,T$. In an obvious way, the assumption of local independence is extended by assuming that, for all sample units $i$, the latent response variables in $\b y_i^*$ are conditionally independent given $\b{\alpha}_i=({\alpha}_{i1},\ldots,{\alpha}_{iT})$ and $\b X_i$. Moreover, assumption (\[eq:randint\]) is naturally extended as follows $$y_{it}^*={\alpha}_{it}+\b x_{it}{^{\prime}}\bbeta +{\varepsilon}_{it},\quad i=1,\ldots,n,\:
t=1,\ldots,T.\label{eq:assumption1}$$
Given the model complexity, time-varying effects may only be assumed to be random and not fixed. Again, two alternative approaches, continuous and discrete, are available in the literature. The most common continuous random-effects approach assumes that every $\b{\alpha}_i$ follows an AR(1) process, so that $$\begin{aligned}
{\alpha}_{i1}&=&{\varepsilon}_{i1},\label{eq:ar11}\\
{\alpha}_{it}&=&{\alpha}_{i,t-1}\rho+{\varepsilon}_{it}\sqrt{1-\rho^2},
\quad t=2,\ldots,T,\label{eq:ar12}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\varepsilon}_{it}\sim N(0,\sigma^2)$, $t = 1, \ldots, T$. This is the LAR formulation already mentioned in Section \[sec:Introduction\], which was studied in detail by [@hei:08].
The discrete latent process formulation assumes that, for all $i$, $\b{\alpha}_i$ follows a first-order homogenous Markov chain with $k$ states denoted by $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_k$. This chain has initial probabilities $\pi_h$ and transition probabilities $\pi_{h_1h_2}$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_h&=&p({\alpha}_{i1}=\xi_h),\quad h=1,\ldots,k,\label{eq:prob_init}\\
\pi_{h_1h_2}&=&p({\alpha}_{i,t-1}=\xi_{h_1},
{\alpha}_{it}=\xi_{h_2}),\quad h_1,h_2=1,\ldots,k,\: t=2,\ldots,T.
\label{eq:prob_trans}\end{aligned}$$ In other words, it is assumed that every ${\alpha}_{it}$ is conditionally independent of ${\alpha}_{i1},\ldots, {\alpha}_{i, t-2}$ given ${\alpha}_{i,t-1}$, but apart from this assumption, the distribution of $\b{\alpha}_i$ is unconstrained. On the other hand, this greater flexibility corresponds to a higher number of parameters to estimate with already $k\geq 2$. In fact, the number of parameters involved in the Markov chain (support points and initial and transition probabilities) is equal to $(k-1)+(k-1)+k(k-1)=k^2+k-2$, taking into account the constraints $\sum_h\pi_h=1$ and $\sum_{h_2}\pi_{h_1h_2}=1$, $h_1=1,\ldots,k$, and that to ensure identifiability one constraint has to be put on the support points. This is a formulation of LM type, which was exploited by [@bart:farc:09] to propose a flexible class of models for multivariate categorical longitudinal data. We have to mention that, in order to make easier the comparison between the LAR and the LM model, we can require that the initial probabilities $\pi_h$ in (\[eq:prob\_init\]) coincide with those of the stationary distribution of the chain. In this case, we have a moderate reduction of the number of parameters which becomes equal to $k^2-1$. Under both the continuous and the discrete latent process formulations, the assumption of local independence implies that $$p(\b y_i|\b{\alpha}_i,\b X_i)=\prod_t p(y_{it}|{\alpha}_{it},\b x_{it}).$$ Moreover, under the first formulation, which leads to the LAR model, the manifest distribution of $\b y_i$ given $\b X_i$ has probability mass (or density) function $$p(\b y_i|\b X_i)=\int p(\b y_i|\b{\alpha}_i,\b X_i)f(\b{\alpha}_i)d\b{\alpha}_i.
\label{eq:marginal_distibution_continuous2}$$ This is an integral over the $T$-dimensional space of $\b{\alpha}_i$ that may be difficult to compute in practice. At this aim, we can use the SGQ method proposed by Heiss (2008), which is essentially based on rewriting expression (\[eq:marginal\_distibution\_continuous2\]) as follows $$\begin{aligned}
p(\b y_i|\b X_i)&=&\int p(y_{i1}|{\alpha}_{i1},\b x_{i1})f({\alpha}_{i1})
\int p(y_{i2}|{\alpha}_{i2},\b x_{i2})f({\alpha}_{i2}|{\alpha}_{i1})\cdots\nonumber\\
&&\cdots\int p(y_{iT}|{\alpha}_{iT},\b x_{iT})f({\alpha}_{iT}|{\alpha}_{i,T-1})
d{\alpha}_{iT}\cdots d{\alpha}_{i2}d{\alpha}_{i1}\label{eq:mani_lar}\end{aligned}$$ and then sequentially computing the integral involving each single random effect ${\alpha}_{it}$, where $f({\alpha}_{i1})$ refers to the distribution of ${\alpha}_{i1}$ and $f({\alpha}_{it}|{\alpha}_{i,t-1})$ to the distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ given ${\alpha}_{i,t-1}$, $t=2,\ldots,T$.
When a latent Markov chain is assumed, the manifest distribution of $\b y_i$ given $\b X_i$ is defined as follows $$p(\b y_i|\b X_i)=\sum_{h_1} p(y_{i1}|\xi_{h_1},\b x_{i1})\pi_{h_1}
\sum_{h_2} p(y_{i2}|\xi_{h_2},\b x_{i2})\pi_{h_1h_2}\cdots
\sum_{h_T}p(y_{iT}|\xi_{h_T},\b x_{iT})\pi_{h_{T-1}h_T}.\label{eq:manifest_LM}$$ In order to efficiently compute this sum, we can exploit a forward recursion [@bau:70; @demp:lair:rubi:77] which is well known in the hidden Markov literature [@mac:zuc:97]. See [@bart:06] and [@bart:farc:penn:10] for an efficient implementation in matrix notation.
Proposed model {#sec3}
==============
In this section, we describe the proposed model for longitudinal data, which is based on a mixture of AR(1) processes to account for the unobserved heterogeneity in a dynamic fashion. We name this model as Mixture Latent Autoregressive model, indicated for short by MLAR or by MLAR($k$) when we want to mean a specific number of mixture components $k$.
Model assumptions {#sec:proposed_approach}
-----------------
The proposed model is based on the following assumptions for $i=1,\ldots,n$:
- the latent response variables in $\b y_i^*$, and therefore the observed response variables in $\b y_i$, are conditionally independent given $\b X_i$ and a latent process $\b{\alpha}_i=({\alpha}_{i1},\ldots,{\alpha}_{iT})$;
- every response variable $y_{it}^*$ in $\b y_i^*$, and then every $y_{it}$ in $\b y_i$, only depends on ${\alpha}_{it}$ and $\b x_{it}$ through a parameterisation formulated on the basis of (\[eq:link\]) and (\[eq:assumption1\]);
- the latent process $\b{\alpha}_i$ has distribution given by a mixture of $k$ AR(1) processes with common variance ${\sigma}^2$.
Assumptions A1 is the usual assumption of local independence already discussed in Section \[sec:time-varying\]; the other two assumptions are discussed in detail below.
### Assumption A2 {#sec:parameterizations}
The introduction of an underlying continuous outcome $y_{it}^*$ related to the observed response variable $y_{it}$ as specified in (\[eq:link\]), allows us to adapt the model to several situations. Indeed, depending on the assumed distribution for the errors ${\varepsilon}_{it}$ in (\[eq:assumption1\]) and on the specification of $G(\cdot)$ different models result.
The simplest case is when we let $G(y^*)=y^*$, that is the identity function, and ${\varepsilon}_{it}\sim N(0,{\sigma}^2)$ for all $i$ and $t$. In this case, a model results in which $$y_{it}|{\alpha}_{it},\b x_{it} \sim
N({\alpha}_{it}+\b x_{it}{^{\prime}}\bbeta,{\sigma}^2),\quad i=1,\ldots,n,\: t=1,\ldots,T.$$ This is the typical formulation adopted with continuous response variables.
When the response variables are binary, that is $y_{it}=0,1$, we typically assume that $G(y^*)= I\{y^*>0\}$, where $I\{\cdot\}$ is an indicator function assuming value 1 when its argument is true and value 0 otherwise. Depending on the distribution of the error term ${\varepsilon}_{it}$ in model (\[eq:assumption1\]), a logit or probit parameterisation results. More precisely, if we assume a logistic distribution for the error terms ${\varepsilon}_{it}$, then a logit parameterisation results, under which $$\label{eq:logit}
\log \frac{p(y_{it}=1|{\alpha}_{it},\b x_{it})}{p(y_{it}=0|{\alpha}_{it},\b
x_{it})} = {\alpha}_{it}+\b x_{it}{^{\prime}}\bbeta,\quad i=1,\ldots,n,\:
t=1,\ldots,T.$$ The probit version of this model is obtained by assuming that ${\varepsilon}_{it}\sim N(0,1)$, so that: $$\Phi^{-1}\{p(y_{it}=1|{\alpha}_{it},\b x_{it})\} = {\alpha}_{it}+\b x_{it}{^{\prime}}\bbeta,\quad i=1,\ldots,n,\:
t=1,\ldots,T,$$ with $\Phi(\cdot)^{-1}$ denoting the inverse of the standard Normal cumulative distribution function.
Finally, an interesting case (that we consider in the application illustrated in Section 5) is when each response variable $y_{it}$ is ordinal with categories $1,\ldots,J$. In this case we can introduce a set of cutpoints $\mu_1\leq\cdots\leq
\mu_{J-1}$ and formulate the function in (\[eq:link\]) as $$G(y^*) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
1 & y^*\leq\mu_1,\\
2 & \mu_1<y^*\leq\mu_2,\\
\vdots & \vdots \\
J & y^*>\mu_{J-1}.
\end{array}
\right.$$ In analogy with the binary case, an ordered logit or an ordered probit parameterisation results according to whether the error terms ${\varepsilon}_{it}$ have a logistic or a standard Normal distribution, respectively. In the first case, we have that $$\label{eq:global}
\log\frac{p(y_{it}\geq j|{\alpha}_{it},\b x_{it})}{p(y_{it}<j|{\alpha}_{it},\b x_{it})} =
\mu_j+{\alpha}_{it}+\b x_{it}{^{\prime}}\bbeta,\quad i=1,\ldots,n,\:
t=1,\ldots,T, \: j=2,\ldots,J. $$ This parameterisation is based on global or cumulative logits, the same logits used in the Odds Proportional model of [@mccu:80]. Note that, as in this model, we are assuming that the effect of the covariates ($\b x_{it}{^{\prime}}\bbeta$) and of the unobserved individual parameters (${\alpha}_{it}$) do not depend on the specific response category ($j$); this assumption could be removed, but the model would become more complex to estimate and to interpret. Finally, note that parameterisation (\[eq:global\]) is a generalisation of that in (\[eq:logit\]) for binary variables.
### Assumption A3
In order to formulate this assumption, we introduce, for $i=1,\ldots,n$, the discrete latent variable $u_i$ which has $k$ support points, indexed from 1 to $k$, and mass probabilities $\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_k$. Then, we assume that $${\alpha}_{i1} = \xi_{u_i} + {\varepsilon}_{i1},\quad i=1,\ldots,n,$$ and that $${\alpha}_{it} = \xi_{u_i} + ({\alpha}_{i,t-1} - \xi_{u_i})\rho_{u_i} +
\varepsilon_{it}\sqrt{1-\rho_{u_i}^2},\quad
i=1,\ldots,n,\:t=2,\ldots,T,
$$ where $\varepsilon_{it}\sim N(0,\sigma^2)$ for all $i$ and $t$. In the above expressions, $(\xi_h,\rho_h)$ is a pair of parameters related to the latent state $u_i$ that, for $h=1,\ldots,k$, have to be estimated jointly with the common variance ${\sigma}^2$. In order to ensure the identifiability of the model, we require that $\xi_1=0$ or, alternatively, $\sum_h \xi_h\pi_h = 0$. The number of parameters for the latent structure becomes equal to $(k-1)+k+(k-1)=3k-2$, which can be directly compared with those defined for the LAR and LM models in Section 2.2.
An equivalent way of formulating assumption A3 is by relying, for $i=1,\ldots,n$, on a standardised AR(1) process of the following type $$\begin{aligned}
{\alpha}_{i1}^*&=&{\varepsilon}^*_{i1},\\
{\alpha}_{it}^*&=&{\alpha}_{i,t-1}^*\rho_{u_i}+{\varepsilon}^*_{it}\sqrt{1-\rho_{u_i}^2}, \quad
t=2,\ldots,T,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\varepsilon}^*_{it}\sim N(0,1)$, and then directly including the parameters $\xi_h$ and ${\sigma}^2$ in the equation for the response variable, that is $$y_{it}^*=\xi_{u_i}+{\alpha}_{it}^*{\sigma}+\b x_{it}{^{\prime}}\b{\beta}+{\varepsilon}_{it},\quad t=1,\ldots,T.
\label{eq:repara}$$ As will be clear in the following, this way to formulate the model is more convenient for the parameter estimation.
Details on latent and manifest distributions
--------------------------------------------
The dependence structure between the latent and observable variables which results from the above assumptions is illustrated through the path diagram in Figure \[fig:graph1\].
![*Path diagram of the MLAR model.*[]{data-label="fig:graph1"}](graph3.eps){width="11cm" height="7cm"}
Obviously, the MLAR model generalises the LAR model. In particular, with $k=1$ the two models coincide, so that in the following they will be indifferently indicated by LAR or MLAR(1). With $k>1$, instead, the first model is expected to have a better fit to the data. This is because the mean value of every ${\alpha}_{it}$ and the correlation coefficient between ${\alpha}_{i,t-1}$ and ${\alpha}_{it}$ are not constant, but change according to the latent variable $u_i$. We stress that the latent process based on the above assumptions is still continuous, since the support of every latent variable ${\alpha}_{it}$ is $\Re$. In particular, we can simply realise that assumption A3 implies the following mixture model referred to the marginal distribution of each latent variable: $${\alpha}_{it}\sim\sum_h\phi({\alpha}_{it};\xi_h,{\sigma}^2)\pi_h,\quad i=1,\ldots,n,\:
t=1,\ldots,T,$$ where $\phi({\alpha}_{it};\xi_h,{\sigma}^2)$ is the density function of a Normal distribution with parameters $\xi_h$ and ${\sigma}^2$. Similarly, concerning the marginal distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ we have that $$({\alpha}_{i,t-1}, {\alpha}_{it}){^{\prime}}\sim\sum_h\phi_2(({\alpha}_{i, t-1},{\alpha}_{it}){^{\prime}}; \xi_h\b 1_2, \bSigma_{u_i})\pi_h,$$ which now involves the density function of a bivariate Normal distribution with mean $\xi_h\b 1_2$, where $\b 1_2$ denote a vector of two ones, and variance-covariance matrix $$\bSigma_h = \sigma^2
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
1 & \rho_h \\
\rho_h & 1 \\
\end{array} \right).$$
The above arguments imply that a possible interpretation of the MLAR model may be based on considering the population of subjects, from which the observed sample comes, as made of $k$ subpopulations (or latent classes), such that a LAR model with the same parameters holds within each subpopulation. In fact, the probability mass (or density) function of the distribution of the response vector $\b
y_i$ given all the observable covariates $\b X_i$ may be expressed as a [*mixture of LAR models*]{}. In particular, we have the following manifest distribution: $$p(\b y_i|\b X_i)=\sum_h p^{(h)}(\b y_i|\b X_i)\pi_h,\label{eq:manifest}$$ with $p^{(h)}(\b y_i|\b X_i)$ defined as in (\[eq:mani\_lar\]), for $h = 1, \ldots, k$. However, in order to implement the estimation method for the model parameters, it is more convenient to express this probability or density on the basis of the latent effect ${\alpha}_{it}^*$ which follows a standardised AR(1) process. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
p^{(h)}(\b y_i|\b X_i)&=& \int p(y_{i1}|{\alpha}_{i1}^*,\b
x_{i1})f^{(h)}({\alpha}_{i1}^*)
\int p(y_{i2}|{\alpha}_{i2}^*,\b x_{i2})f^{(h)}({\alpha}_{i2}^*|{\alpha}_{i1}^*)\cdots\nonumber\\
&&\cdots\int p(y_{iT}|{\alpha}_{iT}^*,\b
x_{iT})f^{(h)}({\alpha}_{iT}^*|{\alpha}_{i,T-1}^*) d{\alpha}_{iT}\cdots
d{\alpha}_{i2}d{\alpha}_{i1},\label{eq:pcond}\end{aligned}$$ where $p(y_{it}|{\alpha}_{it}^*,\b x_{it})$ is computed on the basis of (\[eq:repara\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
f^{(h)}({\alpha}_{i1}^*)&=&\phi({\alpha}_{i1}^*;0,1),\label{eq:dens1}\\
f^{(h)}({\alpha}_{it}^*|{\alpha}_{i,t-1}^*)&=&\phi({\alpha}_{it}^*;{\alpha}_{i,t-1}^*\rho_h,1-\rho^2_h).
\label{eq:dens2}\end{aligned}$$ An efficient way to compute function (\[eq:pcond\]) is described in Section 4.1.
However, our main aim here is not that of classifying subjects in different subpopulations, but that of having a flexible structure for the latent process. In fact, by rising $k$, we have an increasing degree of flexibility of the distribution of $\b{\alpha}_i$ with respect to assuming a standard AR(1) process as in the LAR model. In fact, it is well-known that, with a suitable number of components and under suitable conditions, a mixture distribution can adequately approximate any distribution. The same principle has been exploited by [@Bart:clus:2005] to propose a flexible method to classify univariate observations and by [@Scac:Bart:hier:2005] to propose a regression model with a flexible distribution for the error terms.
In order to clarify the above point, in Figure \[fig:teo\] we represent the density function of the marginal distribution of every ${\alpha}_{it}$ and of $({\alpha}_{i, t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ for the LAR model and for a MLAR model with $k=2$ components and different parameter values. In particular, the top panel in Figure \[fig:teo\] is referred to LAR model with parameters $\rho=0.95$ and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$, the middle panel is referred to the MLAR(2) model with parameters $\xi_1=\xi_2=0.00$, $\rho_1=0.95$, $\rho_2=0.50$, $\pi_1=0.70$ and $\pi_2=0.30$, whereas the bottom panel is referred to the same MLAR(2) model with $\xi_1=-0.50$ and $\xi_2=1.00$. In order to make clear the comparison among the plots, we used the same level curves for all bivariate distributions in Figure \[fig:teo\] (right panels), which are defined on the basis of a grid of equispaced points on the logarithmic scale.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![*Density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top) with $\rho=0.95$ and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and under the MLAR(2) model with $\rho_1=0.95$, $\rho_2=0.50$, $\pi_1=0.70$, $\pi_2=0.30$, and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and with $\xi_1=\xi_2=0.00$ (middle) and $\xi_1=-0.50$ and $\xi_2=1.00$ (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:teo"}](fig_uni_teo1.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![*Density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top) with $\rho=0.95$ and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and under the MLAR(2) model with $\rho_1=0.95$, $\rho_2=0.50$, $\pi_1=0.70$, $\pi_2=0.30$, and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and with $\xi_1=\xi_2=0.00$ (middle) and $\xi_1=-0.50$ and $\xi_2=1.00$ (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:teo"}](fig_multi_teo1.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
![*Density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top) with $\rho=0.95$ and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and under the MLAR(2) model with $\rho_1=0.95$, $\rho_2=0.50$, $\pi_1=0.70$, $\pi_2=0.30$, and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and with $\xi_1=\xi_2=0.00$ (middle) and $\xi_1=-0.50$ and $\xi_2=1.00$ (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:teo"}](fig_uni_teo2.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![*Density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top) with $\rho=0.95$ and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and under the MLAR(2) model with $\rho_1=0.95$, $\rho_2=0.50$, $\pi_1=0.70$, $\pi_2=0.30$, and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and with $\xi_1=\xi_2=0.00$ (middle) and $\xi_1=-0.50$ and $\xi_2=1.00$ (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:teo"}](fig_multi_teo2.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
![*Density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top) with $\rho=0.95$ and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and under the MLAR(2) model with $\rho_1=0.95$, $\rho_2=0.50$, $\pi_1=0.70$, $\pi_2=0.30$, and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and with $\xi_1=\xi_2=0.00$ (middle) and $\xi_1=-0.50$ and $\xi_2=1.00$ (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:teo"}](fig_uni_teo3.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![*Density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top) with $\rho=0.95$ and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and under the MLAR(2) model with $\rho_1=0.95$, $\rho_2=0.50$, $\pi_1=0.70$, $\pi_2=0.30$, and ${\sigma}^2=1.00$ and with $\xi_1=\xi_2=0.00$ (middle) and $\xi_1=-0.50$ and $\xi_2=1.00$ (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:teo"}](fig_multi_teo3.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We observe that with only two components, very different shapes of the density function of the latent variable distribution may be obtained. In particular, when $\xi_1=\xi_2$ (middle panel of Figure \[fig:teo\]), both univariate and bivariate distributions are still symmetric. However, the bivariate density function has a different shape with respect to that under the LAR model, due to a much higher dispersion around the middle of the plot. Moreover, with $\xi_1\neq\xi_2$ (bottom panel), these distributions are also asymmetric, with the density of points in the North-West region of the bivariate plot that considerably rises. In a similar way we can even generate more complex shapes if we use, for instance, values of $k$ higher than 2, at the cost of a moderate increase of the number of parameters.
Likelihood inference
====================
In this section, we deal with likelihood inference for the model proposed in Section 3. In particular, we first show how to efficiently compute the model log-likelihood. Then we deal with its maximisation by an EM algorithm and we describe how to compute standard errors and predict individual effects. Finally, we deal with the choice of the number of mixture components.
Computation of the model likelihood
-----------------------------------
Since the sample units are assumed to be independent, the model likelihood has logarithm $$\ell(\b{\theta}) = \sum_i\log p(\b y_i|\b X_i),\label{eq:log-lik}$$ where $\b{\theta}$ is a short hand notation for all the non-redundant model parameters and, for every subject $i$, $p(\b y_i|\b X_i)$ denotes the probability mass (or density) function given in (\[eq:manifest\]), seen as a function of these parameters.
In order to efficiently compute $p(\b y_i|\b X_i)$, we exploit a recursion developed in the hidden Markov literature. First of all, we transform the series of integrals to compute $p^{(h)}(\b y_i|\b
X_i)$, which is defined in (\[eq:pcond\]), in a series of sums on a suitable grid of quadrature points, as proposed by [@hei:08]. Let $q$ denote the number of quadrature points and let $\nu_m$ denote the $m$-th quadrature knot, with $m=1,\ldots,q$. Moreover, for each mixture component $h$, let $\omega_m^{(h)}$ denote the $m$-th weight for the integral with respect to ${\alpha}_{i1}$ and let $\omega_{m_1m_2}^{(h)}$ denote the $m_2$-th weight for the integral with respect to ${\alpha}_{it}$, given that the $m_1$-th knot is selected for the integral with respect to ${\alpha}_{i,t-1}$. Then, the expression in (\[eq:pcond\]) becomes: $$p^{(h)}(\b y_i|\b X_i)=\sum_{m_1} p(y_{i1}|\nu_{m_1},\b
x_{i1})\omega^{(h)}_{m_1} \sum_{m_2} p(y_{i2}|\nu_{m_2},\b
x_{i2})\omega^{(h)}_{m_1m_2}\cdots \sum_{m_T}p(y_{iT}|\nu_{m_T},\b
x_{iT})\omega^{(h)}_{m_{T-1}m_T}.\label{eq:quadrature}$$ In practice, the knots are taken on a suitable grid of points between two extremes, say $-5$ and $5$, and the corresponding weights are computed as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_m^{(h)}&=&\frac{f^{(h)}(\nu_m)}
{\sum_lf^{(h)}(\nu_l)},\quad m=1,\ldots,q,\nonumber\\
\omega_{m_1m_2}^{(h)}&=&
\frac{f^{(h)}(\nu_{m_2}|\nu_{m_1})}
{\sum_lf^{(h)}(\nu_{m_2}|\nu_l)},\quad m_1,m_2=1,\ldots,q,\label{eq:bivweight}\end{aligned}$$ for $h=1,\ldots,k$, on the basis of the density functions defined in (\[eq:dens1\]) and (\[eq:dens2\]). The quadrature knots and the corresponding weights could be found by a more complex method, such as the Guass-Hermite method. However, we experienced that the above method leads to essentially equivalent solutions when $q$ is large enough.
We can easily recognise that expression (\[eq:quadrature\]) is the same expression of the manifest distribution of the LM model given in (\[eq:manifest\_LM\]). The only difference is that for the LM model we have support points ($\xi_h$) and initial and transition probabilities ($\pi_h$, $\pi_{h_1h_2}$) to be estimated on the basis of the data. Here, we have knots ($\nu_m$) and weights ($\omega^{(h)}_m$, $\omega^{(h)}_{m_1m_2}$) which are instead given, with the exception of the weights $\omega^{(h)}_{m_1m_2}$ which only depend on the correlation coefficient $\rho_h$. However, the same recursion of [@bau:70] may be used to efficiently compute (\[eq:quadrature\]), and then obtain $p^{(h)}(\b y_i|\b X_i)$ from which we obtain $p(\b y_i|\b X_i)$ by (\[eq:manifest\]) and the log-likelihood $\ell(\b{\theta})$ by (\[eq:log-lik\]). Note that applying the recursion at issue is essentially equivalent to apply the SGQ of [@hei:08] and to the method of [@bart:delu:01; @bart:delu:03] to compute the likelihood function of SV models.
Maximum likelihood estimation
-----------------------------
As derived above, once a suitable set of quadrature knots has been adopted, the likelihood of the proposed model may be seen as equivalent to that of an LM model with covariates and latent parameters suitably constrained. Then, maximum likelihood (ML) estimation may be performed by an adaptation of the EM algorithm for the LM model described by [@bart:farc:09]; see also [@bau:70] and [@demp:lair:rubi:77]. In the following, we outline this extended algorithm, referring for some details to [@bart:farc:09].
The EM algorithm is based on the so-called [*complete data log-likelihood*]{} that, in the present case, corresponds to the log-likelihood that we could compute if we knew, for $i=1,\ldots,n$, the value of the latent variable $u_i$ and the value of the quadrature knot for ${\alpha}_{it}$, $t=1,\ldots,T$. This is equivalent to the knowledge of the dummy variables $w_{ih}$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, $h=1,\ldots,k$, and $z_{imt}$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, $m=1,\ldots,q$, $t=1,\ldots,T$, where $w_{ih}=I\{u_i=h\}$ and $z_{imt}=
I\{{\alpha}_{it}=\nu_m\}$. Up to a constant term, the complete data log-likelihood may be expressed as $$\ell^*(\b{\theta}) = \sum_i\sum_h w_{ih}\left\{\log\pi_h+
\sum_{m_1}\sum_{m_2}\sum_{t>1} z^*_{im_1m_2t}\log\omega^{(h)}_{m_1m_2}+
\sum_m\sum_t z_{imt}\log p(y_{it}|\nu_m,\b x_{it})\right\},\label{eq:comp_lk}$$ where $z^*_{im_1m_2t}=z_{im_1,t-1}z_{im_2t}$.
The EM algorithm alternates the following steps until convergence:
- [**E-step**]{}: compute the conditional expected value of the complete data log-likelihood given the observed data and the current estimate of $\b{\theta}$;
- [**M-step**]{}: maximise the expected value above with respect to $\b{\theta}$.
The E-step is equivalent to computing the conditional expected value, given the observed data, of every dummy variable $w_{ih}$ and of the products $w_{ih}z_{imt}$ and $w_{ih}z_{im_1m_2t}^*$. In practice, for $i=1,\ldots,n$, we have that $$\hat{w}_{ih}=E(w_{ih}|data) = \frac{p^{(h)}(\b y_i|\b X_i)}{p(\b y_i|\b X_i)},\quad
h=1,\ldots,k,$$ where the probabilities are computed on the basis of the current value of the parameters and [*data*]{} stands for “observed data”. Moreover, we have that $$\widehat{(w_{ih}z_{imt})}=
E(w_{ih}z_{imt}|data) = \hat{w}_{ih}E(z_{imt}|w_{ih}=1,data),\quad m=1,\ldots,q,
\: t=1,\ldots,T,$$ where $E(z_{imt}|w_{ih}=1,data)$ is the [*posterior probability*]{} that subject $i$ is in state $h$ at time occasion $t$ given that $u_i=h$, and $$\widehat{(w_{ih}z^*_{im_1m_2t})}=
E(w_{ih}z^*_{im_1m_2t}|data) = \hat{w}_{ih}E(z^*_{im_1m_2t}|w_{ih}=1,data),
\quad m_1,m_2=1,\ldots,q,\: t=2,\ldots,T,$$ where $E(z^*_{im_1m_2t}|w_{ih}=1,data)$ is the posterior probability that subject $i$ moves from state $m_1$ to state $m_2$ at occasion $t$, given that $u_i=h$. These posterior probabilities may be computed by suitable recursions; see [@bau:70], [@bart:farc:09], and [@bart:farc:penn:10] for details.
Once the expected values of the dummy variables have been substituted in (\[eq:comp\_lk\]), the resulting function is maximised with respect to the model parameters, which are consequently updated. The easiest parameters to update are the probabilities $\pi_h$, for which we have an explicit solution $$\pi_h = \frac{\sum_i\hat{w}_{hi}}
{\sum_l\sum_i\hat{w}_{li}},\quad h=1,\ldots,k.$$ Then, in order to update each parameter $\rho_h$, $h=1,\ldots,k$, we have to maximise, by a numerical optimisation algorithm, the function $$\sum_i\sum_{m_1}\sum_{m_2}\sum_{t>1}
\widehat{(w_{ih}z^*_{im_1m_2t})}\log\omega^{(h)}_{m_1m_2},$$ which depends on this parameter through (\[eq:bivweight\]). Finally, the other model parameters, that is $\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_k$, $\b{\beta}$, and $\sigma^2$, are update by maximising the function $$\sum_i\sum_h
\sum_m\sum_t \widehat{(w_{ih}z_{imt})}\log p(y_{it}|\nu_m,\b x_{it}),$$ which depends on these parameters through (\[eq:repara\]). This maximisation may be performed by a NR iterative algorithm, the implementation of which is not difficult, due to the availability of explicit expressions for the first and second derivatives of the target function.
Since the EM algorithm is rather slow to converge, after a certain number of steps we switch to a full NR algorithm to maximise the model log-likelihood $\ell(\b{\theta})$. This algorithm updates the model parameters $\b{\theta}$ by adding the following quantity $\b J(\b{\theta})^{-1}\b s(\b{\theta})$, where $\b s(\b{\theta})$ denotes the score vector for $\ell(\b{\theta})$ and $\b J(\b{\theta})$ denotes the corresponding observed information matrix. The latter is equal to minus the second derivative of $\ell(\b{\theta})$ with respect to $\b{\theta}$. Following [@bart:farc:09], the score vector is computed as the first derivative of the expected value of complete data log-likelihood, which is obtained after an E-step. The observed information matrix is then obtained on the basis of the numerical derivative of $\b s(\b{\theta})$.
We take the value of $\b{\theta}$ at convergence of the NR algorithm as the ML estimate $\hat{\b{\theta}}$. As it typically happens for latent variable models, the model likelihood may be multimodal and the point at convergence depends on the starting values for the parameters, which need to be carefully chosen. Then, we suggest to try different starting values in order to be sure that the found solution corresponds to the global maximum of $\ell(\b{\theta})$.
Once the ML estimates have been computed, it may be of interest to obtain the corresponding standard errors. These may be obtained in the usual way on the basis of $\b J(\hat{\b{\theta}})^{-1}$ and may be used to compute confidence intervals for the parameters and perform Wald testing about certain hypotheses of interest. More generally, hypotheses of interest may be tested by a likelihood ratio statistic that, under the usual regularity conditions, has asymptotic distribution of $\chi^2$-type.
On the basis of the parameter estimates it may also be of interest to predict every latent variable ${\alpha}_{it}$. This may be performed through the following posterior expected value given the observed data: $$\hat{{\alpha}}_{it}=\sum_h\sum_m\widehat{(w_{ih}z_{imt})}(\hat{\xi}_h+\nu_m\hat{\sigma}),
\quad i=1,\ldots,n,\:t=1,\ldots,T,
\label{eq:pred}$$ with all quantities computed on the basis of the final estimate $\hat{\b{\theta}}$.
For the case of binary and ordinal response variables, we implemented the above strategy to obtain the ML estimate of $\b{\theta}$, which is based on the joint use of an EM and of an NR algorithm, in a series of [Matlab]{} functions that we make available to the reader upon request. In our experience, this strategy properly works and provides ML estimates and corresponding standard errors in a reasonable amount of time, provided that $k$ is not too large.
Selection of the number of mixture components and of quadrature points {#sec:model_selection}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In applying the proposed model, of crucial importance is the choice of the number of mixture components ($k$) and of quadrature points ($q$). Regarding the choice of $q$, we have to use a value which is large enough to guarantee an adequate approximation of the true likelihood function, that is the likelihood that we could obtain by exactly computing the multiple integral in (\[eq:pcond\]). At this regard, the strategy we suggest is based on trying, for a given $k$, increasing values of $q$ until the maximum of $\ell(\b{\theta})$ does not significantly change with respect to the previous value of $q$. In our application, for instance, we start with $q=21$ and we increase the value of $q$ by 10 at each attempt, stopping when the maximum of $\ell(\b{\theta})$ increases less than $10^{-3}$.
Through the above strategy, we find a suitable value of $q$ for a given $k$. The point now is how to choose $k$. In summary, the strategy we suggest consists of increasing $k$ until the estimated latent structure does not significantly change. In practice, for each tried value of $k$ we obtain the predicted latent variables ${\alpha}_{it}$ through (\[eq:pred\]) on the basis of $\hat{\b{\theta}}$ and, for $k>1$, we compute the correlation index between these predicted values and those computed with $k-1$ mixture components. The first value of $k$ such that this correlation index is higher than a suitable threshold (we use 0.99 in our application) is taken as the optimal number of mixture components.
Note that, in order to select $k$, we could also rely on information criterion such as the Akaike Information Criterion [@aka:73] or the Bayesian Information Criterion [@sch:78]. However, we experimented in our applications that these criteria tend to choose a value of $k$ higher than necessary, whereas we have evidence that the criterion suggested above, which is based on direct assessment of the estimated latent structure, has good performance.
Application to Self-reported health status
==========================================
To illustrate the proposed approach, we consider a dataset which derives from the Health and Retirement Study conducted by the University of Michigan (see `http://www.rand.org/labor/aging/dataprod` for detailed illustration). After a description of the dataset, we report the results of its analysis based on the proposed approach.
Dataset description
-------------------
The dataset is referred to a sample of $n=7,074$ American individuals who were asked to express opinions on their health status at $T=8$ approximately equally spaced occasions, from 1992 to 2006. The response variable ([*self-reported health status*]{}) is measured on a scale based on five ordered categories: “poor”, “fair”, “good”, “very good”, and “excellent”. For every subject some covariates are also available: [*gender*]{}, [*race*]{}, [*education*]{}, and [*age*]{} (at each time occasion). Table \[tab:descr\] shows some descriptive statistics about these covariates, whereas Table \[tab:descr1\] shows the marginal distribution of the response variable over the 8 occasions of interview.
As shown in Table \[tab:descr\], the main part of individuals in the sample are females ($58.1\%$) and whites ($82.9\%$), with an average age at the first time occasion equal to $54.8$; we recall that the occasions of interview are around two years far apart. The $60.9\%$ of the sample has a high-school diploma, whereas a college degree or a higher title is possessed by the $19.4\%$ of subjects. In the following, the covariate *education* is introduced in the model by assigning increasing scores to its categories: 1 for “high school”, 2 for “some college” (i.e., a high school or a general education diploma and more than 12 years of education), 3 for “college and above” (i.e., a college degree, such as Bachelor of Arts, or an higher title, such as PhD).
About the distribution of the response variable at each time occasion (see Table \[tab:descr1\]), we observe that more than the $60\%$ of responses is equally distributed between categories “good” and “very good”, being substantially stable over time. Moreover, the $16.1\%$ of individuals evaluates the health status as “excellent”, with a decreasing trend (the percentage is over $25.7\%$ at the first occasion and it decreases to $10.0\%$ at the eighth one). On the other side, the remaining part of individuals gives a negative judgement to the health status, with increasing percentages over time: from $4.7\%$ to $8.1\%$ and from $11.5\%$ to $20.3\%$ for categories “poor” and “fair” response, respectively.
More insights about the subjects’ responses to the questionnaire may be derived on the basis of the empirical transition matrix reported in Table \[tab:descr3\]. Each row of this matrix shows the percentage frequencies of the five response categories at occasion $t$ given the response at occasion $t-1$, with $t=2,\ldots,T$.
In general, a rather high persistence of the judgement about the health status results, since more than one half of responses at time $t$ is in the same category as the response at time $t-1$, and percentages included between $12.8\%$ and $34.0\%$ lie in an adjacent category. On the other hand, jumps between different and not adjacent response categories in consecutive time occasions are observable for the remaining part of the sample. For example, among subjects who evaluate their health status as “poor” at a given occasion, the $8.4\%$ evaluates it as “good” at the next occasion; on the contrary, among subjects who respond “very good” at a given occasion, only the $4.7\%$ responds “fair” at the following occasion.
Model selection {#sec:application:model_selection}
---------------
To the data described above, we preliminary fit the proposed MLAR model for different values of $k$ (number of mixture components) and $q$ (number of quadrature points). To take into account the ordinal nature of the response variable, the model is formulated on the basis of the global logit parameterisation defined in equation (\[eq:global\]). Then, the optimal values of $k$ and $q$ is chosen as described in Section \[sec:model\_selection\]. We recall that, as concerns the selection of $q$ (given $k$) the adopted procedure starts from $q = 21$ and increases it by 10; the number of quadrature points is selected in correspondence of the first difference between two consecutive maximum log-likelihood values smaller than 0.001. With reference to the selection of $k$, the adopted strategy consists of computing the correlation index $\rho_{k-1,k}$ between the predicted ${\alpha}_{it}$ values of MLAR($k$) and those of MLAR($k-1$), for increasing values of $k$ starting from 2. When $\rho_{k-1,k}$ is greater than 0.99, $k$ is not raised anymore and its last value is taken as the optimal number of mixture components. Table \[Table\_choice\_kq\] reports the main results of this model selection procedure.
On the basis of the results in Table \[Table\_choice\_kq\], we conclude that the adequate number of quadrature points ($q$) is equal to $51$ for $k=1$ and to $61$ for $k=2$ and $k=3$. For illustrative purposes, in the table we also show results until $q = 101$. Indeed, we observe that increasing $q$ over the selected value is unnecessary, as the corresponding values of the maximum log-likelihood become stable. Moreover, being $\rho_{12}$ smaller than 0.99 and $\rho_{23}$ equal to 0.9974, we choose $k = 3$ mixture components. As mentioned at the end of Section \[sec:model\_selection\], we note that the proposed selection criterion for $k$ leads to selecting a more parsimonious model with respect to that selected by BIC. Indeed, in this last case we obtain decreasing values of the BIC index at least until $k = 4$. Moreover, in our application this criterion becomes soon hardly to apply, as for $k\geq 4$ the log-likelihood becomes rather flat and, therefore, estimates result highly unstable.
To evaluate the goodness-of-fit of the selected model, we compare it with the MLAR(1) (or LAR) model and the MLAR(2) model. We also compare these models with the LM model with covariates and initial distribution of the Markov chain equal to the stationary distribution. For a given number of latent states $k$, the last model is indicated by LM($k$); it is fitted for $k=1,\ldots,10$. The results of this comparison in terms of maximum log-likelihood and BIC index are reported in Table \[tab:LM\].
From Table \[tab:LM\] we conclude that the smallest BIC index is for the MLAR(3) model, to which correspond a maximum log-likelihood of -62,846 with 16 parameters. To obtain a higher log-likelihood with the LM model, we need at least $k = 9$ latent states and, consequently, at least 88 parameters. This confirms that the proposed model reaches levels of goodness-of-fit comparable with those of the LM model but, at the same time, a level of parsimony close to that of the LAR model, since only 6 parameters are added to this model. However, in comparing the MLAR model with the LM model we have to consider that, especially for large values of $k$, the likelihood of the second presents several local maxima. Therefore, it is not ensured that the reported values of the log-likelihood for this model corresponds to global maxima. On the other hand, at least for this application, we did not find evidence of more local maxima of the MLAR model log-likelihood. This is reasonable because of the reduced number of parameters.
Parameter estimates and prediction of latent effects
----------------------------------------------------
The estimates of the parameters of most interest of the selected model and of comparable models are reported in Tables \[tab:est\_fixed\] and \[tab:est\_latent\]. We recall the we selected model MLAR(3). In particular, for models MLAR(1) (or LAR), MLAR(2), and MLAR(3), Table \[tab:est\_fixed\] reports the estimates of the cutpoints and of the regression coefficients entering equation (\[eq:assumption1\]) together with the corresponding standard errors. Moreover, Table \[tab:est\_latent\] reports the estimates of the parameters on which the latent structure depends.
From Table \[tab:est\_fixed\] we observe that the estimated cutpoints $\hat{\mu}_1,\ldots,\hat{\mu}_4$ are ordered as we may expect in accordance with the parameterisation defined by (\[eq:global\]). Moreover, on the basis of the $t$-statistics that may be computed for the regression coefficients, we conclude that all covariates are significant under every model considered in the table. However, the magnitude of each point estimate increases (in absolute value) as $k$ goes from 1 to 3, while retaining the same sign. For instance, the effect of education increases from 1.8182 to 2.3846. Less evident is the variation of effect of gender (female with respect to male), which changes from -0.2056 to -0.2317.
The results in Table \[tab:est\_latent\] imply that the estimated latent structure is rather different under models MLAR(1), MLAR(2), and MLAR(3). While under the MLAR(1) model all subjects are concentrated in only one class characterised by a very high correlation ($\hat{\rho}_1=0.9529$), the situation is more complex under the other two models. With the MLAR(2) only the $76.34\%$ of subjects belong to a class with a high correlation ($\hat{\rho}_1=0.9788$), whereas for the remaining $23.66\%$ the correlation estimate is located to a positive intermediate level ($\hat{\rho}_2=0.5584$), being the estimate of support point higher in this latter class ($\hat{\xi}_2 = 0.3461$ versus $\hat{\xi}_1 = -0.1073$). Under the MLAR(3) model, we observe one class, including the $71.46\%$ of subjects, very similar to that detected under the MLAR(1) model, being the correlation coefficient equal to 0.9761 and the corresponding support point very close to 0. Then, the remaining part of subjects results equally distributed between the other two classes, that show opposite values of the support points ($\hat{\xi}_1 = -2.6400$ and $\hat{\xi}_3 =
2.8237$) and intermediate levels of correlation. Mostly for subjects in class 3 the correlation between individual effects in consecutive occasions is rather weak ($\hat{\rho}_3=0.3472$), so that we may suppose that these subjects are characterised by sudden changes in unobservable factors affecting their health status.
The above results are well illustrated by the density functions of the univariate distribution of the individual effects ${\alpha}_{it}$ and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ represented in Figure \[fig:appl\]. Indeed, while in the MLAR(1) model values at time $t$ are highly correlated to values at time $t-1$, under the MLAR(2) model and, more evidently under MLAR(3) model, a higher dispersion of the individual effects ${\alpha}_{it}$ is observed on the bivariate plot. On the other hand, the univariate distributions does not seem to deviate from normality under both MLAR(2) and MLAR(3) models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![*Estimated density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top), the MLAR(2) model (middle), and the MLAR(3) model (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:appl"}](fig_uni1.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![*Estimated density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top), the MLAR(2) model (middle), and the MLAR(3) model (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:appl"}](fig_multi1.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
![*Estimated density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top), the MLAR(2) model (middle), and the MLAR(3) model (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:appl"}](fig_uni2.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![*Estimated density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top), the MLAR(2) model (middle), and the MLAR(3) model (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:appl"}](fig_multi2.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
![*Estimated density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top), the MLAR(2) model (middle), and the MLAR(3) model (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:appl"}](fig_uni3.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![*Estimated density function of the univariate distribution of ${\alpha}_{it}$ (left) and of the bivariate distribution of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$ (right) under the LAR model (top), the MLAR(2) model (middle), and the MLAR(3) model (bottom).*[]{data-label="fig:appl"}](fig_multi3.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way to compare the estimated latent structure under the different models here considered is through the predicted ${\alpha}_{it}$, as computed by (\[eq:pred\]), rather than through the a priori distributions in the previous Figure. These predicted values are represented, also for the same LM(10) model already considered in Section \[sec:application:model\_selection\], in Figure \[fig:predict\]. In particular, each plot in the figure represents points with coordinates ($\hat{{\alpha}}_{i,t-1},\hat{{\alpha}}_{it}$), for $i=1,\ldots,n$ and $t=2,\ldots,T$.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![*Predicted values of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, $t=2,\ldots,T$, under the LAR model (top left), the LM model (top right), the MLAR(2) model (bottom left), and the MLAR(3) model (bottom right).*[]{data-label="fig:predict"}](fig_LAR.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![*Predicted values of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, $t=2,\ldots,T$, under the LAR model (top left), the LM model (top right), the MLAR(2) model (bottom left), and the MLAR(3) model (bottom right).*[]{data-label="fig:predict"}](fig_LM.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
![*Predicted values of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, $t=2,\ldots,T$, under the LAR model (top left), the LM model (top right), the MLAR(2) model (bottom left), and the MLAR(3) model (bottom right).*[]{data-label="fig:predict"}](fig_MLAR2.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"} ![*Predicted values of $({\alpha}_{i,t-1},{\alpha}_{it})$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, $t=2,\ldots,T$, under the LAR model (top left), the LM model (top right), the MLAR(2) model (bottom left), and the MLAR(3) model (bottom right).*[]{data-label="fig:predict"}](fig_MLAR3.eps "fig:"){width="8cm"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the plots in Figure \[fig:predict\], under models MLAR(2), MLAR(3), and LM(10) there is a stronger dispersion of the predicted values with respect to the LAR model. In particular, the difference of the plot obtained under the selected MLAR(3) model is neat with respect to the plot obtained under the LAR model, whereas it is less evident with respect to the plot obtained under the LM(10) model, which however uses much more parameters. In practice, it seems that the proposed model allows for more erratic trends of the unobserved individual effects across time with respect to the LAR model. This is a direct consequence of the greater flexibility of the MLAR model, which is obtained at the cost of a reduced number of additive parameters.
Discussion
==========
In this paper, we extend the Latent Autoregressive (LAR) model for longitudinal data [@chi:89; @hei:08], by adopting a latent structure for the unobserved heterogeneity which is based on a mixture of AR(1) processes with specific mean values and correlation coefficients, but with common variance. The proposed model, named Mixture Latent Autoregressive (MLAR) model, is formulated in a general way, so that it may be easily adapted to different types of response variable (binary, ordinal, or continuous). It is important to note that, as for the LAR model, the latent process on which the proposed model is based is continuous.
Compared to the latent Markov (LM) model with covariates in which the latent process is discrete (see [@bart:farc:penn:10] for a review), the MLAR model has some interpretative advantages, being usually more natural to consider the effect of unobservable factors or covariates as continuous rather than discrete. Moreover, the main advantage of MLAR model with respect to LAR model is the improvement of the goodness-of-fit which becomes close to that of an LM model with covariates, allowing us to adequately take into account more erratic trends in the unobservable individual effects. At the same time, the parsimony of the proposed model is kept near to that of a LAR model, avoiding the explosion of the number of parameters of the LM model when the number of latent states increases.
In order to make inference on the proposed model, we show how its likelihood may be efficiently computed by exploiting some recursions developed in the context of Hidden Markov (HM) models [@bau:70; @mac:zuc:97]. The resulting computational method is equivalent to the Sequential Gaussian Quadrature method proposed by [@hei:08] for the LAR model. Moreover, since the model likelihood is the same as that of an LM model with suitable constraints, then maximum likelihood estimation of the model parameters may be performed on the basis of an EM algorithm for LM models, adapting that implemented by [@bart:farc:09]. To make faster the estimation, after a certain number of EM steps we suggest to switch to a Newton-Raphson algorithm, which is based on the observed information matrix obtained by a numerical method.
After parameters estimation, standard errors are obtained from the observed information matrix. Moreover, on the basis of the parameter estimates it is also possible to predict individual effects for every subject and time occasion. We show how these predicted values may be used to implement a model selection strategy for the number of mixture components of the MLAR model; we recall that each component corresponds to a separate AR(1) latent process. In particular, the number of mixture components is increased until the predicted values of the latent variable do not significantly change. This selection strategy leads us to selecting more parsimonious models with respect to alternative methods, such as those based on information criteria.
The advantages of the MLAR model with respect to the LAR model are illustrated through an application to a longitudinal dataset, coming from the Health and Retirement Study conducted by the University of Michigan, about self-evaluation of the health status. The results show evidence of three mixture components corresponding to the same number of AR(1) processes. Each component has its own specific correlation parameter. In this way, we take into account the latent trends and jumps from time to time in a more flexible way in comparison with the LAR approach. Moreover, the goodness-of-fit of the MLAR model is comparable to that of an LM model with covariates, being, at the same time, the number of parameters strongly smaller. In addition, we observe that the proposed model does not suffer from the problem of multimodal likelihood as the LM model with covariates does. This is rather obvious considering the reduced number of parameters of the first with respect to the second.
A final point concerns possible extensions of the proposed approach. A natural extension consists of generalising our model to AR processes of order two (or higher), so as to take also into account more sophisticated dependence structures. This extension may be performed along the same lines as in [@bart:solis:10], although we think that likelihood inference becomes more problematic, especially in terms of computational capability required to obtain maximum likelihood estimates.
Finally, the reader may wonder about a possible extension of the proposed approach in which subjects may move between different mixture components or, in equivalent terms, in which we have switching parameters for the individual AR(1) latent processes. This amounts to combine a latent AR(1) process with a latent Markov chain. We recall that in the MLAR model the latent process parameters are kept constant across time, although these parameters may be different among subjects. The extended formulation based on combining a latent AR(1) process and a latent Markov chain has been experimented by the same authors, see [@bacc:bart:penn:10]; however, they observed that the major complexity of the resulting model tends to produce estimates that are highly unstable and are rather difficult to interpret. Moreover, the goodness-of-fit reached under this extended formulation is comparable to that of the MLAR model here proposed with the same number of parameters. For these reasons we consider this model as the right compromise between making more flexible the LAR model and keeping a parsimonious structure, while retaining a continuous latent process approach.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
F.Bartolucci tanks Prof. F.Peracchi for stimulation discussions on the topic and, together with F.Pennoni, acknowledge the financial support from the “Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance” (EIEF), Rome (IT).
[^1]: Department of Economics, Finance and Statistics, University of Perugia, Via A. Pascoli, 20, 06123 Perugia, Italy.
[^2]: [*e-mail*]{}: [email protected]
[^3]: [*e-mail*]{}: [email protected]
[^4]: Department of Statistics, University of Milano-Bicocca, Via Bicocca degli Arcimboldi 8, 20126 Milano, Italy.
[^5]: [*e-mail*]{}: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article we study the transitivity of the group of automorphisms of real algebraic surfaces. We characterize real algebraic surfaces with very transitive automorphism groups. We give applications to the classification of real algebraic models of compact surfaces: these applications yield new insight into the geometry of the real locus, proving several surprising facts on this geometry. This geometry can be thought of as a half-way point between the biregular and birational geometries.'
address:
- ' Mathematisches Institut, Universität Basel, Rheinsprung 21, CH-4051 Basel, Schweiz'
- 'Laboratoire de Mathématiques, Université de Savoie, 73376 Le Bourget du Lac Cedex, France. Tel.: +33 (0)4 79 75 86 60, Fax: +33 (0)4 79 75 81 42'
author:
- Jérémy Blanc
- Frédéric Mangolte
title: |
Geometrically rational real conic bundles\
and very transitive actions
---
Introduction
============
The group of automorphisms of a complex algebraic variety is small: indeed, it is finite in general. Moreover, the group of automorphisms is $3$-transitive only if the variety is ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}$. On the other hand, it was recently proved that for a surface $X({{\mathbb R}})$ birational to ${{\mathbb P}}^2_{{\mathbb R}}$, its group of automorphisms acts $n$-transitively on $X({{\mathbb R}})$ for any $n$. The main goal of this paper is to determine all real algebraic surfaces $X({{\mathbb R}})$ having a group of automorphisms which acts very transitively on $X({{\mathbb R}})$. For precise definitions and statements, see below.
The aim of this paper is to study the action of birational maps on the set of real points of a real algebraic variety. Let us emphasize a common terminological source of confusion about the meaning of what is a *real algebraic variety* (see also the enlightening introduction of [@ko-topo-2000]). From the point of view of general algebraic geometry, a real variety $X$ is a variety defined over the real numbers, and a morphism is understood as being defined over all the geometric points. In most real algebraic geometry texts however, the algebraic structure considered corresponds to the algebraic structure of a neighbourhood of the real points $X({{\mathbb R}})$ in the whole complex variety – or, in other words, the structure of a germ of an algebraic variety defined over ${{\mathbb R}}$.
From this point of view it is natural to view $X({{\mathbb R}})$ as a compact submanifold of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$ defined by real polynomial equations, where $n$ is some natural integer. Likewise, it is natural to say that a map $\psi \colon X({{\mathbb R}})\to Y({{\mathbb R}})$ is an *isomorphism* if $\psi$ is induced by a birational map $\Psi \colon X\dasharrow Y$ such that $\Psi$ (respectively $\Psi^{-1}$) is regular at any point of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ (respectively of $Y({{\mathbb R}})$). In particular, $\psi \colon X({{\mathbb R}})\to Y({{\mathbb R}})$ is a diffeomorphism. This notion corresponds to the notion of biregular maps defined in [@bcr 3.2.6] for the structure of real algebraic variety commonly used in the context of real algebraic geometry. To distinguish between the Zariski topology and the topology induced by the embedding of $X({{\mathbb R}}) $ as a topological submanifold of ${{\mathbb R}}^n$, we will call the latter the *Euclidean topology*. Throughout what follows, topological notions like connectedness or compactness will always refer to the Euclidean topology.
Recall that a real projective surface is rational if it is birationally equivalent to the real projective plane, and that it is geometrically rational if its complexification is birationally equivalent to the complex projective plane. The number of connected components is a birational invariant. In particular, if $X$ is a rational projective surface, $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is connected.
The paper [@hm3] proves that the group of automorphisms ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ acts $n$-transitively on $X({{\mathbb R}})$ for any $n$ and any rational real algebraic surface $X$. To study the case where $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is not connected, we have to refine the notion of $n$-transitivity. Indeed, if $X({{\mathbb R}})$ has non-homeomorphic connected components, then even the group of self-homeomorphisms does not acts $2$-transitively.
Let $G$ be a topological group acting continuously on a topological space $M$. We say that two $n$-tuples of distinct points $(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ and $(q_1,\dots,q_n)$ are *compatible* if there exists an homeomorphism $\psi \colon M \to M$ such that $\psi(p_i)=q_i$ for each $i$. The action of $G$ on $M$ is then said to be *very transitive* if for any pair of compatible $n$-tuples of points $(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ and $(q_1,\dots,q_n)$ of $M$, there exists an element $g \in G$ such that $g(p_i)=q_i$ for each $i$. More generally, the action of $G$ is said to be very transitive *on each connected component* if we require the above condition only in case, for each $i$, $p_i$ and $q_i$ belong to the same connected component of $M$.
Up till now, it was not known when the automorphism group of a real algebraic surface is big. We give a complete answer to this question: this is one of the main result of this paper. Let $\#M$ be the number of connected components of a compact manifold $M$.
\[Thm:3compTrans\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular real projective surface. The group ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is then very transitive on each connected component if and only if $X$ is geometrically rational and $\#X({{\mathbb R}}) \leq3$.
In the three component case, Theorem \[thm:verytrans\] below says that the very transitivity of ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X({{\mathbb R}}))$ can be determined by examining the set of possible permutations of connected components.
\[thm:verytrans\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular real projective surface. The group ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ then has a very transitive action on $X({{\mathbb R}})$ if and only if the following hold:
1. \[thm:verytrans.1\] $X$ is geometrically rational, and
2. \[thm:verytrans.2\]
1. $\#X({{\mathbb R}})\leq 2$, or
2. $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=3$, and there is no pair of homeomorphic connected components, or
3. $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=M_1\sqcup M_2 \sqcup M_3$, $M_1\sim M_2 \not\sim M_3$, and there is a morphism $\pi \colon X \to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ whose general fibres are rational curves, and an automorphism of ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ which fixes $\pi(M_3)$ and exchanges $\pi(M_1),\pi(M_2)$, or
4. $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=M_1\sqcup M_2 \sqcup M_3$, $M_1\sim M_2 \sim M_3$, and there is a morphism $\pi \colon X \to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ whose general fibres are rational curves, such that any permutation of the set of intervals $\bigl\{\pi(M_1),\pi(M_2),\pi(M_3)\bigr\}$ is realised by an automorphism of ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$.
Furthermore, when ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is not very transitive, it is not even $2$-transitive.
This theorem will be proved in Section \[Sec:Proofs\]. Note that when $\#X({{\mathbb R}})> 3$, either any element of ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ preserves a conic bundle structure (Theorem \[Thm:Birapport\]), or ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is countable (Corollary \[Cor:DPcountable\]): in either case ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is not $1$-transitive.
These two theorems apply to the classification of algebraic models of real surfaces. Up to this point in the paper $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is considered as a submanifold of some ${{\mathbb R}}^n$. Conversely, let $M$ be a compact $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-manifold. By the Nash-Tognoli theorem [@to], every such $M$ is diffeomorphic to a nonsingular real algebraic subset of ${{\mathbb R}}^m$ for some $m$. Taking the Zariski closure in ${{\mathbb P}}^m$ and applying Hironaka’s resolution of singularities [@hiro], it follows that $M$ is in fact diffeomorphic to the set of real points $X({{\mathbb R}})$ of a nonsingular projective algebraic variety $X$ defined over ${{\mathbb R}}$. Such a variety $X$ is called an *algebraic model* of $M$. A natural question is to classify the algebraic models of $M$ up to isomorphism for a given manifold $M$.
There are several recent results about algebraic models and their automorphism groups [@bh; @hm3; @hm4; @km1]. For example, when $M$ is $2$-dimensional, and admits a real rational algebraic model, this rational algebraic model is unique [@bh]. In other words, if $X$ and $Y$ are two rational real algebraic surfaces, then $X({{\mathbb R}})$ and $Y({{\mathbb R}})$ are isomorphic if and only if there are homeomorphic. We extend the classification of real algebraic models to geometrically rational surfaces.
\[thm:unicity\] Let $X,Y$ be two nonsingular geometrically rational real projective surfaces, and assume that $\#
X({{\mathbb R}})\leq 2$. The surface $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is then isomorphic to $Y({{\mathbb R}})$ if and only if $X$ is birational to $Y$ and $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is homeomorphic to $Y({{\mathbb R}})$. This is false in general when $\#X({{\mathbb R}})\geq 3$.
Recall that a nonsingular projective surface is minimal if any birational morphism to a nonsingular surface is an isomorphism. We have the following rigidity result on minimal geometrically rational real surfaces.
\[Thm:Diff+Bir=DiffBir\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be two minimal geometrically rational real projective surfaces, and assume that either $X$ or $Y$ is non-rational. The following are then equivalent:
1. $X$ and $Y$ are birational.
2. $X({{\mathbb R}})$ and $Y({{\mathbb R}})$ are isomorphic.
In this work, we classify the birational classes of real conic bundles and correct an error contained in the literature (Theorem \[Thm:Birapport\]). It follows that the only geometrically rational surfaces $X({{\mathbb R}})$ for which equivalence by homeomorphism implies equivalence by isomorphism are the connected ones. In particular, this yields a converse to [@bh Corollary 8.1].
\[Cor:Models\] Let $M$ be a compact $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-surface. The surface $M$ then admits a unique geometrically rational model if and only if the following two conditions hold:
1. $M$ is connected, and
2. $M$ is non-orientable or $M$ is orientable with genus $g(M) \leq 1$.
For $M$ orientable with $g(M) > 1$, no uniqueness result – even very weak –holds. We can therefore ask what the simplest algebraic model for such an $M$ should be. This question is studied in the forthcoming paper [@hm5].
Another way of measuring the size of ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X({{\mathbb R}}))$ was used in [@km1], where it is proved that for any rational surface $X$, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)\subset {\operatorname{Diff}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is dense for the strong topology. For non geometrically rational surfaces and for most of the non-rational geometrically rational surfaces, the group ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ cannot be dense. The above paper left the question of density open only for certain geometrically rational surfaces with $2$, $3$, $4$ or $5$ connected components. One by-product of our results is the non-density of ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X({{\mathbb R}}))$ for most surfaces with at least $3$ connected components – see Proposition \[Prp:Density\].
Let us mention some other papers on automorphisms of real projective surfaces. In [@rv], it is proved that ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl({{\mathbb P}}^2({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is generated by linear automorphisms and certain real algebraic automorphisms of degree 5. The paper [@hm4] is devoted to the study of very transitive actions and uniqueness of models for some kind of singular rational surfaces.
Strategy of the proof {#strategy-of-the-proof .unnumbered}
---------------------
In the proof of Theorem \[Thm:3compTrans\], the main part concerns minimal conic bundles. We first prove that two minimal conic bundles are isomorphic if they induce the same intervals on the basis. Given a set of intervals, one choose the most special conic bundle, the so-called exceptional conic bundle, to write explicitly the automorphisms and to obtain a fiberwise transitivity. We then use the most general conic bundles which come with distinct foliations on the same surface. The foliations being transversal, this yields the very transivity of the automorphism group in the minimal case.
Outline of the article {#outline-of-the-article .unnumbered}
----------------------
In Section \[Sec:Nota\] we fix notations and in Section \[Sec:Min\] we recall the classification of minimal geometrically rational real surfaces.
Section \[Sec:conicbundle\], which constitutes the technical heart of the paper, is devoted to conic bundles, especially minimal ones. We give representative elements of isomorphism classes, and explain the links between the various conic bundles.
In Section \[Sec:ConicBunDPS\], we investigate real surfaces which admit two conic bundle structures. In particular, we show that these are del Pezzo surfaces, and give descriptions of the possible conic bundles on these surfaces. Section \[Sec:Equiv\] is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[Thm:Diff+Bir=DiffBir\]. We firstly correct an inaccuracy in the literature, by proving that if two surfaces admitting a conic bundle structure are birational, then the birational map may be chosen so that it preserves the conic bundle structures. We then strengthen this result to isomorphisms between real parts when the surfaces are minimal, before proving Theorem \[Thm:Diff+Bir=DiffBir\].
In Section \[Sec:VeryTransitive\], we prove that if the real part of a minimal geometrically rational surface has $2$ or $3$ connected components, then its automorphism group is very transitive on each connected component. In Section \[Sec:RealAlgModels\], we prove the same result for non-minimal surfaces. We show how to separate infinitely close points, which is certainly one of the most counter-intuitive aspects of our geometry, and was first observed in [@bh] for rational surfaces. We also prove the uniqueness of models in many cases.
In Section \[Sec:Proofs\], we then use all the results of the preceding sections to prove the main results stated in the introduction (except Theorem \[Thm:Diff+Bir=DiffBir\], which is proved in Section \[Sec:Equiv\]).
We are grateful to the referee for helpful remarks that enabled us to shorten several proofs and improve the presentation of this article.
Notation {#Sec:Nota}
========
Throughout what follows, by a variety we will mean an algebraic variety, which may be real or complex (i.e. defined over ${{\mathbb R}}$ or ${{\mathbb C}}$). If the converse is not expressly stated all our varieties will be projective and all our surfaces will be nonsingular and geometrically rational (i.e. rational over ${{\mathbb C}}$).
Recall that a real variety $X$ may be identified with a pair $(S,\sigma)$, where $S$ is a complex variety and $\sigma$ is an anti-holomorphic involution on $S$; by abuse of notation we will write $X=(S,\sigma)$. Then, $S({{\mathbb C}})=X({{\mathbb C}})$ denotes the set of complex points of the variety, and $X({{\mathbb R}})=S({{\mathbb C}})^{\sigma}$ is the set of real points. A point $p\in X$ may be real (if it belongs to $X({{\mathbb R}})$), or imaginary (if it belongs to $X({{\mathbb C}})\backslash X({{\mathbb R}})$). If $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is non empty (which will be the case for all our surfaces), then ${\operatorname{Pic}}(X)\cong{\operatorname{Pic}}(S)^{\sigma}$, [@Sil I.(4.5)]. As we only work with regular surfaces (i.e. $q(X)=q(S)=0$), the Picard group is isomorphic to the Néron-Severi group, and $\rho(S)$ and $\rho(X)$ will denote the rank of ${\operatorname{Pic}}(S)$ and ${\operatorname{Pic}}(X)$ respectively. Recall that $\rho(X)\leq \rho(S)$. We denote by $K_X\in{\operatorname{Pic}}(X)$ the canonical class, which may be identified with $K_S$. The intersection of two divisors of ${\operatorname{Pic}}(S)$ or ${\operatorname{Pic}}(X)$ will always denote the usual intersection in ${\operatorname{Pic}}(S)$.
We will use the classical notions of morphisms, rational maps, isomorphisms and automorphisms between real or complex varieties. Moreover, if $X_1$ and $X_2$ are two real varieties, an isomorphism *between real parts* $X_1({{\mathbb R}})\stackrel{\psi}{\to} X_2({{\mathbb R}})$ is a birational map $\psi\colon X_1\dasharrow X_2$ such that $\psi$ (respectively $\psi^{-1}$) is regular at any point of $X_1({{\mathbb R}})$ (respectively of $X_2({{\mathbb R}})$). This endows $X_{1}({{\mathbb R}})$ with a structure of a germ of algebraic variety defined over ${{\mathbb R}}$ (as in [@bcr 3.2.6]), whereas the structure of $X_{1}$ is the one of an algebraic variety.
This notion of isomorphism between real parts gives rise to a geometry with rather unexpected properties comparing to those of the biregular geometry or the birational geometry. For example, let $\alpha \colon X_1({{\mathbb R}}) \to X_2({{\mathbb R}})$ be an isomorphism, and $\varepsilon \colon Y_1 \dasharrow X_1$, $\eta \colon Y_2 \dasharrow X_2$ be two birational maps; the map $\psi := \varepsilon^{-1}\alpha\eta$ is a well-defined birational map. Then $\psi$ can be an isomorphism $Y_1({{\mathbb R}}) \to Y_2({{\mathbb R}})$ even if neither $\varepsilon$, nor $\eta$ is an isomorphism between real parts. In the same vein, let $\alpha \colon X_1({{\mathbb R}}) \to X_2({{\mathbb R}})$ be an isomorphism, and let $\eta_{1}\colon Y_{1}\to X_{1}$ and $\eta_{2}\colon Y_{2}\to X_{2}$ be two birational morphisms which are the blow-ups of only real points (which may be proper or infinitely near points of $X_{1}$ and $X_{2}$). If $\alpha$ sends the points blown-up by $\eta_{1}$ on the points blown-up by $\eta_{2}$, then $\beta=(\eta_{2})^{-1}\alpha\eta_{1}\colon Y_{1}({{\mathbb R}})\to Y_{2}({{\mathbb R}})$ is an isomorphism.
Using ${\operatorname{Aut}}$ and ${\operatorname{Bir}}$ to denote respectively the group of automorphisms and birational self-maps of a variety, we have the following inclusions for the groups associated to $X=(S,\sigma)$: $$\begin{array}{ccccc}
{\operatorname{Aut}}(S) && \subset && {\operatorname{Bir}}(S)\\
\cup && && \cup\\
{\operatorname{Aut}}(X)&\subset& {\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)&\subset &{\operatorname{Bir}}(X)\;.\end{array}$$
By ${{\mathbb P}}^n$ we mean the projective $n$-space, which may be complex or real depending on the context. It is unique as a complex variety – written ${{\mathbb P}}^n_{{{\mathbb C}}}$. However, as a real variety, ${{\mathbb P}}^n$ may either be ${{\mathbb P}}^n_{{{\mathbb C}}}$ endowed with the standard anti-holomorphic involution, written ${{\mathbb P}}^n_{{{\mathbb R}}}$, or only when $n$ is odd, ${{\mathbb P}}^n_{{{\mathbb C}}}$ with a special involution with no real points, written $({{\mathbb P}}^n,\emptyset)$. To lighten notation, and since we never speak about $({{\mathbb P}}^1,\emptyset)({{\mathbb R}})$ we write ${{\mathbb P}}^1({{\mathbb R}})$ for ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}({{\mathbb R}})$.
Minimal surfaces and minimal conic bundles {#Sec:Min}
==========================================
The aim of this section is to reduce our study of geometrically rational surfaces to surfaces which admit a minimal conic bundle structure. We first recall the classification of geometrically rational surfaces (see [@Sil] for an introduction). The proofs of Theorems \[thm:verytrans\] and \[Thm:Diff+Bir=DiffBir\] will then split into three cases: rational, del Pezzo with $\rho=1$, and minimal conic bundle. The rational case is treated in [@hm3] and Proposition \[Prop:DP1DP2rho1\] below states the case of a del Pezzo surface with $\rho=1$.
\[dfn.birat.conic\] A *conic bundle* is a pair $(X,\pi)$ where $X$ is a surface and $\pi$ is a morphism $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$, where any fibre of $\pi$ is isomorphic to a plane conic. If $(X,\pi)$ and $(X',\pi')$ are two conic bundles, a *birational map of conic bundles* $\psi\colon (X,\pi)\dasharrow (X',\pi')$ is a birational map $\psi\colon X\dasharrow X'$ such that there exists an automorphism $\alpha$ of ${{\mathbb P}}^1$ with $\pi'\circ\phi=\pi\circ\alpha$.
We will assume throughout what follows that if $X$ is real, then the basis is ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ (and not $({{\mathbb P}}^1,\emptyset)$). This avoids certain conic bundles with no real points. We denote by ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X,\pi)$ (respectively ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X,\pi)$) the group of automorphisms (respectively birational self-maps) of the conic bundle $(X,\pi)$. Observe that ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X,\pi)={\operatorname{Aut}}(X)\cap {\operatorname{Bir}}(X,\pi)$. Similarly, when $(X,\pi)$ is real we denote by ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi)$ the group ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)\cap {\operatorname{Bir}}(X,\pi)$.
Recall that a real algebraic surface $X$ is *minimal* if and only if there is no real $(-1)$-curve and no pair of disjoint conjugate imaginary $(-1)$-curves on $X$, and that a real conic bundle $(X,\pi)$ is minimal if and only if the two irreducible components of any real singular fibre of $\pi$ are imaginary. Compare to the complex case where $(X,\pi)$ is minimal if and only if there is no singular fibre.
The following two results follow from the work of Comessatti [@Com1], (see also [@bib:Man], [@bib:IskMinimal], [@Sil Chap. V], or [@Kol]). Recall that a surface $X$ is a del Pezzo surface if the anti-canonical divisor $-K_X$ is ample. The same definition applies for $X$ real or complex.
\[Thm:ClassicMinimal\] If $X$ is a minimal geometrically rational real surface such that $X({{\mathbb R}})\ne \emptyset$, then one and exactly one of the following holds:
1. $X$ is rational: it is isomorphic to ${{\mathbb P}}^2_{{{\mathbb R}}}$, to the quadric $Q_0:=\{(x:y:z:t)\in{{\mathbb P}}^3_{{\mathbb R}}\ |\ x^2+y^2+z^2=t^2\}$, or to a real Hirzebruch surface $\mathbb{F}_n$, $n\ne 1$;
2. $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $1$ or $2$ with $\rho(X)=1$;
3. there exists a minimal conic bundle structure $\pi\colon X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ with an even number of singular fibres $2r\geq 4$. Moreover, $\rho(X)=2$.
If $(S,\sigma)$ is a minimal geometrically rational real surface such that $S({{\mathbb C}})^\sigma= \emptyset$, then $S$ is an Hirzebruch surface of even index.
\[Prp:TopMinimal\] In each case of the former theorem, we have:
1. $X$ is rational if and only if $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is connected. When $X$ is moreover minimal, then $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is homeomorphic to one of the following: the real projective plane, the sphere, the torus, or the Klein bottle.
2. When $X$ is a minimal del Pezzo surface of degree $1$, it satisfies $\rho(X)=1$, and $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is the disjoint union of one real projective plane and $4$ spheres. If $X$ is a minimal del Pezzo surface of degree $2$ with $\rho(X)=1$, then $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is the disjoint union of $4$ spheres.
3. If $X$ is non-rational and is endowed with a minimal conic bundle with $2r$ singular fibres, then $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is the disjoint union of $r$ spheres, $r \geq 2$.
\[Prop:DP1DP2rho1\] Let $X,Y$ be two minimal geometrically rational real surfaces. Assume that $X$ is not rational and satisfies $\rho(X)=1$ $($but $\rho(Y)$ may be equal to $1$ or $2)$.
1. If $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $1$, then any birational map $X\dasharrow Y$ is an isomorphism. In particular, $${\operatorname{Aut}}(X)={\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)={\operatorname{Bir}}(X)\;.$$
2. If $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$, $X$ is birational to $Y$ if and only $X$ is isomorphic to $Y$. Moreover, all the base-points of the elements of ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X)$ are real, and $${\operatorname{Aut}}(X)={\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)\subsetneq{\operatorname{Bir}}(X)\;.$$
Assume the existence of a birational map $\psi\colon X\dasharrow Y$. If $\psi$ is not an isomorphism, we decompose $\psi$ into elementary links $$X=X_{0}\stackrel{\psi_{1}}{\dasharrow}X_{1}\stackrel{\psi_{2}}{\dasharrow}\dots \stackrel{\psi_{n-1}}{\dasharrow}X_{n-1}\stackrel{\psi_{n}}{\dasharrow}X_{n}=Y$$ as in [@IskFact Theorem 2.5]. It follows from the description of the links of [@IskFact Theorem 2.6] that for any link $\psi_{i}\colon X_{i-1}\dasharrow X_{i}$, $X_{i-1}$ and $X_{i}$ are isomorphic del Pezzo surfaces of degree $2$, and that $\psi_{i}$ is equal to $\beta\eta\alpha\eta^{-1}$, where $\eta$ is the blow-up $X'\to X_{i-1}$ of a real point of $X_{i-1}$, $X'$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $1$, $\alpha\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(X')$ is the Bertini involution of the surface, and $\beta\colon X_{i+1}\to X_{i}$ is an isomorphism.
Therefore, $Y$ is isomorphic to $X$. Moreover, if $X$ has degree $1$, $\psi$ is an isomorphism. If $X$ has degree $2$, $\psi$ is decomposed into conjugates of Bertini involutions, so each of its base-points is real. This proves that if $\psi\in {\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ then $\psi\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(X)$. Furthermore, conjugates of Bertini involutions belong to ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X)$ but not to ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X)={\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$.
\[Cor:DPcountable\] Let $X_{0}$ be a minimal non-rational geometrically rational real surface with $\rho(X_{0})=1$, and let $\eta\colon X\to X_{0}$ be a birational morphism.
Then, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is countable. Moreover, if $X_{0}$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $1$, then ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is finite.
Without changing the isomorphism class of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ we may assume that $\eta$ is the blow-up of only real points (which may belong to $X_{0}$ as proper or infinitely near points). Since any base-point of any element of ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X_{0})$ is real (Proposition \[Prop:DP1DP2rho1\]), the same is true for any element of ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X)$. In particular, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)={\operatorname{Aut}}(X)$. The group ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X)$ acts on ${\operatorname{Pic}}(X)\cong \mathbb{Z}^{n}$, where $n=\rho(X)\geq 1$. This action gives rise to an homomorphism $\theta\colon {\operatorname{Aut}}(X)\to {\operatorname{GL}}(n,{{\mathbb Z}})$. Let us prove that $\theta$ is injective. Indeed, if $\alpha\in {\operatorname{Ker}}(\theta)$, then $\alpha$ is conjugate by $\eta$ to an element of $\alpha_{0}\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(X_{0})$ which acts trivially on ${\operatorname{Pic}}(X_{0})$. Writing $S_{0}$ the complex surface obtaining by forgetting the real structure of $X_{0}$, $S_{0}$ is the blow-up of $7$ or $8$ points in general position of ${{\mathbb P}}^2_{{{\mathbb C}}}$. Thus $\alpha_{0}\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(X_{0})\subset {\operatorname{Aut}}(S_{0})$ is the lift of an automorphism of ${{\mathbb P}}^2_{{{\mathbb C}}}$ which fixes $7$ or $8$ points, no $3$ collinear, hence is the identity.
The morphism $\theta$ is injective, and this shows that ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)={\operatorname{Aut}}(X)$ is countable. Moreover, if $X_{0}$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $1$, then ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X_{0})={\operatorname{Aut}}(X_{0})$ (by Proposition \[Prop:DP1DP2rho1\]). Since ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X_{0})$ is finite, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)\subset {\operatorname{Bir}}(X)$ is also finite.
Minimal and exceptional conic bundles {#Sec:conicbundle}
=====================================
If $(X,\pi)$ is a real conic bundle, $I(X,\pi)\subset {{\mathbb P}}^1({{\mathbb R}})$ denotes the image by $\pi$ of the set $X({{\mathbb R}})$ of real points of $X$.
The set $I(X,\pi)$ is the union of a finite number of intervals (which may be $\emptyset$ or ${{\mathbb P}}^1({{\mathbb R}})$), and it is well-known that it determines the birational class of $(X,\pi)$. We prove that $I(X,\pi)$ also determines the equivalence class of $(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi)$ among the minimal conic bundles, and give the proof of Theorem \[Thm:Diff+Bir=DiffBir\] in the case of conic bundles (Corollary \[Cor:Thm5Conic\]).
\[LemDef:Exc\] Let $(X,\pi)$ be a real minimal conic bundle. The following conditions are equivalent:
1. \[LemDef:Exc1\] There exists a section $s$ such that $s$ and $\bar{s}$ do not intersect.
2. \[LemDef:Exc2\] There exists a section $s$ such that $s^2=-r$, where $2r$ is the number of singular fibres.
If any of these conditions occur, we say that $(X,\pi)$ is *exceptional*.
Let $s$ be a section satisfying one of the two conditions. Denote by $(S,\pi)$ the complex conic bundle obtained by forgetting the real structure of $(X,\pi)$, and by $\eta:X\to \mathbb{F}_m$ the birational map which contracts in any singular fibre of $\pi$ the irreducible component which does not intersect $s$. If $s$ satisfies condition $\ref{LemDef:Exc1})$, $\eta(\bar{s})$ and $\eta(s)$ are two sections of $\mathbb{F}_m$ which do not intersect, so they have self-intersections $-m$ and $m$. This means that $s^2=\bar{s}^2=-m$ and that the number of singular fibres is $2m$, and implies $\ref{LemDef:Exc2})$. Conversely, if $s$ satisfies $\ref{LemDef:Exc2})$, $\eta(s)$ and $\eta(\bar{s})$ are sections of $\mathbb{F}_m$ of self-intersection $-r$ and $r$. If these two sections are distinct, they do not intersect, which means that $s$ and $\bar{s}$ do not intersect. If $\eta(s)=\eta(\bar{s})$, we have $r=0$, and $X=({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}},\sigma)$ for a certain anti-holomorphic involution $\sigma$. We may thus choose another section $s'$ of self-intersection $0$ which is imaginary.
The definition of exceptional conic bundles was introduced in [@DoIs] and [@BlaTG] for *complex* conic bundles endowed with an *holomorphic* involution. If $(S,\pi)$ is an exceptional complex conic bundle with at least $4$ singular fibres, ${\operatorname{Aut}}(S,\pi)={\operatorname{Aut}}(S)$ is a maximal algebraic subgroup of ${\operatorname{Bir}}(S)$ [@BlaTG].
\[Lem:IsoEx\] Let $(Y,\pi_Y)$ be a minimal real conic bundle such that $\pi_Y$ has at least one singular fibre. There exists an *exceptional* real conic bundle $(X,\pi_X)$ and an isomorphism $\psi\colon Y({{\mathbb R}})\to X({{\mathbb R}})$ such that $\pi_X\circ\psi=\pi_Y$.
The result is false without the assumption on the number of singular fibres. Consider for example $Y=\mathbb{F}_3({{\mathbb R}})$, whose real part is homeomorphic to the Klein bottle. Indeed, any exceptional conic bundle with no singular fibres is a real form of $({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}},{\mathrm{pr}}_1)$, and thus has a real part either empty or homeomorphic to the torus $S^1\times S^1$.
Before proving Lemma \[Lem:IsoEx\], we associate to any given exceptional conic bundle $X$ an explicit circle bundle isomorphic to it. The following improves [@Sil Cor.VI.3.1] where the model is only assumed birational to $X$.
\[Lem:AffEx\] Let $(X,\pi)$ be an exceptional real conic bundle. Then, there exists an affine real variety $A\subset X$ isomorphic to the affine surface of ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ given by $$y^2+z^2=Q(x),$$ where $Q$ is a real polynomial with only simple roots, all real. Moreover, $\pi|_A\colon A\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ is the projection $(x,y,z)\mapsto (x:1)$, and $I(X,\pi)$ is the closure of $\{(x:1)\in{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}\ |\ Q(x)\geq 0\}$.
Furthermore, if $f=\pi^{-1}((1:0))\subset X$ is a nonsingular fibre, the singular fibres of $\pi$ are those of the points $\{(x:1)\ |\ Q(x)=0\}$ and the inclusion $A\to X$ is an isomorphism $A({{\mathbb R}})\to \left(X\backslash f\right)({{\mathbb R}})$. In particular, if $(1:0)\notin I(X,\pi)$, the inclusion yields an isomorphism $A({{\mathbb R}})\to X({{\mathbb R}})$.
Denote by $2r$ the number of singular fibres of $\pi$ (which is even, see Lemma \[LemDef:Exc\]).
Assume first that $r=0$, which implies that $(X,\pi)$ is a real form of $({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}},{\mathrm{pr}}_1)$, hence is isomorphic to $({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}\times {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}},{\mathrm{pr}}_1)$ or to $({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}\times ({{\mathbb P}}^1,{\emptyset}),{\mathrm{pr}}_1)$, see convention after Definition \[dfn.birat.conic\]. Taking $Q(x)=1$ or $Q(x)=-1$ gives the result.
Assume now that $r>0$, and denote by $s$ and $\bar{s}$ two conjugate imaginary sections of $\pi$ of self-intersection $-r$. Changing $\pi$ by an automorphism of ${{\mathbb P}}^1$, we can assume that $(1:0)$. The singular fibres of $\pi$ are above the points $(a_1:1),\dots,(a_{2r}:1)$, where the $a_i$ are distinct real numbers. Let $J = (J_1, J_2)$ be a partition of $\{a_1,\dots,a_{2r}\}$ into two sets of $r$ points. Let $\eta$ be the birational morphism (not defined over ${{\mathbb R}}$) which contracts the irreducible component of $\pi^{-1}((a_i:1))$ which intersects $s$ if $a_i\in J_1$ and the component which intersects $\bar{s}$ if $a_i\in J_2$. Then, the images of $s$ and $\bar{s}$ are two sections of self-intersection $0$. Thus we may assume that $\eta$ is a birational morphism of conic bundles $(S,\pi)\rightarrow ({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}},{\mathrm{pr}}_1)$, where $S$ is the complex surface obtained by forgetting the real structure of $X$, ${\mathrm{pr}}_1$ is the projection on the first factor, and where $\eta(s)$ and $\eta(\bar{s})$ are equal to ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\times(0:1)$ and ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\times(1:0)$.
We write $P_{1}(x_{1},x_{2})=\prod_{a \in J_1} ({x_1}-a {x_2})$ and $P_{2}(x_{1},x_{2})=\prod_{a \in J_2} ({x_1}-a {x_2})$, and denote by $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ the self-maps of $S$, which are the lifts by $\eta$ of the following self-maps of ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb C}}}\times {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb C}}}$: $$\begin{array}{l}\alpha'\colon\big( (x_1:x_2),(y_1:y_2)\big)\dasharrow \big(({x_1}:{x_2}),(-{y_2}\cdot P_{1}({x_1},{x_2}):{y_1}\cdot P_{2}(x_{1},x_{2})\big),\\ \vphantom{\Big (}
\sigma'\colon\big( (x_1:x_2),(y_1:y_2)\big)\dasharrow \big((\overline{x_1}:\overline{x_2}),(-\overline{y_2}\cdot P_{1}(\overline{x_{1}},\overline{x_{2}}):\overline{y_1}\cdot P_{2}(\overline{x_{1}},\overline{x_{2}})\big).\end{array}$$
The map $\alpha'$ is a birational involution of ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb C}}}\times {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb C}}}$, which is defined over ${{\mathbb R}}$, and whose base-points are precisely the $2r$ points $\{((x:1),(0:1))\ |\ x\in J_1\} \cup \{((x:1),(1:0))\ |\ x\in J_2\}$ blown-up by $\eta$. Since $\alpha'$ is an involution and $\eta$ is the blow-up of all of its base-points, $\alpha=\eta^{-1}\alpha'\eta$ is an automorphism of $S$, which belongs to ${\operatorname{Aut}}(S,\pi)$. In consequence, $\sigma$ is an anti-holomorphic involution of $S$.
Denote by $\sigma_X$ the anti-holomorphic involution on $S$ which gives the real structure of $X$. The map $\sigma_X\circ\sigma^{-1}$ belongs to ${\operatorname{Aut}}(S,\pi)$ and acts trivially on the basis, since $\sigma$ and $\sigma_X$ have the same action on the basis. Moreover, since both $\sigma_X$ and $\sigma$ exchange the irreducible components of each singular fibre, $\sigma_X\circ\sigma^{-1}$ preserves any curve contracted by $\eta$ and is therefore the lift by $\eta$ of $\beta\colon \big((x_1:x_2),(y_1:y_2)\big)\mapsto \big((x_1:x_2),(\mu y_1:y_2)\big)$ for some $\mu\in {{\mathbb C}}^{*}$. It follows that $\sigma_X'=\eta\circ\sigma_X\circ\eta^{-1}=\beta\circ \sigma'$ is the map $$\sigma_X'\colon\big((x_1:x_2),(y_1:y_2)\big)\dasharrow \big((\overline{x_1}:\overline{x_2}),(-{\mu\cdot}\overline{y_2} P_1(\overline{x_1},\overline{x_2}):\overline{y_1} P_2(\overline{x_1},\overline{x_2}))\big).$$
Let us write $Q(x)=-\mu P_1(x,1)P_2(x,1)$, denote by $B\subset {{\mathbb C}}^3$ the affine hypersurface of equation $y^2+z^2=Q(x)$, and by $\pi_B\colon B\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$ the map $(x,y,z)\mapsto (x:1)$. Let $A=(B,\sigma_B)$, where $\sigma_B$ sends $(x,y,z)$ onto $(\bar{x},\bar{y},\bar{z})$. Denote by $\theta\colon B\dasharrow {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}$ the map that sends $(x,y,z)$ onto $\big((x:1),(y-{{\mathbf i}}z:P_2(x,1))\big)$ if $P_2(x,1)\not=0$ and onto $\big((x:1),(-\mu P_1(x,1):y+{{\mathbf i}}z)\big)$ if $P_1(x,1)\not=0$. Then $\theta$ is a birational morphism, and $\theta^{-1}$ sends $ \big((x_1:x_2),(y_1:y_2)\big)$ on $$\left(\frac{x_1}{x_2},\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{y_1}{y_2}P_2(x_1,x_2)-\frac{y_2}{y_1} \mu P_1(x_1,x_2)\right),\frac{{{\mathbf i}}}{2}\left(\frac{y_1}{y_2}P_2(x_1,x_2)+\frac{y_2}{y_1} \mu P_1(x_1,x_2)\right)\right).$$
Observe that $\sigma_X' \theta=\sigma_B\theta$. In consequence, $\psi=\eta^{-1}\circ\theta$ is a real birational map $A\dasharrow X$.
Moreover, $\psi$ is an isomorphism from $B$ to the complement in $S$ of the union of $\pi^{-1}((1:0))$ and the pull-back by $\eta$ of ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times (0:1)$ and ${{\mathbb P}}^1\times (1:0)$. Indeed let $x_0\in {{\mathbb C}}$. If $x_0\in {{\mathbb C}}$ is such that $Q(x_0)\not=0$, then $\theta$ restricts to an isomorphism from $\pi_B^{-1}((x_0:1))$ to $\{((x_0:1),(y_1:y_2))\in {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\ |\ y_1y_2\not=0\}\cong {{\mathbb C}}^{*}$. If $Q(x_0)=0$, then $x_0\in J_1\cup J_2$, and the fibre $\pi_B^{-1}((x_0:1))$ consists of two lines of ${{\mathbb C}}^2$ which intersect, given by $y={{\mathbf i}}z$ and $y=-{{\mathbf i}}z$. If $x_0\in J_1$, then the line $y+{{\mathbf i}}z=0$ is sent isomorphically by $\theta$ onto the fibre $\{((x_0:1),(y_1:y_2))\in {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\ |\ y_2\not=0\}\cong {{\mathbb C}}^{*}$, and the line $y-{{\mathbf i}}z$ is contracted on the point $((x_0:1),(0:1))$. The map $\psi$ sends thus isomorphically $\pi_B^{-1}((x_0:1))$ onto the fibre $\pi^{-1}((x_0:1))$ minus the two points corresponding to the two sections of self-intersection $-r$. The situation when $x_0\in J_2$ is similar.
The map $\psi$ is therefore an inclusion $A\to X$ and, by construction, it satisfies all the properties stated in the lemma.
Take a section $s$ of $\pi_Y$. If $s$ intersects its conjugate $\bar{s}$ into a real point $p$ (respectively into a pair of imaginary points $q_1$ and $q_2$), then blow-up the point $p$ (respectively $q_1$ and $q_2$), and contract the strict transform of the fibre of the blown-up point(s). Repeating this process, we obtain a minimal real conic bundle $(Z,\pi_Z)$ and a birational map $\phi\colon Y\dasharrow Z$ such that $\pi_Z\circ \phi= \pi_Y$ and $\phi(s)$ does not intersect its conjugate.
If all the base-points of $\phi$ are imaginary, we set $\psi=\phi$ and $(X,\pi_X)=(Z,\pi_Z)$. Otherwise, by induction on the number of real base-points of $\phi$, it suffices to prove the existence of $\psi$ when $\phi$ is an elementary link centered at only one real point.
Denote by $q\in Z$ the real point which is the base-point of $\phi^{-1}$. Since $\pi_Y$ has at least one singular fibre, this is also the case for $\pi_Z$, and thus $I(Z,\pi_Z)$ is not the whole ${{\mathbb P}}^1({{\mathbb R}})$ (By Lemma \[Lem:AffEx\]). We may thus assume that $(1:0)\notin I(Z,\pi_Z)$, that $\pi_Z(q)=(1:1)$, and that the interval of $I(Z,\pi_Z)$ which contains $\pi_Z(q)$ is $\{(x:1)\in \mathbb{P}^1_{{\mathbb R}}\ |\ 0\leq x \leq a\}$ for some $a\in {{\mathbb R}}$, $a>1$. Take the affine surface $A\subset Z$ given by Lemma \[Lem:AffEx\], which is isomorphic to $y^2+z^2=Q(x)$ for some polynomial $Q$. Then, $Q(0)=Q(a)=0$ and $Q(x)>0$ for $0<x<a$, and we may assume that $Q(1)=1$. Denote by $s$ the section of $\pi_Z\colon Z\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ given locally by $y+{{\mathbf i}}z={{\mathbf i}}x^n$, for some positive integer $n$. Its conjugate is given by $y-{{\mathbf i}}z=-{{\mathbf i}}x^n$, or $y+{{\mathbf i}}z=Q(x)/(-{{\mathbf i}}x^n)$. Thus, $s$ intersects $\bar{s}$ at some real point $p\in Z$, its image $x=\pi_Z(p)$ satisfies $Q(x)/(-{{\mathbf i}}x^n)={{\mathbf i}}x^n$, or $Q(x)=x^{2n}$. Taking $n$ large enough, this can only happen when $x=0$ or $x=1$. The first possibility cannot occur since a section does not pass through the singular point of a singular fibre. Thus, $s$ intersects $\bar{s}$ at only one real point, which is $q$. In consequence, the strict pull-back by $\phi$ of $s$ is a section of $Y$ which intersects its conjugate at only imaginary points. This shows that $(Y({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_Y)$ is isomorphic to an exceptional real conic bundle $(X,\pi_X)$.
\[Prp:Equivalences\] Let $(X,\pi_{X})$ and $(Y,\pi_{Y})$ be two minimal real conic bundles, and assume that either $\pi_X$ or $\pi_Y$ has at least one singular fibre. Then, the following are equivalent:
1. \[Prp:Equivalences1\] $I(X,\pi_X)=I(Y,\pi_Y)$;
2. \[Prp:Equivalences3\] there exists an isomorphism $\varphi\colon X({{\mathbb R}})\to Y({{\mathbb R}})$ such that $\pi_Y\circ\varphi=\pi_X$.
It suffices to prove $\ref{Prp:Equivalences1})\Rightarrow \ref{Prp:Equivalences3})$. By Lemma \[Lem:IsoEx\], we may assume that both $(X,\pi_X)$ and $(Y,\pi_Y)$ are exceptional. We may now assume that the fibre over $(1:0)$ is not singular and use Lemma \[Lem:AffEx\]: let $A_X\subset X$ and $B_X\subset Y$ be the affine surfaces given by the lemma, with equations $y^2+z^2=Q_X(x)$ and $y^2+z^2=Q_Y(x)$ respectively. Since $I(X,\pi_X)=I(Y,\pi_Y)$, $Q_Y(x)=\lambda Q_X(x)$ for some positive $\lambda\in {{\mathbb R}}$. The map $(x,y,z)\mapsto ( x,\sqrt{\lambda}y,\sqrt{\lambda} z)$ then yields an isomorphism $(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_X)\to (Y({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_Y)$.
The above result implies the next two corollaries. The first one strengthen a result of Comessatti [@Com1] (see also [@Kol Theorem 4.5]).
\[Cor:BirAutI\] Let $(X,\pi)$ and $(X',\pi')$ be two real conic bundles. Assume that $(X,\pi)$ and $(X,\pi')$ are minimal. Then $(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi)$ and $(X'({{\mathbb R}}),\pi')$ are isomorphic if and only if there exists an automorphism of ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ that sends $I(X,\pi)$ on $I(X',\pi')$.
\[Cor:Thm5Conic\] Let $(X,\pi_X)$ and $(Y,\pi_{Y})$ be two minimal conic bundles. Then, the following are equivalent:
1. \[Cor:Thm5Conic1\]$(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_X)$ and $(Y({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_Y)$ are isomorphic;
2. \[Cor:Thm5Conic2\]$(X,\pi_X)$ is birational to $(Y,\pi_Y)$ and $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is isomorphic to $Y({{\mathbb R}})$.
The implication $\ref{Cor:Thm5Conic1})\Rightarrow \ref{Cor:Thm5Conic2})$ is evident. Let us prove the converse.
Since $(X,\pi_{X})$ is birational to $(Y,\pi_{Y})$ and both of them are minimal, the number of singular fibres of $\pi_{X}$ and $\pi_{Y}$ is the same, equal to $2r$ for some non-negative integer $r$.
Assume that $r=0$, which means that $X$ is an Hirzebruch surfaces $\mathbb{F}_{m}$ for some $m$ and that $Y=\mathbb{F}_{n}$ for some $n$. Since $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is isomorphic to $Y({{\mathbb R}})$, we have $m\equiv n \mod 2$. It is easy to prove that $(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi)$ and $(Y({{\mathbb R}}),\pi)$ are isomorphic, by taking elementary links at two imaginary distinct fibres (see for example [@Ma06 Proof of Theorem 6.1]).
When $r>0$, already the fact that $(X,\pi_X)$ is birational to $(Y,\pi_Y)$ implies that $(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_X)$ is isomorphic to $(Y({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_Y)$ (Proposition \[Prp:Equivalences\]).
Conic bundles on del Pezzo surfaces {#Sec:ConicBunDPS}
===================================
In this section, we focus on surfaces admitting distinct minimal conic bundles. We will see that these surfaces are necessarily del Pezzo surfaces (Lemma \[Lem:KX4\]). We begin by the description of all possible minimal real conic bundles occurring on del Pezzo surfaces.
\[lem:minimaldp\] Let $V$ be is a subset of ${{\mathbb P}}^1({{\mathbb R}})$, then the following are equivalent:
1. \[lem:minimaldp1\] there exists a minimal real conic bundle $(X,\pi)$ with $I(X,\pi)=V$ such that $X$ is a del Pezzo surface;
2. \[lem:minimaldp2\] the set $V$ is a union of closed intervals, and $\#V\leq 3$.
The part $\ref{lem:minimaldp1})\Rightarrow \ref{lem:minimaldp2})$ is easy. Indeed, if $(X,\pi)$ is minimal, it is well-know that the number of singular fibres of $\pi$ is even, denoted $2r$, and that $2r = 8-(K_X)^2$. Since $-K_X$ is ample, $K_X^2\geq 1$, thus $r\leq 3$. The conclusion follows as $I(X,\pi)$ is the union of $r$ closed intervals.
Let us prove the converse. If $V={{\mathbb P}}^1({{\mathbb R}})$ or $V = \emptyset$, we take $(X,\pi)$ to be $({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}},{\mathrm{pr}}_1)$, where ${\mathrm{pr}}_1$ is the projection on the first factor, endowed with the anti-holomorphic map that sends $\bigl((x_1:x_2),(y_1:y_2)\bigr)$ onto $\bigl((\overline{x_1}:\overline{x_2}),(\pm \overline{y_2}:\overline{y_1})\bigr)$.
Now we can assume that $V$ consists of $k$ closed intervals $I_1,\dots,I_k$, with $1\le k\le 3$. For $j=1,\dots, 3$, we denote by $m_j$ an homogenous form of degree $2$. If $j\le k$, we choose that $m_j$ vanishes at the boundary of the interval $I_j$, and is non-negative on $I_j$. If $j>k$, we choose $m_j$ such that $m_j$ is positive on ${{\mathbb P}}^1({{\mathbb R}})$. In any case, we choose that $m_1\cdot m_2\cdot m_3$ has $6$ distinct roots. We consider the real surface given by $$X := \bigl\{\left((x:y:z),(a:b)\right)\in\mathbb{P}^2_{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}\ |\ x^2m_1(a,b)+y^2m_2(a,b)+z^2m_3(a,b)=0\bigr\}\;.$$ The projection on ${{\mathbb P}}^2_{{\mathbb R}}$ is a double covering. A straightforward calculation shows that this covering is ramified over a smooth quartic. In consequence, $X$ is a smooth surface, and precisely a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$. Taking $\pi\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ as the second projection, we obtain a conic bundle $(X,\pi)$ on the del Pezzo surface $X$ such that $I(X,\pi)=V$. If $k=3$, the conic bundle is minimal. Otherwise, we contract components in the imaginary singular fibres (corresponding to the roots of $m_j$ for $j>k$) to obtain the result.
Recall the following classical result, that will be useful throughout what follows.
\[Lem:DPLinesP2\] Let $\pi\colon S\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb C}}}$ be a complex conic bundle, and assume that $S$ is a del Pezzo surface, with $(K_S)^2=9-m\leq 7$. Then, there exists a birational morphism $\eta\colon S\to {{\mathbb P}}^2_{{\mathbb C}}$ which is a blow-up of $m$ points $p_1,\dots,p_m$ and which sends the fibres of $\pi$ onto the lines passing through $p_1$. The curves of self-intersection $-1$ of $S$ are
- the exceptional curves $\eta^{-1}(p_1),\dots,\eta^{-1}(p_m)$;
- the strict transforms of the lines passing through $2$ of the $p_i$;
- the conics passing through $5$ of the $p_i$;
- the cubics passing through $7$ of the $p_i$ and being singular at one of these.
Denote by ${\varepsilon}$ the contraction of one component in each singular fibre of $\pi$. Then, ${\varepsilon}$ is a birational morphism of conic bundles – not defined over ${{\mathbb R}}$ – from $S$ to a del Pezzo surface which is also an Hirzebruch surface. Changing the contracted components, we may assume that ${\varepsilon}$ is a map $S\rightarrow \mathbb{F}_1$. Contracting the exceptional section onto a point $p_1\in {{\mathbb P}}^2_{{\mathbb C}}$, we get a birational map $\eta\colon S\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^2_{{\mathbb C}}$ which is the blow-up of $m$ points $p_1,\dots,p_m$ of ${{\mathbb P}}^2_{{\mathbb C}}$, and which sends the fibres of $\pi_1$ onto the lines passing through $p_1$. The description of the $(-1)$-curves is well-known and may be found for example in [@bib:DemDPezzo].
\[Lem:KX4\] Let $\pi_1\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ be a minimal real conic bundle. Then, the following conditions are equivalent:
1. \[Lem:KX4-1\] There exist a real conic bundle $\pi_2\colon X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$, such that $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ induce distinct foliations on $X({{\mathbb C}})$.
2. \[Lem:KX4-2\] Either $X$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$, or $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$ or $4$.
Moreover, if the conditions are satisfied, then the following occur:
1. The map $\pi_2$ is unique, up to an automorphism of ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$.
2. There exist $\alpha \in {\operatorname{Aut}}(X)$ and $\beta\in {\operatorname{Aut}}({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}})$ such that $\pi_1\alpha=\beta\pi_2$. Moreover, if $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$, $\alpha$ may be chosen to be the Geiser involution.
3. Denoting by $f_1,f_2\subset {\operatorname{Pic}}(X)$ the divisors of the general fibre of respectively $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$, we have $f_1+f_2= -cK_X$ where $c=4/(K_X)^2\in {{\mathbb N}}\cdot \frac{1}{2}$.
We now prove that $\ref{Lem:KX4-1})$ implies $\ref{Lem:KX4-2})$, $a)$, and $c)$. Assuming the existence of $\pi_2$, we denote by $f_i$ the divisor of the fibre of $\pi_i$ for $i=1,2$. We have $(f_1)^2=(f_2)^2=0$ and by adjunction formula $f_1\cdot K_X=f_2\cdot K_X=-2$, where $K_X$ is the canonical divisor. Let us write $d=(K_X)^2$.
Since $(X,\pi_1)$ is minimal, ${\operatorname{Pic}}(X)$ has rank $2$, hence $f_1=aK_X+bf_2$, for some $a,b\in \mathbb{Q}$. Computing $(f_1)^2$ and $f_1\cdot K_X$ we find respectively $0=a^2d-4ab=a(ad-4b)$ and $-2=ad-2b$. If $a=0$, we find $f_1=f_2$, a contradiction. Thus, $4b=ad$ and $2b=ad+2$, which yields $b=-1$ and $ad=-4$, so $f_1+f_2=-4/d\cdot K_X$. This shows that $f_2$ is uniquely determined by $f_1$, which is the assertion $a)$.
Denote as usual by $S$ the complex surface associated to $X$. Let $C\in {\operatorname{Pic}}(S)$ be an effective divisor, with reduced support, and let us prove that $C\cdot (f_1+f_2)>0$. Since $C$ is effective, $C\cdot f_1\geq 0$ and $C\cdot f_2\geq 0$. If $C\cdot f_1=0$, then the support of $C$ is contained in one fibre of $\pi_1$. If $C$ is a multiple of $f_1$, then $C\cdot f_2>0$; otherwise, $C$ is a multiple of a $(-1)$-curve contained in a singular fibre of $f_1$, and the orbit of $C$ by the anti-holomorphic involution is equal to a multiple of $f_1$, whence $C\cdot f_2>0$.
Since $f_1+f_2$ is ample, and $f_1+f_2=-4/d\cdot K_X$ either $K_X$ or $-K_X$ is ample. The surface $X$ being geometrically rational, the former cannot occur, whence $d>0$.
If $S$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb C}}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb C}}}$, the existence of $\pi_1,\pi_2$ shows that $X$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$. Otherwise, $K_X$ is not a multiple in ${\operatorname{Pic}}(X_{{{\mathbb C}}})$ and thus $d$ is equal to $1$, $2$ or $4$. The number of singular fibres being even and equal to $8-(K_X)^2$, the only possibilities are then $2$ and $4$.
We have proved that $\ref{Lem:KX4-1})$ implies $\ref{Lem:KX4-2})$, $a)$, and $c)$.
Assume now that $X=(S,\sigma)$ is ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ or a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$ or $4$. We construct an automorphism $\alpha$ of $X$ which does not belong to ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X,\pi)$. Then, by taking $\pi_2=\pi_1\alpha$ we get assertion $\ref{Lem:KX4-1})$. Taking into account the unicity of $\pi_2$, we get $b)$.
If $X$ is ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$, the two conic bundles are given by the projections on each factor, and we can get for $\alpha$ the swap of the factors.
If $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$, the anti-canonical map ${\zeta}\colon X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^2$ is a double covering ramified along a smooth quartic, cf. e.g. [@bib:DemDPezzo]. Let $\alpha$ be the involution associated to the double covering – $\alpha$ is classically called the *Geiser involution*. It fixes a smooth quartic, hence cannot preserve any conic bundle.
The remaining case is when $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $4$. By Lemma \[Lem:DPLinesP2\], there is a birational map $\eta\colon S\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^2_{{\mathbb C}}$ which is the blow-up of five points $p_1,\dots,p_5$ of ${{\mathbb P}}^2_{{\mathbb C}}$, no three being collinear and which sends the fibres of $\pi_1$ on the lines passing through $p_1$ . There are $16$ exceptional curves (curves isomorphic to ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb C}}$ of self-intersection $(-1)$) on $S$:
- $E_1=\eta^{-1}(p_1),...,E_5=\eta^{-1}(p_5)$ ($5$ curves);
- the strict transforms of the lines passing through $p_i$ and $p_j$, denoted by $L_{ij}$ ($10$ curves);
- the strict transform of the conic passing through the five points, denoted by $\Gamma$.
Note that the four singular fibres of $\pi_1$ are $E_i\cup L_{ij}$, $i=2,\dots,5$, and that $\sigma$ exchanges thus $E_i$ and $L_{ij}$ for $i=1,\dots,5$. The intersection form being preserved, this implies that $\sigma$ acts on the $16$ exceptional curves as $$(E_2\ L_{12})(E_3\ L_{13})(E_4\ L_{14})(E_5\ L_{15})(E_1\ \Gamma)(L_{23}\ L_{45})(L_{24}\ L_{35})(L_{25}\ L_{34}).$$
After a linear change of coordinates, we may assume that $p_1=(1:1:1)$, $p_2=(1:0:0)$, $p_3=(0:1:0)$, $p_4=(0:0:1)$ and $p_5=(a:b:c)$ for some $a,b,c\in {{\mathbb C}}^{*}$. Denote by $\phi$ the birational involution $(x:y:z)\dasharrow (ayz:bxz:cxy)$ of ${{\mathbb P}}^2_{{\mathbb C}}$. Since the base-points of $\phi$ are $p_2,p_3,p_4$ and since $\phi$ exchanges $p_1$ and $p_5$, the map $\alpha=\eta^{-1}\phi\eta$ is an automorphism of $S$. Its action on the $16$ exceptional curves is given by the permutation $$(L_{23}\ E_4)(L_{24}\ E_3)(L_{34}\ E_2)(L_{12}\ L_{25})(L_{13}\ L_{35})(L_{14}\ L_{45})(\Gamma\ L_{15})(E_1\ E_5).$$ Observe that the actions of $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ on the set of $16$ exceptional curves commute. This means that $\alpha \sigma \alpha^{-1}\sigma^{-1}$ is an holomorphic automorphism of $S$ which preserves any of the $16$ curves. It is the lift of an automorphism of ${{\mathbb P}}^2_{{\mathbb C}}$ that fixes the $5$ points $p_1,\dots,p_5$ and hence is the identity. Consequently, $\alpha$ and $\sigma$ commute, so $\alpha\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(X)$. Since $\phi$ sends a general line passing though $p_1$ onto a conic passing through $p_2,\dots,p_5$, $\alpha$ belongs to ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X)\backslash {\operatorname{Aut}}(X,\pi)$.
\[Cor:23comp2conicbundles\] Let $X$ be a minimal geometrically rational real surface, which is not rational. Then, the following are equivalent:
1. \[Cor:23comp2conicbundles1\] $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=2$ or $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=3$;
2. \[Cor:23comp2conicbundles2\] There exists a geometrically rational real surface $Y({{\mathbb R}})$ isomorphic to $X({{\mathbb R}})$, and such that $Y$ admits two minimal conic bundles $\pi_1\colon Y\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ and $\pi_2\colon Y\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ inducing distinct foliations on $Y({{\mathbb C}})$.
$[\ref{Cor:23comp2conicbundles2})\Rightarrow \ref{Cor:23comp2conicbundles1})]$ By Lemma \[Lem:KX4\], $Y$ is then a del Pezzo surface, which has degree $2$ or $4$ since $Y$ is not rational. This implies that $\#Y({{\mathbb R}})=2$ or $\#Y({{\mathbb R}})=3$ by Proposition \[Prp:TopMinimal\].
$[\ref{Cor:23comp2conicbundles1})\Rightarrow \ref{Cor:23comp2conicbundles2})]$. According to Theorem \[Thm:ClassicMinimal\] and Proposition \[Prp:TopMinimal\], $(1)$ implies the existence of a minimal real conic bundle structure $\pi_{X}\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ with $4$ or $6$ singular fibres. This condition is equivalent to the fact that $I(X,\pi_{X})$ is the union of $2$ or $3$ intervals. According to Lemma \[lem:minimaldp\], there exists a minimal real conic bundle $(Y,\pi_{1})$ such that $Y$ is a del Pezzo surface and $I(Y,\pi_{1})=I(X,\pi_{X})$. Corollary \[Cor:BirAutI\] shows that $(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_{X})$ and $(Y,\pi_{1})$ are isomorphic. Moreover Lemma \[Lem:KX4\] yields the existence of $\pi_{2}$.
Equivalence of surfaces versus equivalence of conic bundles {#Sec:Equiv}
===========================================================
This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[Thm:Diff+Bir=DiffBir\]. From Theorem \[Thm:ClassicMinimal\] and Proposition \[Prop:DP1DP2rho1\], it remains to solve the conic bundle case, which is done in Theorem \[thm:isom\]. First of all, we correct an existing inaccuracy in the literature; in [@Kol Exercice 5.8] or [@Sil VI.3.5], it is asserted that all minimal real conic bundles with four singular fibres belong to a unique birational equivalence class. To the contrary, the following general result, which includes the case with four singular fibres, occurs:
\[Thm:Birapport\] Let $\pi_X\colon X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ and $\pi_Y\colon Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ be two real conic bundles, and suppose that either $X$ or $Y$ is non-rational. Then, the following are equivalent:
1. \[Thm:Birapport1\] The two real surfaces $X$ and $Y$ are birational.
2. \[Thm:Birapport2\] The two real conic bundles $(X,\pi_X)$ and $(Y,\pi_Y)$ are birational.
3. \[Thm:Birapport3\] There exists an automorphism of ${{\mathbb P}}^1$ which sends $I(X,\pi_X)$ onto $I(Y,\pi_Y)$.
Moreover, if the number of singular fibres of $\pi_{X}$ is at least $8$, then ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X)={\operatorname{Bir}}(X,\pi_{X})$.
It is well-known that this result is false when $X$ and $Y$ are rational. Indeed, consider $(X,\pi_X)=({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}},{\mathrm{pr}}_1)$ and $(Y,\pi_Y)$ be a real conic bundle with two singular fibres. The surfaces $X$ and $Y$ are birational, but the conic bundles $(X,\pi_X)$ and $(Y,\pi_Y)$ are not.
The equivalence $(\ref{Thm:Birapport3})\Leftrightarrow (\ref{Thm:Birapport2})$ was proved in Corollary \[Cor:BirAutI\] and $(\ref{Thm:Birapport2})\Rightarrow (\ref{Thm:Birapport1})$ is evident.
Let us prove now $(\ref{Thm:Birapport1})\Leftrightarrow (\ref{Thm:Birapport2})$. We may assume that $(X,\pi_X)$ and $(Y,\pi_Y)$ are minimal and that $X$ is not rational, hence $\pi_X$ has at least $4$ singular fibres. Let $\psi\colon X\dasharrow Y$ a birational map, and decompose $\psi$ into elementary links: $\psi=\psi_n\circ\dots\circ\psi_1$ (see [@IskFact Theorem 2.5]). Consider $\psi_1 \colon X\dasharrow X_1$ the first link, which may be of type $II$ or $IV$ only by [@IskFact Theorem 2.6]. If $\psi_1$ is of type $II$, then $\psi_1$ is a birational map of conic bundles $(X,\pi_X) \dasharrow (X_1,\pi_1)$ for some conic bundle structure $\pi_1\colon X_1\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1$. If $\psi_1$ is of type $IV$, then $\psi_1$ is an isomorphism $X \to X_1$ and the link is precisely a change of conic bundle structure from $\pi_{X}$ to $\pi_1\colon X_1\rightarrow{{\mathbb P}}^1$, which induce distinct foliations on $X({{\mathbb R}})$. Applying Lemma \[Lem:KX4\], $X$ is a del Pezzo surfaces of degree $2$ or $4$, and there exist automorphisms $\alpha\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(X)$ and $\beta\in {\operatorname{Aut}}({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}})$ such that $\pi_1\psi_1\alpha=\beta\pi_2$, whence $(X,\pi)$ is isomorphic to $(X_1,\pi_1)$. We proceed by induction on the number of elementary links to conclude that $(X,\pi_X)$ is birational to $(Y,\pi_Y)$. Moreover, if $\pi_{X}$ has at least $8$ singular fibres, then no link of type $IV$ may occur, so $\psi$ is a birational map of conic bundles $(X,\pi_{X})\dasharrow (Y,\pi_{Y})$.
When the conic bundles are minimal, we can strengthen Theorem \[Thm:Birapport\] to get an isomorphism between the real parts.
\[thm:isom\] Let $\pi_X\colon X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ and $\pi_Y\colon Y\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ be two *minimal* real conic bundles, and suppose that either $X$ or $Y$ is non-rational. Then, the following are equivalent:
1. \[enum.thm.isom.1\] $X$ and $Y$ are birational.
2. \[enum.thm.isom.2\] $X({{\mathbb R}})$ and $Y({{\mathbb R}})$ are isomorphic.
3. \[enum.thm.isom.3\] $(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_X)$ and $(Y({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_Y)$ are isomorphic.
The implications \[enum.thm.isom.3\]) $\Rightarrow$ \[enum.thm.isom.2\]) $\Rightarrow$ \[enum.thm.isom.1\]) being evident, it suffices to prove \[enum.thm.isom.1\]) $\Rightarrow$ \[enum.thm.isom.3\]). Since $X$ and $Y$ are not rational, both $\pi_{X}$ and $\pi_{Y}$ have at least one singular fibre. Applying Lemma \[Lem:IsoEx\], we may assume that both $(X,\pi_X)$ and $(Y,\pi_Y)$ are exceptional real conic bundles. Then, since $(X,\pi_X)$ and $(Y,\pi_Y)$ are birational (Theorem \[Thm:Birapport\]), we may assume that $I(X,\pi_X)=I(Y,\pi_Y)$, up to an automorphism of ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$. Then Corollary \[Cor:BirAutI\] shows that $(X,\pi_X)$ is isomorphic to $(Y,\pi_Y)$.
We are now able to prove Theorem \[Thm:Diff+Bir=DiffBir\] concerning minimal surfaces.
Let $X$ and $Y$ be two minimal geometrically rational real surfaces, and assume that either $X$ or $Y$ is non-rational.
If $X({{\mathbb R}})$ and $Y({{\mathbb R}})$ are isomorphic, it is clear that $X$ and $Y$ are birational. Let us prove the converse.
Theorem \[Thm:ClassicMinimal\] lists all the possibilities for $X$. If $\rho(X)=1$ or $\rho(Y)=1$, Proposition \[Prop:DP1DP2rho1\] shows that $X$ is isomorphic to $Y$. Otherwise, since neither $X$ nor $Y$ is rational, there exist minimal conic bundle structures on $X$ and on $Y$. From Theorem \[thm:isom\], we conclude that $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is isomorphic to $Y({{\mathbb R}})$.
To go further with non-minimal surfaces, we need to know when the group ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive for $X$ minimal. This is done in the next sections.
Very transitive actions {#Sec:VeryTransitive}
=======================
Thanks to the work done in Section \[Sec:conicbundle\], it is easy to apply the techniques of [@hm3] to prove that ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is fiberwise very transitive on a real conic bundle. After describing the transitivity of ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ on the tangent space of a general point, we set the main result of that section: ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive on each connected component when $X$ is minimal and admits two conic bundle structures (Proposition \[Prp:TransivitySurface\]). We end the section by giving a characterisation of surfaces $X$ for which ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is able to mix the connected components of $X({{\mathbb R}})$.
\[Lem:TransivityConicBundle\] Let $(X,\pi)$ be a minimal real conic bundle over ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ with at least one singular fibre. Let $(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ and $(q_1,\dots,q_n)$ be two $n$-tuples of distinct points of $X({{\mathbb R}})$, and let $(b_1,\dots,b_m)$ be $m$ points of $I(X,\pi)$. Assume that $\pi(p_i)=\pi(q_i)$ for each $i$, that $\pi(p_i)\ne\pi(p_j)$ for $i\ne j$ and that $\pi(p_i)\not=b_j$ for any $i$ and any $j$.
Then, there exists $\alpha \in {\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ such that $\alpha(p_i)=q_i$ for every $i$, $\pi\alpha=\pi$ and $\alpha|_{\pi^{-1}(b_i)}$ is the identity for every $i$.
The same result holds for minimal real conic bundles with no singular fibre, see [@bh 5.4]. The following proof uses *twisting maps*, see below, which were introduced in [@hm3] to prove that the action of the group of automorphisms ${\operatorname{Aut}}(S^2)$ on the quadric sphere $S^2:=\{(x:y:z)\in{{\mathbb R}}^3\ |\ x^2+y^2+z^2=1\}$ is very transitive.
By Lemma \[Lem:IsoEx\], we may assume that $(X,\pi)$ is exceptional. Moreover, Lemma \[Lem:AffEx\] yields the existence of an affine real surface $A\subset X$ isomorphic to the hypersurface of ${{\mathbb R}}^3$ given by $$y^2+z^2=-\prod_{i=1}^{2r}(x-a_i),$$ for some $a_1,\dots,a_{2r}\in {{\mathbb R}}$ with $a_1<a_2<\dots<a_{2r}$, where $\pi|_A$ corresponds to the projection $(x,y,z)\mapsto x$, and where the inclusion $A\subset X$ induces an isomorphism $A({{\mathbb R}})\rightarrow X({{\mathbb R}})$.
For $i=1,\dots,n$, let us denote by $(x_i,y_i,z_i)$ the coordinates of $p_i$ in $A\subset {{\mathbb R}}^3$ and by $(u_i,v_i,w_i)$ the ones of $q_i$. From hypothesis, we have $x_i = u_i$ for all $i$, thus we get $y_i^2 + z_i^2= v_i^2 + w_i^2$ for all $i$. Let $\Phi_i\in {\operatorname{SO}}_2({{\mathbb R}})$ be the rotation sending $(x_i,y_i)$ to $(u_i,v_i)$. Then by [@hm3 Lemma 2.2], there exists an algebraic map $\Phi
\colon [a_1,a_{2r}] \to {\operatorname{SO}}_2({{\mathbb R}})$ such that $\Phi(x_i) =
\Phi_i$ for $i=1,\dots,n$ and $\Phi(b_i)$ is the identity for $i=1,\dots,m$. Let us recall the proof; since $ {\operatorname{SO}}_2({{\mathbb R}})$ is isomorphic to the unit circle $S^1:=\{(x:y:z)\in{{\mathbb P}}^2({{\mathbb R}})\ |\ x^2+y^2=z^2\}$, it suffices to prove the statement for $S^1$ instead of $ {\operatorname{SO}}_2({{\mathbb R}})$. Let $\Phi_0$ be a point of $S^1$ distinct from $\Phi_1,\ldots,\Phi_n$ and from the identity. Since $S^1\setminus \{\Phi_0\}$ is isomorphic to ${{\mathbb R}}$, it suffices, finally, to prove the statement for ${{\mathbb R}}$ instead of $ {\operatorname{SO}}_2({{\mathbb R}})$. The latter statement is an easy consequence of Lagrange polynomial interpolation.
Then the map defined by $\alpha\colon (x,y,z)\mapsto \bigl(x,(y,z)\cdot \Phi(x)\bigr)$ induces an automorphism $A({{\mathbb R}})\rightarrow A({{\mathbb R}})$ called the *twisting map* of $\pi$ associated to $\Phi$. Moreover, $\alpha(p_i)=q_i$, for all $i$, $\pi\alpha=\pi$, $\alpha|_{\pi^{-1}(b_i)}$ is the identity for every $i$, and $\pi$ induces an automorphism $X({{\mathbb R}})\to X({{\mathbb R}})$.
\[Lem:TransivityTangentConicBundle\] Let $(X,\pi)$ be a minimal real conic bundle over ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ with at least one singular fibre. Let $p\in X$ be a real point in a nonsingular fibre of $\pi$, and let $\Sigma\subset I(X,\pi)$ be a finite subset, with $\pi(p)\in \Sigma$. Denote by $\eta\colon Y\to X$ the blow-up of $p$, and by $E\subset Y$ the exceptional curve. Let $q\in E$ the point corresponding to the direction of the fibre of $\pi$ passing through $p$.
Then, the lift of the group $$G=\Big\{\alpha \in {\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr), \pi\alpha=\pi\ \Big|\ \alpha |_{\pi^{-1}(\Sigma)} \mbox{ is the identity}\Big\}$$by $\eta$ is a subgroup $\eta^{-1}G\eta\subset {\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(Y({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ which fixes the point $q$, and acts transitively on $E\backslash q\cong \mathbb{A}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$.
Since $G$ acts identically on $\pi^{-1}(\Sigma)$, it fixes $p$, and therefore lifts to $H=\eta^{-1} G\eta \subset {\operatorname{Aut}}(Y({{\mathbb R}}),\pi\eta)$, which preserves $E$. Moreover, $G$ preserves the fibre of $\pi$ passing through $p$, so $H$ preserves its strict transform, which intersects transversally $E$ at $q$, so $q$ is fixed.
Let us prove now that the action of $\eta^{-1}G\eta$ on $E\backslash q$ is transitive. By Lemma \[Lem:IsoEx\], we may assume that $(X,\pi)$ is exceptional. Then, we take an affine surface $A\subset X$, isomorphic to the hypersurface $y^2+z^2=P(x)$ of ${{\mathbb R}}^{3}$ for some polynomial $P$, such that $A|_{\pi}$ is the projection ${\mathrm{pr}}_{x}\colon(x,y,z)\mapsto x$ and the inclusion $A\subset X$ gives an isomorphism $A({{\mathbb R}})\to X({{\mathbb R}})$ (Lemma \[Lem:AffEx\]). Let us write $(x_{0},y_{0},z_{0})\in {{\mathbb R}}^{3}$ the coordinates of $p$. Since $x$ is on a nonsingular fibre of $\pi$, then $P(x_{0})>0$. Up to an affine automorphism of ${{\mathbb R}}^{3}$, and up to multiplication of $P$ by some constant, we may assume that $x_{0}=0$, $P(0)=1$, $y_{0}=0$, and $z_{0}=0$.
To any real polynomial $\lambda\in {{\mathbb R}}[X]$, we associate the matrix $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha(X)& \beta(X)\\ -\beta(X) & \alpha(X)\end{array}\right)\in {\operatorname{SO}}_{2}({{\mathbb R}}(X))\;,$$ where $\alpha=\frac{1-\lambda^{2}}{1+\lambda^{2}}\in{{\mathbb R}}(X)$ and $\beta=\frac{2\lambda}{1+\lambda^2}\in{{\mathbb R}}(X)$. And corresponding to this matrix, we associate the map $$\psi_{\lambda}\colon (x,y,z)\mapsto (x,\alpha(x)\cdot y-\beta(x)\cdot z,\beta(x)\cdot y+\alpha(x)\cdot z),$$ which belongs to ${\operatorname{Aut}}(A({{\mathbb R}}),{\mathrm{pr}}_{x})$. To impose that $\psi_{\lambda}$ is the identity on $({\mathrm{pr}}_{x})^{-1}(\Sigma)$ is the same to ask that $\lambda(x)=0$ for each $(x:1)\in \Sigma\subset {{\mathbb P}}^1({{\mathbb R}})$, and in particular for $x=0$.
Denote by $\mathcal{O}={{\mathbb R}}[x,y,z]/(y^2+z^2-P(x))$ the ring of functions of $A$, by $\mathfrak{p}\subset \mathcal{O}$ the ideal of functions vanishing at $p$, by $\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ the localisation, and by ${{\mathfrak m}}\subset \mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}}$ the maximal ideal of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathfrak{p}}$. Then, the cotangent ring $T_{p,A}^{*}$ of $p$ in $A$ is equal to ${{\mathfrak m}}/{{\mathfrak m}}^2$, and is generated by the images $[x]$, $[y]$, $[z-1]$ of $x,y,z-1\in {{\mathbb R}}[x,y,z]$. Since $P(0)=1$, we may write $P(x)=1+xQ(x)$, for some real polynomial $Q$. We compute $$[0]=[y^2+z^2-P(x)]=[y^2+(z-1)^2+2(z-1)-xQ(x)]=[2(z-1)-xQ(0)]\in{{\mathfrak m}}/{{\mathfrak m}}^2\;.$$
We see that $[z-1]=[xQ(0)/2]$, thus ${{\mathfrak m}}/{{\mathfrak m}}^2$ is generated by $[x]$ and $[y]$ as a ${{\mathbb R}}$-module. Since $\lambda(0)=0$, we can write $\lambda(x)=x\mu(x)$, for some real polynomial $\mu$. The linear action of $\psi_{\lambda}$ on the cotangent space $T_{p,A}^{*}$ fixes $[x]$ and sends $[y]$ onto $$\begin{array}{rcl}
\left[\alpha(x)\cdot y-\beta(x)\cdot z\right]&=&\left[\frac{(1-\lambda(x)^2)y-2\lambda(x)z}{\lambda(x)^2+1}\right]=\left[y-2\lambda(x)(1+xQ(0)/2)\right]\\
&=&\left[y-2\mu(0)x\right]\;.\end{array}$$ It suffices to change the derivative of $\lambda$ at $0$ (which is equal to $\mu(0)$), which may be any real number. Therefore, the action of $G$ on the projectivisation of $T_{p,A}^{*}$, fixes a point (corresponding to $[x]$) but acts transitively on the complement of this point. Since $E$ corresponds to the projectivisation of $T_{p,A}$, $G$ acts transitively on $E\backslash q$.
\[no-two-singular\] Let $X$ be a real projective surface endowed with two minimal conic bundles $\pi_1\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ and $\pi_2\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ inducing distinct foliations on $X({{\mathbb C}})$. There exists a real projective surface ${X'}$ such that ${X'}({{\mathbb R}})$ and $X({{\mathbb R}})$ are isomorphic, $X$ is endowed with two minimal conic bundles $\pi_1'\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ and $\pi_2'\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ inducing distinct foliations on $X'({{\mathbb C}})$ and the following condition holds:
$(\star)$ Let $F_j$ be a real fibre of $\pi_j'$, $j=1,2$. If $F_1({{\mathbb R}})\cap F_2({{\mathbb R}}) \ne \emptyset$, then at most one of the curves $F_j$ can be singular.
It is possible that the condition $(\star)$ above does not hold for $(X, \pi_1,\pi_2)$, taking for example for ${X}$ the del Pezzo surface of degree $2$ given in the proof of Lemma \[lem:minimaldp\] for $k=3$: $$X := \bigl\{\left((x:y:z),(a:b)\right)\in\mathbb{P}^2_{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}\ |\ x^2m_1(a,b)+y^2m_2(a,b)+z^2m_3(a,b)=0\bigr\}\;.$$ The map $\pi_1\colon {X}\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ is given by the second projection, and the $6$ singular points of its singular fibres correspond to only three points of ${{\mathbb P}}^2_{{\mathbb R}}$, namely $(1:0:0)$, $(0:1:0)$ and $(0:0:1)$. This shows that the Geiser involution preserves the set of the $6$ points, so each of these points is the singular point of a singular fibre of $\pi_2$.
Suppose that the condition $(\star)$ does not hold for $(X,\pi_1,\pi_2)$ (otherwise, the result is obvious). Then $F_i$ is the union of two $(-1)$-curves $E_{i,1}$ and $E_{i,2}$, intersecting transversally at some point $p_i$. Since $p_i$ is the only real point of $F_i$, we have $p_1=p_2$. Hence, $F_1\cdot E_{2,i}\geq 2$ for $i=1,2$, which implies that $F_1\cdot F_2\geq 4$. According to Lemma \[Lem:KX4\], $X$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$ or $4$, and we have $F_1+F_2=-cK_{X}$ with $c=4/(K_{X})^2$. Computing $16/(K_{X})^2=(F_1+F_2)^2=2F_1\cdot F_2\geq 8$, we see that $(K_{X})^2=2$.
Let $q\in X({{\mathbb R}})$ be a real point, let $\eta\colon Y\to X$ be the blow-up of $q$, and let ${\varepsilon}\colon Y\to {X'}$ be the contraction of the strict transform of the fibre of $\pi_1$ passing through $q$, and write $\psi\colon X\dasharrow {X'}$ the composition $\psi={\varepsilon}\circ \eta^{-1}$. We prove now that if $q$ is general enough, then ${X'}$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$, and $\pi_1'=\pi_1\circ \psi$ and $\pi_2'=\sigma_{X'}\circ \pi_1'$ (where $\sigma_{X'}\in {\operatorname{Aut}}({X'})$ is the Geiser involution of ${X'}$) satisfy the condition $(\star)$.
Firstly, it is well-known that blowing-up a general point of a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$ yields a del Pezzo surface of degree $1$ (it suffices that $q$ does not belong to any of the $(-1)$-curves of $X$ and to the ramification curve of the double covering $X\to {{\mathbb P}}^2$); then a contraction from a del Pezzo surface of degree $1$ yields a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$.
Secondly, we denote respectively by $S,S',T$ the complex surfaces obtained by forgetting the real structures of $X,X',Y$ and study condition $(\star)$ by working now in the Picard groups of these surfaces, identifying a curve with its equivalence class. We choose a $(-1)$-curve (not defined over ${{\mathbb R}}$) in any of the six singular fibres of $\pi_1'$, and denote these by $C_1,\dots,C_6$, and denote by $p_1,\dots,p_6$ the singular points of the six singular fibres, so that $p_i\in C_i$. Condition $(\star)$ amounts to prove that $D_i:=\psi^{-1}\sigma_{X'}\psi(C_i)\subset S$ does not pass through $p_j$ for any $i$ and any $j$. Fixing $i$ and $j$, we will see that this yields a curve of $X$ where $q$ should not lie. Note that the action of the Geiser involution $\sigma_{X'}\in {\operatorname{Aut}}({X'})\subset{\operatorname{Aut}}(S')$ on ${\operatorname{Pic}}(S')$ is given $\sigma_{X'}(D)=(D\cdot K_{X'})K_{X'}-D$ (follows directly from the fact that the invariant part of ${\operatorname{Pic}}(S')$ has rank $1$). In consequence, the $(-1)$-curve $D_i':=\sigma_{X'}\psi(C_i)\subset S'$ is equal to $-K_{X'}-\psi(C_i)$, and thus ${\varepsilon}^{*}(D_i)=-{\varepsilon}^{*}(K_{X'})-\eta^{*}(C_i)$. Writing $E_q$ the $(-1)$-curve contracted by $\eta$, and $f$ a general fibre of $\pi_1$, the $(-1)$-curve contracted by ${\varepsilon}$ is equivalent to $\eta^{*}(f)-E_q$. We have $K_Y=\eta^{*}(K_{X})+E_q={\varepsilon}^{*}(K_{X'})+\eta^{*}(f)-E_q$ in ${\operatorname{Pic}}(Y)$. This implies that $$\eta^{*}(D_i)={\varepsilon}^{*}(D_i')=-\eta^{*}(K_{X})+\eta^{*}(f)-\eta^{*}(C_i)-2E_q\in{\operatorname{Pic}}(Y).$$
This means that $D_i$ is a curve with a double point at $q$, is equivalent to $-K_{X}+f-C_i\in{\operatorname{Pic}}(S)$ and has self-intersection $3$. Moreover, the linear system $\Lambda_i$ of curves in ${\operatorname{Pic}}(S)$ equivalent to $-K_{X}+f-C_i$ has dimension $3$. Note that $\Lambda_i$ does not depend on $q$, but only on $i$. Denote by $\Lambda_{i,j}\subset \Lambda_i$ the sublinear system of curves of $\Lambda_i$ passing through $p_j$. This system has dimension $2$; after blowing-up $p_j$, the system $\Lambda_{i,j}$ yields a ramified double covering of ${{\mathbb P}}^2$. If $D_i$ passes through $p_j$, then $D_i$ corresponds to a member of $\Lambda_{i,j}$, singular at $q$ and this implies that $q$ belongs to the ramified locus of the double covering induced by $\Lambda_{i,j}$. It suffices to choose $q$ outside of all these locus to obtain condition $(\star)$.
We now use the above lemmas to show that the action of ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive on each connected component when $X$ is a surface with two conic bundles.
\[Prp:TransivitySurface\] Let $X$ be a real projective surface, which admits two minimal conic bundles $\pi_1\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ and $\pi_2\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ inducing distinct foliations on $X({{\mathbb C}})$.
Let $(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ and $(q_1,\dots,q_n)$ be two $n$-tuples of distinct points of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ such that $p_i$ and $q_i$ belong to the same connected component for each $i$. Then, there exists an element of ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ which sends $p_i$ on $q_i$ for each $i$, and which sends each connected component of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ on itself.
When $X$ is rational, the result follows from [@hm3 Theorem 1.4]. Thus we assume that $X$ is non-rational, and in particular that $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is non-connected.
From Lemma \[no-two-singular\], we can assume that any real point which is critical for one fibration is not critical for the second fibration. Otherwise speaking (recall that the fibrations are minimal) a real intersection point of a fibre $F_1$ of $\pi_1$ with a fibre $F_2$ of $\pi_2$ cannot be a singular point of $F_1$ and of $F_2$ at the same time. By Lemma \[Lem:TransivityConicBundle\] applied to $(X,\pi_1)$, and to $(X,\pi_2)$, we may assume without loss of generality that all points $p_1,\dots,p_n,q_1,\dots,q_n$ belong to smooth fibres of $\pi_1$ and to smooth fibres of $\pi_2$. We now use Lemma \[Lem:TransivityConicBundle\] to obtain an automorphism $\alpha$ of $(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_1)$ such that $\pi_2(\alpha(p_i))\ne \pi_2(\alpha(p_j))$ and $\pi_2(\alpha(q_i))\ne \pi_2(\alpha(q_j))$ for $i\ne j$. Hence, we may suppose that $\pi_2(p_i)\ne \pi_2(p_j)$ and $\pi_2(q_i)\ne \pi_2(q_j)$ for $i\ne j$.
Likewise, using an automorphism of $(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_2)$ we may suppose that $\pi_1(p_i)\ne \pi_1(p_j)$ and $\pi_1(q_i)\ne \pi_1(q_j)$ for $i\ne j$.
We now show that for $i=1,\dots,m$, there exists an element $\alpha_i\in {\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ that sends $p_i$ on $q_i$ and that restricts to the identity on the sets $\cup_{j\not= i}\{p_j\}$ and $\cup_{j\not= i}\{q_j\}$. Then, the composition of the $\alpha_i$ will achieve the proof. Observe that ${\zeta}=\pi_1\times \pi_2$ gives a finite surjective morphism $X\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ which is $2$-to-$1$ or $4$-to-$1$ depending of the degree of $X$ (follows from assertion $(c)$ of Lemma \[Lem:KX4\]). Denote by $W$ the image of $X({{\mathbb R}})$. The map $X({{\mathbb R}})\to W$ is a differential map, which has topological finite degree. Denote by $W_i$ the connected component of $W$ which contains both ${\zeta}(p_i)$ and ${\zeta}(q_i)$. Observe that $W_{i}$ is contained in the square $I(X,\pi_{1})\times I(X,\pi_{2})$, and that for each point $x\in W_{i}$, the intersection of the horizontal and vertical lines (fibres of the two projections of ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}\times{{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$) passing through $x$ with $W_{i}$ is either only $\{x\}$, when $x$ is on the boundary of $W_{i}$, or is a bounded interval. Moreover, $W_{i}$ is connected. Then, there exists a path from ${\zeta}(p_i)$ to ${\zeta}(q_i)$ which is a sequence of vertical or horizontal segments contained in $W_i$. We may furthermore assume that none of the segments is contained in $({\mathrm{pr}}_1)^{-1} (\pi_1(a))$ or $({\mathrm{pr}}_2)^{-1} (\pi_2(a))$ for any $a\in (\cup_{j\not= i}\{p_j\})\cup( \cup_{j\not= i}\{q_j\})$. Denote by $r_1,...,r_l$ the points of $U$ that are sent on the singular points or ending points of the path, and by $s_1,\dots,s_l$ some points of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ which are sent by ${\zeta}$ on $r_1,\dots,r_l$ respectively. Up to renumbering, $s_1=p_i, s_l=q_i$ and two consecutive points $s_j$ and $s_{j+1}$ are such that $\pi_1(s_j)=\pi_1(s_{j+1})$ or $\pi_2(s_j)=\pi_2(s_{j+1})$. We construct then $\alpha_i$ as a composition of $l-1$ maps, each one belonging either to ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_1)$ or ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi_2)$ and sending $s_j$ on $s_{j+1}$, and fixing the points $(\cup_{j\not= i}\{p_j\})\cup( \cup_{j\not= i}\{q_j\})$.
The following proposition describes the possible mixes of connected components.
\[Prp:ExchangeComp\] Let $(X,\pi)$ be a minimal real conic bundle. Denote by $I_{1},\dots,I_{r}$ the $r$ connected components of $I(X,\pi)$, and by $M_{1},\dots,M_{r}$ the $r$ connected components of $X({{\mathbb R}})$, where $I_{i}=\pi(M_{i})$, $M_{i}=\pi^{-1}(I_{i})\cap X({{\mathbb R}})$. If $\nu\in {\operatorname{Sym}}_{r}$ is a permutation of $\{1,\dots,r\}$, the following are equivalent:
1. \[Prp:ExchangeComp1\] there exists $\alpha\in {\operatorname{Aut}}({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}})$ such that $\alpha(I_{i})=I_{\nu(i)}$ for each $i$;
2. \[Prp:ExchangeComp2\] there exists $\beta\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi)$ such that $\beta(M_{i})=M_{\nu(i)}$ for each $i$;
3. \[Prp:ExchangeComp3\] there exists $\beta\in {\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ such that $\beta(M_{i})=M_{\nu(i)}$ for each $i$;
4. \[Prp:ExchangeComp4\] there exist two real Zariski open sets $V,W\subset X$, and $\beta\in {\operatorname{Bir}}(X)$, inducing an isomorphism $V\to W$, such that $\beta(V({{\mathbb R}})\cap M_{i})=W({{\mathbb R}})\cap M_{\nu(i)}$ for each $i$.
Moreover, the conditions are always satisfied when $r\leq 2$, and are in general not satisfied when $r\geq 3$.
The implications $(\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp2})\Rightarrow (\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp1})$ and $(\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp2})\Rightarrow (\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp3})\Rightarrow (\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp4})$ are obvious.
The implication $(\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp1})\Rightarrow (\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp2})$ is a direct consequence of Corollary \[Cor:BirAutI\]).
We prove now that if $r\leq 2$, Assertion $(\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp1})$ is always satisfied, hence all the conditions are equivalent (since all are true). When $r\leq 1$, take $\alpha$ to be the identity. When $r=2$, we make a linear change of coordinates to the effect that $I_{1}=\{(x:1)\ |\ 0\le x\le 1\}$ and $I_{2}$ is bounded by $(1:0)$ and $(\lambda:1)$, for some $\lambda \in {{\mathbb R}}$, $\lambda>1$ or $\lambda<0$. Then, $\alpha\colon (x_{1}:x_{2})\mapsto (\lambda x_{2}:x_{1})$ is an involution which exchanges $I_{1}$ and $I_{2}$.
It remains to prove the implication $(\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp4})\Rightarrow (\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp1})$ for $r\geq 3$. We decompose $\beta$ into elementary links $$X=X_{0}\stackrel{\beta_{1}}{\dasharrow}X_{1}\stackrel{\beta_{2}}{\dasharrow}\dots \stackrel{\beta_{n-1}}{\dasharrow}X_{n-1}\stackrel{\beta_{n}}{\dasharrow}X_{n}=X$$ as in [@IskFact Theorem 2.5]. It follows from the description of the links of [@IskFact Theorem 2.6] that each of the links is of type $II$ or $IV$, and that the links of type $II$ are birational maps of conic bundles and the links of type $IV$ occur on del Pezzo surfaces of degree $2$.
In consequence, each of the $X_{i}$ admits a conic bundle structure given by $\pi_{i}\colon X_{i}\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$, where $\pi_{0}=\pi_{n}=\pi$, and if $\beta_{i}$ has type $II$, it is a birational map of conic bundles $(X_{i-1},\pi_{i-1})\dasharrow (X_{i},\pi_{i})$, and if it has type $IV$, it is an isomorphism $X_{i-1}\to X_{i}$ which does not send the general fibre of $\pi_{i-1}$ on those of $\pi_{i}$. In this latter case, since $\pi_{i}$ and $\pi_{i-1}\beta_{i}$ have distinct general fibres, $X_{i-1}$ and $X_{i}$ are del Pezzo surfaces of degree $2$, and the Geiser involution $\iota_{i-1}\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(X_{i-1})$ exchanges the two general fibres (follows from [@IskFact Theorem 2.6], but also from Lemma \[Lem:KX4\]). This means that the map $\beta_{i}\circ\iota_{i-1}$, that we denote by $\gamma_{i}$, is an isomorphism of conic bundles $(X_{i-1},\pi_{i-1})\to (X_{i},\pi_{i})$.
Now, we prove by induction on the number of links of type $IV$ that $\beta$ may be decomposed into compositions of elements of ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X,\pi)$ and maps of the form $\psi \iota \psi^{-1}$ where $\psi$ is a birational map of conic bundles $(X,\pi)\dasharrow (X',\pi')$, $(X',\pi')$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$ and $\iota\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(X')$ is the Geiser involution. If there is no link of type $IV$, $\beta$ preserves the conic bundle structure given by $\pi$. Otherwise, denote by $\beta_{i}$ the first link of type $IV$, which is an isomorphism $\beta_{i}\colon X_{i}\to X_{i+1}$, and write $\beta_{i}=\gamma_{i}\circ \iota_{i-1}$ as before. We write $\psi=\beta_{i-1}\circ\dots\circ\beta_{1}$, which is a birational map of conic bundles $\psi\colon (X,\pi)\dasharrow (X_{i},\pi_{i})$. Then, $\beta= (\beta_{n}\circ\dots\circ\beta_{i+1}\circ\gamma_{i}\circ\psi)(\psi^{-1}\iota_{i-1}\psi)$. Applying the induction hypothesis on the map $(\beta_{n}\circ\dots\circ\beta_{i+1}\circ\gamma_{i}\circ\psi)\in {\operatorname{Bir}}(X)$, we are done.
Now, observe that when $(X',\pi')$ is a minimal real conic bundle and $X'$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $2$, the map ${\zeta}\colon X'\to{{\mathbb P}}^2_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ given by $|-K_{X'}|$ is a double covering, ramified over a smooth quartic curve $\Gamma\subset {{\mathbb P}}^2_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ (see e.g. [@bib:DemDPezzo]). Since $(X,\pi)$ is minimal, $(K_X)^2=8-2r$ thus $\pi$ has $r=6$ singular fibres , so $I(X,\pi)$ is the union of three intervals and $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is the union of $3$ connected components. This implies that $\Gamma({{\mathbb R}})$ is the union of three disjoint ovals. A connected component $M$ of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is homeomorphic to a sphere, and surjects by ${\zeta}$ to the interior of one of the three ovals. The Geiser involution (induced by the double covering) induces an involution on $M$, which fixes the preimage of the oval. This means that the Geiser involution sends any connected component of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ on itself. Thus, in the decomposition of $\beta$ into elements of ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X,\pi)$ and conjugate elements of Geiser involutions, the only relevant elements are those of ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X,\pi)$. There exists thus $\beta'\in {\operatorname{Bir}}(X,\pi)$ which acts on the connected components of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ in the same way as $\beta$. This shows that $(\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp4})$ implies $(\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp1})$.
We finish by proving that $(\ref{Prp:ExchangeComp1})$ is false in general, when $r\geq 3$. This follows from the fact that if $\Sigma$ is a general finite subset of $2r$ distinct points of ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$, the group $\{\alpha\in{\operatorname{Aut}}({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}})\ |\ \alpha(\Sigma)=\Sigma\}$ is trivial. Supposing this fact true, we obtain the result by applying it to the $2r$ boundary points of $I(X,\pi)$. Let us prove the fact. The set of $2r$-tuples of ${{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}}$ is an open subset $W$ of $({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}})^{2r}$. For any non-trivial permutation $\upsilon \in {\operatorname{Sym}}_{2r}$, we denote by $W_{\upsilon}\subset W$ the set of points $a=(a_{1},\dots,a_{2r})\in W$ such that there exists $\alpha\in {\operatorname{Aut}}({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}})$ with $\alpha(a_{i})=a_{\upsilon(i)}$ for each $i$. Let $a\in W_{\upsilon}$, and take two $4$-tuples $\Sigma_{1},\Sigma_{2}$ of $a_{i}$’s with $\Sigma_{1}\not=\Sigma_{2}$ and $\Sigma_{2}=\upsilon(\Sigma_{1})$ (this is possible since $\upsilon$ is non-trivial). Then, the cross-ratio of the $a_{i}$’s in $\Sigma_{1}$ and in $\Sigma_{2}$ are the same. This implies a non-trivial condition on $W$. Consequently, $W_{\upsilon}$ is contained in a closed subset of $W$. Doing this for all non-trivial permutations $\upsilon$, we obtain the result.
Real algebraic models {#Sec:RealAlgModels}
=====================
The aim of this section is to go further with non-minimal surfaces with $2$ or $3$ connected components. We begin to show how *to separate* infinitely near points to the effect that any such a surface $Y({{\mathbb R}})$ is isomorphic to a blow-up $B_{a_1,\dots,a_m}X({{\mathbb R}})$ where $X$ is minimal and $a_1,\dots,a_m$ are distinct proper points of $X({{\mathbb R}})$. Then, we replace $X({{\mathbb R}})$ by an isomorphic del Pezzo model (Corollary \[Cor:23comp2conicbundles\]) and we use the fact that ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive on each connected component for such an $X$ (Proposition \[Prp:TransivitySurface\]) to prove that in many cases, if two birational surfaces $Y$ and $Z$ have homeomorphic real parts then $Y({{\mathbb R}})$ and $Z({{\mathbb R}})$ are isomorphic. As a corollary, we get that in any cases, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(Y({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive on each connected component.
\[Prp:SeparationPts\] Let $X$ be a minimal geometrically rational real surface, with $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=2$ or $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=3$, and let $\eta\colon Y\to X$ be a birational morphism.
Then there exists a blow-up $\eta'\colon Y'\to X$, whose centre is a finite number of distinct real proper points of $X$, and such that $Y'({{\mathbb R}})$ is isomorphic to $Y({{\mathbb R}})$.
Moreover, we can assume that the isomorphism $Y({{\mathbb R}})\to Y'({{\mathbb R}})$ induces an homeomorphism $\eta^{-1}(M) \to (\eta')^{-1}(M)$ for each connected component $M$ of $X({{\mathbb R}})$.
According to Corollary \[Cor:23comp2conicbundles\], we may assume that $X$ admits two minimal conic bundles $\pi_1\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ and $\pi_2\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ inducing distinct foliations on $X({{\mathbb C}})$. Preserving the isomorphism class of $Y({{\mathbb R}})$, we may assume that the points in the centre of $\eta$ are all real (such a point may be a proper point of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ or an infinitely near point). Let us denote by $m$ ($= K_{X}^2 - K_Y^2$) the number of those points. We prove the result by induction on $m$.
The cases $m=0$ and $m=1$ being obvious (take $\eta'=\eta$), we assume that $m\ge 2$. We decompose $\eta$ as $\eta=\theta\circ {\varepsilon}$, where ${\varepsilon}\colon Y\to Z$ is the blow-up of one real point $q\in Z$, and $\theta\colon Z\to Y$ is the blow-up of $m-1$ real points. By induction hypothesis, we may assume that $\theta$ is the blow-up of $m-1$ proper points of $X$, namely $a_{1},\cdots,a_{m-1}\in X({{\mathbb R}})$. Moreover, applying Proposition \[Prp:TransivitySurface\], we may move the points by an element of ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$, and assume that $\pi_{1}(a_{i})\ne \pi_{1}(a_{j})$ and $\pi_{2}(a_{i})\ne \pi_{2}(a_{j})$ for $i\ne j$, and that the fibre of $\pi_{1}$ passing through $a_{i}$ and the fibre of $\pi_{2}$ passing through $a_{i}$ are nonsingular and transverse at $a_{i}$, for each $i$.
If $\theta(q)\notin\{a_{1},\dots,a_{m-1}\}$, then $\eta$ is the blow-up of $m$ distinct proper points of $X$, hence we are done. Otherwise, assume that $\theta(q)=a_{1}$. We write $E=\theta^{-1}(a_{1})\subset Z$, and denote by $F_{i}\subset Z$ the strict pull-back by $\eta$ of the fibre of $\pi_{i}$ passing through $a_{1}$, for $i=1,2$. Then, $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ are two $(-1)$-curves which do not intersect. Hence, the point $q\in E$ belongs to at most one of the two curves, so we may assume that $q\notin F_{1}$. Denote by $\theta_{2}\colon Z\to X_{2}$ the contraction of the $m-1$ disjoint $(-1)$-curves $F_{1},\theta^{-1}(a_{2}),\dots,\theta^{-1}(a_{m-1})$. Since $q$ does not belong to any of these curves, $\eta_{2}=\theta_{2}\circ {\varepsilon}$ is the blow-up of $m-1$ distinct proper points of $X_{2}$. It remains to find an isomorphism $\gamma\colon X_{2}({{\mathbb R}})\to X({{\mathbb R}})$ such that for each connected component $M$ of $X({{\mathbb R}})$, $\gamma\eta_{2}$ sends $\eta^{-1}(M)$ on $M$.
Denoting $\pi'=\pi_{1}\circ\theta\circ \theta_{2}^{-1}$, the map $\psi=\theta_{2}\circ \theta^{-1}$ is a birational map of conic bundles $(X,\pi_{1})\dasharrow (X_{2},\pi')$, which factorizes as the blow-up of $a_{1}$, followed by the contraction of the strict transform of the fibre passing through $a_{1}$. Therefore, the conic bundle $(X_{2},\pi')$ is minimal. Since $\#X({{\mathbb R}})>1$ and $\pi'\psi=\pi_{1}$, Proposition \[Prp:Equivalences\] yields the existence of an isomorphism $\gamma\colon X_{2}({{\mathbb R}})\to X({{\mathbb R}})$ such that $\pi_{1}\gamma=\pi'$. Observe that $\gamma\eta_{2}\circ \eta^{-1}=\gamma\theta_{2}\circ \theta^{-1}=\gamma\psi$ is a birational map $X\dasharrow X$ which satisfies $\pi\circ(\gamma\eta_{2}\circ \eta^{-1})=\pi$. Consequently, for any connected component $M$ of $X({{\mathbb R}})$, which corresponds to $\pi^{-1}(V) \cap X({{\mathbb R}})$, for some interval $V\subset {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{{\mathbb R}}}}$, we find $\pi(\gamma\eta_{2}\eta^{-1}(M))=\pi(M)=V$, thus $\gamma\eta_{2}$ sends $\eta^{-1}(M)$ on $M$.
Let $X$ be a minimal geometrically rational real surface, such that $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=2$ or $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=3$, and let $\eta\colon Y\to X$, ${\varepsilon}\colon Z\to X$ be two birational morphisms. Denote by $M_{1},\dots,M_{r}$ the connected components of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ $(r=2,3)$. Then, the following are equivalent:
1. $\eta^{-1}(M_{i})\subset Y({{\mathbb R}})$ and ${\varepsilon}^{-1}(M_{i})\subset Z({{\mathbb R}})$ are homeomorphic for each $i$;
2. there exists an isomorphism $Y({{\mathbb R}})\to Z({{\mathbb R}})$ which induces an homeomorphism $\eta^{-1}(M_{i})\to {\varepsilon}^{-1}(M_{i})$ for each $i$.
$(2)\Rightarrow (1)$ being obvious, let us prove the converse. According to Proposition \[Prp:SeparationPts\], we may assume that $\eta$ and ${\varepsilon}$ are the blow-ups of a finite number of distinct real proper points of $X$. Denote by $\Sigma_{\eta}$ and $\Sigma_{{\varepsilon}}$ these two finite sets. For each $i$, the fact that $\eta^{-1}(M_{i})\subset Y({{\mathbb R}})$ and ${\varepsilon}^{-1}(M_{i})\subset Z({{\mathbb R}})$ are homeomorphic implies that the numbers of points of $\Sigma_{\eta}\cap M_{i}$ and $\Sigma_{{\varepsilon}}\cap M_{i}$ coincide.
By Corollary \[Cor:23comp2conicbundles\] and Proposition \[Prp:TransivitySurface\], ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive on each connected component of $X({{\mathbb R}})$. In particular, there exists an element $\alpha\in{\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ such that $\alpha(M_{i}) = M_{i}$ for each $i$ and $\alpha(\Sigma_{\eta}) = \Sigma_{{\varepsilon}}$. Then, $\psi={\varepsilon}^{-1}\alpha\eta\colon Y({{\mathbb R}})\to Z({{\mathbb R}})$ is the wanted isomorphism.
\[Cor:TransitivByComponent23\] Let $Y$ be a geometrically rational real surface with $\#Y({{\mathbb R}}) = 2$ or $\#Y({{\mathbb R}}) = 3$. Let $(p_1,\dots,p_n)$ and $(q_1,\dots,q_n)$ be two $n$-tuples of distinct points of $Y({{\mathbb R}})$ such that $p_i$ and $q_i$ belong to the same connected component for each $i$.
Then, there exists an element $\alpha \in {\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(Y({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$, which leaves each connected component of $Y({{\mathbb R}})$ invariant and such that $\alpha(p_i) = q_i$ for each $i$.
Let $\eta\colon Y\to X$ be a birational morphism to a minimal real surface $X$; observe that $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=\#Y({{\mathbb R}})$. According to Corollary \[Cor:23comp2conicbundles\], we may assume that $X$ admits two minimal conic bundles $\pi_1\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ and $\pi_2\colon X\to {{\mathbb P}}^1_{{\mathbb R}}$ inducing distinct foliations on $X({{\mathbb C}})$. By Proposition \[Prp:SeparationPts\], we can suppose that $\eta$ is the blow-up of $m$ distinct real proper points $a_{1},\dots,a_{m}\in X$. We prove the result by induction on $m$.
If $m=0$, which means that $X = Y$, the result follows from Proposition \[Prp:TransivitySurface\].
If $m>0$, denote by $\eta_0\colon Z\to X$ the blow-up of $a_{1},\dots,a_{m-1}$ ($\eta_{0}$ is the identity if $m=1$), and by $\eta_{1}\colon Y\to Z$ the blow-up of $b = \eta_{0}^{-1}(a_{r})$.
Applying Proposition \[Prp:TransivitySurface\], we may assume that $\pi_1(a_i)\not=\pi_1(a_j)$ and $\pi_2(a_i)\ne \pi_2(a_j)$ for $i\ne j$, and that the fibre of $\pi_{1}$ passing through $a_{i}$ and the fibre of $\pi_{2}$ passing through $a_{i}$ are nonsingular and transverse at $a_{i}$, for each $i$. Let us denote by $E\subset Y$ the exceptional curve $\eta_1^{-1}(b)$ of $\eta_1$ and by $F_{i}$ the strict transform on $Y$ of the fibre of $\pi_i$ passing through $a_m$, for $i=1,2$. Then $E$, $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ are three $(-1)$-curves, $F_{1}$ and $F_{2}$ do not intersect, and $E$ intersect transversally each of the $F_{i}$. By induction hypothesis, we may use the lift of an element of ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(Z({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ which fixes $b$ to assume that no one of the points $p_i$ belongs to $F_{1}\backslash E$, $F_{2}\backslash E$ or to $\eta^{-1}(a_i)$ for $i=1,\dots,m-1$. Then the group $G=\{\alpha \in {\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)\ |\ \pi_{1}\alpha=\pi_{1}, \alpha\mbox{ fixes }a_1,\dots,a_m,\eta(p_1),\dots,\eta(p_n)\}$, acts transitively on $E\backslash F_{1}$ (Lemma \[Lem:TransivityTangentConicBundle\]). Lifting a well-chosen element of this group in ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(Y({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$, we may move the points $p_i$ and assume that no one of the $p_i$ belongs to $F_{2}$ (i.e. we can avoid $F_{2}\cap E$). Denote by $\eta'\colon Y\to X'$ the contraction of the disjoint $(-1)$-curves $F_2,\eta^{-1}(a_1),\dots
\eta^{-1}(a_{m-1})$.
Then, the birational map $\psi=\eta'\eta^{-1}\colon X\dasharrow X'$ is a birational map of conic bundles $(X,\pi_2)\dasharrow (X',\pi')$, where $\pi'=\pi_2\psi^{-1}$, which consists of the blow-up of $a_{m}$, followed by the contraction of the strict transform of the fibre passing through $a_{m}$. Therefore, the conic bundle $(X',\pi')$ is minimal. Since $\#X({{\mathbb R}})>1$, Proposition \[Prp:Equivalences\] yields the existence of an isomorphism $\gamma\colon X'({{\mathbb R}})\to X({{\mathbb R}})$ such that $\pi_{2}\gamma=\pi'$. Therefore, there exists an element $\beta\in{\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X'({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ which fixes all the points blown-up by $\eta'$, which fixes all the points $\{\eta'(p_i),p_i\notin E\}$, and which sends the points $\{\eta'(p_i),p_i\in E\}$ outside of $\eta'(E)$. Applying the lift of $\beta$ on ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(Y({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$, we may assume that none of the points $p_i$ belongs to $E$. Doing the same manipulation with the $q_i$, it remains to use the lift of an element of ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(Z({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ which fixes $b$ and sends $\eta_1(p_i)$ on $\eta_1(q_i)$ for each $i$.
Proof of the main results {#Sec:Proofs}
=========================
The proof of Theorem $\ref{Thm:Diff+Bir=DiffBir}$ was given at the end of Section \[Sec:ConicBunDPS\]. Now, we deduce the others results stated in the introduction from the results of Sections \[Sec:VeryTransitive\] and \[Sec:RealAlgModels\]. The following lemma serves to prove most of them.
\[Lem:Magic\] Let $(X,\pi)$ be a minimal real conic bundle, such that $I(X,\pi)$ is the union of $r$ intervals $I_{1},\dots,I_{r}$, with $r=2$ or $r=3$.
Let $\eta_{Y}\colon Y\to X$ and $\eta_{Z}\colon Z\to X$ be two birational morphisms. For $i = 1,\dots,r$, we write ${X}_{i}=\pi^{-1}(I_{i})\cap X({{\mathbb R}})$, $Y_{i}=\eta_{Y}^{-1}(X_{i})\cap Y({{\mathbb R}})$ and $Z_{i}=\eta_{Z}^{-1}(X_{i})\cap Z({{\mathbb R}})$.
Let $p_{1},\dots,p_{n}\in Y({{\mathbb R}})$, $q_{1},\dots,q_{n}\in Z({{\mathbb R}})$ be two $n$-tuples of distinct points, and assume the existence of an homeomorphism $h\colon Y({{\mathbb R}})\to Z({{\mathbb R}})$ which sends $p_{i}$ on $q_{i}$ for each $i$, and sends $Y_{i}$ on $Z_{\nu(i)}$, where $\nu\in {\operatorname{Sym}}_{r}$ is a permutation of $\{1,\dots,r\}$. Then, the following are equivalent:
1. \[Lem:Magic1\] There exists an isomorphism $\beta\colon Y({{\mathbb R}})\to Z({{\mathbb R}})$ which sends $Y_{i}$ on $Z_{\nu(i)}$ for each $i\in \{1,\dots,r\}$ and sends $p_{j}$ on $q_{j}$ for each $j\in \{1,\dots,n\}$.
2. \[Lem:Magic2\] There exists an automorphism $\alpha\in {\operatorname{Aut}}({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}})$ which sends $I_{i}$ on $I_{\nu(i)}$ for each $i\in \{1,\dots,r\}$.
Moreover, both assertions are true if $r = 2$, and false in general when $r=3$.
Observe that the $X_{i}$ (respectively the $Y_{i}$, $Z_{i}$) are the connected components of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ (respectively of $Y({{\mathbb R}})$, $Z({{\mathbb R}})$).
\[$\ref{Lem:Magic1})\Rightarrow \ref{Lem:Magic2})$\] The map $\eta_{Z}\beta\eta_{Y}^{-1}$ is a birational self-map of $X$, which restricts to an isomorphism $\varphi\colon V\to W$, where $V$ and $W$ are two real Zariski open subsets of $X$. Moreover, the hypothesis on $\beta$ implies that $\varphi(V({{\mathbb R}})\cap X_{i})=W({{\mathbb R}})\cap X_{\nu(i)}$. The existence of $\alpha$ is provided by Proposition \[Prp:ExchangeComp\].
\[$\ref{Lem:Magic2})\Rightarrow \ref{Lem:Magic1})$\] Proposition \[Prp:ExchangeComp\] yields the existence of $\gamma\in {\operatorname{Aut}}(X({{\mathbb R}}),\pi)$ such that $\gamma(X_{i})=X_{\nu(i)}$. We may thus assume that $\nu$ is the identity. According to Proposition \[Prp:SeparationPts\], we may moreover suppose that $\eta_{Y}$ and $\eta_{Z}$ are the blow-ups of a finite set of disjoint real proper points of $X$. Since $Y_{i}$ is homeomorphic to $Z_i$ for each $i$, $\eta_{Y}$ is the blow-up of $a_{1},\dots,a_{m}$ and $\eta_{Z}$ is the blow-up of $b_{1},\dots,b_{m}$, where $a_{j}$ and $b_{j}$ belong to the same connected component of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ for each $j$. Then, there exists an element of ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ which preserves each connected component of $X$ and sends $a_{j}$ on $b_{j}$ for each $j$ (Corollary \[Cor:TransitivByComponent23\]). We may thus assume that $Y=Z$, and conclude by applying Corollary \[Cor:TransitivByComponent23\] to $Y$.
The fact that $\ref{Lem:Magic2})$ is true when $r=2$ and false in general when $r=3$ was proved in Proposition \[Prp:ExchangeComp\].
The following case shares many features with the rational case.
\[Thm:2CompVeryTransitive\] Let $X$ be a nonsingular geometrically rational real projective surface, and assume that $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=2$. Then the action of the group ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ on $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is very transitive.
Let $Y$ be a nonsingular geometrically rational real projective surface, with $\#Y({{\mathbb R}})=2$. Let $(p_{1},\dots,p_{n})$ and $(q_{1},\dots,q_{n})$ be two $n$-tuples of points which are compatible. We want to prove the existence of $\alpha\in {\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(Y({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ such that $\alpha(p_{i})=q_{i}$ for each $i$.
If $p_{i}$ and $q_{i}$ are in the same connected component of $Y({{\mathbb R}})$, the result follows from Corollary \[Cor:TransitivByComponent23\].
Otherwise, the compatibility means that the two components of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ are homeomorphic and that $p_{i}$ and $q_{i}$ are in a distinct component for each $i$. Lemma \[Lem:Magic\] provides the existence of an element of ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(Y({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ which permutes the two connected components of $Y({{\mathbb R}})$. This reduces the situation to the previous case.
Before proving Theorems \[Thm:3compTrans\] and \[thm:verytrans\], we describe the cases where the group of automorphisms is not very transitive.
\[Lem:NonTransitivity\]Let $X$ be a nonsingular real projective surface, and assume that either $X$ is *not* geometrically rational or $\#X({{\mathbb R}})>3$. The group ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is then not very transitive on each connected component, and is neither $2$-transitive.
If $X$ has Kodaira dimension $2$, (surface of general type), it has only finitely many birational self-maps (see e.g. [@ueno75].) If $X$ has Kodaira dimension $1$, every birational self-map of $X$ preserves the elliptic fibration induced by $|K_{X}|$. If $X$ has Kodaira dimension $0$, and $X$ is minimal, then ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X)={\operatorname{Aut}}(X)$. The group ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X)$ is an algebraic group of dimension $1$ or $2$ (its neutral component is an elliptic curve or an Abelian surface). Thus, ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X)$ can not be $2$-transitive. The case when $X$ is not minimal is deduced from this case.
If $X$ is a surface with Kodaira dimension $-\infty$, then $X$ is uniruled. If furthermore, $X$ is not geometrically rational and $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is non-empty, then the Albanese map $X \to C$ is a real ruling over a curve with genus $g(C) > 0$, see e.g. [@Sil V.(1.8)], and the Albanese map is preserved by any birational self-map.
The remaining case is when $X$ is geometrically rational and $\#X({{\mathbb R}}) > 3$; we prove now that the group ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is not transitive. Denote by $\eta\colon X\to X_{0}$ a birational morphism to a minimal real surface, and observe that $\#X_{0}({{\mathbb R}}) = \#X({{\mathbb R}}) > 3$. Let us discuss the two cases for $X_{0}$ given by Theorem \[Thm:ClassicMinimal\]. If $X_{0}$ is a del Pezzo surface with $\rho(X_{0})=1$, then ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is countable (Corollary \[Cor:DPcountable\]), thus ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ cannot be transitive. The other case is when $\rho(X_{0})=2$. Then, $X_{0}$ endows a real conic bundle structure $(X_{0},\pi_{0})$, and ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X_{0})={\operatorname{Bir}}(X_{0},\pi_{0})$ (Theorem \[Thm:Birapport\]). Since the action of ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X_{0},\pi_{0})$ on the basis of the conic bundle is finite (there are too much boundary points), neither ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X_{0}({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ nor ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ may be transitive.
When $X$ is not geometrically rational or $\#X({{\mathbb R}})>3$, ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X({{\mathbb R}}))$ is not very transitive on connected components by Lemma \[Lem:NonTransitivity\]. In the remaining cases, ${\operatorname{Aut}}(X({{\mathbb R}}))$ is very transitive on connected components. When $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=2,3$, this is Corollary \[Cor:TransitivByComponent23\]. When $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=1$, this is the main result of [@hm3].
According to Lemma \[Lem:NonTransitivity\], we can assume from now on that $X$ is a geometrically rational surface with $\#X({{\mathbb R}})\le 3$. When $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=1$, $X$ is rational; the fact that ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is $n$-transitive for every $n$ (and thus very transitive) is the main result of [@hm3]. When $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=2$, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive by Theorem \[Thm:2CompVeryTransitive\].
When $\#X({{\mathbb R}}) = 3$, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive on each connected component (Theorem \[Thm:3compTrans\]). Thus, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive if and only if for any homeomorphism $h\colon X({{\mathbb R}})\to X({{\mathbb R}})$, there exists $\beta\in {\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ which permutes the components of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ in the same way that $h$ does. When these conditions are not satisfied, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is not $2$-transitive.
Let $X({{\mathbb R}})=M_1\sqcup M_2 \sqcup M_3$ be the decomposition into connected components. If there is no pair $(i,j)$ such that $M_i\sim M_j$, then there is no nontrivial such $h$, hence ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive. If $M_1\sim M_2 \not\sim M_3$ or $M_1\sim M_2 \sim M_3$, the possibilities when this occur follow from Lemma \[Lem:Magic\].
For example, when $X$ is minimal (therefore $M_1\sim M_2 \sim M_3\sim S^2$), it admits a minimal real conic bundle structure $(X,\pi)$ (Theorem \[Thm:ClassicMinimal\] and Proposition \[Prp:TopMinimal\]), where $\pi$ has $6$ singular fibres. Then, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive if and only if $\{\alpha\in {\operatorname{Aut}}({{\mathbb P}}^1_{{{\mathbb R}}})\ |\ \alpha(I(X,\pi)) = I(X,\pi)\}$ acts transitively on the three intervals of $I(X,\pi)$. This is true in some special cases, but false in general. When $X$ is not minimal, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is very transitive for example when there is no pair of homeomorphic connected components of $X({{\mathbb R}})$, or when $X$ is the blow-up of a minimal surface $Y$ with a very transitive group ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(Y({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$.
Let $X,Y$ be two geometrically rational real surfaces, and assume that $\#
X({{\mathbb R}})\leq 2$. We assume that $X$ is birational to $Y$ and that $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is homeomorphic to $Y({{\mathbb R}})$, and prove that $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is isomorphic to $Y({{\mathbb R}})$.
Remark that all geometrically rational surfaces with connected real part are birational to each others, thus in this case the statement follows from the unicity of rational models [@bh]. We may thus assume that $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=2$. Denote by $\eta_{X}\colon X\to X_{0}$ and $\eta_{Y}\colon Y\to Y_{0}$ birational morphisms to minimal real surfaces.
Since $X_{0}$ and $Y_{0}$ are birational, $X_{0}({{\mathbb R}})$ and $Y_{0}({{\mathbb R}})$ are isomorphic (Theorem \[Thm:Diff+Bir=DiffBir\]), so we may assume that $X_{0}=Y_{0}$. The result now follows from Lemma \[Lem:Magic\].
If $M$ is connected, and $M$ is non-orientable or $M$ is orientable with genus $g(M) \leq 1$, then it admits a unique geometrically rational model by [@bh Corollary 8.1]. Moreover, this model is in fact rational.
Conversely let $M$ be a compact $\mathcal{C}^\infty$-surface and assume that $M$ admits a unique geometrically rational model $X$. The existence of such a model implies, by Comessatti’s theorem [@Com2], that any connected component of $M$ is non-orientable or is orientable with genus $g \leq 1$. The unicity means that for any geometrically rational model $Y$ of $M$, then $Y({{\mathbb R}})$ is isomorphic to $X({{\mathbb R}})$. In particular, this implies that all geometrically rational models of $M$ belong to a unique birational class. From Theorem \[Thm:Birapport\] and Proposition \[Prop:DP1DP2rho1\], this means that $X$ is rational. It remains to observe that when $X$ is rational, $X({{\mathbb R}})$ is connected, and is either non-orientable or orientable of genus $\le 1$. When $X$ is minimal, this follows from Proposition \[Prp:TopMinimal\]. Then, blowing-up points on a surface either does nothing on the topology of the real part (if the points blown-up are imaginary), or it gives a non-orientable real part (if the points blown-up ar real).
We finish by a result on non-density. In [@km1], it is proved that ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is dense in ${\operatorname{Diff}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ when $X$ is a geometrically rational surface with $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=1$ (or equivalently when $X$ is rational). In the cited paper, it is said that $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=2$ is probably the only other case where the density holds. The following collect the known results in this direction. The first two of them are new.
\[Prp:Density\] Let $X$ be a geometrically rational surface.
- If $\#X({{\mathbb R}})\geq 5$, then ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is not dense in ${\operatorname{Diff}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$;
- if $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=4$, and either $X$ is the blow-up of a minimal conic bundle or $\rho(X)=1$, then ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is not dense in ${\operatorname{Diff}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$;
- if $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=3$ and $X$ is minimal, then ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is not dense in ${\operatorname{Diff}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ for a general $X$;
- if $\#X({{\mathbb R}}) =1$, then ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is dense in ${\operatorname{Diff}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$.
The case $\#X({{\mathbb R}}) =1$ is the main result of [@km1]. Assume from now on that $\#X({{\mathbb R}}) \geq 3$, and denote by $\eta\colon X\to X_{0}$ a birational morphism to a minimal real surface, and observe that $\#X_{0}({{\mathbb R}}) = \#X({{\mathbb R}}) \geq 3$. Let us discuss the two cases for $X_{0}$ given by Theorem \[Thm:ClassicMinimal\].
Assume that $X_{0}$ is a del Pezzo surface with $\rho(X_{0})=1$. If the degree of $X_{0}$ is $1$ then ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X_{0})$ is finite (Corollary \[Cor:DPcountable\]), thus ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ cannot be dense. If $X_{0}$ has degree $2$, then $\#X_{0}({{\mathbb R}})=4$ (Proposition \[Prp:TopMinimal\]), so $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=4$ too. Since ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X_{0}({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)={\operatorname{Aut}}(X_{0})$ is finite, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X_{0}({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ cannot be dense (but maybe ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ could be).
The other case is when $\rho(X_{0})=2$. Then, $X_{0}$ endows a real conic bundle structure $(X_{0},\pi_{0})$. If $\#X({{\mathbb R}})=\#X_{0}({{\mathbb R}})\geq 4$, then ${\operatorname{Bir}}(X_{0})={\operatorname{Bir}}(X_{0},\pi_{0})$ (Theorem \[Thm:Birapport\]), so ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is not dense. If $\#X_{0}({{\mathbb R}})=3$, then in general ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X_{0}({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ does not exchanges the connected component of $X_{0}({{\mathbb R}})$. Consequently, ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X_{0}({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ is not dense (but maybe ${\operatorname{Aut}}\bigl(X({{\mathbb R}})\bigr)$ could be, if the connected components of $X({{\mathbb R}})$ are not homeomorphic).
[Mang06]{} I. Biswas, J. Huisman, *Rational real algebraic models of topological surfaces*, Doc. Math. **12** (2007), 549–567.
J. Blanc, [*Linearisation of finite Abelian subgroups of the Cremona group of the plane.*]{}\
Groups Geom. Dyn. [**3**]{} (2009), no. 2, 215-266.
J. Blanc, [*Sous-groupes algébriques du groupe de Cremona.*]{} Transform. Groups [**14**]{} (2009), no. 2, 249-285.
J. Bochnak, M. Coste, M.-F. Roy, Real algebraic geometry, Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb. (3), vol. 36, Springer Verlag, 1998.
A. Comessatti, [*Fondamenti per la geometria sopra superfizie razionali dal punto di vista reale,*]{} Math. Ann. [**73**]{} (1912) 1-72.
A. Comessatti, [*Sulla connessione delle superfizie razionali reali*]{}, Annali di Math. [**23**]{}(3) (1914) 215-283.
M. Demazure, [*Surfaces de Del Pezzo II*]{}. Séminaire sur les singularités des surfaces, Palaiseau, France, (1976-1977), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 777, 22-70.
I.V. Dolgachev, V.A. Iskovskikh, [*Finite subgroups of the plane Cremona group.*]{} to appear in “Algebra, Arithmetic and Geometry – Manin Festschrift” `arXiv:math/0610595v2`.
H. Hironaka, *Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero. [I]{}, [II]{}*, Ann. of Math. (2) **79** (1964), 109–203; ibid., 205–326.
J. Huisman, F. Mangolte, *The group of automorphisms of a real rational surface is $n$-transitive*, Bull. London Math. Soc. [**41**]{}, 563–568 (2009).
J. Huisman, F. Mangolte, *Automorphisms of real rational surfaces and weighted blow-up singularities*, manuscripta math. (2010), in press.
J. Huisman, F. Mangolte, *Algebraic models of orientable surfaces*, in preparation.
V.A. Iskovskikh, [*Minimal models of rational surfaces over arbitrary fields*]{}. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat. [**43**]{} (1979), no 1, 19-43, 237. V.A. Iskovskikh, [*Factorization of birational mappings of rational surfaces from the point of view of Mori theory.*]{} Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 51 (1996) no 4 (310), 3-72.
J. Kollár, [*Real algebraic surfaces*]{}, `arXiv:alg-geom/9712003v1.`
J. Kollár, [*The topology of real algebraic varieties*]{}, Current developments in mathematics 2000, 197–231, Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2001.
J. Kollár, F. Mangolte, *Cremona transformations and diffeomorphisms of surfaces*, Adv. in Math. [**222**]{}, 44-61 (2009).
F. Mangolte, *Real algebraic morphisms on 2-dimensional conic bundles*, Adv. Geom. **6** (2006), 199–213.
Yu. Manin, [*Rational surfaces over perfect fields, II.*]{} Math. USSR - Sbornik [**1**]{} (1967), 141-168.
F. Ronga, T. Vust, [Diffeomorfismi birazionali del piano proiettivo reale]{}, [Comm. Math. Helv.]{} **80** (2005), 517–540.
R. Silhol, [*Real algebraic surfaces,* ]{}Springer Lecture Notes vol. 1392, 1989.
A. Tognoli, *Su una congettura di [N]{}ash*, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa (3) **27** (1973), 167–185.
K. Ueno, *Classification theory of algebraic varieties and compact complex spaces*, Lecture Notes in Math. **439**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have observed the flare star YYGem simultaneously with [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} as part of a multi-wavelength campaign aiming at a study of variability related to magnetic activity in this short-period eclipsing binary. Here we report on the first results from the analysis of the X-ray spectrum. The vicinity of the star provides high enough S/N in the CCD cameras onboard [*XMM-Newton*]{} to allow for time-resolved spectroscopy. Since the data are acquired simultaneously they allow for a cross-calibration check of the performance of the [*XMM-Newton*]{} RGS and the LETGS on [*Chandra*]{}.'
author:
- 'B. Stelzer, V. Burwitz, R. Neuhäuser'
- 'M. Audard'
- 'J. H. M. M. Schmitt'
title: 'The joint [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} view of YYGem'
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
YYGem is the optically faintest of the three visual binaries in the Castor sextuplet. It is itself an eclipsing spectroscopic binary with period of $0.81$d. The two components of YYGem are both of spectral type dM1e, and belong to the class of BYDra variables. Indeed, [YYGem ]{}was the first stellar system on which periodic photometric variability was detected (Kron 1952). Since the discovery of X-ray emission from the Castor system by the [*Einstein*]{} satellite, the system was studied by virtually all X-ray observatories (Vaiana et al. 1981, Pallavicini et al. 1990, Gotthelf et al. 1994, Schmitt et al. 1994, Güdel et al. 2001). Flares on YYGem have been recorded from all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. The extraordinary activity of this object may be related to its binarity (the frequency of photometric flares seems to be enhanced in the interbinary space suggesting interaction between the magnetospheres of the two stellar components; Doyle & Mathioudakis 1990), and makes it a prime target for simultaneous monitoring at different wavelengths.
Observations and Data Analysis
==============================
[YYGem ]{}was observed by both [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} on Sep 29/30, 2000 for a total observing time of 59ksec and 55ksec, respectively. The [*XMM-Newton*]{} observations were obtained in the full-frame mode of EPIC-pn, with the thick filter inserted for both pn and MOS. We perform the data analysis with the standard [*XMM-Newton*]{} Science Analysis System (SAS). [*Chandra*]{} was used in the LETGS configuration, i.e. the Low Energy Transmission Grating (LETG) combined with the High Resolution Camera for Spectroscopy (HRC-S). We extracted the [*Chandra*]{} lightcurves and spectra using programs written in IDL version 5.4. The extraction areas for source and background spectrum are those defined in the [*Chandra*]{} User’s Guide.
The time of observation for the individual X-ray instruments is given in Table 1. We display the corresponding X-ray lightcurves in Fig. 1. The orbital phase has been computed from the ephemeris of Torres & Ribas (2001). First inspection reveals strong variability throughout the whole observation, including two large flares, and two ‘high states’ (i.e. extended phases of enhanced emission) near the end of the observation. The secondary eclipse is clearly identified as a dip in the lightcurve close to orbital phase $0.5$. Note, that the minimum of the X-ray lightcurve is not exactly centered on $\Phi = 0.5$, but slightly offset towards earlier times. As we have observed simultaneously with two independent satellites a timing error is very unlikely. This shift may indicate an inhomogeneous distribution of emitting material in the coronae of the [YYGem ]{}binary.
[lrrrrr]{}Instrument & & & Expo\
& Start & Stop & Start & Stop & \[ksec\]\
\
EPIC-pn & 18:56 & 08:57 & 0.2888 & 0.8730 & 50.47\
EPIC-MOS & 18:15 & 08:51 & 0.2604 & 0.8689 & 52.57\
RGS & 18:07 & 09:27 & 0.2542 & 0.8937 & 55.26\
\
LETGS & 21:30 & 13:54 & 0.3958 & 1.0792 & 59.00\
The combination of [*XMM-Newton*]{} and [*Chandra*]{} allows to examine the X-ray spectrum of YYGem with intermediate (EPIC) and high (LETGS, RGS) resolution, and to compare the performance of the grating instruments on both satellites. The CCD spectra obtained with the EPIC are analysed in the XSPEC environment (version 11.0.1).
The [*XMM-Newton*]{} EPIC spectrum
==================================
We start with the analysis of the quiescent spectrum observed prior to the first large flare in Fig. 1 (JD 2451817.256 $-$ JD 2451817.450). Following Güdel et al. (2001) we represent the quiescent EPIC spectrum of YYGem by a 3-temperature (3-T) model for thermal emission from an optically thin plasma (VMEKAL). In order to better constrain the spectral model we analyse the spectra from the pn and the two MOS detectors simultaneously. For the joint modeling of the spectrum from these three instruments we add a constant normalization factor to make up for uncertainties in the absolute calibration of the detectors. The EPIC spectrum for the pre-flare phase is shown in Fig. 2, and the best fit parameters from the 3-T model are summarized in Table 2.
[rrrr]{} & & & \[${\rm keV}$\]\
$0.21^{+0.05}_{-0.07}$ &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.64^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ & $1.79^{+0.30}_{-0.24}$ &\
& & & \[$10^{51}\,{\rm cm^{-3}}$\]\
$2.24^{+1.87}_{-0.60}$ &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$13.84^{+0.82}_{-2.88}$ & $2.88^{+1.05}_{-0.66}$ &\
& & &\
$0.64^{+0.19}_{-0.14}$ &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$0.27^{+0.12}_{-0.07}$ &$0.47^{+0.16}_{-0.07}$ &\
& & & $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ (dof)\
$0.50^{+0.27}_{-0.20}$ & $0.23^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$ & $0.00^{+0.28}_{-0.00}$ & 1.24 (658)\
We use this spectrum as a baseline for time-resolved spectroscopy. The EPIC lightcurve of [YYGem ]{}is split in a total of 15 time intervals (listed in Table 3)
------- ------- ------------------------------ ---------- --
Start Stop Remarks Interval
0.290 0.450 pre-flare quiescence $t_1$
0.450 0.475 hump before flare $t_2$
0.475 0.484 rise flare 1 $t_3$
0.484 0.493 decay (a) flare 1 $t_4$
0.493 0.510 decay (b) flare 1 $t_5$
0.510 0.525 mini-flare $t_6$
0.525 0.630 post-flare quiescence $t_7$
0.630 0.662 secondary eclipse (1st half) $t_8$
0.662 0.688 secondary eclipse (2nd half) $t_9$
0.688 0.710 post-eclipse feature (a) $t_{10}$
0.710 0.735 post-eclipse feature (b) $t_{11}$
0.735 0.775 post-eclipse feature (c) $t_{12}$
0.775 0.790 rise flare 2 $t_{13}$
0.790 0.805 decay flare 2 $t_{14}$
0.805 0.869 ‘high state’ $t_{15}$
------- ------- ------------------------------ ---------- --
: Time intervals selected for a systematic investigation of the evolution of spectral parameters throughout the [*XMM-Newton*]{} EPIC observation from 29/30 Sep 2000.
representing different activity levels of the star, and the spectrum of each phase is modeled by a 3-T model. As the integrated light from the quiescent corona should be visible at all times we hold all temperatures and abundances fixed on the values given in Table 2, and vary only the emission measure. In some of the time segments, namely for the post-eclipse feature and during the large flares, the 3-T model does not provide an adequate description of the EPIC spectrum: A high energy excess stands out in the residuals suggesting the presence of higher temperature material in addition to the emission from the quiescent corona. Adding a fourth VMEKAL component does not lead to a significant improvement. Only a 5-T model represents the data well ($\chi^2_{\rm red} \sim 1$) during the phases of most intense emission. For the modeling of these time intervals we have fixed spectral components \#$\,1-3$ on their quiescent values (see Table 2). All abundances of components \#4 and \#5 have been held fixed on solar values because the statistics do not allow to constrain further parameters. The last time interval ($t_{\rm 15}$; the ‘high state’) is an exception: The signal at high energies is larger than for all other time segments, and broad Fe K-shell emission is clearly visible (see Fig. 2). We find an acceptable solution in this case for $\frac{\rm Fe}{\rm H} = 0.47^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$.
Temperature - Emission Measure Diagrams
---------------------------------------
The evolution of temperature and emission measure puts important constraints on the dynamics during flare decays. In a one-dimensional hydro-dynamic approach to model stellar flares developed by Reale et al. (1993) the duration of the heating determines the slope in the $\lg{T} - \lg{(\sqrt{EM})} - $diagram. We have derived $\lg{T} - \lg{(\sqrt{EM})} -$diagrams for the spectral components of the 5-T model that represent the heated plasma during the two large flares, i.e. VMEKAL components \#4 and \#5.
Fig. 3 shows the evolution of the two large flares, both starting with the rise phase (time interval $t_3$ and $t_{13}$, respectively). Under the assumption that the flare emission is concentrated in a single loop the slope $\zeta$ observed during the decay phase can be used to obtain an estimate for the loop half-length $L$. This method has been calibrated for several instruments including EPIC-pn (F. Reale, priv. comm.). We apply the equivalent of Eq. 2 from Reale et al. (1997) to derive $L$ from the slope $\zeta$, the observed temperature ($T_{\rm max} = 39\,$MK), and the decay constant of the lightcurve ($\tau_{\rm lc} = 16 \pm 1$min). The resulting loop length is $L \sim 2 \cdot 10^9$cm.
High-resolution Spectra: [*XMM-Newton*]{} RGS and [*Chandra*]{} LETGS
=====================================================================
A comparison of the time-averaged first order X-ray spectra of [YYGem ]{}as observed with LETGS and RGS is given in Fig. 4. We only show the region between $10 - 26$Å, which contains the strongest lines. Line identifications are given on top of the diagram.
The spectrum is given in units of cts/s/bin. Since the RGS and the LETGS observations overlap for about $75$% in time, the relative strength of the lines measured by both instruments should be similar, with some dependence of the line strength on the binsize, and the absolute numbers demonstrate directly the difference in sensitivity between RGS and LETGS.
The Ly$\alpha$ line of H-like OVIII is by far the strongest line in the spectrum with the highest photon flux, i.e. taking account of the effective area. Next to a number of iron L-shell transitions we identify the He-like triplets of four elements: SiXIII, NeIX, OVII, and NVI. The OVII triplet is the strongest triplet and the only one which is clearly resolved and not blended with other lines. A detailed investigation of the properties of the coronal plasma making use of line ratios will be presented by Stelzer et al., in prep.
Summary
=======
The X-ray lightcurve of [YYGem ]{}shows that the object was subject to strong variability including two large outbursts during the time of observation. The parameters of a 3-T model for the quiescent emission are compatible with results from the analysis of an earlier [*XMM-Newton*]{} observation of YYGem presented by Güdel et al. (2001). Time-resolved modeling of the EPIC spectrum reveals the presence of a high temperature plasma ($kT_{\rm max} = 3.4\,$keV) in flares. According to a one-dimensional hydrodynamic model the flare emission arises in a semi-circular loop with $\sim 2 \cdot 10^9$cm length. This approach is certainly a simplification of the real situation which does involve a multi-temperature plasma and possibly complex loop systems. Nevertheless, the hydrodynamic approach is important: while simple quasi-static modeling tends to reproduce large loops the method applied here demonstrates that the coronal structures are likely to be much smaller than the radii of both stars in the [YYGem ]{}system. The simultaneous observation of [YYGem ]{}with [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} demonstrates the different sensitivity of these instruments. Each of the two RGS provides roughly the same count rate as the LETGS first order spectrum. The LETGS is more sensitive at short wavelengths (see e.g. the region around the NeIX triplet), while the sensitivity of RGS is slightly higher towards longer wavelengths (e.g. near the OVIII Ly$\alpha$ line).
Doyle J. G. & Mathioudakis M. 1990, 227, 130 Gotthelf E. V., Jalota L., Mukai K., et al. 1994, 436, L91 Güdel M., Audard M., Magee H., et al. 2001, 365, L344 Kron G. E. 1952, 115, 301 Ness J.-U., Mewe R., Schmitt J. H. M. M., et al. 2001, 367, 282 Pallavicini R., Tagliaferri G., Pollock A. M. T., et al. 1990, 227, 483 Reale F., Serio S., Peres G. 1993, 272, 486 Reale F., Betta R., Peres G., et al. 1997, 325, 782 Schmitt J. H. M. M., Güdel M., Predehl P. 1994, 287, 843 Torres G. & Ribas, 2001, in press Vaiana G. S., Cassinelli J. P., Fabbiano G., et al. 1981, 244, 163
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Mark Colin Andrew Laidlaw
bibliography:
- 'PhD.bib'
title: 'Tachyons, Boundary Interactions, and the Genus Expansion in String Theory'
---
\[1995/12/01\] \[2002/08/27 v1.16
University of British Columbia Sample Thesis\]
Introduction
============
String Field Theory
===================
Boundary States
===============
Generalized Boundary Interactions {#ch:generalize}
=================================
Conclusions and Future Directions
=================================
Properties of the Conformal Transformation Matrices
===================================================
Green’s Functions
=================
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'R. Morganti, T. A. Oosterloo, C. N. Tadhunter, G. van Moorsel, B. Emonts'
date: 'Received ...; accepted ...'
title: 'The location of the broad H[0.1cm I]{} absorption in 3C305: clear evidence for a jet-accelerated neutral outflow[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
The immediate surroundings of active galactic nuclei (AGN) are complex regions characterised by extreme physical conditions. There, the interplay between the enormous amount of energy released from the nucleus and the ISM is most critical.
Gas outflows can be a result of such interaction. Fast nuclear outflows of [*ionised*]{} gas appear to be a relatively common phenomena in active galactic nuclei (see e.g. Crenshaw, Kraemer & George 2003, Kriss et al. 2004, Capetti et al. 1999, Krongold et al. 2003, Veilleux et al. 2002, Tadhunter et al. 2001 Elvis 2000). They are mainly detected in optical, UV and X-ray observations. Gas outflows associated with AGN provide energy feedback into the interstellar medium (ISM) that can profoundly affect the evolution of the central engine as well as that of the host galaxy (e.g. Silk & Rees 1998, Rawlings & Jarvis 2004). The mass-loss rate from these outflows can be a substantial fraction of the accretion rate needed to power the AGN. Thus, they are an important element in the evolution of the host galaxy.
It is not too surprising that such outflows are also found in radio galaxies (see e.g. Tadhunter 1991, Tadhunter et al. 2001, Holt et al. 2003, van Bemmel et al. 2003, and Morganti et al. 2004 for a summary of recent results). However, it is intriguing that in several radio sources fast outflows of [*neutral*]{} hydrogen (up to 2000 [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{}) have been discovered. The best examples so far are the radio galaxy 3C 293 (Morganti et al. 2003) and the radio-loud Seyfert galaxy IC 5063 (Oosterloo et al. 2000). The number of galaxies known to show broad absorption (ranging from 800 up to 2000 [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{}) is, however, growing and therefore this appears to be a phenomenon that is relatively common and important in at least some radio sources (see Morganti, Oosterloo & Tadhunter 2005 for a summary).
A number of mechanisms have been suggested to explain these outflows of neutral hydrogen. They range from starbust-driven superwinds (Heckman, Armus & Miley 1990), adiabatically expanded broad emission line clouds (Elvis et al. 2002), dusty narrow-line regions that are radiation pressure dominated (Dopita et al. 2002), to outflows driven by the radio jet. Different characteristics, in particular the location where the outflow is occurring, can be expected depending on the origin. For example, if connected to the broad line regions, we expect to find the outflow located at (or very close to) the nucleus. If the outflows are driven by the radio jet, we expect an association between strong radio features and the location of the outflow. Such an association does not necessarily occur in the case of radiation driven outflows. So far, direct information about the location of the outflow is available only for one object (IC 5063) and through indirect arguments for a second case, 3C 293 (Emonts et al. 2005). The reason that this information is available only for such a small number of cases is that high resolution observations performed with a broad enough observing band as well as high sensitivity are difficult to obtain.
Here we present results from VLA observations designed to locate the broad absorption in the radio galaxy 3C 305. 3C 305 is a relatively compact radio galaxy (Heckman et al. 1992, Jackson et al. 2003) of only about 5 arcsec (about 4 kpc) in size. On this small scale, 3C 305 has a complex structure with two jets forming radio lobes separated by 3.6 arcsec in PA 54$^\circ$ as seen in MERLIN observations (Jackson et al. 2003) as well as two low-brightness arms extending perpendicular to the radio axis that have been detected with the VLA (Heckman et al. 1982). Deep and relatively narrow absorption was detected in the high-resolution observations done with MERLIN (Jackson et al. 2003). However, recent broad-band Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) observations have revealed that a broad absorption component is also present (Morganti et al. in prep.). The spectrum from these data is shown in Fig. 1. The MERLIN observations have a limited bandwidth and insufficient sensitivity to detect the broad absorption component while at the typical 21-cm WSRT resolution of $\sim 13$ arcsec, 3C 305 appears spatially unresolved. Thus, deeper high-spatial resolution [*and*]{} broader-band observations are needed to locate the region where the broad absorption is occurring.
Throughout this paper we will assume $H_\circ= 75$ [km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$]{}. At the redshift of 3C 305 ($z=0.041$) this implies a distance of 167 Mpc, hence 1 arcsec is equivalent to 810 pc.
High resolution observations of the absorption
===============================================
VLA observations
----------------
The observations were obtained using the VLA in the A-array configuration on 23 Sep 2004 with a total integration time on source of 3.8 h. The central frequency used was 1363.8 MHz. This frequency is offset compared to the frequency corresponding to the systemic velocity of the galaxy, but corresponds to [*the central velocity of the entire absorption*]{} detected by the WSRT. This was done in order to make sure that enough continuum would be available at both sides of the profile. The observations made use of the 12 MHz bandwidth and 64 channels. In order to use this configuration, we observed only one polarisation (1 IF). The velocity resolution obtained is relatively low, only $\sim 40$ [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{}(before Hanning smoothing), nevertheless good enough for the detection of the broad component. The need for (at least!) 12 MHz is clear from the width of the profile. The data reduction, including bandpass calibration and continuum subtraction, was done using both the AIPS and Miriad packages. A line cube was made using uniform and robust weighting (using robustness equal to zero). The results presented below, and the figures have been obtained for the robustness equal zero data. The beam size is $1.2
\times 1.0$ arcsec in p.a.$=-18.7^\circ$. The noise per channel (after Hanning smoothing) is 0.29 [mJy beam$^{-1}$]{}.
From the line-free channels, a continuum image was made. This image is shown in Fig. 2 (r.m.s. noise 1.9 [mJy beam$^{-1}$]{}).
Results
-------
In Fig. 2 the total intensity of the absorption is shown as a grey scale image with superimposed contours representing the continuum image. The absorption is spatially extended and is detected across the brighter part of the radio source. The most important result from these observations can be seen in the position-velocity plot of Fig. 2, obtained from a slice passing through the two lobes and the core. The deep and relatively narrow part of the absorption appears coincident with the SW radio lobe, as seen before in the MERLIN observations of Jackson et al. (2003). However, the broad absorption appears to be located in the region of the bright eastern radio lobe, about 1.6 kpc from the nucleus. This broad component was not seen in the observations of Jackson et al. who used a narrower band. The broad absorption is weak. Nevertheless, the comparison between the integrated profile from the VLA data with the WSRT profile shows a great similarity (Fig. 1) indicating that basically all the absorbed flux is recovered from the high-resolution observations.
The narrow, deep component that covers the SW lobe is spatially resolved and shows a velocity gradient across the lobe. The optical depth of this component is $\tau = 0.02$ corresponding to a column density of $N_{\rm {\rm H{\hskip 0.02cm\scriptscriptstyle I}}} = 5.4
\times 10^{20} T_{\rm spin}/(100\ {\rm K})$ cm$^{-2}$. This component (centered on $V_{\rm hel} = 12627$ [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{}) was interpreted by Jackson et al. (2003) as due to the nuclear dust lane being located in front of the SW radio lobe and the SW radio jet pointing away from us. The absence of a similar narrow component, in their data, against the NE lobe was interpreted as this lobe being in front of the dust lane and the NE jet pointing towards us. Our new observations show that the faint absorption is detected in the region going from the nucleus of 3C 305 up to the bright NE radio lobe. Some of this fainter absorption could be due to part of the dust-lane being in front of the central and some of the NE radio emission. The velocity gradient near the core could reflect the rotation of the dust-lane material about the centre of 3C 305. However, the overall absorption spans over such a wide range of velocities (more than 1000 [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{}) that not all motions can be due to galactic rotation. In order to investigate this in more detail, we will below compare the velocities of the neutral hydrogen with those of the ionised gas (see Sec. 3).
The optical depth of the shallow absorption is only $\tau \sim 0.0023$ in the region of the peak of the NE radio lobe and increases along the eastern jet reaching $\tau \sim 0.01$ at the position of the nucleus. The column density of the broad component is $N_{\rm {\rm H{\hskip 0.02cm\scriptscriptstyle I}}} \sim 2 \times 10^{21}\
T_{\rm spin}/(1000)\ {\rm K} $ cm$^{-2}$. For this component we have assumed a $T_{\rm spin} = 1000$ K. The presence of a strong continuum source near the gas, as well as the fact that the gas has likely just passed through a strong shock, can make the radiative excitation of the hyperfine state to dominate over the, usually more important, collisional excitation (see e.g.Bahcall & Ekers 1969). Under these conditions, the spin temperature is, therefore, likely to be of the order of 1000 K or more. Using the above column density, the total mass of the outflowing gas can be estimated. The outflowing neutral hydrogen appears to cover the NE lobe, we therefore use a region of $1 \times 1$ kpc in size. The resulting mass is about $1.3 \times 10^7$ $M_\odot$. The size of the region is an uncertain parameter in this calculation. However, one should also keep in mind that our observations cannot detect located behind of the radio continuum, therefore more neutral hydrogen could be in principle present in the region. Thus, the estimated value should give a realistic value to the mass involved in the outflow.
The ionised gas
===============
In order to obtain more complete information about the kinematics of the gas, we have investigated the characteristics of the ionised gas using available long-slit spectra of 3C 305 obtained with the ISIS dual-beam spectrograph on the William Herschel Telescope (WHT) on La Palma. The wavelength range covers 3300 to 7300Å (in the rest frame of 3C 305), the resolution is 3.6Å (or $\sim 165$ [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{} in the red part of the spectrum) and the wavelength calibration has an accuracy of $\sim 1$Å (or 50 [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{} at H$\alpha$). A more detailed description of the observations and data reduction is given in Tadhunter et al. (2005).
The presence of extended emission lines with complex kinematics was already known from the work of Heckman et al. (1982). The \[\] 5007Å region of the new spectra (after the subtraction of the galaxy’s continuum) obtained along p.a. 60$^\circ$ (the galaxy’s major axis) and along p.a. 42$^\circ$ (the radio axis) are shown in Fig. 3. The location of the peaks of the radio lobes is marked. For comparison, in the bottom figure, the white contours give the data from the position-velocity slice (same as Fig. 2) of the obtained along the same (radio) axis. From both figures it is immediately clear how complex and kinematically disturbed the ionised gas is in the region exactly co-spatial with the bright radio emission, in particular on the eastern side.
The spectrum taken along the major axis of the galaxy (Fig. 3 [*(top)*]{}) shows - most clearly outside the region of the radio emission - the signature of the regularly rotating, large-scale disk of the galaxy, with amplitude of about 400 [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{} (see also Heckman et al. 1982). The velocity at the location of the peak of the optical continuum emission, that we associate with the nucleus, is 12550 [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{}, consistent with the previous measurements of the systemic velocity of this galaxy (Heckman et al. 1982). In addition to the rotation, on the eastern side the ionised gas has a broad and asymmetric (mostly blueshifted) component, while on the western side broad redshifted emission is detected. Given the orientation of the radio source (as discussed in Sect. 2.2), this pattern is indicates a radial outflow of the ionised gas.
In Fig. 3 ([*bottom*]{}) the spectrum obtained along the radio axis (p.a. 42$^\circ$) is shown, together with the position-velocity data. This allows a more consistent comparison between the kinematics of the neutral hydrogen and the ionized gas. Along this position angle, the quiescent, rotating gas is still visible although with a smaller amplitude because the slit is not along the major axis. Also in this position angle, a broad and blueshifted component of the ionised gas is observed NE of the core, while in the SW the profiles have a, somewhat narrower, redshifted wing.
The overlay of the position-velocity plot makes clear that the neutral hydrogen seen in absorption is formed by two components. Some of the belongs to the rotating dust-lane structure. As mentioned above, this is the case for the gas seen against the SW radio lobe and part of this structure could extend at least to the position of the nucleus and slightly beyond. Near the NE lobe, the profile clearly deviates by almost 500 [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{} (FWZI) from the kinematics of the quiescent gas in the galaxy disk - in a similar way as the broad, blueshifted component of \[\].
The interesting result from the comparison in Fig. 3 is therefore that the broad, blueshifted is found at the location of maximum disturbance of the ionized gas on the eastern side region. This strongly suggests that [*the two components of the gas are the result of a gaseous outflow produced by the same mechanism.*]{}
The kinematics of the ionized gas are illustrated in more detail in Fig.4 where the centroid and FWHM of double Guassian fits to the H$\alpha$ line along the radio axis (p.a. 42$^\circ$) are shown. At all locations two Gaussians are required to provide an adequate fit to each of the lines in the H$\alpha$+\[\] blend, but it is clear from the plot that the splitting between the two Gaussian components is particularly extreme at radial distances between 1 and 2 arcseconds NE of the nucleus. This is, therefore, between the nucleus and the peak intensity of the NE radio lobe. In the region coincident with the radio lobe there is no evidence for line splitting in H$\alpha$ but two Gaussians are required to fit the lines, and the broader of the two components (FWHM$\sim$700 – 800 km s$^{-1}$) is broader than can be explained by gravitational motions in a quiescent disk. Note that the velocity range encompassed by the FWHM of the optical emission lines in the region of line splitting 0.6 and 1.2 arcseconds to the NE of the nucleus ($\Delta V \sim 1100$ km s$^{-1}$) is significantly larger than the range covered by the absorption at the same location ($\Delta V
\sim 500$ km s$^{-1}$), although the direction of the kinematic disturbance (blueshift relative to quiescent disk) is the same for both components.
The mass of the ionized gas is directly related to the H$\beta$ luminosity and the density of the gas can be estimated using standard formula (Osterbrock 1989). We have estimated this mass in the region of the eastern lobe. The [*total*]{} H$\beta$ luminosity in this region is $1.16
\times 10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$. The measured value of the H$\alpha$/H$_\beta$ ratio ($\sim 3.6$) ths close to the Case B recombination value, suggesting that the H$\beta$ luminosity is relatively unffected by dust extinction in this region. From the ratio of the \[\]$\lambda$6716/\[\]$\lambda$6731 lines we derive an upper limit to the density of 500 cm$^{-2}$. Using these numbers we derive a lower limit to the mass of the ionized gas in the region of the eastern radio lobe of $2 \times 10^5 M_{\odot}$. Therefore, unless the actual density is two orders of magnitude less than our upper limit – improbable given that the gas is likely to have been compressed in a fast, radiative shock – this shows that the mass of gas in the ionized outflow is much less than that in the neutral outflow.
An off-nuclear gas outflow
==========================
The high-resolution [*and*]{} the broad-band of new observations of the radio galaxy 3C 305 have allowed us to establish that the blueshifted component in this galaxy is located in the region of the NE bright radio lobe. Compared with the velocities of the quiescent gas in the galaxy disk, this neutral hydrogen is blueshifted by up to 500 [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{}. This is an important result as it confirms that neutral hydrogen with very disturbed kinematics is observed at kpc distances from the nucleus. In the case of 3C 305 the most blueshifted component of the absorption is located at 1.6 kpc from the nucleus.
While the presence of broad absorption is known now for a growing number of radio sources (Morganti et al. 2005), the information about the location of such absorption is still lacking in most of the cases. The only exception is the radio loud Seyfert galaxy IC 5063 (Oosterloo et al. 2000) and, through indirect arguments that will need to be confirmed by high-spatial resolution radio data, in the radio galaxy 3C 293 (Emonts et al. 2005). For these two cases we have argued that the most likely mechanism to produce the observed outflows of both ionised and neutral hydrogen is the interaction between the radio jets and the surrounding (dense) ISM. In the case of 3C 305 the evidence is also clearly in favour of this explanation.
Evidence of the presence of a strong interaction between the radio plasma and the surrounding interstellar medium was already obtained in the case of 3C 305 from previous optical studies. For example, a dense environment has been suggested to be the cause of the ’H’ shaped radio morphology. It has been argued, based on the highly disturbed kinematics and outflowing ionised gas (Heckman et al. 1982) as well as the coincidence of \[\] emission with the knot at the end of the NE radio jet (Jackson et al. 2003), that the interaction is particularly strong on the NE side. The broad, blueshifted is found at the location of maximum disturbance of the ionized gas. This, therefore, confirms that [*fast outflows of neutral hydrogen can be produced by the interaction between the radio jet and the surrounding dense medium*]{}. The presence of neutral gas in this region indicates that the gas can cool very efficiently following a strong jet-cloud interaction. Furthermore, it shows that the clouds are not destroyed by this interaction. This is in agreement with the results obtained by the numerical simulations used to investigate cases of jet-induced star formation by Mellema, Kurk & Röttgering (2002) and Fragile et al. (2004).
Interestingly, the comparison of the velocities shows that the the broad, blueshifted absorption does not encompass the the full range of blueshifted velocities covered by the ionized gas. To begin with, one should bear in mind that the blueshifted is very faint and we may be limited by sensitivity in detecting very broad absorption at every location (i.e. even if broader components are present we do not have the sensitivity of detecting them at locations where the continuum is not as strong as at the peak of the NE lobe). Nevertheless, there may be some physical reasons for the difference. The numerical simulations of clouds in radio galaxy cocoons overtaken by a strong shock wave (Mellema et al. 2002) show that in that scenario the cooling times for the dense fragments can be very short (only a few times $10^2$ years). However, the gas accelarated to the highest velocities is of low density and may not have had time to cool. Alternatively, the higher-velocity clouds may be destroyed before they cool.
Another consideration is the geometry of the jet-cloud interaction. This may, for example, explain why the highest velocities of the ionized gas are observed in the region between the nucleus and the NE radio hot-spot. If the acceleration of the gas is due to a bowshock at the location of the hotspot, most of the acceleration of the gas at that location may happen in the direction perpendicular to the line of sight. On the other hand, further back along the jet the observed velocities of the gas are due to the lateral expansion of the lobe (mainly along the line of sight). Moreover, only the neutral hydrogen located in front of the radio source can be detected, while this is not the case for the ionized gas. Hence, the full kinematics of the may not be observable.
The mass outflow rate of the neutral hydrogen is significant. We can adopt the simple model used in Heckman (2002) and Rupke et al. (2002) to estimate a mass outflow rate. Following Heckman (2002)
$$\dot{M} = 30\cdot {{\Omega}\over{4\pi}}\cdot {{r_*}\over{\rm 1\, kpc}}\cdot
{N_{\rm H}\over{10^{21}\, {\rm cm}^{-2}}}\cdot { v \over 300\, {\rm km
s}^{-1}} \ M_\odot\, {\rm yr}^{-1}$$
where the mass is flowing into a solid angle $\Omega$ at a velocity $v$ from a radius $r_*$. Using the column density derived above (N$_{\rm {{\ion{H}{i}}}} \sim 2
\times 10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$) and a mean velocity of the outflow between 200 and 300 [$\,$km$\,$s$^{-1}$]{}, we obtain a mass outflow rate of between 20 and 30 $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ for the neutral gas if we assume that the outflow covers $2\pi$ steradians on the sky, and between 5 and 7.5 $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ if we assume that the outflow covers only $\pi/2$ steradians.
Thus, the derived outflow rates are higher than those estimated for the ionised gas (from UV and X-ray observations) in nearby AGN (Crenshaw, Kraemer & George 2003). The outflow rate measured in 3C 305 is, instead, comparable, although at the lower end of the distribution, to that found in Ultra Luminous IR galaxies by Rupke et al. (2002). The outflows observed in those galaxies are related to starburst-induced superwinds (Heckman et al. 1990) and they have been considered to have a major impact on the evolution of galaxies because of the feedback effects that these outflows can have (see e.g.Veilleux et al. 2002, Heckman 2002). Thus, our result shows that AGN-driven outflows and in particular jet-driven outflows, can have a similar amplitude and, therefore, can also have a similar impact on the evolution of galaxies. This supports the results from numerical simulations (Di Matteo, Springel, Hernquist 2005) in which the energy released by the AGN can quench both star formation and the further growth of the black hole, thus explaining the relationship between the black hole mass and other properties of the galaxy. In the case of 3C 305, a significant burst of star formation took place between 0.4 and 1.5 Gyr ago (Tadhunter et al. 2005). Despite this stellar burst, the medium surrounding the radio source is still very dense and only the radio jet seems to be able to clear this gas.
Finally, the outflow in 3C 305 may have interesting connections with the detection of strong and blueshifted absorbers (column density $10^{18} - 10^{19.5}$ cm$^{-2}$) in the Ly$\alpha$ profiles of high redshift radio galaxies (see e.g. Wilman et al. 2004 and ref. therein). A possible way to explain this is via a highly supersonic jet expanding into the dense medium of a young radio galaxy that then consequently will be surrounded by an advancing quasi-spherical bow shock, as investigated via numerical simulation by Krause (2002). The study of the stellar population in 3C 305 suggests that this galaxy went through a gas-rich, major merger in its recent past. This radio galaxy may, therefore, represent an ideal example of nearby object having characteristics very similar to those of typical high redshift radio galaxies.
The National Radio Astronomy Observatory is a facility of the National Science Foundation operated under cooperative agreement by Associated Universities, Inc.
van Bemmel, I. M., Vernet J., Fosbury R.A.E., Lamers H.J.G.L.M. 2003, MNRAS 345, L13 Capetti et al. 1999, ApJ 516, 187 Crenshaw D.M., Kraemer S.B., George I.M. 2003, ARAA 41, 117 Di Matteo T., Springel V., Hernquist L. 2005, Nature in press (astro-ph/0502199) Dopita M.A. et al. 2002, ApJ 572, 753 Elvis M., 2000 ApJ 545, 63 Elvis M., Marengo M. & Karovska M., 2002, ApJ 567, L107 Emonts B.H.C., Morganti R., Tadhunter C.N., Oosterloo T.A., Holt J., van der Hulst J.M. 2005 MNRAS submitted Fragile, P.C., Murray, S., Anninos, P., van Breugel, W. 2004, ApJ, 604, 74 Heckman T.M., Miley G.K., Balick B., van Breugel W., Butcher H.R. 1982 ApJ 262, 529 Heckman T.M., Armus L., Miley G. 1990, ApJS 74, 833 Heckman T.M. 2002, in ‘Extragalactic Gas at Low Redshift’’, eds. J. Mulchaey and J. Stocke, ASP Conf. Series Vol. 254, p.292 (astro-ph/0107438) Holt J., Tadhunter C., Morganti R., 2003 MNRAS 342, 227 Krause M., 2002 A&A 386, L1 Kriss G. 2004, in IAU Symposium 222 [*The Interplay among Black Holes, Stars and ISM in Galactic Nuclei*]{}, eds Storchi-Bergmann et al. in press (astro-ph/0403685) Krongold et al. 2003, ApJ 597, 832 Jackson N., Beswick R., Pedlar A., Cole G.H., Spark W.B. et al. 2003 MNRAS 338, 643 Mellema, G., Kurk, J.D., Röttgering, H.J.A. 2002, A&A, 395, L13 Morganti R., Oosterloo T.A., Emonts B.H.C., van der Hulst J.M., Tadhunter C. 2003, ApJLetter 593, L69; Morganti R., Oosterloo T., Emonts B.H.C., Tadhunter C.N., Holt J., 2004, proceedings IAU Symposium 217, [*Recycling Intergalactic and Interstellar Matter*]{}, eds. P.-A. Duc, J. Braine, and E. Brinks ASP, p.332 (astro-ph/0310629); Morganti R., Oosterloo T.A., Tadhunter C.N. 2005, in “Extra-planar Gas”, Ed. R. Braun, ASP Conf. Vol 331 in press (astro-ph/0410222) Oosterloo T.A., Morganti R., Tzioumis A., Reynolds J., King E., McCulloch P., Tsvetanov Z. 2000, AJ 119, 2085 Osterbrock, D.E. 1989, The Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei, University Science Books, Mill Valley, CA Rawlings S. & Jarvis M.J. 2004 MNRAS in press (astro-ph/0409687) Rupke D.S., Veilleux S., Sanders D.B. 2002, ApJ, 570, 588
Tadhunter C., Robinson T.G., González Delgano R.M., Wills K., Morganti R. 2005, MNRAS 356, 480 Tadhunter C., Wills K., Morganti R., Oosterloo T., Dickson R. 2001 MNRAS 327, 227 Tadhunter C. 1991, MNRAS 251, 46 Veilleux S., Cecil G., Bland-Hawthorn J., Shopbell P.L. 2002, RMxAC, 13, 222 Silk J. & Rees M.J. 1998 A&A 331, L1 Wilman R.J., Jarvis M.J., Röttgering H.J.A., Binette L. 2004, MNRAS 351, 1109
[^1]: Based on observations with the Very Large Array.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce a new discretization for the stream function formulation of the incompressible Stokes equations in two and three space dimensions. The method is strongly related to the Hellan-Herrmann-Johnson method and is based on the recently discovered mass conserving mixed stress formulation \[J. Gopalakrishnan, P.L. Lederer, J. Schöberl, IMA Journal of numerical Analysis, 2019\] that approximates the velocity in an $H({\operatorname{div}})$-conforming space and introduces a new stress-like variable for the approximation of the gradient of the velocity within the function space $H({\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{div}})$. The properties of the (discrete) de Rham complex allows to extend this method to a stream function formulation in two and three space dimensions. We present a detailed stability analysis in the continuous and the discrete setting where the stream function $\psi$ and its approximation $\psi_h$ are elements of $H({\operatorname{curl}})$ and the $H({\operatorname{curl}})$-conforming Nédélec finite element space, respectively. We conclude with an error analysis revealing optimal convergence rates for the error of the discrete velocity $u_h = {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi_h)$ measured in a discrete $H^1$-norm. We present numerical examples to validate our findings and discuss structure-preserving properties such as pressure-robustness.'
address: 'Institute for Analysis and Scientific Computing, TU Wien, Wiedner Hauptstra[ß]{}e 8-10, 1040 Wien, Austria'
author:
- 'Philip L. Lederer'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'A Hellan-Herrmann-Johnson-like method for the Stream function formulation of the Stokes equations in two and three space dimensions'
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
In this work we present a new discretization of the stream function formulation of the Stokes equations in two and three space dimensions. To this end, let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^d$ with $d =2,3$ be a bounded simply connected domain with a Lipschitz boundary $\partial \Omega$. The Stokes problem is given by: Find $u:\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^d$ and $p:\Omega \to \mathbb{R}$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
-\nu \Delta u + \nabla p &= f && \qquad\text{in } \Omega,\label{eq:stokesone}
\\
{\operatorname{div}}(u) &= 0 && \qquad \text{in } \Omega,
\\
u &= 0 && \qquad \text{on } \partial\Omega,
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:stokes\]
where $f:\Omega \to \mathbb{R}^d$ is a given body force and $\nu \in \mathbb{R}^+$ is the constant kinematic viscosity. Here, $u$ denotes the velocity of the considered fluid and $p$ is the corresponding (kinematic) pressure. Note, that we only consider homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions in this work (see also comment below). Following [@Girault:book; @BENDALI1985537], the property ${\operatorname{div}}(u) = 0$ motivates to define the stream function formulation of the Stokes equations given by: Find $\psi: \Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d(d-1)/2}$ such that in two dimensions we have
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
-\nu \Delta^2 \psi &= {\operatorname{curl}}(f) && \qquad\text{in } \Omega,
\\
\psi = \frac{\partial \psi}{\partial n} & = 0 && \qquad \text{on } \partial\Omega,
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:streamstokes\]
and in three dimensions
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
-\nu \Delta^2 \psi &= {\operatorname{curl}}(f) && \qquad\text{in } \Omega,
\\
{\operatorname{div}}(\psi) &= 0 && \qquad\text{in } \Omega,
\\
\psi \times n = {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) \times n & =0 && \qquad \text{on } \partial\Omega.
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:streamstokestwo\]
Then we have the relation ${\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) = u$. One of the main attractions of deriving a discrete method for and instead of lies on the hand: Whereas standard mixed finite element methods for the Stokes equations usually enforce the incompressibility constraint only in a weak sense, the discrete velocity solution obtained from a stream function formulation is always exactly divergence-free. This structure preserving property helps for example in the case of convection dominated flows (when we consider the full Navier-Stokes equations, see [@Lehrenfeld:2016; @Cockburn:2004b; @Cockburn:2007b]) and further allows to derive pressure independent velocity error estimates. Such estimates are called pressure robust, see [@Linke:2014; @Brennecke:2015; @Linke:2016c; @John:2017; @Lederer:2017b], and are of great interest particularly in the case of vanishing viscosity where an inaccurate pressure approximation might induce a blow up of the velocity. These findings were also extended to the definition of pressure robust error estimators, see [@MR3962897] and [@MR3240852]. In the latter work the authors presented a residual estimator with the help of the stream function formulation which implicitly lead to pressure robustness. Finally, the stream function formulation recently got popular for the approximation of incompressible fluids on surfaces, see [@MR4050536].
In the derivation of the above equations it was crucial that the domain is simply connected. In a more general setting, the equations and boundary conditions are much more evolved since the potential $\psi$ is not uniquely defined any more, see fore example in [@BENDALI1985537] for a detailed discussion. The approximation of the fourth order problem (also known as biharmonic problem) requires finite elements of higher regularity. To overcome this problem, it is common to reformulate the biharmonic problem to the directly related stream function vorticity formulation. Many authors have studied this problem, see for example [@MR1717814; @MR553350; @MR1726723; @MR1186736; @nedelecstream]. We also want to cite the very recent work [@MR4068857] an the references therein for a further discussion on the connection of the stream function and stream function vorticity formulation and the occurring boundary conditions. Regarding our choice of homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions in this work we want to mention, that this is a non trivial case as it was discussed in detail in [@veclapDBC]. Therein the authors show, that one might loose optimal convergence when mixed finite element methods including the vorticity are used. However, we want to emphasize that the methods proposed in this work are of optimal order. In [@BENYU19971; @2587098; @MR1825701], the authors focused on the pure stream function formulation (in two space dimensions) given by and derived a finite difference scheme for the approximation of the bi-Laplacian operator. A mixed finite element method was derived in [@CIARLET1974125]. Due to the huge success of discontinuous Galerkin methods (DG) for elliptic problems, the techniques were also applied to fourth order problems, see [@MR2298696; @MR1915664; @MR2048235; @MR2329348; @MR3240852].
We particularly want to mention the works [@hellan; @herrmann; @johnson; @comodi], since they play a key role in the derivation of the methods introduced in this work. Therein the authors derived a mixed method, also known as the Hellan-Herrmann-Johnson method (HHJ), by introducing an auxiliary variable to approximate the matrix valued symmetric gradient. This has many advantages as it results for example in a reduced coupling in the finite element system matrix compared to a DG formulation and that no second order differential operators have to be explicitly implemented in the finite element code. In [@Girault:book], the authors showed that this techniques can also be used to approximate the stream function formulation and presented a detailed analysis. Nevertheless, the authors claim that the extension to the three dimensional case is not straight forward.
This work is dedicated to fill this gap. To this end we first introduce a modified (rotated) version of the HHJ-method in two dimensions which can then be easily extended to the three dimensional setting. This is possible since the new modified HHJ-method can be interpreted as a discrete stream function formulation of the mass conserving mixed stress formulation (MCS) defined in [@Lederer:2019b; @Lederer:2019c; @lederer2019mass]. The MCS method approximates the discrete velocity $u_h$ in an $H({\operatorname{div}})$-conforming finite element space and the discrete pressure in the appropriate ($L^2$-conforming) space of piece wise polynomials. This leads to exactly divergence-free velocity approximations, i.e. ${\operatorname{div}}(u_h)=0$. The properties of the discrete de Rham complex then motivates to define a discrete stream function $\psi_h$ in an $H({\operatorname{curl}})$-conforming finite element space such that ${\operatorname{curl}}(\psi_h) = u_h$, which leads to the resulting modified HHJ-method. Finally note, that there exists a similar connection between the (standard) HHJ-method and the tangential-displacement and normal-normal-stress continuous mixed finite element method for elasticity [@MR3712290; @MR2826472; @Pechstein2018] which motivated the definition of the methods within this work.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we define the basic notation and symbols that we shall use throughout this work. In Section 3 we discuss the classical weak formulation and a new weak formulation with reduced regularity of the stream function formulation, and present a detailed stability analysis. Section 4 is dedicated to the derivation of the new modified HHJ-method in two and three space dimensions. The technical details needed to prove discrete stability and convergence of the error in appropriate norms are included in Section 5. In Section 6 we present a simple post processing for a pressure discretization. We conclude the work with Section 7 where we present numerical examples to illustrate the theory.
Preliminaries
=============
Let ${{C^{\infty}_c}}(\Omega)$ denote the set of infinitely differentiable compactly supported real-valued functions on $\Omega$ and let $({{C^{\infty}_c}})'(\Omega)$ denote the space of distributions as usual. In this work we include the range in the notation, hence $$\begin{aligned}
{{C^{\infty}_c}}(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d) = \{ u: \Omega \to {\mathbb{R}}^d : u_i \in {{C^{\infty}_c}}(\Omega)\} \\
{{C^{\infty}_c}}(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^{d \times d}) = \{ u: \Omega \to {\mathbb{R}}^{d \times d}: u_{ij} \in {{C^{\infty}_c}}(\Omega)\},\end{aligned}$$ represent the vector valued and matrix-valued versions of ${{C^{\infty}_c}}(\Omega) = {{C^{\infty}_c}}(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}})$. This notation is extended in an obvious fashion to other function spaces as needed.
Depending on the type of the function, the gradient $\nabla$ is to be understood from the context as an operator that results in either a vector whose components are $[\nabla \phi]_i = {\partial}_i \phi$ (where ${\partial}_i$ is the partial derivative ${\partial}/{\partial}x_i$) for $\phi \in {{C^{\infty}_c}}'(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}})$ or a matrix whose entries are $[\nabla \phi]_{ij} = {\partial}_j \phi_i$ for $\phi \in {{C^{\infty}_c}}'(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d)$. Similarly, the “curl” is given as any of the following three differential operators $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{curl}}(\phi)
& = (-\partial_2 \phi, \partial_1 \phi)^{{\operatorname{T}}},
&& \text{ for } \phi \in {{C^{\infty}_c}}'(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}) \text{ and } d=2,
\\
{\operatorname{curl}}( \phi)
& = -\partial_2 \phi_1+ \partial_1 \phi_2,
&& \text{ for } \phi \in {{C^{\infty}_c}}'(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^2) \text{ and } d=2,
\\
{\operatorname{curl}}(\phi)
&
= \nabla \times \phi
&& \text{ for } \phi \in {{C^{\infty}_c}}'(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^3) \text{ and } d=3, \end{aligned}$$ where $(\cdot)^{{\operatorname{T}}}$ denotes the transpose. Finally, we define the ${\operatorname{div}}(\phi)$ as either $\sum_{i=1}^d {\partial}_i \phi_i$ for vector-valued $\phi \in {{C^{\infty}_c}}'(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d),$ or the row-wise divergence $\sum_{j=1}^d {\partial}_j \phi_{ij}$ for matrix-valued $\phi \in {{C^{\infty}_c}}'(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^{d \times d})$.
We denote by $L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}})$ the space of square-integrable functions on $\Omega$ and by $H^m(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}})$ the standard Sobolev space of order $m$. In particular we further use the space $H_0^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d) = \{ v \in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d): v|_{\partial \Omega} = 0 \}$. With $\tilde t = d(d-1)/2$ and the above (weak) differential operators we then further define the Sobolev spaces $$\begin{aligned}
H({\operatorname{div}},\Omega)
&= \{ v \in L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d): {\operatorname{div}}(v) \in
L^2(\Omega) \},
\\
H({\operatorname{curl}},\Omega)
&= \{ v \in L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d):
{\operatorname{curl}}(v) \in L^2(\Omega,
{\mathbb{R}}^{\tilde t}) \}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly as before, we denote by $H_0({\operatorname{div}},\Omega) = \{ v \in H({\operatorname{div}},\Omega): v\cdot n|_{\partial \Omega} = 0\}$ and $H_0({\operatorname{curl}},\Omega) = \{ v \in H({\operatorname{div}},\Omega): v \times n|_{\partial \Omega} = 0\}$, where $n$ denotes the outward unit normal vector on $\partial \Omega$. On the above spaces we use the standard symbols for the norms, but we will omit the domain $\Omega$ to simplify the notation, i.e. while $\| \cdot \|_{L^2}$ is the $L^2$-norm on $\Omega$ we denote by $\| \cdot\|_{H^1}, \| \cdot\|_{H({\operatorname{div}})}$ and $\| \cdot\|_{H({\operatorname{curl}})}$ the norms on $\Omega$ of the spaces $H^1, H({\operatorname{div}})$ and $H({\operatorname{curl}})$, respectively. Other non standard spaces and definitions are defined later in the work when they appear in a proper context.
Finally, in this work we use $A \sim B $ to indicate that there are constants $c, C>0$ that are independent of the mesh size $h$ (defined in Section \[sec::discretisation\]) and the viscosity $\nu$ such that $c A \le B \le C A$. We also use $A \lesssim B$ when there is a $C>0$ independent of $h$ and $\nu$ such that $A \le C B$. In the same manner we also define the symbol $\gtrsim$.
The continuous setting
======================
Weak formulations of the Stokes equations
-----------------------------------------
Defining the spaces $$\begin{aligned}
X := H_0^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d), \quad \textrm{and} \quad Q := \{ q \in L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}): \int_\Omega q \dif x = 0 \},\end{aligned}$$ and assuming regularity $f \in L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}})$, the weak formulation of is given by: Find $(u,p) \in X \times Q$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\int_\Omega \nu \nabla u : \nabla v \dif x - \int_\Omega {\operatorname{div}}(v) p \dif x &= \int_\Omega f \cdot v && \qquad\forall v \in X
\\
\int_\Omega {\operatorname{div}}(u)q \dif x&= 0 && \qquad \forall q \in Q.
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:weakstokes\]
In the recent work [@lederer2019mass], a new weak formulation of the Stokes equations was derived that used a weaker regularity assumption of the velocity space. The idea is motivated by introducing te auxiliary variable $\sigma:= \nu\nabla u$. Defining the trace of a matrix ${\operatorname{tr}}{\tau} :=\sum_{i+1}^d \tau_{ii}$ and the deviator ${\operatorname{dev}}{\tau} := \tau - ({\operatorname{tr}}{\tau}/d) {\operatorname{Id}}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\operatorname{dev}}{\sigma} = {\operatorname{dev}}{\nu \nabla u} = \nu \nabla u - \frac{\nu}{d} {\operatorname{tr}}{\nabla u} {\operatorname{Id}}= \nu(\nabla u - \frac{1}{d} {\operatorname{div}}(u) {\operatorname{Id}}) = \nu \nabla u,
\end{aligned}$$ since ${\operatorname{div}}(u)=0$. By that we can reformulate equations as
$$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\nu^{-1} {\operatorname{dev}}{\sigma} - \nabla u & = 0 \quad &&\textrm{in } \Omega , \label{eq:mixedstokesone}\\
{\operatorname{div}}(\sigma) - \nabla p & = -f \quad &&\textrm{in } \Omega, \label{eq:mixedstokestwo}\\
{\operatorname{div}}(u) & = 0\quad &&\textrm{in } \Omega, \label{eq:mixedstokesthree}\\
u & = 0 \quad &&\textrm{on } \partial \Omega. \label{eq:mixedstokesfour}
\end{aligned}$$
\[eq:mixedstokes\]
To derive a variational formulation of equation , we define the velocity space $V := H_0({\operatorname{div}}, \Omega)$ and the matrix valued function spaces $$\begin{aligned}
H({\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{div}}) &:= \{ \tau \in L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^{d \times d}): {\operatorname{div}}(\tau) \in V'\}, \\
\Sigma &:= \{ \tau \in H({\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{div}}): {\operatorname{tr}}{\tau}=0 \}.
\end{aligned}$$ Note, that a proper norm on $H({\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{div}})$ is defined by $\| \tau \|^2_{{H(cd)}} := \| \tau \|_{L^2}^2 + \| {\operatorname{div}}(\tau) \|^2_{V'}$, where $V'$ denotes the dual space and $\| \cdot \|_{V'}$ the corresponding dual space norm. The definition of the space $\Sigma$ is motivated by the distributional divergence of an arbitrary function $\tau \in \Sigma$ given by $$\begin{aligned}
\langle{ {\operatorname{div}}(\tau), \varphi}\rangle_{V} = - \int_\Omega \tau : \nabla \varphi \dif x \quad \forall \varphi \in {{C^{\infty}_c}}(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, by a density argument of smooth functions in $H_0({\operatorname{div}}, \Omega)$, a weak formulation of is given by $\nu^{-1}\int_\Omega \sigma:\tau + \langle{ {\operatorname{div}}(\tau), u}\rangle_{V} = 0$, where $\langle \cdot , \cdot \rangle_V$ denotes the duality bracket on $V' \times V$. For more details we refer to chapter 4 in [@lederer2019mass]. Using similar arguments for the other lines of , the mass conserving mixed stress formulation (MCS) then reads as: Find $(\sigma, u ,p) \in V \times \Sigma \times Q$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\int_\Omega \frac{1}{\nu} \sigma: \tau \dif x + \langle{ {\operatorname{div}}(\tau), u}\rangle_{V} & = 0&& \quad \forall \tau \in \Sigma, \label{eq::mixedstressstokesweakone} \\
\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), v\rangle_{V} + \int_\Omega{\operatorname{div}}(v) p \dif x & = -\int_\Omega f \cdot v \dif x && \quad \forall v \in V, \label{eq::mixedstressstokesweaktwo} \\
\int_\Omega {\operatorname{div}}(u) q \dif x &=0 && \quad \forall q \in Q.\label{eq::mixedstressstokesweakthree} \end{aligned}$$
\[eq::mixedstressstokesweak\]
where we used that ${\operatorname{dev}}= {\operatorname{Id}}$ for functions in $\Sigma$. Uniqueness and existence of in $V \times \Sigma \times Q$ (with the corresponding natural norms) was proven in Section 4.3.1 in [@lederer2019mass]. Note, that the velocity solution $u \in V$ of equation has a reduced regularity in contrast to the velocity solution of the standard weak formulation of the Stokes equation given by .
\[rem::bndcond\] The homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions were implicitly split into a normal and a tangential part. Whereas the homogeneous normal Dirichlet values are incorporated as essential boundary conditions in the space $V = H_0({\operatorname{div}},\Omega)$, the homogeneous tangential Dirichlet values are included as natural boundary conditions in , see also Section 4.3 in [@lederer2019mass].
The stream function formulation
-------------------------------
### The standard weak formulation {#sec::stdstreamform}
In this section we summarize the findings of Section 5.2 in [@Girault:book] to derive the standard variational stream function formulations of the Stokes problem. By the incompressibility constraint ${\operatorname{div}}(u) = 0$, the velocity solution $u$ of the Stokes equation can be expressed as the ${\operatorname{curl}}$ of a scalar-valued ($d = 2$) or vector-valued ($d = 3$) potential $\psi$ called the stream function, i.e. ${\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) = u$. To this end we define for $d = 2$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi &:= \{\phi \in H^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}): \phi|_{\partial \Omega} = 0, \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial n}\Big|_{\partial \Omega} = 0 \},
\end{aligned}$$ and for $d=3$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi &:= \{\phi \in L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^3): {\operatorname{div}}(\phi) \in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}), {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \in H_0^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^3), \phi \times n |_{\partial \Omega} = 0 \}.
\end{aligned}$$ The stream function can be characterized as the unique solution of the weak problem: Find $\psi \in \Psi$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{2} \label{eq:stream}
\int_\Omega \Delta \psi : \Delta \phi \dif x &= \int_\Omega f \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) && \quad \forall \phi \in \Psi.
\end{aligned}$$ According to Theorem 5.5 and Lemma 5.1 in [@Girault:book], equation has an unique solution such that ${\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) = u $ is the unique solution of the standard variational formulation of the Stokes equation . In contrast to , the weak formulation does not directly include the constraint ${\operatorname{div}}(\psi) = 0$ in three space dimensions, as this follows implicitly due to the choice of $\Psi$, see Lemma 5.1 in [@Girault:book].
### A weak formulation with reduced regularity {#sec::redregstreamform}
In the following we derive a new weak formulation for the stream function formulation that is motivated by the MCS formulation given by equation .
We start with the case $d = 3$. As discussed in the previous section, the solution of the MCS formulation given by equation , fulfills the weaker regularity $u \in H_0({\operatorname{div}}, \Omega)$. From the properties of the de Rham complex, see for example in [@Boffi:book], the divergence constraint ${\operatorname{div}}(u) = 0$ then motivates the existence of a vector potential $\psi \in H_0({\operatorname{curl}}, \Omega)$ such that ${\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) = u$. Similarly as before, we then further introduce a new variable $\sigma \in \Sigma$ such that $\sigma = "\nabla {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)"$ (see equation ) in a weak sense since the gradient is not well-defined for ${\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)$. For an arbitrary $\tau \in \Sigma$ this leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega \frac{1}{\nu} \sigma : \tau \dif x + \langle {\operatorname{div}}(\tau), {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) \rangle_V = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Note, that the duality pair is well defined for the function ${\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)$ since $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq::admiss}
{\operatorname{div}}({\operatorname{curl}}(\phi)) = 0, \quad \textrm {and} \quad
{\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \cdot n = {\operatorname{div}}_{\partial \Omega}(\phi \times n) = 0 \quad \forall \phi \in H_0({\operatorname{curl}}),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\operatorname{div}}_{\partial \Omega}$ is the surface divergence, see Section 2.1 in [@Boffi:book]. This shows that ${\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \in H_0({\operatorname{div}}, \Omega) = V$ for all $\phi \in H_0({\operatorname{curl}})$, hence $\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\tau), {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) \rangle_V$ is well defined. Similarly, we derive a weak formulation of the momentum equation by testing with a function ${\operatorname{curl}}(\phi)$ with $\phi \in H_0({\operatorname{curl}})$ to get $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \rangle_V = - \int_\Omega f \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \dif x,\end{aligned}$$ where we used integration by parts and that ${\operatorname{curl}}(\nabla p)) = 0$, hence the pressure integral disappeared. Finally, to uniquely determine the vector potential $\psi$, we introduce a gauging as it is also known for mixed formulation of the Maxwell’s equations, see for example in [@monk2003finite]. To this end we demand that $\psi$ is orthogonal on gradient fields which mimics the conditions ${\operatorname{div}}(\psi) = 0$ in . Introducing the spaces $$\begin{aligned}
W := H_0({\operatorname{curl}}, \Omega) \quad \textrm{and } \quad S := H^1_0(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}),\end{aligned}$$ we then have the weak formulation: Find $(\psi, \sigma, \lambda) \in W \times \Sigma \times S$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\int_\Omega \frac{1}{\nu} \sigma: \tau \dif x + \langle{ {\operatorname{div}}(\tau), {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)}\rangle_{V} & = 0&& \quad \forall \tau \in \Sigma, \label{eq::mixedstressstreamweakone} \\
\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \rangle_{V} + \int_\Omega \phi \cdot \nabla \lambda & = -\int_\Omega f \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \dif x && \quad \forall \phi \in W, \label{eq::mixedstressstreamweaktwo} \\
\int_\Omega \psi \cdot \nabla \mu \dif x &=0 && \quad \forall \mu \in S.\label{eq::mixedstressstreamweakthree} \end{aligned}$$
\[eq::mixedstressstreamweak\]
Similarly as for the solution of , the homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions in are split into a normal and a tangential part, see Remark \[rem::bndcond\]. The homogeneous normal condition $u \cdot n = {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \cdot n = 0$ is incorporated as an essential boundary condition in the space $W$, see equation , whereas the boundary condition $ u \times n = {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \times n = 0$ is induced as a natural boundary condition in .
\[th::exstream\] Let $d = 3$. There exists an unique solution $(\psi, \sigma, \lambda) \in W \times \Sigma \times S$ of the weak formulation such that $$\begin{aligned}
\| \sigma \|_{{H(cd)}} + \| \psi \|_{H({\operatorname{curl}})} + \| \nabla \lambda \|_{L^2} \lesssim \| f \|_{L^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Further, the velocity solution $u := {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) \in V $ is the solution of .
The proof is based on the standard theory of mixed problems, see [@Boffi:book]. Continuity of the bilinear forms follows immediately with the Cauchy Schwarz inequality, the continuity of the duality bracket and that for all $\phi \in W$ there holds the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \|^2_V = \|{\operatorname{curl}}(\phi)\|^2_{L^2} + \|{\operatorname{div}}({\operatorname{curl}}(\phi))\|^2_{L^2} = \|{\operatorname{curl}}(\phi)\|^2_{L^2} \le \| \phi \|^2_{H({\operatorname{curl}})}.
\end{aligned}$$ We continue with the kernel ellipticity. To this end let $(\sigma,\lambda) \in \Sigma \times S$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq::kernel}
\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \rangle_{V} + \int_\Omega \phi \cdot \nabla \lambda =0 \quad \forall \phi \in W.
\end{aligned}$$ In a first step we bound the norm of $\lambda$: Since $\nabla S \in W$, equation shows $$\begin{aligned}
\| \nabla \lambda \|^2_{L^2} = \int_\Omega \nabla \lambda \cdot \nabla \lambda \dif x = - \langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), {\operatorname{curl}}(\nabla \lambda) \rangle_{V}= 0,
\end{aligned}$$ thus $\lambda = 0$ (due to the zero boundary conditions of $\lambda$). Next, let $u \in V$ be arbitrary. Then, using a regular decomposition of $u$ there exist functions $\theta,z \in H_0^1(\, {\mathbb{R}}^d)$ such that $u = {\operatorname{curl}}(\theta) + z$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\| \theta\|_{H^1} + \| z\|_{H^1} \lesssim \| u \|_{V}.
\end{aligned}$$ Many authors have stated such decomposition results under various assumptions on the domain $\Omega$. Under the current assumptions we refer for example to [@DemloHiran14]. With the decomposition result we then get $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma)\|_{V'} &= \sup\limits_{u \in V}\frac{\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), u \rangle_V}{\|u \|_V} \sim \sup\limits_{\theta,z \in H_0^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d)}\frac{\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), {\operatorname{curl}}(\theta) + z \rangle_V}{\|z \|_{H^1} + \|\theta \|_{H^1}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Since $H_0^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d) \subset W$, equation and $\lambda = 0$ implies that $\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), {\operatorname{curl}}(\theta) \rangle_V = 0$. By the definition of the distributional divergence and the Cauchy Schwarz inequality this then finally leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma)\|_{V'} &\sim \sup\limits_{z \in H_0^1(\Omega , {\mathbb{R}}^d)}\frac{\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), z \rangle_V}{\|z \|_{H^1}}
= \sup\limits_{z \in H_0^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d)}\frac{-\int_\Omega \sigma : \nabla z \dif x }{\|z \|_{H^1}}\le \| \sigma\|_{L^2},
\end{aligned}$$ thus in total $\|\sigma \|^2_{{H(cd)}} + \|\nabla \lambda \|_{L^2}^2 \lesssim \int_\Omega \sigma : \sigma \dif x$, which proves kernel ellipticity.
It remains to prove the inf-sup condition. To this end let $\phi \in W$ be arbitrary. Then, as before, we use a regular decomposition (now in $H_0({\operatorname{curl}})$) of $\phi$ to find functions $\theta \in H_0^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}})$ and $z \in H_0^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d)$ such that $\phi = \nabla \theta + z$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq::regdccurl}
\| \nabla z\|_{L^2} \le c_1 \| {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \|_{L^2} \quad \textrm{and} \quad \| \nabla \theta \|_{L^2} \le c_2 \| \phi \|_{W},
\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1>0$ and $c_2>0$ are two constants. With the triangle inequality we then also have $\| \nabla \theta\|_{L^2}^2 + \| \nabla z \|_{L^2}^2 \sim \| \phi \|^2_{W}$. Next, we use Lemma 12 of [@lederer2019mass] which states that for every $ u \in V$ there exists a $\sigma \in \Sigma$ such that $\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), u \rangle_V \ge c_3 \| u \|_V^2$, with a constant $c_3 > 0$, and $\| \sigma \|_{{H(cd)}} \lesssim \| u \|_V$. Since ${\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \in V$, this gives for $\sigma_1 = \frac{c_1}{c_3} \sigma$ and $\lambda = \theta$, the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma_1), {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \rangle_V + \int_\Omega \phi \cdot \nabla \lambda \dif x
&= \frac{c_3}{c_1} \langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \rangle_V + \int_\Omega \phi \cdot \nabla \theta \dif x \\
&\ge c_1 \| {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \|^2_{L^2} + \int_\Omega \nabla \theta \cdot \nabla \theta \dif x + \int_\Omega z \cdot \nabla \theta \dif x \\
&\ge \| \nabla z \|^2_{L^2} + \| \nabla \theta \|_{L^2}^2 - \| \nabla z \|_{L^2}\| \nabla \theta \|_{L^2} \gtrsim \|\phi\|^2_W,
\end{aligned}$$ where we used the Cauchy Schwarz inequality, the left equation of and the Young inequality for the last term. The continuity estimates $\| \sigma_1 \|_{{H(cd)}} \lesssim \|{\operatorname{curl}}(\phi)\|_{L^2}$ and the right equation of (for $\lambda = \theta$) then shows $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma_1), {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \rangle_V + \int_\Omega \phi \cdot \nabla \lambda \dif x\gtrsim \|\phi\|_W (\| \sigma_1 \|_{{H(cd)}} + \| \nabla \lambda \|_{L^2}),
\end{aligned}$$ thus the inf-sup condition is proven and we conclude the proof of the existence and continuity result.
Now let $(\sigma^{\operatorname{MCS}}, u^{\operatorname{MCS}}, p^{\operatorname{MCS}}) \in \Sigma \times V \times Q$ be the solution of equation , and set $u := {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) \in V$. As gives ${\operatorname{div}}(u^{\operatorname{MCS}})=0$, it follows that the pair $(\sigma^{\operatorname{MCS}}, u^{\operatorname{MCS}})$ is uniquely defined by testing equation only with divergence free test functions $v \in V^0:=\{v \in V: {\operatorname{div}}(v) = 0\}$. Since the pair $(\sigma^{\operatorname{MCS}}, u)$ is also a solution of (on $V^0$), we have that $u = u^{\operatorname{MCS}}$ by the uniqueness of the solution of equation .
For the case $d=2$, a similar formulation can be derived. Now, the de Rham complex motivates the existence of a scalar potential $\psi \in H^1_0(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}})$ such that ${\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) = u$. Note, that $\psi$ is already uniquely defined thus no further gauging is needed. With the same observations as for the three dimensional case, we then have the weak formulation: Find $(\psi, \sigma) \in S \times \Sigma$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\int_\Omega \frac{1}{\nu} \sigma: \tau \dif x + \langle{ {\operatorname{div}}(\tau), {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)}\rangle_{V} & = 0&& \quad \forall \tau \in \Sigma, \label{eq::mixedstressstreamweakonetwo} \\
\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \rangle_{V} & = -\int_\Omega f \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \dif x && \quad \forall \phi \in S. \label{eq::mixedstressstreamweaktwotwo}\end{aligned}$$
\[eq::mixedstressstreamweaktwod\]
Let $d = 2$. There exists a unique solution $(\psi, \sigma) \in S \times \Sigma$ of the weak formulation such that $$\begin{aligned}
\| \sigma \|_{{H(cd)}} + \| \psi \|_{H({\operatorname{curl}})} \lesssim \| f \|_{L^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Further, the velocity solution $u := {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) \in V $ is the solution of .
The proof follows with the same steps as in the proof of Theorem \[th::exstream\].
A Hellan-Herrmann-Johnson like method for the stream function formulation {#sec::discretisation}
=========================================================================
In this section we present a new discretization of the weak formulation for the stream function with reduced regularity, see equation and . In two space dimensions the method can be interpreted as a rotated version of the Hellan-Herrmann-Johnson (HHJ) formulation for fourth order problems, see [@hellan; @herrmann; @johnson; @comodi; @babuska].
We start with some preliminaries for the discrete setting. Let ${\mathcal{T}}$ be a shape regular quasi uniform triangulation (partition) of the domain $\Omega$, which consists of triangles and tetrahedrons in two and three dimensions, respectively. We denote by $h$ the maximum of the diameters of all elements in ${\mathcal{T}}$. Since ${\mathcal{T}}$ is quasi uniform we have $h \approx \textrm{diam}(T)$ for any $ T \in {\mathcal{T}}$. The set of element interfaces and boundaries is given by ${\mathcal{F}}$. On each facet $F \in {\mathcal{F}}$ we denote by ${\llbracket \cdot \rrbracket}$ the usual jump operator. For facets on the boundary the jump operator is just the identity.
For readability, we use again the symbol $n$ for the outward unit normal vector on the element boundaries and on facets on the global boundary. Then, the normal and tangential trace of a smooth enough function $\phi: \Omega \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^d$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_n := \phi \cdot n \quad \textrm{and} \quad \phi_t := \phi - \phi_n n.\end{aligned}$$ Note, that this definition gives a scalar normal trace and vector valued tangential trace. In two dimensions we further define by $t$ the unit tangent vector that is obtained by rotating $n$ anti-clockwise by 90 degrees (thus $t = n^\perp$), so that $\phi_t = (\phi \cdot t) t$. In a similar manner for a smooth enough function $\phi: \Omega \to
{\mathbb{R}}^{d \times d}$ we set $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{nn} = \phi : (n \otimes n) = n^{{\operatorname{T}}}\phi n \quad \textrm{and} \quad \phi_{nt} = \phi n - \phi_{nn} n,\end{aligned}$$ which reads as a scalar “normal-normal component” and a vector-valued “normal-tangential component”. In two dimensions we may write $\phi_{nt} = (t^{{\operatorname{T}}}\phi n)t$.
Next, let $T \in {\mathcal{T}}$ be arbitrary, then we define by $\mathcal{P}^k(T, {\mathbb{R}})$ scalar-valued polynomials of total order $k$ on $T$. On the triangulation we then correspondingly set $\mathcal{P}^k({\mathcal{T}}, {\mathbb{R}}) := \cup_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}}\mathcal{P}^k(T, {\mathbb{R}})$. These definitions are extended to vector and tensor valued polynomials as before.
Finally, let $\omega \subset \Omega$ be an arbitrary subset, then we use $(\cdot, \cdot)_\omega$ for the $L^2$-inner product on $\omega $ and by $|| \cdot ||^2_\omega := ( \cdot,\cdot)_\omega$ the corresponding norm.
The HHJ-method in two dimensions
--------------------------------
\
In this section we summarize the derivation of the HHJ-method for the stream function formulation as it is described in Section 4.1 in [@Girault:book]. In this section we only consider the case $d=2$.
The idea of the HHJ formulation is, similarly as in the derivation of the MCS formulation , motivated by rewriting the fourth order problem of the stream function formulation as a mixed system. To his end we introduce the space $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^{{\operatorname{hhj}}}:=\{\sigma \in L^2(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^{d\times d}): \sigma = \sigma^{{\operatorname{T}}}, \sigma|_K \in H^1(T, {\mathbb{R}}^{d \times d}) ~\forall T \in {\mathcal{T}}, {\llbracket \sigma_{nn} \rrbracket} = 0 ~\forall F \in {\mathcal{F}}\},\end{aligned}$$ and define the symmetric tensor $\sigma := \nabla^2\psi \in \Sigma^{{\operatorname{hhj}}}$ where $\psi \in \Psi$ is the stream function. Then, with the introduction of the symmetric bilinear form $$\begin{aligned}
a(\sigma,\tau) :=& \frac{1}{\nu} \int_\Omega \sigma : \tau \dif x,\end{aligned}$$ and the bilinear form $$\begin{aligned}
b^{{\operatorname{hhj}}}(\sigma,\phi) :=& -\sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \int_T \sigma : \nabla^2\phi \dif x + \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}}\int_{F} \sigma_{nn} {\llbracket (\nabla\phi)_n \rrbracket} \dif s \label{eq::hhjbblf} \\
=& \sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \int_T {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma) \cdot \nabla\phi \dif x - \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}}\int_{F} {\llbracket \sigma_{nt} \rrbracket} \cdot (\nabla\phi)_t \dif s, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ an equivalent formulation of equation is given by: Find $(\sigma,\psi) \in \Sigma \times \Psi$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
a(\sigma,\tau) + b^{{\operatorname{hhj}}}(\tau,\psi) & = 0 && \quad \forall \tau \in \Sigma^{{\operatorname{hhj}}}, \\ b^{{\operatorname{hhj}}}(\sigma,\phi) & = -\int_\Omega f \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \dif x && \quad \forall \phi \in \Psi. $$ In order to derive the discrete HHJ method we now define the approximation spaces $$\begin{aligned}
\label{def::dischhjspaces}
S^k_h := \mathcal{P}^k({\mathcal{T}}, {\mathbb{R}}) \cap S \quad \textrm{and} \quad \Sigma^{{{\operatorname{hhj}}}, k-1}_h := \mathcal{P}^{k-1}({\mathcal{T}}, {\mathbb{R}}^{d \times d}) \cap \Sigma^{{\operatorname{hhj}}},\end{aligned}$$ then the HHJ method is given by: Find $(\sigma_h,\psi_h) \in \Sigma_h^{{{\operatorname{hhj}}}, k-1} \times S^k_h$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
a(\sigma_h,\tau_h) + b^{{\operatorname{hhj}}}(\tau_h,\psi_h) & = 0 && \quad \forall \tau_h \in \Sigma_h^{{{\operatorname{hhj}}},k-1}, \label{eq::dischhjone} \\
b^{{\operatorname{hhj}}}(\sigma_h,\phi_h) & = -\int_\Omega f \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \dif x && \quad \forall \phi_h \in S^k_h. \label{eq::dischhjtwo}\end{aligned}$$
\[eq::dischhj\]
Whereas this method gives optimal convergence orders, it is not clear how it can be extended to the three dimensional case. As stated in [@Girault:book], *“the obvious reason is, that the conditions determining the vector potential are more intricate than those defining the two-dimensional stream function”*.
A HHJ-like method
-----------------
We now introduce a new discrete method for the discretization of equation and .
We start with the case $d = 2$. In contrast to the previous section where $\sigma^{{\operatorname{hhj}}}$ was the symmetric hessian of $\psi$, we now aim to approximate the matrix $\sigma = "\nabla {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)"$. For the approximation of $\sigma \in \Sigma \subset H({\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{div}})$ we follow the works [@Lederer:2019b; @Lederer:2019c; @lederer2019mass] and define the discrete stress space $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma^k_h := \{ \sigma_h \in \mathcal{P}^k({\mathcal{T}}, {\mathbb{R}}^{d \times d}): {\operatorname{tr}}(\sigma_h) = 0, &{\llbracket (\sigma_h)_{nt} \rrbracket} = 0, \\ &~~(\sigma_h)_{nt} \in \mathcal{P}^{k-1}(F, {\mathbb{R}}^{d-1}) ~ \forall F \in {\mathcal{F}}\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note, that the discrete space $\Sigma^k_h$ is slightly non-conforming with respect to $H({\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{div}})$. Now let $S^k_h$ be as in and define the velocity space as $$\begin{aligned}
V^k_h := \mathcal{P}^k(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d) \cap H_0({\operatorname{div}}, \Omega),\end{aligned}$$ which is the well known $H({\operatorname{div}})$-conforming Brezzi-Douglas-Marini space, see for example in [@Boffi:book]. In [@Lederer:2019b; @lederer2019mass] the authors motivated the definition of a discrete duality bracket which mimics $\langle {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma), v \rangle_{H_0({\operatorname{div}})}$ in the case where $\sigma \in \Sigma^k_h \not \subset H({\operatorname{curl}}{\operatorname{div}})$. Following these ideas, we define for all $\sigma_h \in \Sigma^k_h$ and all $v_h \in V^k_h$ the bilinear form $$\begin{aligned}
b(\sigma_h, v_h) := & -\sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \int_T \sigma : \nabla v_h \dif x + \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}}\int_{F} (\sigma_h)_{nt} {\llbracket (v_h)_t \rrbracket} \dif s \\
=& \sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \int_T {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma_h) \cdot v_h \dif x - \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}}\int_{F} {\llbracket \sigma_{nn} \rrbracket} \cdot (v_h)_n \dif s.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly as in the continuous setting, the properties of the discrete de Rham complex now give ${\operatorname{curl}}(S^k_h) \subset V^{k-1}_h$. Thus for a function $\phi_h \in S^k_h$ and a $\sigma_h \in \Sigma^k_h$, the discrete duality bracket then reads as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:discbblf}
b(\sigma_h, {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)) := & -\sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \int_T \sigma_h : \nabla {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \dif x + \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}}\int_{F} (\sigma_h)_{nt} {\llbracket {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)_t \rrbracket} \dif s \\
=& \sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \int_T {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma_h) \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \dif x - \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}}\int_{F} {\llbracket (\sigma_h)_{nn} \rrbracket} {\operatorname{curl}}( \phi_h)_n \dif s.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing this to the definition of the bilinear form $b^{{\operatorname{hhj}}}(\cdot, \cdot)$, see equation , we realize that $b(\cdot, \cdot)$ reads, simply said, as a rotated version: Whereas a $\sigma_h^{{{\operatorname{hhj}}},k} \in \Sigma_h^{{\operatorname{hhj}}}$ is “normal-normal” continuous and $\nabla \phi_h$ is tangential continuous, we are now in the setting where $\sigma_h \in \Sigma^k_h$ is “normal-tangential” continuous and ${\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)$ is normal continuous. With respect to the weak formulation we now define the discrete method: Find $(\sigma_h,\psi_h) \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h \times S^k_h$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
a(\sigma_h,\tau_h) + b(\tau_h, {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi_h)) & = 0 && \quad \forall \tau_h \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h, \label{eq::dischhjrotone} \\
b(\sigma_h,{\operatorname{curl}}( \phi_h)) & = -\int_\Omega f \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \dif x && \quad \forall \phi_h \in S^k_h. \label{eq::dischhjrottwo}\end{aligned}$$
\[eq::dischhjrot\]
Note, that on one edge $F \in {\mathcal{F}}$ the normal-tangential components of functions in $\Sigma^{k-1}_h$ are polynomials of order $k-2$, whereas the normal-normal components of functions in $\Sigma^{{{\operatorname{hhj}}}, k-1}_h$ are polynomials of order $k-1$ resulting in less coupling degrees of freedom.
Considering the close relation of equation and equation in the continuous setting, the derivation of the two dimensional (rotated) HHJ-like method motivates to extend it also to the three dimensional case. Following [@Boffi:book], the tangential continuous Nédélec finite element space is given by $$\begin{aligned}
W^k_h := \mathcal{P}^k(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d) \cap H_0({\operatorname{curl}}, \Omega),\end{aligned}$$ with the property ${\operatorname{curl}}(W^k_h) \subset V^{k-1}_h$. Similarly as in the continuous setting, let the gauging bilinear form be given by $$\begin{aligned}
b^g(\phi_h, \lambda_h) = \int_\Omega \phi_h \cdot \nabla \lambda_h \dif x \quad \forall \phi_h \in W^k_h, \forall \lambda_h \in S^{k+1}_h.\end{aligned}$$ Then, the three dimensional modified HHJ method is given by: Find $(\sigma_h, \psi_h, \lambda_h) \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h \times W^k_h \times S^{k+1}_h$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
a(\sigma_h,\tau_h) + b(\tau_h,{\operatorname{curl}}( \psi_h)) & = 0 && \quad \forall \tau_h \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h,\\
b(\sigma_h,{\operatorname{curl}}( \phi_h)) + b^g(\phi_h, \lambda_h) & = -\int_\Omega f \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \dif x && \quad \forall \phi_h \in W^k_h, \\
b^g(\psi_h, \mu_h) & = 0 && \quad \forall \mu_h \in S^{k+1}_h.\end{aligned}$$
\[eq::dischhjrotthree\]
Whereas the discrete velocity of a standard mixed finite element approximation of the Stokes equations might only be discretely divergence-free, the velocity $u_h := {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi_h)$, where $\psi_h$ is the solution of , is exactly divergence-free, see also Remark \[rem::pressurerob\].
\[rem::nograds\] Testing the second equation of with the test function $\phi_h = \nabla \lambda_h$ shows, that the Lagrangian multiplier $\lambda_h$ equals zero, thus is only needed to prove discrete stability of the system. As discussed in the next section, discrete stability can also be proven on the space $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq::orthcomp}
W^{k,\perp}_h := \{ \phi_h \in W^k_h: \int_\Omega \phi_h \cdot \nabla \mu_h \dif x = 0~ \forall \mu_h \in S^{k+1}_h \}.
\end{aligned}$$ Then we have the problem: Find $(\sigma_h, \psi_h) \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h \times W_h^{k,\perp}$ such that
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
a(\sigma_h,\tau_h) + b(\tau_h,{\operatorname{curl}}( \psi_h)) & = 0 && \quad \forall \tau_h \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h,\\
b(\sigma_h,{\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)) & = -\int_\Omega f \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \dif x && \quad \forall \phi_h \in W_h^{k,\perp}.\end{aligned}$$
\[eq::dischhjrotthreenograd\]
Note, that the solutions $\sigma_h$ and $\psi_h$ of and are identical. For the implementation of , the corresponding finite element code needs a basis of $W^{k,\perp}_h$. This can be achieved if the finite element spaces are constructed with respect to the discrete de Rham complex. For the high order moments see for example in [@zaglmayr2006high]. We also want to mention, that $W^{k,\perp}_h$ has less coupling degrees of freedoms compared to $W^k_h$, thus the factorization step to solve the corresponding linear system is faster.
A stability analysis in mesh dependent norms
============================================
In this section we present a stability and error analysis of the HHJ-like method introduced in the last chapter. The analysis is based on using mesh dependent norms as for example in [@babuska] and [@Stenberg1988]. We only proof the three dimensional case since it is more challenging due to the gauging bilinear form. The two dimensional case follows with similar techniques.
In contrast to the continuous stability analysis of Section \[sec::redregstreamform\], we aim to use the $L^2$-norm on the discrete space $\Sigma^k_h$ and use again $\| \nabla \cdot \|_{L^2}$ on $S^k_h$. For the stream function and the velocity space we define for all $\phi_h \in W^k_h$ and $u_h \in V^k_h$ the norms $$\begin{aligned}
| \phi_h |^2_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h} &:= \sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \|\nabla {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)\|_T^2 + \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}} \frac{1}{h} \| {\llbracket {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)_t \rrbracket}\|_{F}^2, \\
\| \phi_h \|^2_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h} &:= \| \phi_h \|^2_{L^2}+| \phi_h |^2_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h}, \\
\| u_h \|^2_{1,h} &:= \sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \|\nabla u_h\|_T^2 + \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}} \frac{1}{h} \| {\llbracket (u_h)_t \rrbracket}\|_{F}^2.\end{aligned}$$ Note, that the norm $\| \phi_h \|^2_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h}$ reads as a discrete $H^1({\operatorname{curl}})$-like norm, and that for $u_h = {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi_h)$ we have $| \psi_h |_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h} = \| u_h \|_{1,h}$. For the stability proof we will need the following decomposition and norm equivalence results.
\[lem::normeqsigma\] Let $\sigma_h \in \Sigma_h^{k-1}$ be arbitrary. There holds the norm equivalence $$\begin{aligned}
\| \sigma_h \|_{L^2}^2 \sim \sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \| \sigma_h \|_T^2 + \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}} h \| (\sigma_h)_{nt} \|_F^2.
\end{aligned}$$
This follows by standard scaling arguments and was proven in [@Lederer:2019b].
\[lem::normeqphi\] Let $\phi_h \in W^k_h$, then there exists a $\lambda_h \in S^{k+1}_h$ and a $w_h \in W^k_h$ such that $\phi_h = \nabla \lambda_h + w_h$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq::decompest}
\| \nabla \lambda_h \|_{L^2} \lesssim \| \phi_h \|_{L^2} \quad \textrm{and} \quad \| w_h \|_{L^2} \lesssim \| {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \|_{L^2}.
\end{aligned}$$ Further, there holds the norm equivalence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq::discnormequi}
| \phi_h |^2_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h} + \| \nabla \lambda_h \|_{L^2} \sim \| \phi_h \|^2_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h}.
\end{aligned}$$
The first part of the lemma is well known in the literature but the proof is presented for completeness. First, we solve the problem: Find $\lambda_h \in S^{k+1}_h$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega \nabla \lambda_h \cdot \nabla \mu_h \dif x = \int_\Omega \phi_h \cdot \nabla \mu_h \dif x \quad \forall \mu_h \in S^{k+1}_h.
\end{aligned}$$ Solveability of this problem is given by the standard theory, see for example [@brenner:book], and there holds the regularity estimate $\| \nabla \lambda_h \|_{L^2} \lesssim \| \phi_h \|_{L^2}$. Now, since $w_h := \phi_h -\nabla \lambda_h \in W^k_h$ is $L^2$-orthogonal on $\nabla S^{k+1}_h$ (by definition), the estimate $\| w_h \|_{L^2} \lesssim \| {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \|_{L^2}$ follows by ${\operatorname{curl}}(\nabla \lambda_h) = 0$ and a Friedrichs-type inequlity for the $H({\operatorname{curl}})$-space, see for example [@monk2003finite].
We continue with the proof of . The left side can be bounded by the right side by applying the estimate for $\lambda_h$ in . For the other direction, the triangle inequality, and the right estimate in gives $$\begin{aligned}
\| \phi_h \|_{L^2}^2 &\le \| \nabla \lambda_h \|_{L^2}^2 + \| w_h \|_{L^2}^2 \lesssim \| \nabla \lambda_h \|_{L^2}^2 + \| {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \|_{L^2}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ With $u_h := {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \in V^{k-1}_h$, a discrete Friedrichs-like inequality on $V^{k-1}_h$, as in [@brenner_friedrich], gives $$\begin{aligned}
\| {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \|_{L^2}^2 = \| u_h \|_{L^2}^2 \lesssim \| u_h \|_{1,h}^2 = \| \phi_h \|_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h}^2,
\end{aligned}$$ from what we conclude the proof.
To show discrete stability, we again apply the standard theory of mixed problems, see [@Boffi:book]. To this end we prove continuity, kernel ellipticity and inf-sup stability in the following.
\[lem::disccont\] There holds the continuity estimate $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
a(\sigma_h,\tau_h) &\lesssim \frac{1}{\nu} \| \sigma_h\|_{L^2} \| \tau_h\|_{L^2} &&\quad \forall \sigma_h, \tau_h \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h \\
b(\sigma_h,{\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)) &\lesssim \| \sigma_h\|_{L^2} \| \phi_h\|_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h} &&\quad \forall \sigma_h \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h , \forall\phi_h \in W^k_h \\
b^g(\phi_h, \mu_h) &\lesssim \| \phi_h\|_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h} \| \nabla \mu_h\|_{L^2} &&\quad \forall \phi_h \in W^{k}_h, \forall\mu_h \in S^{k+1}_h.
\end{aligned}$$
The continuity of $a(\cdot,\cdot)$ and $b^g(\cdot,\cdot)$ follows by the Cauchy-schwarz inequality. For $b(\cdot,\cdot)$ we use the first representation in , the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality on each element $T$ and $F$ separately, and the norm equivalence Lemma \[lem::normeqsigma\].
\[lem::discell\] Let $(\sigma_h,\lambda_h) \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h \times S^{k+1}_h$ be an element in the kernel of the constraints, i.e. $b( \sigma_h, {\operatorname{curl}}( \phi_h)) + b^g(\phi_h, \lambda_h) = 0$ for all $\phi_h \in W^k_h$. There holds the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\| \sigma_h \|^2_{L^2} + \|\nabla \lambda_h \|^2_{L^2} \lesssim \nu a(\sigma,\sigma).
\end{aligned}$$
Since $\| \sigma_h \|^2_{L^2} = \nu a(\sigma,\sigma)$, we only prove the estimate for $\lambda_h$. Now let $\phi_h:=\nabla \lambda_h \in W^k_h$. As ${\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) = 0$, the definition of the bilinear form $b(\cdot, \cdot)$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\| \nabla \lambda_h \|^2_{L^2} & = \int_\Omega \nabla \lambda_h \cdot \nabla \lambda_h \dif x = \int_\Omega \phi_h \cdot \nabla \lambda_h \dif x \\
& = \sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \int_T \sigma_h : \nabla {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \dif x - \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}}\int_{F} (\sigma_h)_{nt} {\llbracket {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h )_t \rrbracket} \dif s = 0,
\end{aligned}$$ which implies (due to the boundary conditions) that $\lambda = 0$, and the lemma is proven.
\[lem::discinfsup\] There holds the stability estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\sup \limits_{\substack{0 \neq\sigma_h \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h \\ 0 \neq \lambda_h \in S^{k+1}_h}} \frac{b( \sigma_h, {\operatorname{curl}}\phi_h) + b^g(\phi_h, \lambda_h)}{\|\sigma_h \|_{L^2} + \| \nabla \lambda_h \|_{L^2}} \gtrsim \|\phi_h \|_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h} \quad \forall \phi_h \in W^k_h.
\end{aligned}$$
Let $\phi_h \in W^k_h$ be arbitrary and set $u_h := {\operatorname{curl}}( \phi_h) \in V^{k-1}_h$. Since ${\operatorname{div}}u_h = 0$, Lemma 6.5 (and the norm equivalence (6.5)) in [@Lederer:2019b] shows, that there exists a function $\sigma_h \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h$ such that $\| \sigma_h \|_{L^2} \lesssim \|u_h \|_{1,h}$ and $b(\sigma,u_h) \ge c_1 \|u_h\|^2_{1,h}$, where $c_1>0$ is a fixed constant. Now let $\lambda_h \in S^{k+1}_h$ and $w_h \in W^k_h$ be the decomposition functions given by Lemma \[lem::normeqphi\], such that $\| w_h \|_{L^2} \le c_2 \| {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \|_{L^2}$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem::normeqphi\], a Friedrichs-like inequality further gives $ \| u_h \|_{L^2} \le c_3 \|u_h\|_{1,h}$, thus $$\begin{aligned}
\label{whestimate}
\| w_h \|_{L^2} \le c_2 \| {\operatorname{curl}}\phi_h \|_{L^2} \le c_2c_3 \|u_h\|_{1,h}.
\end{aligned}$$ Now with $\tilde \sigma_h := \frac{c_2c_3}{c_1} \sigma_h$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
b( \tilde \sigma_h, {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)) + b^g(\phi_h, \lambda_h) &= b( \tilde \sigma_h, u_h) + \int_{\Omega} \phi_h \cdot \nabla \lambda_h \dif x \\
&= b(\tilde \sigma_h, u_h) + \int_{\Omega} |\nabla \lambda_h|^2 - w_h \cdot \nabla \lambda_h \dif x \\
&\ge c_2 c_4\|u_h\|^2_{1,h} + \|\nabla \lambda_h\|_{L^2}^2 - \|w_h\|_{L^2}\|\nabla \lambda_h\|_{L^2}
\end{aligned}$$ Using , Youngs inequality and $\| u_h \|_{1,h} = |\phi_h|_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h}$, finally gives $$\begin{aligned}
b( \tilde \sigma_h, {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)) + b^g(\phi_h, \lambda_h) &\ge c_2 c_4 \|u_h\|^2_{1,h} + \|\nabla \lambda_h\|_{L^2}^2 - c_2c_4 \|u_h\|_{1,h}\|\nabla \lambda_h\|_{L^2}\\
&\gtrsim |\phi_h|^2_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h} + \|\nabla \lambda_h\|_{L^2}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ With the continuity estimates $\| \sigma_h \|_{L^2} \lesssim |\phi_h|_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h}$, and the left estimate of equation , we conclude the proof by the norm equivalence .
The above prove and the norm equivalence also shows, that we can derive an inf-sup condition on the orthogonal complement of $\nabla S^{k+1}_h$, i.e. there holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{es::infsupsubset}
\sup \limits_{0 \neq\sigma_h \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h} \frac{b( \sigma_h, {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h))}{\|\sigma_h \|_{L^2}} \gtrsim \|\phi_h \|_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h} \quad \forall \phi_h \in W^{k,\perp}_h.\end{aligned}$$ see also Remark \[rem::nograds\].
\[th::consistency\] The HHJ-like method for the stream function is consistent in the following sense. If the exact solution of the Stokes problem is such that $u\in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d)$, $\sigma \in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^{d \times d})$, $p \in L^2_0$, and $\psi \in \Psi$ is the exact stream function such that ${\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) = u$, then $$\begin{aligned}
a(\sigma, \tau_h) + b(\tau_h, {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) ) + b(\sigma, {\operatorname{curl}}( \phi_h)) = -\int_\Omega f \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}( \phi_h) \dif x,
\end{aligned}$$ for all $\tau_h \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h, \phi_h \in W^k_h$.
As the exact solutions $\sigma$ and $u = {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)$ are continuous we have that ${\llbracket \sigma_{nn} \rrbracket} = 0$ and ${\llbracket {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)_t \rrbracket} = 0$ on all faces $F \in {\mathcal{F}}$, thus by definition , we have $$\begin{aligned}
b(\sigma, {\operatorname{curl}}( \phi_h)) &= \sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \int_T {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma) \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \dif x - \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}}\int_{F} {\llbracket \sigma_{nn} \rrbracket} {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)_n \dif s \\
&= \int_\Omega {\operatorname{div}}(\sigma) \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}( \phi_h) \dif x, \\
b(\tau_h, {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)) = &- \sum\limits_{T \in {\mathcal{T}}} \int_T \tau_h : \nabla {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) \dif x + \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}}\int_{F} (\tau_h)_{nt} {\llbracket {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)_t \rrbracket} \dif s \\
&= -\int_\Omega \tau_h : \nabla {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) \dif x.
\end{aligned}$$ Now, since ${\operatorname{dev}}{\sigma} = \sigma = \nu \nabla u = \nu \nabla {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
a(\sigma, \tau_h) + b(\tau_h, {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) ) = \int_\Omega \frac{1}{\nu} \sigma : \tau_h \dif x -\int_\Omega \tau_h : \nabla {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) \dif x = 0.
\end{aligned}$$ With ${\operatorname{div}}(\sigma) = - f + \nabla p$, integration by parts for the pressure integral finally gives $$\begin{aligned}
b(\sigma, {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)) = \int_\Omega (-f + \nabla p) \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \dif x = -\int_\Omega f \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \dif x,
\end{aligned}$$ where we used that ${\operatorname{curl}}(\nabla p) = 0$.
An error analysis of the HHJ-like method {#sec::errorana}
----------------------------------------
The a priori error estimate presented in this section is based on the inf-sup stability and the consistency proven before. Further we need several interpolation results.
To this end let $I_{V^{k-1}_h}$ and $I_{W^k_h}$ be an $H({\operatorname{div}})$-conforming and $H({\operatorname{curl}})$-conforming (projection based) interpolation operator, respectively, as for example in [@MR1746160; @Demkowicz2008]. Note, that these operators commute with the corresponding differential operators, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq::commintop}
I_{V^{k-1}_h} {\operatorname{curl}}= {\operatorname{curl}}I_{W^k_h},\end{aligned}$$ Further, let $I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h}$ be the interpolation operator defined in [@Lederer:2019b].
\[lem::intop\] Let $u, \sigma$ be arbitrary with $u \in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d) \cap H^m(\mathcal{T}, {\mathbb{R}}^d)$ and $\sigma \in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^{d\times d}) \cap H^{m-1}({\mathcal{T}},\Omega^{d \times d})$. For $s = \min(m-1, k-1)$, there holds the approximation estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\| \sigma - I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma \|_{L^2} + \sqrt{ \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}} h \|( \sigma - I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma )_{nt} \|^2_{F}} &\lesssim h^s \| \sigma \|_{H^{s}({\mathcal{T}})},\\
\| u - I_{V^{k-1}_h} u \|_{1,h} &\lesssim h^s \| u \|_{H^{s+1}({\mathcal{T}})}.\end{aligned}$$
The estimate of $I_{V^{k-1}_h}$ follows with the standard techniques and is based on the Bramble-Hilbert lemma. We refer to for example to [@lehrenfeld2010hybrid; @Boffi:book] for a detailed proof. The proof for $I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h}$ can be found in [@Lederer:2019b]. Note, that the estimate for $I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h}$ is motivated by the norm equivalence given in Lemma \[lem::normeqsigma\].
\[th::convergence\] Let $u \in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^d) \cap H^m(\mathcal{T}, {\mathbb{R}}^d)$, $\sigma \in H^1(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}^{d\times d}) \cap H^{m-1}({\mathcal{T}},\Omega^{d \times d})$ be the exact solution of , and let $\psi \in \Psi$ be the exact stream function such that ${\operatorname{curl}}(\psi) = u$. Let $\sigma_h, \psi_h \in \sigma_h^{k-1} \times W_h^k$ be the solution of the HHJ-like method and set $u_h := {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi_h)$. For $s = \min(m-1, k-1)$ there holds the error estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\nu}\| \sigma - \sigma_h\|_{L^2} + \| u - u_h \|_{1,h} \lesssim h^s \| u \|_{H^{s+1}({\mathcal{T}})}
\end{aligned}$$
In a first step we bound the error by the triangle inequality which gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\nu}\| \sigma - \sigma_h\|_{L^2} + \| u - u_h \|_{1,h} &\le \frac{1}{\nu}\| \sigma - I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma\|_{L^2} + \| u - I_{V^{k-1}_h}u \|_{1,h} \\
&+ \frac{1}{\nu}\| I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma_h\|_{L^2} + \| I_{V^{k-1}_h}u - u_h \|_{1,h}.
\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma \[lem::intop\] shows, that the first two terms on the right side already converge with the optimal order. We continue with the last two terms on the right side. Since, $u_h = {\operatorname{curl}}\psi_h$ and $u = {\operatorname{curl}}\psi$, the commuting property of the interpolation operators, see equation , gives $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\nu}\| I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma_h\|_{L^2} + \| I_{V^{k-1}_h}u &- u_h \|_{1,h} \\
&= \frac{1}{\nu}\| I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma_h\|_{L^2} + \| I_{V^{k-1}_h}{\operatorname{curl}}\psi - {\operatorname{curl}}\psi_h \|_{1,h} \\
&= \frac{1}{\nu}\| I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma_h\|_{L^2} + \| {\operatorname{curl}}I_{W^k_h}\psi - {\operatorname{curl}}\psi_h \|_{1,h} \\
&\le \frac{1}{\nu}\| I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma_h\|_{L^2} + \| I_{W^k_h}\psi - \psi_h \|_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h}.
\end{aligned}$$ In the following we aim to use the discrete stability results proven in the last section. To this end we define the following product space norm $$\begin{aligned}
\| (\tau_h,\phi_h)\|_* := \sqrt{\nu} \| \phi_h\|_{1,{\operatorname{curl}},h} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}}\|\tau_h\|_{L^2} \quad \forall (\tau_h,\phi_h) \in \Sigma^{k-1}_h \times W^k_h.
\end{aligned}$$ Following the definition of $I_{W^k_h}$, equation (200) in [@Demkowicz2008], we see that for an arbitrary $\mu_h \in S^{k+1}_h$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega I_{W^{k}_h} \psi \cdot \nabla \mu_h \dif x = \int_\Omega \psi \cdot \nabla \mu_h \dif x = - \int_\Omega {\operatorname{div}}(\psi) \mu_h \dif x = 0,
\end{aligned}$$ where we used that the stream function fulfills ${\operatorname{div}}(\psi) = 0$. Now as $\psi_h$ is the solution of , we have $I_{W^k_h}\psi - \psi_h \in W_h^{k,\perp}$, thus Lemma \[lem::disccont\], Lemma \[lem::discell\] and the inf-sup condition gives the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\| &(I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma_h, I_{W^k_h}\psi - \psi_h)\|_{*}\\
& \lesssim \!\!\!\sup\limits_{\substack{(\tau_h,\phi_h) \in \\ \Sigma^{k-1}_h \times W^{k,\perp}_h}}\!\!\! \frac{a(I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma_h, \tau_h) + b(I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma_h,{\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)) + b(\tau_h,{\operatorname{curl}}( I_{W^k_h}\psi - \psi_h)) }{\| ( \tau_h, \phi_h) \|_{*}} \\
& \lesssim \!\!\!\sup\limits_{\substack{(\tau_h,\phi_h) \in \\ \Sigma^{k-1}_h \times W^{k,\perp}_h}}\!\!\! \frac{a(I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma, \tau_h) + b(I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma,{\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)) + b(\tau_h,{\operatorname{curl}}( I_{W^k_h}\psi - \psi)) }{\| ( \tau_h, \phi_h) \|_{*}}.
\end{aligned}$$ where we used Theorem \[th::consistency\] in the last step. Following the same steps as in the proof of Theorem 6.3 in [@Lederer:2019b], the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (as in the proof of Lemma \[lem::disccont\]) allows us to bound $$\begin{aligned}
&a(I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma, \tau_h) + b(I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma,{\operatorname{curl}}\phi_h) + b(\tau_h,{\operatorname{curl}}( I_{W^k_h}\psi - \psi)) \\
& \lesssim \left(\| ( I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma, I_{W^k_h}\psi - \psi)\|_{*} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}}\sqrt{ \sum\limits_{F \in {\mathcal{F}}} h \|( I_{\Sigma^{k-1}_h} \sigma - \sigma)_{nt} \|^2_{F}} \right)\| ( \tau_h, \phi_h) \|_{*},
\end{aligned}$$ and we conclude the proof with the interpolation error estimates of Lemma \[lem::intop\].
\[rem::optconv\] We want to emphasize that although $s = \min(m-1,k-1)$, the result of Theorem \[th::convergence\] reads as an optimal convergence result. Since the fixed polynomial order $k$ corresponds to the approximation order of the stream function $\psi_h$ in the space $W_h^k$, it follows that for $u_h = {\operatorname{curl}}\psi_h \in V_h^{k-1}$ the convergence rate of the error measured in a discrete $H^1$-like norm is only expected to be at most of order $\mathcal{O}(h^{k-1})$. Further note, that if the finite element library for the implementation allows an approximation of the reduced system , hence provides an explicit basis for $W_h^{k,\perp}$, the method is also optimal with respect to the number of degrees of freedom compared to a direct approximation of $u_h \in V_h^{k-1}$ as for example in [@Lederer:2019b; @Lehrenfeld:2016]. This follows directly by the properties of the discrete de Rham complex as in [@zaglmayr2006high].
\[rem::pressurerob\] Theorem \[th::convergence\] shows that the velocity error can be bounded independently of the continuous pressure solution. Methods that allow to deduce such error estimates are called pressure robust and we present a brief explanation in the following. Let $\mathbb{P}$ be the continuous Helmholtz projection (see [@Girault:book]) onto the rotational part of a given load $f$ $$\begin{aligned}
f = \nabla \theta + \xi =: \nabla \theta + \mathbb{P}(f),\end{aligned}$$ with $\theta \in H^1(\Omega)/{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\xi =: \mathbb{P}(f) \in \{ v \in H_0({\operatorname{div}}, \Omega): {\operatorname{div}}(v) = 0\}$. Testing the momentum balance with an arbitrary (exactly) divergence-free test function $v$, shows that $\sigma = \nu \nabla u$ is steered only by $\mathbb{P}(f)$ since integration by parts gives $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega \nabla \theta \cdot v \dif x = 0.\end{aligned}$$ In [@Linke:2014] the author showed that this property might not be handed over from the continuous to the discrete setting since for classical mixed methods a discrete divergence-free velocity test function might not be exactly divergence-free. In this case, one can only deduce a velocity error estimate that depends on the best approximation of the continuous pressure solution that includes a scaling $1/\nu$ which can produce big errors for vanishing viscosities $\nu \rightarrow 0$, see [@Linke:2016a; @Linke:2016c; @Lederer:2017b; @John:2017]. One advantage of the stream function formulation is, that the right hand side of the weak formulation, see , and , is only tested with ${\operatorname{curl}}(\phi)$ or ${\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h)$ in the continuous and discrete setting, respectively. Hence, in both situations we have again with integration by parts that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega \nabla \theta \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi) \dif x = \int_\Omega \nabla \theta \cdot {\operatorname{curl}}(\phi_h) \dif x = 0,\end{aligned}$$ and thus the (discrete) velocity $u_h = {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi_h)$ is again only steered by $\mathbb{P}(f)$ which allows to derive the pressure robust error estimate of Theorem \[th::convergence\].
Post processing for the pressure
================================
Following chapter 4.4 in [@Girault:book], we can construct a simple post processing which allows to approximate the pressure of the Stokes equations . To this end we define the (discontinuous) pressure space $$\begin{aligned}
Q_h^k := \mathcal{P}^k(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}) \cap L^2_0(\Omega,{\mathbb{R}}),\end{aligned}$$ with the property ${\operatorname{div}}(V_h^{k-1}) = Q_h^{k-2}$. Further, there holds the (polynomial robust, see [@LedererSchoeberl2017]) Stokes inf-sup condition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq::infsup}
\sup\limits_{0 \neq v_h \in V_h^{k-1}} \frac{\int_\Omega {\operatorname{div}}(v_h) q_h \dif x}{\| v_h\|_{1,h}} \gtrsim \|q_h\|_{L^2} \quad \forall q_h \in Q^{k-2}_h.\end{aligned}$$ Now let $\sigma_h \in \Sigma_h^{k-1}$ be the solution of the HHJ-like method , then we define the weak problem: Find $p_h \in Q^{k-2}_h$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq::pressuredisc}
\int_\Omega p_h {\operatorname{div}}(v_h) \dif x = - \int_{\Omega} f \cdot v_h \dif x + b(\sigma_h,v_h) \quad \forall v_h \in V_h^{k-1}.\end{aligned}$$
\[th::convergencep\] Let $p \in L^2_0(\Omega, {\mathbb{R}}) \cap H^{m-1}({\mathcal{T}}, {\mathbb{R}})$ be the exact solution of , and let $u,u_h,\sigma,\sigma_h$ be defined as in Theorem \[th::convergence\]. Further, let $p_h$ be the solution of . For $s = \min(m-1, k-1)$ there holds the error estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\| p - p_h \|_{L^2} \lesssim h^s \| u \|_{H^{s+1}({\mathcal{T}})} + \| p \|_{H^s({\mathcal{T}})}.
\end{aligned}$$
The proof follows with exactly the same steps as the proof of Theorem 45 in chapter 4.4 in [@Girault:book] and involves , the results of Theorem \[th::convergence\] and the properties of the interpolation operators of Lemma \[lem::intop\].
Numerical example
=================
In this section we present a numerical example to validate the findings of Section \[sec::errorana\]. All numerical examples were implemented within the finite element library Netgen/NGSolve, see [@netgen; @ngsolve] and [www.ngsolve.org](www.ngsolve.org). Let $\Omega = (0,1)^d$ and $f = -{\operatorname{div}}(\sigma) + \nabla p$ with the exact solutions $u = {\operatorname{curl}}(\psi)$, $\sigma = \nu \nabla u$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
&\psi :=x^2(x-1)^2y^2(y-1)^2,& &\quad p := x^5+y^5 - \frac{1}{3},& &\quad \textrm{for } d = 2,\\
&\psi := \begin{pmatrix}x^2(x-1)^2y^2(y-1)^2z^2(z-1)^2 \\x^2(x-1)^2y^2(y-1)^2z^2(z-1)^2\\x^2(x-1)^2y^2(y-1)^2z^2(z-1)^2 \end{pmatrix},&& \quad p := x^5+y^5+z^5 - \frac{1}{2},& &\quad \textrm{for } d = 3.\end{aligned}$$ In Table \[twodexample\] and \[threedexample\] we present several errors including their estimated order of convergence (eoc) for a fixed viscosity $\nu = 10^{-6}$, polynomial orders $k=2,3,4$ (where the order corresponds to the approximation space $W_h^k$ of the stream function, see Remark \[rem::optconv\]) for the two and three dimensional case, respectively. As predicted by Theorem \[th::convergence\] and Theorem \[th::convergencep\] the $H^1$-seminorm error of the velocity $u_h$, the $L^2$-norm error of the stress $\sigma_h$ and the $L^2$-norm error of the pressure $p_h$ converge with optimal orders. Beside that, as given in the most right columns of Table \[twodexample\] and \[threedexample\], we further observe that the $L^2$-norm error of the velocity $u_h$ converges at one order higher. This is explained by exploiting a standard Aubin-Nitsche duality argument to prove that the solution $u_h \in V^{k-1}_h$ fulfills the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\| u - u_h \|_{L^2} \lesssim h^k \|u\|_{H^k},\end{aligned}$$ whenever the problem admits full regularity and the exact solution is smooth enough.
[@[ ]{}c@[ ]{}|@[ ]{}c@[ (]{}c@[) ]{}c@[ (]{}c@[) ]{}c@[ (]{}c@[) ]{}c@[ (]{}c@[)]{}]{} $|\mathcal{T}|$ & $|| \nabla u - \nabla u_h||_0$ & eoc &$|| \sigma - \sigma_h||_0$ & eoc &$|| p - p_h ||_0$ & eoc &$|| u - u_h||_0$ & eoc\
\
56& &–& &–& &–& &–\
224& && && && &\
896& && && && &\
3584& && && && &\
14336& && && && &\
57344& && && && &\
\
56& &–& &–& &–& &–\
224& && && && &\
896& && && && &\
3584& && && && &\
14336& && && && &\
57344& && && && &\
\
56& &–& &–& &–& &–\
224& && && && &\
896& && && && &\
3584& && && && &\
14336& && && && &\
57344& && && && &\
[@[ ]{}c@[ ]{}|@[ ]{}c@[ (]{}c@[) ]{}c@[ (]{}c@[) ]{}c@[ (]{}c@[) ]{}c@[ (]{}c@[)]{}]{} $|\mathcal{T}|$ & $|| \nabla u - \nabla u_h||_0$ & eoc &$|| \sigma - \sigma_h||_0$ & eoc &$|| p - p_h ||_0$ & eoc &$|| u - u_h||_0$ & eoc\
\
6& &–& &–& &–& &–\
48& && && && &\
384& && && && &\
3072& && && && &\
24576& && && && &\
196608& && && && &\
\
6& &–& &–& &–& &–\
48& && && && &\
384& && && && &\
3072& && && && &\
24576& && && && &\
196608& && && && &\
\
6& &–& &–& &–& &–\
48& && && && &\
384& && && && &\
3072& && && && &\
24576& && && && &\
196608& && && && &\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'P. Castangia'
- 'C. M. V. Impellizzeri'
- 'J. P. McKean'
- 'C. Henkel'
- 'A. Brunthaler'
- 'A. L. Roy'
- 'O. Wucknitz'
- 'J. Ott'
- 'E. Momjian'
bibliography:
- 'castangia2011.bib'
date: 'Received ; accepted'
title: 'Water vapour at high redshift: Arecibo monitoring of the megamaser in MG J0414+0534'
---
[The study of water masers at cosmological distances would allow us to investigate the parsec-scale environment around powerful radio sources, to probe the physical conditions of the molecular gas in the inner parsecs of quasars, and to estimate their nuclear engine masses in the early universe. To derive this information, the nature of the maser source, jet or disk-maser, needs to be assessed through a detailed investigation of the observational characteristics of the line emission.]{} [We monitored the maser line in the lensed quasar MG J0414+0534 at $z = 2.64$ with the 300-m Arecibo telescope for $\sim$15 months to detect possible additional maser components and to measure a potential velocity drift of the lines. In addition, we follow the maser and continuum emissions to reveal significant variations in their flux density and to determine correlation or time-lag, if any, between them.]{} [The main maser line profile is complex and can be resolved into a number of broad features with line widths of 30–160kms$^{-1}$. A new maser component was tentatively detected in October 2008 that is redshifted by 470kms$^{-1}$ w.r.t the systemic velocity of the quasar. The line width of the main maser feature increased by a factor of two between the Effelsberg and EVLA observations reported by Impellizzeri et al. (2008) and the first epoch of the Arecibo monitoring campaign. After correcting for the lens magnification, we find that the total H$_2$O isotropic luminosity of the maser in MG J0414+0534 is now $\sim$30,000L$_{\odot}$, making this source the most luminous ever discovered. Both the main line peak and continuum flux densities are surprisingly stable throughout the period of the observations. The integrated flux density shows instead significant variations on monthly time scales, possibly due to changes in the individual velocity components. We place an upper limit on the velocity drift of the peak of the line emission of 2kms$^{-1}$yr$^{-1}$.]{} [The large line width of the main maser line and the absence of a clear triple-peak pattern in the maser spectrum of MG J0414+0534 favors the jet-maser scenario. However, the stability of the line and continuum emission, and the presence of the tentative new maser component, potentially identified as a high-velocity feature of a rotating disk, seems partly going against this interpretation. Sensitive monitoring on a longer time-scale and VLBI observations are mandatory to draw a definite conclusion.]{}
Introduction
============
The 22.2GHz radio emission from luminous extragalactic H$_2$O masers originates in dense ($10^7$$<$$n({\rm H_2})$$<$$10^{11}$cm$^{-3}$) and warm ($T$$>$300K) gas clouds within a few parsecs from the nuclear engines of their parent galaxies. These masers trace circumnuclear accretion disks (“disk-masers”, e.g. UGC3789; @reid09), the inner parts of relativistic jets (“jet-masers”, e.g. Mrk 348; @peck03) or nuclear outflows (Circinus; @greenhill03), that are associated with active galactic nuclei (AGN). In contrast to optical and ultraviolet radiation, the radio photons can penetrate the enormous column densities of gas and dust that often obscure the line of sight to the nucleus. This, together with the high brightness temperature and small size of the maser spots, makes H$_2$O emission a suitable tool to investigate the geometry, kinematics, and excitation conditions of the gas in the immediate vicinity of supermassive black holes. Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) studies of water maser sources, complemented by single-dish monitoring, are a unique instrument to map accretion disks and to estimate the enclosed masses (e.g. @braatz2010; @kuo2011), as well as to determine the shock speeds and densities of radio jets [@peck03].
To date, most such studies have targeted radio quiet AGN in the local Universe. Indeed, the majority of the known extragalactic water masers have been found in Seyfert 2 or LINER galaxies at $z<0.06$. However, the discovery of a water maser in a type 2 quasar at $z=0.66$ [@barvainis05] demonstrated that H$_2$O masers can also be detected at higher redshifts. The discovery of water masers at cosmological distances ($z>1.5$) would allow us to study the parsec-scale environment around powerful radio sources, to investigate the physical conditions of the molecular gas in the inner parsecs of quasars, and to measure their black-hole masses not only in the local but also in the early universe. We have recently performed a survey of gravitationally lensed quasars with the Effelsberg radio telescope to find water masers at cosmological redshifts (@impellizzeri08; @mckean2010). By observing gravitational lens systems we use the lens as a ‘cosmic telescope’ to probe a luminosity regime that is otherwise not reachable with current instrumentation. Our first confirmed high redshift water maser was found toward the lensed quasar MG J0414+0534 at $z=2.64$, which is by far the most distant object known to host water maser emission [@impellizzeri08]. The previously reported (unlensed) H$_2$O apparent isotropic luminosity of $\sim$10,000L$_{\odot}$ places the maser in MG J0414+0534 among the most luminous water masers ever detected and suggests that the emission is associated with the AGN of the quasar. Although the characteristics of the spectrum seem to favour an association with the radio jet rather than with an accretion disk, the origin of the H$_2$O emission could not be conclusively determined from the Effelsberg and EVLA data alone.
In this paper we report the results from 15 months of monitoring of the redshifted 6GHz radio continuum and line emission in MG J0414+0534 with the 300-m Arecibo telescope. We monitored the line with a large bandwidth to potentially detect additional maser components and to constrain a possible velocity drift of the lines. Furthermore, we monitored the line to reveal possible variations in the maser flux density, determine if a correlation exists between the maser and the continuum flux density and whether there is a time-lag between them. Throughout the paper we adopt a cosmology with $\Omega_{\rm M} =0.3$, $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda} =0.7$ and $H_0 = 70$kms$^{-1}$Mpc$^{-1}$.
Observations and data reduction {#sect:obs}
===============================
The water maser line from the gravitationally lensed quasar MG J0414+0534 was monitored with the Arecibo telescope between October 2008 and January 2010, at $\sim$6 week intervals, for a total of 11 epochs (see Table \[table:obs\]).
We observed the 6$_{16}$–5$_{23}$ transition of ortho-H$_2$O (rest frequency 22.235GHz) using the C-high receiver when available and the standard C-band receiver otherwise. Both receivers provide dual linear polarization. For most of the observations (8 out of 11), we employed the Wideband Arecibo Pulsar Processor (WAPP) spectrometer in single board mode, which provides up to four independently tunable sub-correlators. We used two of the four WAPP sub-correlators, each with a 100MHz bandwidth centered at the redshifted frequency of the line (6.110GHz at $z$=2.639) and with a single polarization. In three epochs, August 2009, November 2009, and January 2010, we used the WAPP in dual board mode. This mode provides eight independent sub-correlators, each of 100MHz bandwidth, which can be centered at different frequencies within an instantaneous interval of 1GHz. We utilized the sub-correlators to simultaneously observe the water maser line and other redshifted molecular transitions including four ammonia inversion lines, NH$_3$ (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3), and (6, 6), and five excited OH and CH$_3$OH transitions (see Table \[table:trans\]). With nine-level quantization and one polarization per sub-correlator, both configurations provided 2048 spectral channels per sub-correlator and yielded a channel spacing of 48.8kHz (equivalent to 2.4kms$^{-1}$).
Since MG J0414+0534 has quite strong continuum emission (0.71$\pm$0.02Jy, on average, the error being the standard deviation of the mean), we observed in double position switching mode [@ghosh02] to avoid problems related to residual standing waves in the baseline of the spectrum. A standard ON/OFF position-switched observation of 300s was performed on MG J0414+0534, followed by a 40s ON/OFF observation on the strong continuum source 3C 120 (5.5$\pm$0.2Jy), which was used as a bandpass calibrator. The half power beam width (HPBW) was $\sim$0.7$\times$0.9 and the pointing was found to be accurate within 10 in all observations. In order to obtain a precise flux calibration of our spectra, we also performed WAPP cross maps of the non-variable continuum source 3C 93, of the bandpass calibrator 3C 120, and of MG J0414+0534.
The data reduction was performed with the standard Arecibo Observatory (AO) IDL analysis package written by Phil Perillat using special routines developed by the AO staff. The individual ON/OFF scans on MG J0414+0534 were processed to yield (ON-OFF)/OFF spectra, and these were divided by similar spectra for 3C 120 to obtain bandpass corrected spectra of MG J0414+0534. The flux density of 3C 93, calculated using the K[ü]{}hr’s coefficients [@kuehr81], was used to convert the resulting ratio spectra to Jy. The uncertainty of this flux calibration procedure is dominated by the error on the flux density determined for 3C 93 and is estimated to be 7%. For each epoch, individual scans were inspected for quality and radio frequency interference (RFI) and co-added to produce a final spectrum. A polynomial baseline (typically of order 7–8) was then fitted to this spectrum and subtracted from it. Finally, we averaged the two polarizations. Due to a technical problem in one of the polarization channels of the June 2009 dataset, only a single polarization spectrum is reported for this epoch. The r.m.s. sensitivities reached in individual epochs ranged from 0.2 to 0.6 mJy per 2.4 kms$^{-1}$ wide channel (see Table \[table:obs\]). We measured the continuum flux density of MG J0414+0534 from the calibrated cross maps.
------- ---------------- --------- ---------- --------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------
Epoch Date Day No. Receiver On-source int. time R.m.s. Comments
(minutes) (mJy per 2.4kms$^{-1}$ chan)
1 2008 Oct 14-15 0 C-high 50 0.3
2 2008 Nov 21-22 38 C-high 55 0.4
3 2009 Jan 1-2 79 C-high 50 0.4
4 2009 Feb 14-19 123 C 195 0.2
5 2009 Apr 4-5 172 C 65 0.4
6 2009 May 16-17 214 C 65 0.5
7 2009 Jun 27-28 256 C 65 0.6 Single pol. spectrum
8 2009 Aug 8-9 298 C-high 65 0.5 dual board set up
9 2009 Sep 28-30 349 C 65 0.4
10 2009 Nov 12-13 394 C-high 55 0.4 dual board set up
11 2010 Jan 11-12 454 C-high 45 0.4 dual board set up
------- ---------------- --------- ---------- --------------------- ------------------------------ ----------------------
------ ----------- --------------------------------- ----------------
Band Frequency Transitions Rest frequency
(GHz) (GHz)
1 6.110 H$_2$O $6_{16}-5_{23}$ 22.235
2 6.515 NH$_3$ (1, 1) 23.694
NH$_3$ (2, 2) 23.722
3 6.567 OH $^{2}\Pi_{3/2} J=9/2, F=4-4$ 23.817
OH $^{2}\Pi_{3/2} J=9/2, F=5-5$ 23.826
NH$_3$ (3, 3) 23.870
4 6.878 CH$_3$OH $4_{2}-4_{1}$ 24.933
CH$_3$OH $6_{2}-6_{1}$ 25.018
NH$_3$ (6, 6) 25.056
CH$_3$OH $7_{2}-7_{1}$ 25.124
------ ----------- --------------------------------- ----------------
: The list of molecular transitions that were targeted.[]{data-label="table:trans"}
Results {#sect:res}
=======
In the following, the quoted line velocities are defined w.r.t. the optical redshift of MG J0414+0534, $z$=2.639 [@lawrence95], using the optical velocity definition in the heliocentric frame. Isotropic line luminosities and upper limits have been calculated using: $$\label{eq:lum}
\frac{L_{\rm line}}{\rm L_{\odot}}=\frac{1}{m}\frac{0.001}{1+z}\frac{\nu_{\rm line}}{\rm [GHz]}\frac{\int{S\,dv}}{\rm [Jy\,km\,s^{-1}]}\frac{D_{\rm L}^2}{\rm [Mpc^2]},$$ where $m$ is the lensing magnification, $z$ is the redshift of the background source, $\nu_{\rm line}$ is the rest frequency of the transition, $\int{S\,dv}$ is the integrated flux density, and $D_{\rm L}$ is the luminosity distance. The lensing magnification for MG J0414+0534 is estimated to be $\sim$35 [@trotter00]. This value for the magnification is used under the assumption that the line emission is coincident with the radio continuum. If the line emission is not associated with the continuum, then the lensing magnification could be larger or smaller than 35. The luminosity distance of MG J0414+0534 is 21,790Mpc.
The errors on the quantities derived from the continuum and the maser line emission have been calculated in the following way. The error on the continuum flux density was determined by using the calibration uncertainty. The errors on the integrated and peak line flux densities, and the line widths of the Gaussian profiles were determined by considering both the statistical uncertainties associated with the Gaussian fits and the uncertainties from the absolute flux calibration. Finally, we deduced the error on the flux densities and velocities of the line peak (i.e. the maximum of the H$_2$O spectrum) using the r.m.s of a single channel and the channel separation, respectively.
The tentative satellite line {#sect:satellite}
----------------------------
Our first Arecibo spectrum of MG J0414+0534, taken in October 2008 (see Fig \[fig:oct08\_spec\]), confidently confirms the presence of the water maser line that was detected in the discovery spectra obtained with Effelsberg and the EVLA [@impellizzeri08]. In addition, it shows a weak satellite emission feature, detected with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of three, that is displaced by about +800kms$^{-1}$ from the main line. We fit simple Gaussian profiles to the maser features shown in Fig \[fig:oct08\_spec\] and find that the main line has a central velocity of $-$278$\pm$5kms$^{-1}$ with a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of 174$\pm$5kms$^{-1}$. From the integrated flux density (0.30$\pm$0.03Jykms$^{-1}$), using Eq. \[eq:lum\], we derive for the main line an intrinsic (i.e. unlensed) H$_2$O isotropic luminosity of $\sim$26,000L$_{\odot}$ that makes the maser in MG J0414+0534 the most luminous that is currently known.
The satellite line at +470$\pm$10kms$^{-1}$ has a FWHM of 100$\pm$10kms$^{-1}$ and is five times less luminous ($L_{\rm H_2O} \sim$5000L$_{\odot}$). This feature could not be identified in the Effelsberg spectrum. Its peak flux density (0.6$\pm$0.2mJy) is comparable with the r.m.s. noise level of the data (0.6mJy per 3.8kms$^{-1}$ channel; @impellizzeri08). Smoothing the Effelsberg spectrum down to a channel width of 54kms$^{-1}$ (r.m.s $\sim$0.2mJy) still shows no significant emission around +470kms$^{-1}$. The velocity of the satellite line was not covered by the bandwidth of our discovery EVLA spectrum. Surprisingly, this emission line feature was not detected again after October 2008 (see Fig \[fig:spectra\]). In February 2009 we performed deeper observations aimed at confirming the presence of this feature. No emission line other than the main one at about $-$300kms$^{-1}$ was detected above a 3$\sigma$ noise level of 0.3mJy per 19.2kms$^{-1}$ channel. However, a weak feature is seen in the spectrum at the velocity of about +490kms$^{-1}$ (see Fig.\[fig:fit4\], lower panel). The satellite line remains undetected also in the spectrum produced by averaging all of the epochs with the same weights (Fig \[fig:fit4\], upper panel). Nonetheless, we note that the range between 200 and 500kms$^{-1}$ looks spiky and that, interestingly, one of these spikes is at the position of the satellite line. Averaging the spectra using different weights (e.g. 1/r.m.s$^2$ or the integration time) does not change the shape of the resulting spectrum. This may indicate that many weak lines are present in the range 200–500kms$^{-1}$ and that in October 2008 we saw one of these lines flaring.
![Water maser spectrum observed towards MG J0414+0534 in October 2008 (black histogram). The fitted Gaussian profiles are overlaid (green line). Channel width is 19.2kms$^{-1}$. The root-mean-square (r.m.s.) noise level of the spectrum is 0.2mJy per channel. The velocity scale is relative to redshift 2.639 [@lawrence95] using the optical velocity definition in the heliocentric frame. The red cross marks the systemic velocity and the associated uncertainty (see Section \[sect:red\]). The blue and the black crosses indicate the peaks of the CO emission [@barvainis98] and the absorption components [@moore99], respectively, with their errors.[]{data-label="fig:oct08_spec"}](fig1_castangia2011.eps){width="9cm"}
Structure of the main line {#sect:fit4}
--------------------------
The high SNR of the February 2009 spectrum ($\sim$13; see Fig \[fig:fit4\], lower panel) reveals that the main line has a complex profile that is likely the result of the blending of many components. When we fit the line profile with multiple Gaussians, the best fit is obtained using four components. Due to the lower SNR of the spectra, it is impossible to perform the same analysis for the other epochs. However, the four Gaussian components well describe the average profile of the main line (Fig \[fig:fit4\], upper panel), implying that they must be present in most of the epochs. In order to inspect the variability of the individual velocity features, we produced a spectrum by averaging with equal weights the last three epochs of the monitoring (September and November 2009 and January 2010). The resulting spectrum (Fig \[fig:fit4\], middle panel) has an r.m.s comparable with that of the February 2009 observation. The mean time separation between the two spectra is 276 days. Table \[table:gauss\] summarizes the properties of the Gaussian profiles fitted to these spectra (central velocity, FWHM, and integrated flux density) and the intrinsic, i.e. unlensed isotropic H$_2$O luminosity. Comparing the Gaussian peak velocities, we find that the velocity of components I and II did not change, while the velocities of components III and IV have marginally increased by +15$\pm$3kms$^{-1}$ and +10$\pm$3kms$^{-1}$, respectively. However, these weaker features can be identified in only two of the eleven spectra from individual epochs. It is therefore possible that the change in the peak velocities of these components is due to a change in the line profile rather than to an actual motion of the gas.
------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ------------------- ---------------
Comp. Epoch Velocity FWHM Int. flux density Lum.
(kms$^{-1}$) (kms$^{-1}$) (mJykms$^{-1}$) (L$_{\odot}$)
I 4 -350$\pm$2 31$\pm$2 23$\pm$12 2000
9, 10, 11 -351$\pm$2 21$\pm$2 17$\pm$5 1500
II 4 -285$\pm$2 43$\pm$2 60$\pm$12 5100
9, 10, 11 -290$\pm$2 45$\pm$2 65$\pm$5 5600
III 4 -280$\pm$2 161$\pm$2 173$\pm$12 14800
9, 10, 11 -265$\pm$2 154$\pm$2 184$\pm$5 15800
IV 4 -167$\pm$2 63$\pm$2 43$\pm$12 3700
9, 10, 11 -157$\pm$2 63$\pm$2 51$\pm$5 4400
------- ----------- -------------- -------------- ------------------- ---------------
: Parameters of the Gaussian profiles fitted to the water maser line in the spectra of February 2009 (epoch 4) and the average of the last three epochs (epochs 9, 10, and 11; see also Fig. \[fig:fit4\]).[]{data-label="table:gauss"}
Monitoring
----------
The results of our continuum and line monitoring are displayed in Figs. \[fig:spectra\] and \[fig:monitoring\]. Fig. \[fig:spectra\] shows the sequence of spectra observed towards MG J0414+0534 from July 2007 to January 2010. In addition to the Arecibo spectra, we also show the combined Effelsberg and EVLA spectrum. This spectrum is the combination of 14 hours of observations with the Effelsberg radio telescope between July and September 2007, and 12 hours of observations with the EVLA in October 2007 (for details see @impellizzeri08). Although the line profile does change slightly from epoch to epoch, the overall appearance of the main H$_2$O emission feature remains stable during the period of the Arecibo observations. A significant change in the line profile seems instead to have occurred between the Effelsberg and EVLA observations and the first epoch of the Arecibo monitoring campaign. The line appears to be much broader in the first Arecibo spectrum w.r.t. the previous observations. This is confirmed by a comparison between the Gaussian fit parameters of the lines. Fitting a single Gaussian profile to the combined Effelsberg and EVLA spectrum, we obtain a FWHM of 78$\pm$4kms$^{-1}$ which is about half the line width measured in the Arecibo spectrum of October 2008 (see Section \[sect:satellite\]). This line broadening is responsible for the larger intrinsic isotropic luminosity we measure (26,000L$_{\odot}$) w.r.t. that reported by @impellizzeri08 (10,000L$_{\odot}$). The line velocity is also different. Correcting for the small shift in the reference frequency used in the Arecibo observations (6110.0MHz) w.r.t that used at Effelsberg and the EVLA (6110.2MHz) the peak of the Gaussian in the combined spectrum is at -312$\pm$4kms$^{-1}$. Hence, the line is redshifted by 34$\pm$6kms$^{-1}$ in the Arecibo spectrum. Differences in the baseline calibration of the datasets, though possibly accounting in part for the different line widths, are not sufficient to explain these discrepancies. The most plausible interpretation is that there was a real change in the line profile. Looking at the spectra in Fig. \[fig:spectra\] it seems that the most redshifted component seen in Fig. \[fig:fit4\] (component 4 in Table \[table:gauss\]) was not present at the time of the Effelsberg and EVLA observations.
In Fig. \[fig:monitoring\] (left panels), we plot the 6GHz continuum flux density of MG J0414+0534 together with the peak flux density and the peak velocity of the line as a function of time. In the right panels instead, the continuum flux density is displayed together with the integrated flux density and the Gaussian peak velocity of the line as a function of time. The integrated flux density and the Gaussian peak velocities have been derived by fitting a single Gaussian profile to the broad maser feature. Absolute deviations of the continuum flux from the mean are, on average, comparable with the flux calibration uncertainty (7% see Section \[sect:obs\]). The 6GHz continuum flux density of MG J0414+0534 thus remained nearly constant for the duration of the whole monitoring period, with an average flux density of 0.71$\pm$0.02Jy. The line peak flux density is also surprisingly stable throughout the period of the observations. Small fluctuations are not exceeding the limits of uncertainty (between 10% and 50%). The integrated flux density instead, shows significant variations from epoch to epoch that, however, do not follow a definite trend. The behaviour of the integrated flux density reflects the variation of the width of the Gaussian profile, whose FWHM fluctuates between $\sim$100 and $\sim$240kms$^{-1}$ during the monitoring period. This variation is likely the result of flux variability among individual velocity components (see Section \[sect:fit4\]).
We fit a linear function to the line and Gaussian peak velocities. In both cases, the $\chi^2$ values calculated from the fits are quite high, indicating that, most likely, if there is a systematic acceleration, this is not constant. Nevertheless, assuming that a straight line is the correct model for the data, we can calculate the accelerations using a least absolute deviation method, which is less sensitive to outlying data w.r.t the $\chi^2$ minimization. The best fit lines and the mean absolute deviations are shown in Fig. \[fig:monitoring\] (lower panels). We find that the line peak velocity is constant within the limit of the uncertainty associated with the peak identification (i.e. the channel width, 2.4kms$^{-1}$). The line velocity derived from Gaussian fits instead, is increasing by $\sim$12kms$^{-1}$yr$^{-1}$. However, since the Gaussian fit is sensitive to the whole profile, this trend may be due to fluctuations in the relative intensities of the individual velocity components rather than to a real acceleration of the masing clouds. Furthermore, drifting maser lines, as those observed in edge on accretion disks, typically have line widths of 1-4kms$^{-1}$ (e.g. NGC 4258; @humphreys08). Velocity drifts of broad (FWHM$\sim$100kms$^{-1}$) maser features have never been observed so far. Thus, we treat this result with caution and do not use it in our discussion.
 
{width="9.1cm"} {width="9.1cm"}
Upper limits on the other molecular transitions
-----------------------------------------------
In three occasions, August 2009, November 2009, and January 2010, we took advantage of the WAPP dual board mode to search for molecular emission lines from NH$_3$, OH, and CH$_3$OH (see Table \[table:trans\]) towards MG J0414+0534. No emission line was detected in the individual spectra nor in the average spectrum above a 5$\sigma$ noise level of 1.5 and 2.0mJy per 2.4kms$^{-1}$ channel, for bands 2 and 3, respectively. Using Eq. \[eq:lum\] and considering rectangular lines of width 2.4kms$^{-1}$, this yields upper limits on the isotropic luminosities of the ammonia inversion lines (1, 1), (2, 2), and (3, 3) of $\sim$330L$_{\odot}$ (for the first two transitions) and $\sim$440L$_{\odot}$. The luminosity of the two OH lines must be $<$440L$_{\odot}$. Unfortunately, the frequency band centered at 6.9GHz, where the NH$_3$ (6, 6) and the excited CH$_3$OH transition frequencies fall, is severely affected by RFI. Interferences are present in about 60% of the band making any line identification impossible.
Discussion {#sect:disc}
==========
We have monitored the radio continuum and maser emission in MG J0414+0534 for $\sim$15 months at $\sim$6 week intervals and found that both are surprisingly stable. The continuum and the line peak flux density were found to be constant throughout the periods of observations. The integrated flux density instead displays significant changes from epoch to epoch that are likely the result of changes in the individual velocity components. From the analysis of the 11 epochs of the monitoring, we can place an upper limit on the velocity drift of the most prominent line peak (component II in Table \[table:gauss\]) of 2kms$^{-1}$yr$^{-1}$. We tentatively detected a weaker satellite line at +470kms$^{-1}$ in October 2008 that, however, was not confirmed by the spectra of the other epochs, nor by our most sensitive spectrum obtained by averaging all the epochs. In the next sections we examine the possible scenarios for the origin of the maser in the light of these results.
The redshift of MG J0414+0534 {#sect:red}
-----------------------------
For the discussion presented here it is of fundamental importance to assess the true redshift of MG J0414+0534 and the accuracy of the corresponding systemic velocity. @lawrence95 derived a redshift of 2.639$\pm$0.002 from the broad H$\alpha$ emission line identified in the infrared spectrum of the quasar. CO (3–2) emission was detected toward MG J0414+0534 by @barvainis98 and is centered at the H$_{\alpha}$ redshift, while is seen in absorption, blueshifted by $\sim$200kms$^{-1}$ w.r.t. the H$_{\alpha}$ and CO emission lines [@moore99]. The line consists of two absorption components, one at $z=2.6376\pm0.0002$ and one at $z=2.6353\pm0.0001$, with the most prominent and blueshifted one approximately coincident with the peak of the H$_2$O emission (Figs. \[fig:oct08\_spec\] and \[fig:fit4\]).
The discrepancy between the redshift of the H$_{\alpha}$ emission and of the absorption centroid is not surprising. In fact, previous studies on various types of galaxies indicate that systemic velocities derived from optical emission lines can be biased by motions of the emitting gas and obscuration of the back side of the galaxy [@mirabel84; @morganti01]. More remarkable is the difference between the redshift of the CO and the lines, given that CO traces the large scale galaxy structure and should be free of outflow/infall problems. According to @moore99, in the case of MG J0414+0534, this offset might be due to i) the absorption occurring against an extended jet component and not towards the nucleus or ii) the is absorbing the active nucleus and CO emission has a different spatial distribution and is affected differently by gravitational lensing. In the following, we assume that the optical/CO redshift, $z=2.639$, is the most reliable redshift for MG J0414+0534. For the sake of completeness, we will also discuss the possibility that the redshift of MG J0414+0534 is the one derived from absorption. The uncertainty in the optical redshift determination corresponds to a large uncertainty in the definition of the systemic velocity ($\pm$165km$^{-1}$). Accordingly, the main maser line is mostly blueshifted w.r.t the systemic velocity of MG J0414+0534, although part of the emission may possibly be considered systemic (see Fig. \[fig:fit4\] and Table \[table:gauss\]).
Origin of the H$_2$O emission
-----------------------------
### Jet-maser scenario
Our initial hypothesis, based on the absence of systemic and redshifted components in the Effelsberg and EVLA spectra and on the wide line profile, was that the emission is associated with the prominent relativistic jets of the quasar [@impellizzeri08]. Part of our results are indeed consistent with this interpretation. First of all, even when the maser line profile is resolved into multiple velocity components, individual emission features have line widths between 30 and 160kms$^{-1}$ that resemble those of known H$_2$O masers associated with radio jets (e.g. Mrk 348; @peck03). Our non-detection of a radial acceleration of the main maser peak is also compatible with the jet-maser scenario.
Adopting the hypothesis that the maser in MG J0414+0534 is associated with the jet(s), the H$_2$O emission may arise from the shocked region at the interface between the relativistic jet material and an encroaching molecular cloud, as is believed to be the case for the masers in Mrk 348 [@peck03] and part of the emission in NGC 1068 [@galli01]. Alternatively, it could also be the result of the amplification of the radio continuum of the jet by foreground molecular clouds along the line of sight (as in NGC 1052; @sawada08). In this framework, the maser and continuum intensities in MG J0414+0534 would then be expected to show a similar behaviour to that in the aforementioned cases. For Mrk 348, strong variation of both maser and continuum flux densities are reported, with a close temporal correlation between them [@peck03]. The peak flux density of the jet-maser component in NGC 1068 is also variable, although the variability is not outstanding [@galli01]. For the third jet-maser case, that of NGC 1052, the variability is mainly caused by changes in the line profile [@braatz03]. The extreme stability of the main line peak and continuum flux density in MG J0414+0534 resulting from our study, seems to exclude a jet-maser scenario similar to that in Mrk 348 and NGC 1068, while the reported significant variations in the line profile of our target, may hint at similarities with the case of NGC 1052. We note, however, that the number of sources in which the maser emission is confidently associated with the jet(s) is very low and that more of these masers should be studied in detail in order to investigate the properties of these kind of sources.
The possibility that the absorption occurs against a jet component and not against the core (see Section \[sect:red\]) is interesting and might favour the jet-maser scenario. Indeed, the most blueshifted component is displaced by only (29$\pm$8)kms$^{-1}$ from the peak of the H$_2$O emission suggesting that the same gas structure that is absorbing the continuum radiation from the jet may host the molecular clouds that produce the maser emission.
### Disk-maser scenario
The presence of highly red- and blueshifted emission features, symmetrically bracketing the systemic velocity, and emission lines close to the systemic velocity (typically referred to as ‘triple-peak profile’) is a spectroscopic signature of masers that are associated with edge-on accretion disks (e.g. NGC4258; @n4258miyo). Within this frame, the tentative detection of the redshifted line at +470kms$^{-1}$ in October 2008, may be seen as an element in favour of the accretion disk scenario. According to the standard model, we expect the high-velocity emission to arise from near the mid-line of the disk, defined as the diameter of the disk perpendicular to the line of sight, while the maser emission at the systemic velocity should originate on the near side of the disk. Therefore, the predicted radial accelerations of the high-velocity features are much smaller than those of the lines near the systemic velocity. The velocity drifts measured for the high-velocity maser lines in NGC 4258, for example, are in the range -0.7 to +0.7kms$^{-1}$yr$^{-1}$ [@humphreys08]. Our upper limit on the radial acceleration of the blueshifted maser emission in MG J0414+0534, 2kms$^{-1}$yr$^{-1}$, cannot rule out such accelerations.
If the main maser line and the satellite line at +470kms$^{-1}$ can be considered as the blueshifted and redshifted lines from the tangentially seen part of an edge-on accretion disk in Keplerian rotation, then the radius at which emission originates is given by $R= GM_{\rm BH}V_{\rm R}^{-2}$, where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $M_{\rm BH}$ is the black hole mass, and $V_{\rm R}$ is the rotational velocity at radius $R$. From the difference between the line of sight velocities of the main and satellite maser lines ($V_{\rm obs}$), we obtain $V_{\rm R} = V_{\rm obs} \cdot \sin (i)^{-1}$ $\sim 370 \cdot \sin (i)^{-1}$kms$^{-1}$. Adopting the black hole mass of $M_{\rm BH}=10^{9.0}$M$_{\odot}$ calculated by @pooley07 for MG J0414+0534, and assuming an edge-on orientation ($i$ = 90) for the accretion disk[^1], we get a radius of $R \sim$ 30pc. This value is fairly large compared to the radii at which maser emission is found in the accretion disks of nearby radio quiet AGN (typically, 0.1 to 1 pc). We should keep in mind however, that MG J0414+0534 is a radio loud quasar, while known disk-maser hosts are mainly radio quiet Seyfert or LINER galaxies with a mass of the nuclear engine that is two orders of magnitude lower ($\sim 10^7$M$_{\odot}$; @kuo2011).
In order to understand if the physical conditions of the gas at 30pc from a 10$^9$M$_{\odot}$ black hole are suitable to provide water maser emission, we calculate the density of the gas necessary to reach stability against tidal disruption, in a spherical clump at a radius $R$ from the central engine that is rotating at a velocity $V_{\rm R}$ (see @tarchi07 and references therein). For MG J0414+0534 we obtain that the density of H$_2$ molecules at a radius of 30pc from the nuclear engine would need to be $\ga 2 \times 10^5$cm$^{-3}$. Such a density is far from the density at which the H$_2$O level population thermalize (e.g. @kylafis91) and, hence, the conditions of the gas do not preclude the production of water maser emission. Therefore, the identification of the tentative line at about +470kms$^{-1}$yr$^{-1}$ as the redshifted feature of the characteristic disk-maser spectrum is physically plausible, thus making the disk-maser picture a viable option.
If we assume that the atomic gas is absorbing the radio continuum emission from the core (see Section \[sect:red\]) and that MG J0414+0534 is at the redshift of the absorption centroid (2.6365; @moore99), the value of the maser disk radius calculated above changes substantially. In fact, in this case the main line lies at the systemic velocity of the quasar and the inferred rotational velocity and radius are $\sim$750kms$^{-1}$ and $\sim$7pc, respectively. For such a disk to be stable the density of H$_2$ molecules at a radius of 7pc from the nuclear engine would need to be $\ga 10^7$cm$^{-3}$, a density that is still compatible with the production of H$_2$O maser emission in the 6$_{16}$–5$_{23}$ transition (e.g. @kylafis91). In the hypothesis that the maser emission originates on the near side of the disk, the velocity drift is given by $V^2_{\rm R} R^{-1}$. Assuming that the radius at which the systemic and high-velocity lines arise is the same, we obtain a velocity drift of $\sim$0.8kms$^{-1}$yr$^{-1}$. A longer monitoring period (at least 4 or 5 years) and/or a higher spectral resolution would be necessary to detect such a small velocity drift and test this hypothesis.
Therefore, although the type 1 optical spectrum and the relatively low column density derived from X-ray observations (N$_{\rm H}$$\sim 5 \times 10^{22}$cm$^{-2}$; @chartas02) indicate that the disk might not be favourably oriented to produce detectable water maser emission, we cannot exclude this possibility on the basis of our single-dish data alone.
Conclusions {#sect:con}
===========
The redshifted 6GHz radio continuum and H$_2$O maser emission in the type 1 quasar MG J0414+0534 at $z=2.639$ have been monitored with the 300-m Arecibo telescope for $\sim$15 months, in order to help shedding light on the origin of the most distant water maser found to date.
We have confirmed the H$_2$O detection reported by @impellizzeri08 at high signal-to-noise levels and have found that the line profile can be resolved into a complex of features with line widths between 30 and 160kms$^{-1}$. A redshifted line was tentatively detected in October 2008 at a velocity of +470kms$^{-1}$. The total intrinsic (i.e. unlensed) H$_2$O isotropic luminosity is $\sim$30,000L$_{\odot}$ making the maser in MG J0414+0534 the most luminous ever discovered. The overall appearance of the main maser feature, as well as the flux density of the most prominent peak, are surprisingly stable throughout the period of the observations, although the integrated flux density shows significant variations on monthly time scales, possibly hinting at changes in the individual velocity components. The continuum flux density is also quite stable from epoch to epoch. The velocity of the strongest line peak is constant within the uncertainty, thus providing an upper limit on the velocity drift of 2kms$^{-1}$yr$^{-1}$.
The large line widths of the individual velocity components of the H$_2$O maser feature and the lack of an evident triple-peak profile favour an association of the maser with the relativistic jet(s) of the quasar. The type 1 nature of the AGN in MG J0414+0534 further reinforces this interpretation. However, the remarkable stability of the continuum and the line emission is partly in contrast with this picture. Furthermore, the tentative detection of the redshifted feature in the October 2008 spectrum is compatible with the disk-maser hypothesis.
While providing useful clues to determine the nature of the maser in MG J0414+0534, our single-dish data alone are presently insufficient to confidently exclude either one of the two scenarios, jet vs. accretion disk. VLBI observations and longer time-scale single-dish monitoring will be essential to unveil the origin of the H$_2$O maser in this intriguing object.
P.C. and V.I. wish to thank the operators at the 300–m telescope for their hospitality during the observing runs. We are indebted to C. Salter and T. Ghosh for their invaluable assistance during observing preparation and data reduction and to H. Hernandez for the careful scheduling of this long monitoring. We are also grateful to the anonymous referee for his/her useful suggestions. P.C. wish to thank A. Tarchi for critically reading the manuscript. O.W. is funded by the Emmy-Noether-Programme of the ‘Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft’, reference Wu 588/1-1.
[^1]: Since accretion disks that provide enough amplification paths for maser action have inclinations that differ less than 10 from an edge-on orientation (see e.g., @kuo2011), the values for the rotation velocity, and hence, the radius and gas density of the disk, should not be very different from the one calculated assuming $i$ = 90.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We describe a variant of the Bellman–Ford algorithm for single-source shortest paths in graphs with negative edges but no negative cycles that randomly permutes the vertices and uses this randomized order to process the vertices within each pass of the algorithm. The modification reduces the worst-case expected number of relaxation steps of the algorithm, compared to the previously-best variant by Yen (1970), by a factor of $2/3$ with high probability. We also use our high probability bound to add negative cycle detection to the randomized algorithm.'
author:
- |
Michael J. Bannister and David Eppstein\
Computer Science Department, University of California, Irvine
bibliography:
- 'bellford.bib'
title: |
Randomized Speedup of\
the Bellman–Ford Algorithm
---
Introduction
============
The *Bellman–Ford* algorithm [@Bel-QAM-58; @ForFul-62; @Moore-ISST] is a label-correcting algorithm for the single-source shortest path problem in directed graphs that may have negatively-weighted edges, but no negative cycles. The algorithm can also be modified to detect negative cycles, when they exist. For a graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, it takes $O(mn)$ time; despite its longevity, this remains the best strongly-polynomial time bound known for this version of the shortest path problem [@AMO-93-Chap5]. If the graph has small integer edge weights, then some newer algorithms whose runtime depends on bounds of the edge weight may be faster [@Shrt-Surv].
![Example of a general weighted DAG (left) with its shortest path tree (right).[]{data-label="fig:example"}](figures/wdag){width="47.50000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Example of a general weighted DAG (left) with its shortest path tree (right).[]{data-label="fig:example"}](figures/sptree){width="47.50000%"}
In the absence of improvements to the asymptotic complexity of the algorithm, it becomes of interest to optimize the constant factors in its running time. The bulk of the algorithm’s time is spent in *relaxation* or *label-correction* steps in which a candidate value for the distance to a vertex is replaced by the minimum of its previous value and another number. In its most basic form, the algorithm performs at most $mn$ of these relaxation steps, but this can be improved in two ways, both due to Yen. Processing the vertices in a first-in-first-out order that avoids reprocessing vertices whose candidate distance has not changed in the previous step reduces the number of relaxation steps to less that $n^3/2$, an improvement by a factor of two for dense graphs [@Yen-Book; @Dreyfus-Survey; @Lawler-Yen]. The second improvement, published in 1970 by Yen [@Yen-QAM-70] and since repeated in several textbooks [@CLRS-Yen; @HuShi-Yen; @Lawler-Yen; @PemSki-03; @Chen], involves partitioning the input directed graph into two directed acyclic graphs and alternating between passes of the algorithm that relax the edges in one of these two DAGs. This method reduces the number of relaxation steps to $mn/2+m$, an improvement by nearly a factor of two over the original algorithm even for sparse graphs. Both improvements can be combined to yield less than $n^3/4$ relaxation steps for dense graphs [@Lawler-Yen; @Yen-Book; @Dreyfus-Survey].
In this paper we combine these previous ideas with an additional idea: randomly permuting the vertices of the graph, and using that permutation to order the vertices within each pass of the algorithm. As we show, this modification produces another factor of $2/3$ speedup in the expected time for the algorithm on a worst-case input. With this modification, the algorithm performs at most $mn/3+m$ relaxation steps in expectation, or $mn/3+o(mn)$ steps with high probability. For dense graphs, it takes at most $n^3/6$ steps in expectation and $n^3/6+o(n^3)$ steps with high probability. Finally, we use the high probability bounds to detect the presence of negative cycles in the input graph in $mn/3 + o(mn)$ time with high probability.
Despite the simplicity of the method, we thus obtain a large constant-factor savings in runtime. Additionally, this improvement makes an interesting test case for randomization in basic graph algorithms. Indeed, after the appearance of our initial blog posting at <http://11011110.livejournal.com/215330.html> describing the simplest version of this result (the expected analysis of the sparse case), the same result has also been used as a web exercise for Sedgewick’s [*Algorithms*]{} textbook [@Sedgewick].
Previous Algorithms
===================
The Bellman–Ford algorithm is an instance of a class of algorithms known as *relaxation algorithms* or *label-correction algorithms* for finding shortest paths from a designated start vertex $s$ to all other vertices in a given directed graph. These algorithms maintain for each vertex $v$ a tentative distance $D[v]$ and a tentative predecessor $P[v]$, with the invariant that the tentative distance $D[v]$ is always an upper bound on the true distance $d(s,v)$ from $s$ to $v$. Initially, $D[s]=0$ and $D[v]=+\infty$ for every $v\ne s$; $P[v]$ is undefined. Then, the algorithm performs a sequence of relaxation steps in which it calls the `relax` procedure described in Algorithm \[alg:relax\].
$D[v] \gets D[u]+\textrm{length}(u,v)$ $P[v]\gets u$
We say that $v$ is *accurate* if $D[v]$ holds the correct distance from $s$ to $v$; initially, $s$ itself is accurate and all other vertices are not. We define a *correct relaxation* to be a call to `relax`$(u,v)$ for an edge from $u$ to $v$ that belongs to a shortest path from $s$ to $v$, at a time when $u$ is accurate and $v$ is not accurate. After a correct relaxation, $v$ will become accurate. The Bellman–Ford algorithm is based on the insight that, if we relax all of the edges in the graph, then at least one correct relaxation is guaranteed to occur. After $n-1$ correct relaxations, all distances must be correct. Once this happens, each $P[v]$ points to the predecessor of $v$ on a valid shortest path from $s$ to $v$.
`relax`$(u,v)$
This version of the algorithm performs $m(n-1)$ calls to the relax procedure, regardless of the input. A simple optimization is possible: only relax edges from vertices $u$ for which $D[u]$ has recently changed, since other vertices cannot lead to correct relaxations. Additionally, the algorithm may be terminated early when no recent changes exist. For sparse graphs, this may be a practical improvement but does not change the worst case running time significantly. However, for dense graphs the improvement is larger: after the $i$th iteration of the outer loop of the algorithm, $i+1$ vertices will already have their correct distances and will no longer change, so in the $i$th iteration at most $n-i$ vertices can have recently changed, and the number of relaxations within that iteration is at most $(n-1)(n-i)$. Adding this up over all iterations (and using the observation that in the first iteration of the outer loop we need only relax the edges that go out of $s$) produces a total of $(n-1)((n-1)(n-2)/2+1)< n^3/2$ relaxations, a significant improvement over the basic Bellman–Ford algorithm for dense graphs.
$C\gets\{s\}$ `relax`$(u,v)$ $C\gets\{$vertices $v$ for which $D[v]$ changed$\}$
As Yen [@Yen-QAM-70] observed, it is also possible to improve the algorithm in a different way, by choosing more carefully the order in which to relax the edges within each iteration of the outer loop so that two correct relaxations can be guaranteed for each iteration except possibly the last. Specifically, number the vertices arbitrarily starting from the source vertex, let $G^{+}$ be the subgraph formed by the edges that go from a lower numbered vertex to a higher numbered vertex, and let $G^{-}$ be the subgraph formed by the edges that go from a higher numbered vertex to a lower numbered vertex. Then $G^{+}$ and $G^{-}$ are both directed acyclic graphs, and the numbering of the vertices is a topological numbering of $G^{+}$ and the reverse of a topological numbering for $G^{-}$. Each iteration of Yen’s algorithm processes each of these two subgraphs in topological order.
number the vertices arbitrarily, starting with $s$ $C\gets\{s\}$ `relax`$(u,v)$ `relax`$(u,v)$ $C\gets\{$vertices $v$ for which $D[v]$ changed$\}$
Suppose that, at the start of an iteration of the outer loop of the algorithm, vertex $u$ is accurate, and that $\pi$ is a path in the shortest path tree rooted at $s$ that starts at $u$, with all vertices of $\pi$ inaccurate. Suppose also that all of the edges in $G^{+}$ that belong to path $\pi$ are earlier in the path than all of the edges in $G^{-}$. Then, in that single iteration, the steps that relax the edges of $G^{+}$ in a topological ordering of $G^{+}$ will correctly relax all of the edges in $\pi\cap G^{+}$, and then the steps that relax the edges of $G^{-}$ in a topological ordering of $G^{-}$ will correctly relax all of the edges in $\pi\cap G^{-}$. Therefore, after the iteration, all vertices in $\pi$ will be accurate. More generally, if $k$ is the maximum number of times that any shortest path of the given graph alternates between edges in $G^{+}$ and $G^{-}$, then after $k$ iterations of the algorithm every vertex will be accurate and after $k+1$ iterations the algorithm will terminate. Therefore, the algorithm will perform at most $km+m$ relaxation steps. For any graph, $k\le n/2$, so the algorithm performs a total of at most $mn/2+m$ relaxation steps in the worst case.
A similar analysis applies also to dense graphs. With the possible exception of the final iteration, each iteration of Yen’s algorithm increases the number of accurate vertices by at least two; once a vertex becomes accurate, it can be the first argument of a relaxation operation in only a single additional iteration of the algorithm. Therefore, iteration $i$ relaxes at most $n(n-2i)$ edges. Summing over all iterations yields a total number of relaxations that is less than $n^3/4$. Experiments conducted by Yen have demonstrated the practicality of these speedups in spite of extra time needed to maintain the set of recently changed vertices [@Yen-Book].
![Example from Figure \[fig:example\] with edges in $G^-$ colored red.[]{data-label="fig:example2"}](figures/wdag2){width="47.50000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Example from Figure \[fig:example\] with edges in $G^-$ colored red.[]{data-label="fig:example2"}](figures/sptree2){width="47.50000%"}
The Randomized Algorithm
========================
Our randomized algorithm makes only a very small change to Yen’s algorithm, by choosing the numbering of the vertices randomly rather than arbitrarily. In this way, it makes the worst case of Yen’s algorithm (in which a shortest path alternates between edges in $G^+$ and $G^-$) very unlikely.
number the vertices randomly such that all permutations with $s$ first are equally likely $C\gets\{s\}$ `relax`$(u,v)$ `relax`$(u,v)$ $C\gets\{$vertices $v$ for which $D[v]$ changed$\}$
To analyze the algorithm, we first consider the structure of its worst-case instances.
\[lem:alg-is-combinatorial\] Let $G$ and $s$ define an input to Algorithm \[alg:rand\]. Then the number of iterations of the outer loop of the algorithm depends only on the combinatorial structure of the subgraph $S$ of $G$ formed by the set of edges belonging to shortest paths of $G$; it does not depend in any other way on the weights of the edges in $G$.
In each iteration, a vertex $v$ becomes accurate if there is a path $\pi$ in $S$ from an accurate vertex $u$ to $v$ with the property that $\pi$ is the concatenation of a path $\pi^+\in S\cap G^+$ with a path $\pi_-\in S\cap G^-$. This property does not depend on the edge weights.
\[lem:worst-case-struc\] Among graphs with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, the worst case for the number of iterations of Algorithm \[alg:rand\] is provided by a graph in which there is a unique shortest path tree in the form of a single $(n-1)$-edge path.
Let $G$ and $s$ be an input instance for the algorithm, and as above let $S$ be the set of edges that belong to shortest paths from $s$ in $G$. If $S$ contains two edges into a vertex $v$, then increasing the weight of one of them (causing it to be removed from $S$) can only reduce the sets of vertices that become accurate in each iteration of the algorithm, as described in Lemma \[lem:alg-is-combinatorial\]. Thus, the modified graph has at least as large an expected number of iterations as $G$. Similarly, if there are two edges $vu$ and $vw$ exiting vertex $v$, then replacing edge $vw$ by an edge $uw$ whose weight is the difference of the two previous edges leaves the distance to $w$ unchanged (and therefore does not change any of the rest of $S$) while increasing the number of steps from $s$ to $w$ and its descendants; again, the expected number of iterations in the modified graph is at least as large as it was prior to the modification. By repeating such modifications until no more can be performed, the result is a graph in the form given by the statement of the lemma.
For the tail bounds on the runtime we will use the methods of bounded differences which is restated in Lemma \[lem:bounded-diff\].
\[lem:bounded-diff\] If $f$ is Lipschitz (w.r.t. Hamming distance) with constants $d_i$, for $1 \leq i \leq n$, and $X_i$ are independent random variables, then $$\Pr[f > \operatorname{E}[f] + t] \leq \exp \left( - \frac{2t^2}{d} \right) \quad\text{and}\quad
\Pr[f > \operatorname{E}[f] - t] \leq \exp \left( - \frac{2t^2}{d} \right)$$ where $d = \sum d_i^2$.
From our previous analysis of Yen’s algorithm we see that each iteration processes the vertices on a shortest path up to the first local minimum in the sequence of vertex labels. For this reason we will be interested in the distribution of local minima in random sequences. The problem of counting local minima is closely related to the problem of determining the length of the longest alternating subsequence [@ALT1; @ALT2].
![Longest shortest path from Figure \[fig:example\] (left) with height used to represent vertex label (right).[]{data-label="fig:example3"}](figures/longshort){width="47.50000%"}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Longest shortest path from Figure \[fig:example\] (left) with height used to represent vertex label (right).[]{data-label="fig:example3"}](figures/longshortmins){width="47.50000%"}
\[lem:sequence\] If $X_1, \ldots, X_n$ is a sequence of random variables for which ties have probability zero and each permutation is equally likely (e.g. i.i.d. real random variables), then
1. the expected number of local minima is $(n-2)/3$ not counting endpoints;
2. and, the probability that there are more than $$\frac{n-2}{3} + \sqrt{2cn \log n} \leq \frac{n-2}{3}\left(1 + 3\sqrt{2} \sqrt{\frac{c\log n}{n}}\right)$$ local minima is at most $1/n^c$.
For (1) notice that there are six ways that $X_{j-1}, X_j, X_{j+1}$ may be ordered when $1 < j<n$, and two of these orderings make $X_j$ a local minima. For (2) let $f(X_1, \ldots, X_n)$ equal the number of local minima in the sequence. Changing any one of the $X_i$ changes the value of $f(X_1, \ldots, X_n)$ by at most $2$. Hence by Lemma \[lem:bounded-diff\] with $t = \sqrt{2cn\log n}$ the statement in $(2)$ holds.
\[thm:run-time\] The expected number of relaxations performed by Algorithm \[alg:rand\] (on a graph with at least three vertices) is at most $mn/3+m$, and the number of relaxations is less than $$\frac{mn}{3} + m +m\sqrt{2cn\log n} \leq \left( \frac{mn}{3} + m \right) \left(1 + 3\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\frac{c\log n}{ n}}\right)$$ with probability at least $1 - 1/n^c$.
Let $G$ be a worst-case instance of the algorithm, as given by Lemma \[lem:worst-case-struc\]. In each iteration of the algorithm other than the first and last, let $v$ be the last accurate vertex on the single maximal shortest path in $G$. Since this is neither the first nor the last iteration, $v$ must be neither the first nor the last vertex on the path; let $u$ be its predecessor and let $w$ be its successor. Then, in order for $v$ to have become accurate in the previous iteration without letting $w$ become accurate as well, it must be the case that $v$ is the first of the three vertices $\{u,v,w\}$ in the ordering given by the random permutation selected by the algorithm: if $u$ were first then edge $uv$ would belong to $G^+$ and no matter whether edge $vw$ belonged to $G^+$ or $G^-$ it would be relaxed later than $uv$ in the same iteration. And if $w$ were first then $vw$ would belong to $G^-$ and would be relaxed later than $uv$ in each iteration no matter whether $uv$ belonged to $G^+$ or $G^-$.
Thus, we may bound the expected number of iterations of Algorithm \[alg:rand\] on this input by bounding the number of vertices $v$ that occur earlier in the random permutation than both their predecessor and their successor in the shortest path, i.e., the local minima in sequence of labels. The start vertex $s$ is already assumed accurate so applying Lemma \[lem:sequence\] to the remaining $n-1$ vertices yields $(n-3)/3$ iterations for the interior vertices. Therefore, the expected number of iterations is $2+(n-3)/3=(n+3)/3$. Each iteration relaxes at most $m$ edges, so the total expected number of relaxations is at most $mn/3+m$. An application of the second part of Lemma \[lem:sequence\] finishes the proof.
Lemma \[lem:worst-case-struc\] does not directly apply to the dense case, because we need to bound the number of relaxations within each iteration and not just the number of iterations. Nevertheless the same reasoning shows that the same graph (a graph with a unique shortest path tree in the form of a single path) forms the worst case of the algorithm.
For dense graphs the expected number of relaxations performed by Algorithm \[alg:rand\] is at most $n^3/6$, and the number of relaxations is less than $$\frac{n^3}{6} + \sqrt{2} n^{5/2} \sqrt{c\log n} \leq \frac{n^3}{6} \left(1+ \sqrt{2}\sqrt{\frac{c\log n}{n}}\right)$$ with probability $1 - 1/n^{c-1}$.
Let $v$ be a vertex in the input graph whose path from $s$ in the shortest path tree is of length $k$. Then the expected number of iterations needed to correct $v$ is $k/3$, assuming the worst case that $v$ is processed in each of these iterations we will relax at most $$n\sum_{k=1}^n \frac{k}{3} \leq n^3 / 6$$ edges. Also, Theorem \[thm:run-time\] implies that $v$ will be corrected after at most $$k/3 + \sqrt{2ck\log n}$$ with probability at least $1-1/n^c$. Again, assuming the worst case, the edges from $v$ will be relaxed in each iteration, we will relax at most $$n\sum_{k=1}^n k/3 + \sqrt{2ck\log k} \leq n^3/6 + \sqrt{2c} n^{5/2} \sqrt{\log n}$$ edges with probability at least $1-1/n^{c-1}$.
Negative Cycle Detection
========================
If $G$ is a directed-acyclic graph with a negative cycle reachable from the source, then the distance to some vertices is effectively $-\infty$. If we insist on finding shortest simple paths, then the problem is -hard[@Garey-Johnson].
Because of this difficulty, rather than seeking the shortest simple paths we settle for a timely notification of the existence of a negative cycle. There are several ways in which single-source-shortest-path algorithms can be modified to detect the presence of negative cycles [@Neg-Surv]. We will use what is commonly referred to as subtree traversal. After some number of iterations of the Bellman–Ford algorithm, define $G_p$ to be the parent graph of $G$; this is a graph with the same vertex set as $G$ and with an edge from $v$ to $u$ whenever the tentative distance $D[v]$ was set by relaxing the edge in $G$ from $u$ to $v$. That is, for each $v$ other than the start vertex, there is an edge from $v$ to $P[v]$. Cycles in $G_p$ correspond to negative cycles in $G$ [@Tarjan-DS]. Moreover, if $G$ contains a negative cycle, then after $n-1$ iterations $G_p$ will contain a cycle after each additional iteration [@Neg-Surv]. We would like to lower this requirement from $n-1$ to something more in line with runtime of Algorithm \[alg:rand\].
For each vertex $v$ in any input graph $G$ there exists a shortest simple path from the source $s$ to $v$; denote the length of this path by $D'[v]$. This quantity $D'[v]$ will not be calculated by our algorithm, but we will use it in our analysis. If $G$ has a negative cycle, then at some point it will be the case that $D[v] < D'[v]$ for at least one vertex $v$ in $G$.
\[lem:dist2cycle\] If after an iteration of Algorithm \[alg:rand\] we have $D[v] < D'[v]$ for some vertex $v$, then $G_p$ has a cycle.
\[lem:all-ssp\] After $n/3 + 1 + \sqrt{2cn\log n}$ iterations $D[v] \leq D'[v]$ for all $v$ with probability at least $1 - 1/n^{c-1}$.
Let $v$ be a vertex in the input graph, and $u_0 = s, u_1, \ldots, u_n=v$ the shortest simple path to $v$ from the source $s$. Then the proof of Theorem \[thm:run-time\] shows that the edges $u_0u_1, \ldots, u_{n-1}u_n$ will be relaxed in path order, and therefore $D[v] \leq D'[v]$, after $n/3 + 1 + \sqrt{2cn\log n}$ iterations with probabilty at least $1 - 1/n^c$. Combining these probabilities for the distances to individual vertices into a single probability for the whole graph, after $n/3 + 1 + \sqrt{2cn\log n}$ iterations $D[v] \leq D'[v]$ for all vertices $v$ with probability at least $1 - 1/n^{c-1}$.
\[thm:cycle-after\] If the input graph $G$ has a negative cycle reachable from the source, then this can be detected as a cycle in $G_p$ after $n/3 + 2 + \sqrt{2cn\log n}$ iterations with probability at least $1 - 1/n^{c-1}$.
After $n/3 + 1 + \sqrt{2cn\log n}$ we have $D[v] \leq D'[v]$ for all vertices $v$ with probability at least $1-1/n^{c-1}$. The algorithm cannot terminate when negative cycles exist, so a relaxation must happen on the next iteration, which will cause $D[u] < D'[u]$ for some vertex $u$.
In light of Theorem \[thm:cycle-after\] to detect negative cycles we modify Algorithm \[alg:rand\] by performing a cycle detection step in $G_p$ after every iteration beyond $n/3 + 2 + \sqrt{2cn\log n}$. Since $G_p$ has only one outgoing edge per vertex, cycles in it may be detected in time $O(n)$. With probability at least $1-1/n^{c-1}$ we will only perform one round of cycle detection, and in the worst case Yen’s analysis guarantees that a cycle will be found after at most $n/2$ iterations. Therefore, this version of the algorithm has similar high probability time performance to our analysis for sparse graphs that do not have negative cycles.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that randomizing the vertices in a graph before applying Yen’s improvement of the Bellman–Ford algorithm causes the algorithm to use $2/3$ of the number of relaxations (either in expectation or with high probability) compared to its performance in the worst case without this optimization. This is the first constant factor improvement in this basic graph algorithm since Yen’s original improvements in the early 1970s. Further we can expect practical improvements in runtime inline with Yen’s observations [@Yen-Book], as we have only added a single linear time step for randomization.
Our improvement for negative cycle detection works only for our sparse graph analysis. For dense graphs, we get the same bound on the number of iterations until a negative cycle can be detected with high probability using subtree traversal, but (if a negative cycle exists) we may not be able to control the number of relaxation steps per iteration of the algorithm, leading to a worse bound on the total number of relaxations than in the case when a negative cycle does not exist. However, our high probability bounds also allow us to turn the dense graph shortest path algorithm into a Monte Carlo algorithm for negative cycle detection. We simply run the algorithm for dense graphs without negative cycles, and if the algorithm runs for more than the $n^3/6+o(n^3)$ relaxations given by our high probability bound, we declare that the graph has a negative cycle, with only a small probability of an erroneous result. We leave as an open question the possibility of obtaining an equally fast Las Vegas algorithm for this case.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant 0830403, and by the Office of Naval Research under MURI grant N00014-08-1-1015.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the hydrodynamic theory of an active fluid of self-propelled particles with nematic aligning interactions. This class of materials has polar symmetry at the microscopic level, but forms macrostates of nematic symmetry. We highlight three key features of the dynamics. First, as in polar active fluids, the control parameter for the order-disorder transition, namely the density, is dynamically convected by active currents, resulting in a generic, model independent dynamical self-regulation that destabilizes the uniform nematic state near the mean-field transition. Secondly, curvature driven currents render the system unstable deep in the nematic state, as found previously. Finally, and unique to self-propelled nematics, nematic order induces local polar order that in turn leads to the growth of density fluctuations. We propose this as a possible mechanism for the smectic order of polar clusters seen in numerical simulations.'
author:
- 'Aparna Baskaran$^{1}$ and M. Cristina Marchetti$^{2}$'
bibliography:
- 'Baskaran-MCM-EPJE-2012.bib'
title: 'Self-regulation in Self-Propelled Nematic Fluids'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Active materials are soft materials driven out of equilibrium by energy input at the microscale. This liberates the fluctuations from the constraints of equilibrium such as fluctuation-dissipation relations and reciprocity. As a consequence, several exotic emergent behaviors result, such as long range order in 2D [@Toner1995; @Toner1998], anomalous fluctuations [@Ramaswamy2003; @Narayan2007], dynamical structures and patterns [@Koch1994; @Budrene1991; @Budrene1995; @Matsushita1997]. In addition to serving as prototypical systems to explore emergent dynamical behavior, active materials also form the physical scaffold of biological systems in that active matter, when coupled to regulatory signaling pathways, provides a model for a variety of living systems, such as bacterial biofilms or the cytoskeleton of a cell.
Active particles are generally elongated and form orientationally ordered states [@Ramaswamy2010]. The nature of the ordered state depends on both the symmetry of the individual particles and the symmetry of the aligning interactions (see Fig. \[Fig1\]). Physical realizations of *polar* active particles (characterized by a head and a tail) include bacteria, asymmetric vibrated granular rods, and polarized migrating cells. Polar active entities are often modeled as self-propelled (SP) particles, where the activity is incorporated via a self-propulsion velocity of the individual entities. *Apolar* (head-tail symmetric) active particles, often referred to as “shakers”, have also been considered in the literature. Realizations are symmetric vibrated rods [@Narayan2007]. It has also been argued that melanocytes, the cell that distribute pigments in our skins, may effectively behave as “shakers” [@Gruler1999; @Kemkemer2000].
The nature of the interaction is of course crucial in controlling the properties of the ordered state. Apolar active particles generally experience apolar interactions and the resulting ordered state has the symmetry of equilibrium nematic liquid crystals. The broken orientational symmetry identifies a direction ${\bf \hat{n}}$, but the ordered state is invariant for ${\bf \hat{n}}\rightarrow -{\bf \hat{n}}$. The properties of these *active nematic* fluids have been studied by several authors [@Simha2002; @Ramaswamy2003]. SP and polar particles may experience either polar interactions, i.e., ones that tend to align particles head to head and tail to tail, or interactions that are apolar, i.e, align particles regardless of their polarity. A well studied example of polar particles with polar interactions is provided by Vicsek-type models [@Vicsek1995; @Gregoire2004]. This class of active systems can order in polar states, characterized by a nonzero vector order parameter and mean motion, and will be referred to as *active polar* fluids.
![ Top - active particles of various microscopic symmetry: (a) Polar active particles with head/tail asymmetry resulting in polar interactions, as studied in [@Vicsek1995; @Gregoire2004], (b) Apolar active particles, as studied in [@Simha2002; @Ramaswamy2003], (c) Sels-propelled particles, with physical head-tail symmetry, resulting in apolar interactions. Bottom - ordered macroscopic states of active particles: polar active fluid (left) formed by polar particles (a) with polar interactions; active nematic fluid (center) formed by apolar particles (b) with apolar interactions; self-propelled active nematic fluid (right) formed by self-propelled particles (c) with apolar interactions.[]{data-label="Fig1"}](Fig0-v2.pdf){width="8cm"}
One can envisage a third class of active fluids that consists of SP particles whose emergent macrostates are nematic in symmetry. A realization of this is self-propelled particles with physical interactions, such as steric repulsion or hydrodynamic interactions among swimmers in a suspension. It has been shown that these interactions lead to nematic, rather than polar order [@Baskaran2008a; @Baskaran2009]. What is key is the fact that interactions such as steric collisions or hydrodynamic couplings individually conserve momentum and hence cannot lead to the development of a macroscopic momentum for the system. The ordered state of these systems has nematic symmetry, but as we will see below its properties are distinct from those of active nematics composed of apolar particles. Here we refer to this third class of active systems as *self-propelled nematic* fluids. Further, it has recently become apparent that models of polar particles with apolar interactions may be relevant to a number of physical systems, including gliding myxobacteria [@Peruani2012], suspensions of self-catalythic Janus colloids [@Palacci2010] and motile epithelial cell sheets such as those studied in wound healing assays [@Saez2007; @Petitjean2010]. Self-propelled nematics therefore represent an important new class of active systems of direct experimental relevance.
A useful theoretical framework for describing the collective behavior of active systems is a continuum model that generalizes liquid crystal hydrodynamics to include new terms induced by activity [@Simha2002; @Kruse2004; @Voituriez2005; @Voituriez2006; @Marenduzzo2007; @Giomi2008; @Cates2008; @Sokolov2009; @Giomi2010; @Saintillan2010]. In this paper, we consider a minimal phenomenological continuum model of self-propelled nematics based on the equations derived by us from a microscopic model of SP hard rods. We show that in these systems it is important to explicitly retain the dynamics of both the collective velocity or polarization field of the particles and of the nematic order parameter to unfold the mechanisms at play in the formation of emergent structures. Further, we show that *all* active nematics (both consisting of shakers and SP particles) exhibit the phenomenon of dynamical self regulation, due to the fact that the parameter controlling the order-disorder transition, namely the density $\rho $ of active particles, is not externally tuned, as in systems undergoing equilibrium phase transitions, but it is dynamically coupled to the order parameter. This coupling is analogue to the one present in polar fluids [@Toner1995; @Toner1998; @Toner2005] and is a generic mechanism for emergent structure in all active systems, as demonstrated in our recent work [@Gopinath2012].
The layout of the paper is as follows. First, we construct the hydrodynamic description of a self-propelled nematic using symmetry considerations highlighting the key features that distinguish the dynamics of the system from that of an active nematic. Then we examine the linear stability of the homogeneous nematic state. We show that there exists three dynamical mechanisms responsible for emergent structures in active fluids with nematic symmetry. The first is a model-independent instability that occurs in the vicinity of the mean field order disorder transition due to the coupling between order parameter and mass transport which renders the dynamics of the system self regulating. We argue that this instability is the basis for the emergence of bands and phase separation found ubiquitously active systems [@Chate2006; @Yang2010; @Ginelli2010]. The second is the well known instability of director fluctuations that arises from nonequilibrium curvature-induced fluxes and is closely related to the giant number fluctuations observed in these systems [@Simha2002; @Ramaswamy2003]. These two instabilities are common to both active nematics and self-propelled nematics, i.e., occur regardless of the symmetry of the microdynamics. Finally, we show that there exists a third instability unique to self-propelled nematic fluids due to the fact that in these systems, large scale nematic order can induce local polar order, which in turn destabilizes the density. This mechanism may be responsible for the smectic order of polar clusters observed recently in simulations of SP rods [@Yang2010; @Sam2012]. We conclude with a brief discussion.
The Macroscopic Theory {#sec:macro}
======================
The hydrodynamic equations of a self-propelled nematic have been derived from systematic coarse-graining of specific microscopic models [@Baskaran2008a; @Baskaran2009]. Here we introduce these equations phenomenologically, with the goal of examining the dynamics without the limitations imposed by the specific parameter values obtained from a microscopic model or resulting from the choice of the closure used in the kinetic equation.
We limit ourselves to overdamped systems in two dimensions. The hydrodynamic equations are then written in terms of three continuum fields: the conserved number density $\rho \left( \mathbf{r},t\right) $ of active units, the polarization density $\bm\tau({\bf r},t)=\rho({\bf r},t)
\mathbf{P}\left( \mathbf{r},t\right) $, with $\mathbf{P}\left( \mathbf{r},t\right)$ a polarization order parameter, and the nematic alignment density tensor $Q_{ij}({\bf r},t)=\rho({\bf r},t)S_{ij}\left( \mathbf{r},t\right) $. The polarization ${\bf P}$ is directly proportional to the collective velocity of the active particles, while $S_{ij}$ is the conventional nematic order parameter tensor familiar from liquid crystal physics. For a uniaxial system in two dimensions, $Q_{ij}$ is a symmetric traceless tensor with only two independent components and can be written in terms of a unit vector ${\bf \hat{n}}$ as $Q_{ij}=Q(\hat{n}_i\hat{n}_j-\frac12\delta_{ij})$, where $Q=\rho S$; $S$ is the magnitude of the order parameter and the director ${\bf \hat{n}}$ identifies the direction of spontaneously broken symmetry in the nematic state. For simplicity most of the discussion below refers to the case where the active particles are modeled as long thin rods with repulsive interactions.
Active Nematic Hydrodynamics {#subsec:active_nematic}
----------------------------
We first construct the dynamical equations of the system including single-particle convection terms induced by self propulsion, but assuming that self-propulsion does not modify the interaction between two rods. The hydrodynamic equations then take the form [@Baskaran2008]
$$\begin{gathered}
\partial _{t}\rho +v_{0}\nabla \cdot \bm{\tau }=D\nabla ^{2}\rho
\label{1.1}\\
\partial _{t}\bm{\tau }+D_r\bm{\tau }+v_{0}\nabla \cdot \mathbf{Q}+
\frac{v_{0}}{2}\nabla \rho =D_\tau\nabla ^{2}\bm{\tau } \label{1.2}\end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{t}Q_{ij}-&D_r\left[ \alpha\left( \rho \right) -\beta
{\bf Q}{\bf :}{\bf Q}\right] Q_{ij}+v_{0}F_{ij} = D_{b}\nabla ^{2}Q_{ij}\notag\\
&+D_{s}\partial _{k}\left( \partial _{i}Q_{kj}+\partial
_{j}Q_{ik}-\delta _{ij}\partial _{l}Q_{kl}\right)\notag\\
&\label{1.3}
\end{aligned}$$
where ${\bf Q}{\bf :}{\bf Q}=Q_{kl}Q_{kl}$, $D_r$ is the rotational diffusion rate, and $F_{ij}=\left( \partial _{i}\tau _{j}+\partial _{j}\tau _{i}-\delta
_{ij}\nabla \cdot \tau \right)$. All terms proportional to $v_0$ arise from one-particle convection due to self-propulsion and are the only consequence of activity in this simple model. The repulsive interactions among the particles generate the cubic homogeneous term (with $\beta>0$) on the right hand side of Eq. and a change in sign of $\alpha(\rho)\sim \rho-\rho_c$ at a critical density $\rho_c$, controlling the transition between the isotropic and the nematic states. [^1] Interactions also give density-dependent corrections to the various diffusion coefficients for density ($D$), polarization ($D_\tau$), splay ($D_s$) and bend ($D_b$) deformations of the nematic alignment tensor. We will ignore all such corrections in the following [^2]. Due to the fact that the interactions are purely nematic, the polarization $\bm \tau $ decays on short time scales $\sim D_r^{-1}$ for all strengths of activity. At long time, a hydrodynamic description can then be obtained by neglecting $\partial_t\bm\tau$ in Eq. , and using Eq. to eliminate $\bm\tau$ from the other equations, with the result (to leading order in gradients)
$$\begin{gathered}
\partial _{t}\rho =D\nabla ^{2}\rho+{\cal D}_Q\bm\nabla\bm\nabla{\bf :}{\bf Q}
\label{2.1}\end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial _{t}Q_{ij}-&D_r\left[ \alpha\left( \rho \right) -\beta
{\bf Q}{\bf :}{\bf Q}\right] Q_{ij} = D_{b}\nabla ^{2}Q_{ij}\notag\\
&+D_{s}\partial _{k}\left( \partial _{i}Q_{kj}+\partial
_{j}Q_{ik}-\delta _{ij}\partial _{l}Q_{kl}\right)\notag\\
&+{\cal D}_\rho( \partial _{i}\partial _{j}-\frac12\delta _{ij}\nabla
^{2}) \rho
&\label{2.2}
\end{aligned}$$
\[2\]
This procedure yields qualitative new terms proportional to ${\cal D}_Q$ and ${\cal D}_\rho$ that vanish in equilibrium. The term proportional to ${\cal D}_Q$ is the curvature induced density flux that has been discussed extensively by Ramaswamy and collaborators [@Ramaswamy2003] and shown to be responsible for giant number fluctuations in the ordered state of active nematic. The diffusive coupling proportional to ${\cal D}_\rho$ describes similar physics but has not been considered in earlier description of active nematic fluids. In addition, activity also yields corrections to the various diffusion coefficients. We have, however, implicitly neglected those here by retaining the same notation for these quantities as in Eqs. - to highlight the difference between these corrections that do not change the dynamics qualitatively and the new terms proportional to ${\cal D}_Q$ and ${\cal D}_\rho$. Although obtained here by considering a system of self-propelled particles, Eqs. and have the same structure as the hydrodynamic equations of an active nematic, consisting of a collection of *apolar* active particles (shakers) with apolar interactions. This is an important point as it stresses that the qualitative differences between active and self-propelled nematic that have been observed in simulations must arise entirely from the dependence of the interaction on self propulsion $v_0$.
Momentum-conserving interaction of self-propelled nematogens {#subsec:interaction}
------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Ref. [@Baskaran2008a] and supported by simulations of self-propelled hard rods [@Peruani2006; @Ginelli2010; @Yang2010], self-propulsion does modify the repulsive interaction in a qualitative way. This modification results in local build-up of polarization in the nematic state, making it necessary to retain the dynamics of polarization density in the continuum model.
![ Illustration of momentum conserving collisions among self propelled particles. It can readily be shown that two rods as shown in (a), coming in with only their self-replenishing velocities, will acquire opposite angular momenta $\bm\omega _{1}\sim {\bf \hat{z}} \ell v_{0}\left[{\bf \hat{z}}\cdot\left( \mathbf{\hat{u}}\right]%
_{1}\times \mathbf{\hat{u}}_{2}\right) $ and $\bm\omega _{2}\sim-{\bf \hat{z}} \ell
v_{0} \left(
\mathbf{\hat{u}}_{1}\cdot \mathbf{\hat{u}}_{2}\right)\left[{\bf \hat{z}}\cdot\left( \mathbf{\hat{u}}_{1}\times \mathbf{\hat{u}}_{2}\right)\right] $, where the vectors are defined in the image and in [@Baskaran2010]. The collision will therefore induce rotations as indicated, promoting alignment of the two rods. On the other hand, two nearly antialigned rods as in (b) acquire angular momenta of the same sign, inducing rotation of both rods in the same directions, and leaving their relative angle unchanged. []{data-label="Fig1.1"}](Fig1.pdf){width="49.00000%"}
The modification of the Onsager excluded volume interactions among hard rods due to self propulsion is worked out in Ref. [@Baskaran2010]. Here we simply give a qualitative description of this effect and we refer the reader to that work for the technical details. First we note that the presence of a self propulsion speed along the long axis of the nematogen, results in a breaking of the nematic symmetry of the the microdynamics, as shown in Fig. \[Fig1\]. On the other hand, since the interactions conserve momentum, this cannot lead to a macroscopic breaking of polar symmetry as this would amount to the appearance of a spontaneous macroscopic momentum from a zero momentum state. Hence, only a homogeneous ordered nematic state can occur and the associated mean field transition will be the same as in the case of the active nematic considered above, albeit with coefficients $
\alpha$ and $\beta$ renormalized by self-propulsion [@Baskaran2008a]. Even though the polar symmetry cannot be broken macroscopically, momentum conservation allows the nematic ordering to induce local polar order in the system. To illustrate this, let us consider hard rods in two dimensions undergoing energy-momentum conserving interactions. As shown in Fig. (\[Fig1.1\]), the angular momentum transfer due to the linear momentum from self-propulsion for a collision between two rods scales as $\omega \sim \cos \left(
\theta _{1}-\theta _{2}\right) \sin \left( \theta _{1}-\theta _{2}\right) $. If the rods are nearly aligned head to head (as in Fig \[Fig1.1\].a), the effect of this angular momentum is to turn the rods towards each other, while if they are nearly aligned head to tail as in Fig \[Fig1.1\].b, the collision turns both rods in the same direction, leaving their relative angle unchanged. This mechanism effectively promotes head-to-head alignment. Since collisions among such nearly aligned nematogens will dominate the dynamics in the nematic state, the nematic order effectively induces polar order.
Self-propelled Nematic Hydrodynamics {#subsec:sp_nematic}
------------------------------------
The fact that interactions among self-propelled nematogens tend to induce polar order is reflected in the hydrodynamic description by a number of new nonlinear terms that couple $\bm\tau$ and ${\bf Q}$, with coefficients that vanish in the limit $v_0=0$. The continuum equations for a self-propelled nematic that incorporate the above physics are given by
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{3.1}
\partial _{t}\rho +v_{0}\nabla \cdot \bm{\tau }=D
\nabla ^{2}\rho +\mathcal{D}_{Q}\nabla \nabla :\mathbf{Q}\\
%
\partial _{t}\bm{\tau }+D_r\bm{\tau }+\gamma_1{\bf Q}{\bf :}{\bf Q}\bm\tau-\gamma_2\bm{\tau \cdot Q}
+\lambda_1 \bm{\tau }\cdot \nabla \bm{\tau } \mathbf{=}-v_{0}\bm\nabla
\cdot \mathbf{Q}-\frac{v_{0}}{2}\nabla \rho
+\lambda _{2}\bm{\tau }\nabla \cdot \bm{\tau }+\frac{\lambda _{3}}{2}\nabla
\tau ^{2}+D_{\tau}\nabla ^{2}\bm{\tau }
\label{3.2}\\
%
\partial _{t}Q_{ij}-D_r(\alpha-\beta {\bf Q}{\bf :}{\bf Q}) Q_{ij}+v_0F_{ij}+\lambda _{4}G_{ij} =
\mathcal{D}_\rho( \partial _{i}\partial _{j}-\frac{\delta _{ij}}{2}%
\nabla ^{2}) \rho
+D_{s}\partial _{k}\left( \partial _{i}Q_{kj}+\partial
_{j}Q_{ik}-\delta _{ij}\partial _{l}Q_{kl}\right)
+D_{b}\nabla ^{2}Q_{ij}
\label{3.3}\end{gathered}$$
\[3\]
where again we have implicitly neglected active corrections to $D$, $D_\tau$, $D_s$ and $D_b$ to highlight the new, purely active terms. Activity enters in Eqs. through the convective terms proportional to $
v_{0}$, the new terms with coefficients $\gamma_i$ and to $\lambda_i $, which vanish in equilibrium, as well as the terms proportional to ${\cal D}_Q$ and ${\cal D}_\rho$ that arise here from active corrections to interactions. Finally, the parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ controlling the mean field isotropic-nematic transition are also renormalized by activity. The homogeneous nonlinearities proportional to $\gamma_i$ in the polarization equation encode the fact that nematic order induces polar order. The latter is, however, only local as the equations do not a admit a homogeneous solution with nonzero $\bm\tau$. Further, the active modification of the interactions, yield the convective nonlinearities $\sim{\cal O}(\bm{\tau }\nabla \bm{\tau })$ that play a central role in the emergent physics of active polar fluids.
Since the goal of this presentation is to highlight the mechanisms responsible for emergent structures, we simplify the equations by setting all of the equilibrium-like diffusion coefficients to be equal, i.e., $D=D_\tau=D_b=D_{0}$, with the exception of the splay relaxation constants $D_{s}$. In addition, we assume $\lambda_i=\lambda $ for all $i$’s and $\gamma_1=\gamma_2=\gamma$. Finally, we measure time in units of $1/D_r$ and lengths in units of $
\sqrt{D_{0}/D_r}$. The hydrodynamic equations then simplify to (in nondimensional form)
$$\begin{gathered}
\partial _{t}\rho +\overline{v}\bm\nabla \cdot \bm\tau=\nabla ^{2}\rho +
\overline{D}_Q\bm\nabla \bm\nabla :\mathbf{Q} \label{4.1}\\
%
\partial _{t}\bm{\tau }+\left(1+\gamma{\bf Q}{\bf :}{\bf Q}\right)\bm\tau-\gamma\bm{\tau \cdot Q}
+\lambda \bm{\tau }\cdot \nabla \bm{\tau } =-\overline{v}
\bm\nabla \cdot \mathbf{Q}-\frac{\overline{v}}{2}\bm\nabla \rho
+\lambda \left( \bm{\tau }\nabla \cdot \bm{\tau }+\frac12\nabla \tau
^{2}\right) +\nabla ^{2}\bm{\tau } \label{4.2} \\
%
\partial _{t}Q_{ij}-\left( \alpha-\beta{\bf Q}{\bf :}{\bf Q} \right) Q_{ij}+\overline{v} F_{ij}+\lambda G_{ij} =
\overline{D}_\rho( \partial _{i}\partial _{j}-\frac12 \delta _{ij}\nabla ^{2}) \rho
+\overline{D}_{S}\partial _{k}\left( \partial _{i}Q_{kj}+\partial
_{j}Q_{ik}-\delta _{ij}\partial _{l}Q_{kl}\right)
+\nabla ^{2}Q_{ij}
\label{4.3}\end{gathered}$$
\[4\]
with $\overline{D}_Q={\cal D}_Q/D_0$, $\overline{D}_\rho={\cal D}_\rho/D_0$ and $\overline{D}_s=D_s/D_0$. Finally, we assume $\alpha=\frac{\rho }{\rho _{c}}-1 $ and $
\beta $ independent of $\rho$. The effect of activity is assumed to affect the mean field phase transition only through the dependence of the critical density $\rho _{c}$ on the magnitude of self-propulsion speed. In this simplified form, the dynamics of the system is characterized by two central parameters: the mean density $\rho _{0}$ of active nematogens and the self-propulsion velocity $\overline{
v}=v_0/\sqrt{D_rD_0}$, which is effectively the Peclet number for this flow. The other parameters $\gamma$, $\lambda$, $\overline{D}_Q$, $\overline{D}_\rho$ and $\overline{D}_s$ are in general functions of $\rho _{0}$ and $\overline{v}$, although we will treat them here as independent parameters and simply fix their values.
Linear Dynamics and Emergent Structures {#sec:emergent}
=======================================
The dynamics of self propelled rod-like particles with steric repulsion has been studied extensively by numerical simulation of microscopic models [@Mishra2006; @Chate2006; @Yang2010; @Sam2012]. This work has revealed a rich variety of emergent structures, including bands of high density regions where the particles are ordered along the direction of the band, lane formation, migrating defect structures and low Reynolds number turbulence. Here we examine the minimal continuum model of self-propelled nematic given by Eqs. to identify the generic dynamical mechanisms responsible for the emergence of these structures. As mentioned above, there are three important mechanisms for dynamical instabilities and parttern formation in these systems. To unfold the role of each of these mechanisms in controlling the large-scale dynamics of the system, we analyze the linear stability of the ordered nematic state in various special cases that best highlight a particular mechanism.
The ordered nematic state has constant density $\rho_0$, zero mean polarization density, $\bm\tau_0=0$, and a finite value for the nematic alignment tensor. Choosing a coordinate system with the $x$ axis pointing along the direction of broken nematic symmetry, the alignment tensor in the uniform nematic state has components $Q^0_{xx}=-Q^0_{yy}=Q_0/2$ and $Q^0_{xy}=Q^0_{yx}=0$, with $Q_0=\sqrt{\alpha_0/\beta}$ and $\alpha_0=\alpha(\rho_0)$. We now examine the linear stability of this state in various regions of parameters by considering the dynamics of small fluctuations, $\delta\rho({\bf r},t)=\rho({\bf r},t)-\rho_0$, $\delta\bm\tau({\bf r},t)=\bm\tau({\bf r},t)$ and $\delta Q_{ij}({\bf r},t)=Q_{ij}({\bf r},t)-Q_{ij}^0$. We will generally work in Fourier space by introducing Fourier transforms of the fluctuations as $\phi^\alpha_{\bf k}(t)=\int_{\bf r}e^{i{\bf k}\cdot{\bf r}}\delta\phi_\alpha({\bf r},t)$, where $\delta\phi_\alpha=\left(\delta\rho,\bm\tau,\delta Q_{ij}\right)$.
Dynamical Self-Regulation and Banding Instability {#subsec:self-reg}
-------------------------------------------------
We first consider the linear dynamics of the system in the region just above the mean-field transition at $\rho_c$. For simplicity we only discuss spatial variations normal to the direction of broken symmetry, as these correspond to the most unstable modes, i.e., let $\mathbf{k}=k\mathbf{\hat{y}}$. Fluctuations in $\tau
_{x}$ and $\delta Q_{xy}$ then decouple and are always stable. The dynamics of fluctuations in $\delta \rho $, $\tau _{y}$ and $\delta Q_{yy}$ is governed by three coupled equations. Fluctuations in $\tau _{y}$ are always quickly damped near the mean-field transition, while the decay rate of $\delta Q_{yy}$, controlled to leading order by $\alpha _{0}$, vanishes as $\rho _{0}\rightarrow \rho _{c}^{+}$. We therefore neglect fluctuations in $\tau _{y}$ and simply examine the coupled dynamics of $\delta \rho $ and $\delta Q\equiv \delta Q_{yy}$, given by
$$\begin{gathered}
\partial _{t}\delta \rho _{\mathbf{k}}=-k^{2}\delta \rho _{\mathbf{k}}-
\overline{D}_Qk^{2}\delta Q_{\mathbf{k}} \label{6.1} \\
\partial _{t}\delta Q_{\mathbf{k}}=-\left[\frac{ \alpha _{0}}{2}+(1+\overline{D}
_{s})k^{2}\right] \delta Q_{\mathbf{k}}-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha ^{\prime
}Q_{0}+\overline{D}_\rho k^{2})\delta \rho _{\mathbf{k}} \label{6.2}\end{gathered}$$
where $\alpha ^{\prime }=\left( \frac{\partial \alpha }{\partial \rho }%
\right) _{\rho =\rho _{0}}$, or $\alpha ^{\prime }=1/\rho _{c}$ with the chosen parameters. The decay of density and ordered parameter fluctuations is then controlled by two coupled hydrodynamic modes. One of the modes has a finite decay rate (proportional to $\alpha _{0}$) in the limit $k\rightarrow
0$ and is always stable. At small wavevector, the dispersion relation of the other mode is given by
$$s_{y}(k)=-s_{2}k^{2}-s_{4}k^{4}+\mathcal{O}(k^{6})\;. \label{7}$$
with $s_{2}=1-\frac{\overline{D}\alpha ^{\prime }}{\sqrt{\alpha _{0}\beta }}$ and $s_{4}>0$. Near the transition where $\alpha _{0}\rightarrow 0$, $s_{2}<0
$ and $s_{4}\simeq \frac{2\overline{D}^{2}\alpha ^{^{\prime }2}}{\alpha
_{0}^{2}\beta }$. As a result, $s_{y}(k)>0$ for a range of wavevectors, resulting in the unstable growth of density and order parameter fluctuations illustrated in Fig. \[Fig3\]. The fastest growing mode has wave vector $k_{0}=\sqrt{
-s_{2}/2s_{4}}\sim (\rho _{0}-\rho _{c})^{3/2}$. Including the coupling to $\tau_y$ will yield finite Peclet number corrections to the instability. Note that this instability is strongest in the vicinity of the order-disorder transition and is a manifestation of the fact that the dynamics of the system is self regulating, i.e., the control parameter associated with the phase transition, namely the density is dynamically coupled to the emergent ordering that results from the transition through the curvature induced fluxes. This is the dynamics that leads the system to be intrinsically phase separated [@Ramaswamy2003].
![ The banding instability that occurs due to the self-regulating nature of the flow. The striped region is the parameter space in which this instability occurs.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](Fig3.pdf){width="6cm"}
We recall that polar active fluids exhibit a similar instability for wave vectors parallel to the direction of mean order. In that case the mode that goes unstable is a propagating mode and the instability signals the onset of solitary waves consisting of alternating ordered and disordered bands extending in the direction normal to that of mean order and traveling along the direction of broken symmetry. These bands have been observed in simulations of the Vicsek model [@Gregoire2004; @Chate2008], as well as in numerical solutions of the nonlinear hydrodynamic equations for polar fluids [@Bertin2006; @Bertin2009; @Mishra2010]. We have shown here that active nematics exhibit a similar instability, controlled by the interplay of of curvature currents ($\overline{D}_Q$) and the self-regulation due to the density dependence of $\alpha $. The instability occurs even for $\overline{v}=0$, i.e., is present in both active and self-propelled nematics. It occurs for wavevectors perpendicular to the direction of broken nematic symmetry and the mode that goes unstable is a diffusive one. It is therefore tempting to associate it with the emergence of the stationary bands consisting of alternating ordered (nematic) and disorders regions that have been seems in simulations of active systems with apolar interactions [@Chate2006] and physical excluded volume interactions [@Yang2010],[@Sam2012]. Finally, but most importantly, this instability mechanism is *generic*, in the sense that it does not depend on microscopic parameters, but only on the presence of a dynamical feedback between density and active currents.
Curvature Induced Flux {#subsec:curvature}
----------------------
Next we consider the region of small $\overline{v}$, $\lambda $ and $\gamma $, deep in the nematic phase. In this case, the long-wavelength dynamics is controlled by hydrodynamic modes associated with fluctuations in the density and the director $\mathbf{\hat{n}}$. This case has been considered in the literature already and is summarized here for completeness [@Simha2002a; @Ramaswamy2003; @Baskaran2008]. For our choice of coordinates to linear order we have $\delta Q_{{xx}}=-\delta Q_{yy}=0$ and $\delta Q_{xy}=\delta
Q_{yx}=Q_{0}\delta \hat{n}\left( \mathbf{r},t\right) $. Neglecting polarization fluctuations that decay on microscopic time scales, the linearized equations are given by
$$\begin{gathered}
\partial _{t}\delta \rho _{\mathbf{k}}=-k^{2}\delta \rho _{\mathbf{k}}-Q_{0}%
\overline{D}k^{2}\sin 2\theta \delta \hat{n}_{\mathbf{k}}\;, \label{5.1} \\
\partial _{t}\delta \hat{n}_{\mathbf{k}}=-\frac{\overline{D}_\rho k^2}{2Q_{0}}\sin 2\theta
\delta \rho _{\mathbf{k}}+\left[ \overline{D}_{s}+\cos 2\theta \right]
k^{2}\delta \hat{n}_{\mathbf{k}}\;, \label{5.2}\end{gathered}$$
where $\theta $ is the angle between $\mathbf{k}$ and the direction of broken symmetry ($x$). If $\theta=0,\pi$, the two equations are decoupled and the modes are diffusive and stable. For general $\theta$ one of the hydrodynamic modes becomes unstable for $\overline{D}\overline{D}_\rho\sin^{2} 2\theta >2(\overline{D}_{s}+\cos 2\theta)$. This can be satisfied provided $\overline{D}_Q\overline{D}_\rho>2D_{s}$, i.e., the curvature driven fluxes exceed the restoring effects of diffusion. This instability has been discussed in detail elsewhere [@Baskaran2008].
Induced Polar Order {#subsec:polar}
--------------------
Finally, we examine the effect of fluctuations with spatial variations along the direction of broken symmetry, i.e., $\mathbf{k}=k\mathbf{\hat{x}}$. The relevant coupled fluctuations in this case are $\delta \rho $, $\tau _{x}$ and $
\delta Q_{xx}$. For simplicity, we consider the regime of large Peclet number $\overline{v}$, where the linear dynamics is controlled by Euler order terms and neglect terms quadratic in the gradients, with the result $$\begin{gathered}
\partial _{t}\delta \rho _{\mathbf{k}}+ik\overline{v}\tau _{x,\mathbf{k}}=0
\label{7.1} \\
\partial _{t}\tau _{x,\mathbf{k}}+\gamma _{e}\tau _{x,\mathbf{k}}=-ik%
\overline{v}\delta Q_{xx,\mathbf{k}}-ik\frac{\overline{v}}{2}\delta \rho _{%
\mathbf{k}} \label{7.2} \\
\partial _{t}\delta Q_{xx,\mathbf{k}}-\frac{\alpha _{0}}{2}\delta Q_{xx,%
\mathbf{k}}=ik\left( \overline{v}+\frac{\lambda }{2}Q_{0}\right) \tau _{x,%
\mathbf{k}}+\frac{\alpha ^{\prime }}{2}Q_{0}\delta \rho _{\mathbf{k}}
\label{7.3}\end{gathered}$$where $\gamma _{e}=1+\frac{\gamma }{2}Q_{0}^{2}-\frac{\gamma }{2}Q_{0}$. As discussed earlier and highlighted in Fig. \[Fig1.1\], the anisotropy of small angle collisions in the nematic state enhances polar order by suppressing the decay rate of $\tau _{x,\mathbf{k}}$ from its bare value of $
1$ (in units of $D_{r}^{-1}$) to $\gamma _{e}$. The dispersion relations of the hydrodynamic modes associated with Eqs. are easily calculated at small wavevectors. Clearly, if $\gamma _{e}\leq 0$, In addition, as a consequence of this built up of polar order, the diffusive mode associated with the density fluctuations (i.e., the only truly hydrodynamic mode in these considerations), given by $$s_{x}(k)=-k^{2}\frac{\overline{v}^{2}}{2\gamma _{e}}\left( 1+\frac{%
2\alpha ^{\prime }}{\sqrt{\alpha _{0}\beta }}\right) \label{8}$$ becomes unstable. In general $\gamma _{e}$ depends on microscopic details of the model, but there is no reason to exclude a priori that it could change sign and indeed does for the case of long thin hard rods with excluded volume interactions [@Baskaran2008]. The linear analysis here is of limited utility because of the existence of a homogeneous instability but is shown here to indicate that the build up of polarization due to the momentum conserving nature of the interactions has a dramatic consequence on the dynamics of the system. This may indeed be the mechanism responsible for the smectic order observed within a single polar cluster in simulations of self-propelled rods [@Yang2010; @Sam2012]. Finally, we stress that the nonlinear homogeneous terms proportional to $\gamma $ and responsible for the renormalization of $\gamma
_{e}$ always vanish in an equilibrium state because the nematic symmetry of such a state by definition forbids a nonzero uniform value of the mean polarization.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We have considered in this paper the hydrodynamics of active overdamped fluids that can order in nematic states. These are collections of active particles that interact via apolar (nematic) aligning interactions, such as steric repulsion or medium-mediated hydrodynamic couplings. One can identify two classes of such fluids, depending on the properties of the individual active units. Active nematics consist of shaker particles that are themselves apolar. Self-propelled nematics are collections of particles that are physically head-tail symmetric (such as SP rods), but where a microscopic dynamical polarity is induced by self-propulsion . Although both systems form ordered states of nematic symmetry, their dynamical behavior is qualitatively different, as seen in recent simulations [@Peruani2006; @Ginelli2010; @Yang2010].
The hydrodynamic equations of active nematics have the form given in Eqs. [2]{}. We have shown that the same equations are also obtained by considering SP particles and neglecting the effect of self-propulsion on the interaction between active units, suggesting that the active nematic may be considered the zero Peclet number $\overline{v}$ limit of self-propelled nematic. In this case the only active term is the curvature current proportional to ${\cal D}_Q$ in Eq. . This non equilibrium coupling of orientation and flow induces instabilities of the ordered state that have been studied before in the literature [@Simha2002; @Ramaswamy2003; @Baskaran2008] and are also summarized in section. \[subsec:curvature\]. The curvature current is also key in controlling the banding instability arising from dynamical self-regulation discussed in section \[subsec:self-reg\]. In fact this instability, although not discussed before in the literature for overdamped active nematic, occurs in all active fluids of nematic symmetry, both for shakers and self-propelled particles. It arises from the density dependence of the parameter $\alpha(r\rho)$ that controls the mean-field transition and the fact that in active systems $\rho$ is not tuned from the outside, as in equilibrium, but is itself a dynamical variable convected by the order parameter.
The hydrodynamic equations of self-propelled nematics given in Eqs. (or Eqs. in the dimensionless form studied here) contain many new active terms that arise from modifications of the two-body interaction due to self propulsion. These equations have also been derived by us for a specific microscopic model of self-propelled hard rods [@Baskaran2008a; @Baskaran2010], although the low order closure of the kinetic theory used in that work only gives terms up to quadratic in the hydrodynamic fields. Self-propelled nematics also exhibit both the curvature induced instability discussed in section \[subsec:curvature\] and the banding instability discussed in section \[subsec:self-reg\]. Both are of course modified at finite Peclet number due to additional convective contributions to the underlying mechanisms the details of which will be discussed elsewhere. In addition, self-propulsion yields a novel instability due to the built-up of local polar order discussed in section \[subsec:polar\]. This arises because in the nematic state most binary collisions involve nematogens that are nearly aligned or anti aligned, as shown in Fig. \[Fig1.1\]. When the nematogens are self-propelled, collisions of nearly aligned and nearly anti aligned pairs are not identical. Nearly aligned pairs tend to further align upon collisions, while nearly anti-aligned pairs are turned away from each other. As a result, local polar order is enhanced and the nematic state becomes unstable as discussed in section \[subsec:polar\]. It is tempting to associate this instability with the onset of “polar clusters" that have been observed ubiquitously in simulations of self-propelled rods [@Peruani2006; @Ginelli2010; @Yang2010], as well as in experiments in gliding myxobacteria [@Peruani2012].
MCM was supported by the National Science Foundation through awards DMR-0806511 and DMR-1004789. AB was supported by the Brandeis-MRSEC through NSF DMR-0820492.
[^1]: Note that the cubic term was not derived in Ref. [@Baskaran2008], but is easily obtained by a higher order closure of the moment expansion of the kinetic equation.
[^2]: [ Retaining the density dependence of the diffusion coefficients results in interesting emergent structures as shown by [@Cates2010]. Since we seek to focus on fundamental features that do not depend on the detailed structure of the hydrodynamic coefficients, we ignore this physically important feature.]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The long-standing issue of the nature of the critical line of lattice QCD with the Wilson quark action at finite-temperatures, defined to be the line of vanishing pion screening mass, and its relation to the line of finite-temperature chiral transition is examined. Analytical and numerical evidence are presented that the critical line forms a cusp at a finite gauge coupling, and that the line of chiral transition runs past the tip of the cusp without touching the critical line. Implications on the continuum limit and the flavor dependence of chiral transition are discussed.'
author:
- |
S. Aoki, A. Ukawa and T. Umemura\
\
[*Institute of Physics, University of Tsukuba,*]{}\
[*Tsukuba, Ibaraki-305, Japan*]{}
title: |
[UTHEP-313]{}\
\
---
= 23cm = 15.1cm = -0.9cm = -1.5cm
Elucidating the nature of chiral transition separating the high-temperature quark-gluon plasma phase from the low-temperature hadron phase has been one of the focal points of effort in recent numerical simulations of full lattice QCD including light dynamical quarks. Much of work in this direction has employed the Kogut-Susskind quark action since it retains a $U(1)$ subgroup of chiral symmetry. On the other hand, studies with the Wilson quark action are less well developed in spite of the effort over the years[@earlywork; @qcdpaxtwo; @milc]. In fact, two issues, which are fundamental for understanding the chiral transition with this action, have not been fully clarified to date. Both of the issues originate from the difficulty of identifying the chiral limit of massless quark due to the presence of explicit chiral symmetry breaking in the action, which is introduced to avoid the well-known species doubling problem.
For the case of zero temperature pion mass has been conventionally employed to deal with this problem. Let $\beta=6/g^2$ be the inverse gauge coupling and $K$ the hopping parameter which controls quark mass. There is much evidence from analytical considerations and numerical simulations of hadron masses that the pion mass vanishes along a line $K=K_c(\beta)$, the critical line, which runs from $K_c(\beta=0)=1/4$ in the strong-coupling limit to $K_c(\beta=\infty)=1/8$ in the weak-coupling limit. At finite temperatures, one is then naturally led to define the critical line in terms of the pion screening mass extracted from the exponential decay of pion propagator for a large spatial separation. The first issue in understanding the chiral transition is how the critical line thus defined behaves as a function of $\beta$ and the temporal lattice size $N_t$, and how it is related to the critical line at zero temperature.
The second issue concerns the relation of the critical line and the line of finite-temperature chiral transition $K=K_t(\beta)$, the thermal line. Naively one would expect the thermal line to meet the critical line at some value $\beta=\beta_c$. In this case, the region bounded by the thermal line and the critical line for $\beta\leq\beta_c$ represents the low-temperature phase and the other region the high-temperature phase. However, initial simulations[@earlywork] failed to find clear indications of such a behavior; the two lines appeared to run almost parallel toward the region of strong coupling, down to $\beta=5.0-4.5$ for the case of $N_f=2$ flavors. These results raised the question if the two lines meet at all, which has led to subsequent studies[@qcdpaxtwo; @milc]. In particular the QCDPAX Collaboration carried out simulations down to the strong coupling limit $\beta=0$ and concluded that the two lines meet at $\beta\approx 3.9-4.0$[@qcdpaxtwo]. However, their result has not satisfactorily answered the question in our view since the nature of the critical line at finite temperatures we have addressed above has not been clarified in their work.
In this article we report results of our study on the two fundamental issues summarized above. Our analyses are based on the idea of spontaneously breakdown of parity and flavor as a characterization of the critical line, which has been put forward by one of us[@aoki]. The phase structure we found exhibits some unexpected features which we substantiate with analytical arguments and hybrid Monte Carlo simulations of $N_f=2$ flavor full QCD with the Wilson quark action on an $8^3\times 4$ lattice. We shall also discuss implications of our results on the continuum limit of the $N_f=2$ chiral transition and extensions for the case of $N_f\geq 3$.
The starting point of our analysis is the Gross-Neveu model in two dimensions formulated with the Wilson quark action[@eguchinakayama]. Except for confinement, this model has the features quite similar to those of QCD: asymptotic freedom, spontaneous breakdown of chiral symmetry and its restoration at a finite temperature. In the large $N$ limit, the pion mass in this model is analytically calculable in the saddle-point approximation. In Fig. \[fig:fig1\] we plot the critical line corresponding to $m_\pi=0$ on the $(g,m)$ plane for the temporal lattice sizes $N_t=2, 4, 8, 16$ and $\infty$ where $g$ and $m$ are the bare coupling and quark mass, the latter related to the hopping parameter through $K=1/(2m+4)$. The result for $N_t=\infty$, which has been known for some time[@aoki], shows that the critical line forms three cusps which touch the weak-coupling limit $g=0$ at $m=0, -2$ and $-4$. The region outside of the critical line is a normal phase with $m_\pi\ne 0$, while the inside is the phase with spontaneous breakdown of parity characterized by $<\bar\psi\gamma_5\psi >\ne 0$. Conventionally one constructs the continuum limit of the model close to the point $(g,m)=(0,0)$ along the branch of the critical line extending over $\infty\geq g\geq 0$. The existence of additional branches converging toward $(g,m)=(0,-2)$ and $(0,-4)$ arises from a rearrangement of the doubler and massless fermion spectrum as $m$ is varied.
For understanding the phase structure at finite temperatures, the crucial feature revealed in Fig. \[fig:fig1\] is that the three cusps of the critical line retract from the weak-coupling limit $g=0$ for finite temporal lattice sizes, forming a single continuous line which shifts toward strong coupling as $N_t$ becomes smaller. Thus, for a finite $N_t$, the critical line is absent for sufficiently weak coupling. Also noteworthy is the fact that, even in the range of $g$ where the critical line exists, the position of the critical line depends on $N_t$, albeit only slightly for large values of $N_t$.
The close resemblance of the Gross-Neveu model and QCD suggests that a similar behavior of critical line holds for QCD except that the number of cusps should increase to five because of the difference in the number of dimensions. For the zero temperature case, the available evidence supporting this possibility is as follows: (i) In the strong-coupling limit, analytical results in the large $N$ limit for chiral observables such as $<\bar\psi\gamma_5\tau_3\psi >$ and associated susceptibilities show spontaneous breakdown of parity and flavor for $\vert
K\vert\geq 1/4$[@aoki]. Results of a numerical simulation for the $N_f=2$ full QCD system show good agreement with the analytic predictions[@auu]. (ii) A quenched calculation of the number of conjugate gradient iterations needed for inverting the Wilson quark matrix over the range $\beta=5.0-6.0$ revealed the presence of three peaks in the region $K\geq 0$ for $\beta\geq
5.6$[@auu]. (iii) A measurement of hadron masses at $\beta=6.0$ in quenched QCD on a $10^3\times 20$ lattice found clear evidence for three more values of $K_c$ beyond the conventional one at which pion mass vanishes[@auu]. The parity broken phase situated between two successive critical values is narrow, being of order $\delta K_c\approx 0.05-0.1$.
For the finite temperature case, an apparent disappearance of the critical line toward weak coupling has been noticed in previous studies. In the $N_f=2$ results of the MILC Collaboration[@milc] on an $N_t=4$ lattice in the range $\beta=4.9-5.3$, the pion screening mass initially decreases toward larger values of $K$, but it increases beyond the thermal line $K_t(\beta)$. A similar behavior is seen in the data of the QCDPAX Collaboration at $\beta=4.5-4.3$[@qcdpaxtwo]. On the other hand, the conventional critical line has been shown to remain at $\beta=0$ and $3.5$[@qcdpaxtwo]. Therefore, confirming a structure similar to that of Fig. \[fig:fig1\] for QCD requires evidence that the conventional critical line turns back toward strong coupling at some value of $\beta$.
In order to examine this point, we have carried out hybrid Monte Carlo simulations of $N_f=2$ full QCD with the Wilson quark action on an $8^3\times 4$ lattice. Runs were made in the range $3.0 \leq\beta\leq 5.3$ and $0.15\leq K\leq 0.31$, which covers the region beyond the conventional critical line, typically in steps of $\delta\beta=0.5$ and $\delta K=0.01-0.02$. The conjugate gradient method was employed for inverting the Wilson quark matrix with the stopping condition of $\vert\vert\xi-D^\dagger Dx\vert\vert^2/N<10^{-5}$ with $N=\vert\vert x\vert\vert^2$ or $N=12V$ with $V$ the lattice volume. In order to maintain the acceptance at the level of $70-80$% or more, the hybrid Monte Carlo step size was decreased from $\delta\tau=0.02$ to $0.00125$ as $\beta$ is decreased or $K$ is moved closer to the critical line. Choosing the interval of $0.5$ or $0.25$ to be the unit trajectory, at least $50-100$ trajectories were generated after thermalization with local observables measured for each trajectory. At $\beta=4.0$ and $3.5$ hadron propagators were evaluated at every two trajectories by periodically doubling the lattice in spatial directions $8^3\times 4\to (8\times 2)\times
8^2\times 4$.
In Fig. \[fig:fig2\](a) we present our result for $\pi$ and $\rho$ screening masses at $\beta=3.5$ as a function of $1/K$. Also plotted is the quark mass defined via the axial vector Ward identity[@ward]. To the right of the figure is the low-temperature phase bounded by the conventional critical line at $K_c\approx 0.2267$ where the pion mass squared and the quark mass linearly vanish almost simultaneously. Clearly there exists another critical line at $K_c\approx 0.2454$ below which the pion and quark masses behave in a reverse manner. Fig. \[fig:fig2\](b) shows how the behavior changes at $\beta=4.0$. We observe that the gap between the two critical values has either become extremely narrow or disappeared. These results lead us to believe that we have identified one of the cusps of the critical line, with the turning point located in the vicinity of $\beta=4.0$.
Let us now discuss the question whether the thermal line $K_t(\beta)$ crosses the critical line $K_c(\beta)$. In the light of our results above, it should be clear that this can not happen with our definition of $K_c(\beta)$; the part of the critical line beyond the crossing point, assuming it exists, should be in the high temperature phase, where we expect the pion screening mass to be finite, while it vanishes along the entire critical line by definition. In other words the region close to the critical line has to be in the low-temperature phase even after it turns back toward strong coupling. This means that the thermal line should run past the turning point of the critical line and continue toward larger values of $K$.
The validity of this consideration is confirmed through an examination of thermodynamic observables. In Fig. \[fig:fig3\](a) we plot the real part of the Polyakov line and quark and gluon entropy densities in lattice units as a function of $1/K$ at $\beta=3.5$. The two vertical lines show the position of the critical line estimated from the pion screening mass. For small values of $1/K$ the observables take large values typical of the high temperature phase. However, toward the critical line at $K_c\approx 0.2454$, they decrease, becoming roughly similar in magnitude to those on the other side of the conventional critical line at $K_c\approx 0.2267$, which is in the low-temperature phase.
Results for $\beta=4.0$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:fig3\](b). The vertical line marks the point where the two linear extrapolation of the pion screening mass squared in Fig. \[fig:fig2\](b) cross each other. The increase of the three quantities across the line shows that the thermal line comes close to the critical line at $\beta=4.0$.
In Fig. \[fig:fig4\] we summarize our findings for the phase structure of lattice QCD with two flavors of dynamical Wilson quarks on an $N_t=4$ lattice. Solid circles represent values of $K_c(\beta)$ extracted from pion screening mass. We have tentatively assumed that the critical line turns back at $\beta=4.0$. Open circles are estimates obtained by extrapolating the inverse of the number of conjugate gradient iterations in hybrid Monte Carlo runs to zero. The solid line, smoothly interpolating circles, represents one of the cusps of the finite-temperature critical line. (We expect the tip of the cusp to be actually rounded. See Fig. \[fig:fig1\].) The thermal line is indicated by the dotted line, which is an interpolation of estimates from previous work (open squares)[@earlywork; @qcdpaxtwo; @milc], continued toward larger values of $K$ following our results. As we have argued the low-temperature phase goes around the tip of the cusp and extends into the region close to the upper part of the critical line.
We emphasize that the zero-temperature critical line is absent from the point of view of finite-temperature partition function. For this reason we have not drawn the line in Fig. \[fig:fig4\]. We note, however, that available results indicate that this line practically forms a smooth continuation of the lower part of the finite-temperature critical line toward weak coupling.
Let us comment here on the report of the QCDPAX Collaboration that the thermal line crosses the critical line at $\beta\approx 3.9-4.0$[@qcdpaxtwo]. In our terminology their result is based on simulations carried out along the [*zero-temperature*]{} critical line from weak toward strong coupling. In view of the smooth connection of the zero- and finite-temperature critical lines noted above, the thermal line has to cross the zero-temperature critical line, which is the phenomenon suggested by the QCDPAX Collaboration. In this sense their result is consistent with our phase diagram. However, we emphasize that this crossing point does not correspond to a singularity of the partition function for a finite temporal lattice size.
So far we have examined the case of $N_t=4$. For larger values of $N_t$, we expect the thermal line and the cusp of the critical line to move toward larger $\beta$ with the latter closely following the zero-temperature critical line. The distance between the thermal line and the tip of the cusp will diminish probably as $O(a)\approx O(1/N_t)$. An important point to note is that the presence of explicit chiral symmetry breaking and simulation results including ours strongly indicate that the thermal line for the $N_f=2$ case is a continuous crossover and not a true phase transition[@comment]. Thus, a second-order chiral phase transition, as suggested by continuum sigma model analyses for this case[@wilczek], would emerge only in the continuum limit $N_t\to\infty$.
Another interesting question is how our results are modified for the case of $N_f\geq 3$. Previous simulations support a first-order chiral phase transition[@qcdpaxtwo] in agreement with sigma model analyses. This implies that the thermal line turns into a line of first-order phase transition near the tip of the cusp. The line will not cross the critical line for a finite temporal lattice size since our reasoning for the $N_f=2$ case also applies for $N_f\geq 3$.
Let us finally add that we expect the qualitative features of the phase structure we found to hold for a wider class of Wilson-type actions including the clover action[@clover].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Y. Iwasaki, K. Kanaya and T. Yoshié for showing us their unpublished data and for useful discussions. Numerical calculations for the present work have been carried out at Center for Computational Physics and on VPP500/30 at Science Information Processing Center, both at University of Tsukuba. This work is supported in part by the Grants-in-Aid of the Ministry of Education(Nos. 04NP0701, 06640372).
[99]{}
M. Fukugita, S. Ohta and A. Ukawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{} (1986) 1974; A. Ukawa, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{}(Proc. Suppl.)[**17**]{} (1990) 463. See also, R. Gupta [*et al.,*]{} Phys. Rev. D[**40**]{} (1989) 2072; K. M. Bitar [*et al.,*]{} Phys. Rev. D[**43**]{} (1991) 2396.
Y. Iwasaki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{} (1991) 1491, [**69**]{} (1992) 21; Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{}(Proc. Suppl.)[**30**]{} (1993) 327, [**34**]{} (1994) 314; preprint UTHEP-300, 304 (1995).
C. Bernard [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D[**46**]{} (1992) 4741, [**49**]{} (1994) 3574, [**50**]{} (1994) 3377.
S. Aoki, Phys. Rev. D[**30**]{} (1984) 2653; Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{} (1986) 3136; Nucl. Phys. [**B314**]{} (1989) 79.
T. Eguchi and R. Nakayama, Phys. Lett. [**126B**]{} (1983) 89.
S. Aoki, A. Ukawa and T. Umemura, in preparation.
M. Bochicchio [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B262**]{}(1985) 331; S. Itoh [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B274**]{}(1986) 33.
We consider that the first-order signal reported by the MILC Collaboration[@milc] on an $N_t=6$ lattice around $\beta\approx 5.0$ is likely to be a lattice artifact.
R. D. Pisarski and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D[**29**]{} (1984) 338; F. Wilczek, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**A7**]{} (1992) 3911.
B. Sheikholeslami and R. Wohlert, Nucl. Phys. [**B259**]{} (1985) 572.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper it is proven that there is at most one way in which a connected, hyperbolic, orientable 3-manifold can fiber over the circle with monodromy in the Torelli group.'
address: |
Department of Mathematics and Statistics\
University of Melbourne\
Parkville, VIC, 3010\
Australia
author:
- Ingrid Irmer
bibliography:
- 'torellifacebib.bib'
title: 'Fiberings of 3-manifolds with Torelli monodromy.'
---
Introduction
============
One of Thurston’s contributions to 3-manifold theory was to provide a complete description of all the surprisingly many different ways in which a 3-manifold $M$ can fiber, [@Thurstonnorm]. This is done by defining a semi-norm on $H^{1}(M,\mathbb{R})$, similar to the Seifert genus of a knot, whose unit norm ball is a polyhedron. If an element of $H^{1}(M,\mathbb{R})$ is dual to a fiber, then every other integer point of $H^{1}(M,\mathbb{R})$ in the same cone over a facet of the polyhedron also determines a fibration.\
The *Torelli group* of a surface $S$, $\mathcal{T}(S)$, is the subgroup of the mapping class group that acts trivially on homology.\
Using homological arguments it is not hard to show that when the monodromy is in the Torelli group, the genus of the fiber is as small as possible [^1]. Conversely, when a fiber has this smallest possible genus, namely $(\text{rank}H_{1}(M, \mathbb{R})-1)/2$, the monodromy must be in the Torelli group.\
This paper proves the following theorem, conjectured by Tom Church and Benson Farb, [^2].\
\[maintheorem\] Suppose that a connected, orientable 3-manifold can fiber over the circle with pseudo-Anosov monodromy in the Torelli group. Of all the infinite ways $M$ can fiber over the circle, the fibering with Torelli monodromy is unique up to isotopy. \[maintheorem\]
When it exists, the fibering with Torelli monodromy is therefore in some sense canonical, being the unique fibering with minimal genus.\
By another classic theorem of Thurston, [@pA], $M$ is hyperbolic iff the monodromy is pseudo-Anosov. This assumption also ensures that a Thurston norm ball of any finite radius is compact. There can therefore be only finitely many integer points of $H^{1}(M,\mathbb{R})$ within or on the boundary of a ball. It follows that there are only finitely many different fibrations for any given genus. However, when the monodromy is not pseudo-Anosov, the Thurston semi-norm ball of any radius is not compact, and hence there can be infinitely many nonisotopic fibers with the same genus. An example of how to obtain countably many fibrations with nonisotopic fibers of the same genus is given in Example \[example\].\
The basic outline of the proof Theorem \[maintheorem\] is as follows: Suppose there could be two fibrations of a hyperbolic manifold $M$, with fibers $S_1$ and $S_2$ and monodromies $\tau_{1}\in \mathcal{T}(S_{1})$ and $\tau_{2}\in \mathcal{T}(S_{2})$. A covering space of $M$ is found, that retracts onto a covering space $S_3$ of both $S_1$ and $S_2$. The assumption that the monodromies are in Torelli is used to show that different connected components of the lifts to $S_{3}$ of curves from $S_1$ and $S_2$ are homologous. This gives a contradiction.\
Unlike with 3-manifolds, that fiber in many different ways if they fiber at all, in Theorem 1.1 of [@Salter], it was shown that if $M$ is a surface bundle over a surface, whenever the monodromy is in the subgroup of the Torelli group generated by Dehn twists around separating curves (the “Johnson Kernel”), then the fibering is unique, unless it is a trivial product of two base spaces. A common theme is that, when the monodromy is in the Torelli group, the topology of the fiber determines the topology of the manifold to a large extent, which is used to obtain contradictions to the existence of fiberings. A survey of “fibering rigidity” results for 4-manifolds is given in [@Rivin].\
Acknowledgements
----------------
Thanks to E. Hironaka for suggesting this problem to me, to J. Birman and B. Farb for helpful discussions of background work, and to A. Putman for having the patience to figure out what I was raving on about. Several people pointed out an error in the previous version of this paper, thanks to S. Friedl, A. Hatcher and N. Salter.
Proof of Theorem
================
**Outline of paper.** Subsection \[notation\] introduces some basic notation, conventions and definitions that will be used throughout the paper. Subsection \[intersection\] deals with maps between the homology of covering spaces, and the global structure of such covering spaces. In Subsection \[translation\], some consequences of hyperbolicity are established. Finally Subsection \[final\] uses local-to-global arguments to compute the homology of a covering space of $M$, thereby deriving the contradiction from which Theorem \[maintheorem\] follows.\
Conventions and notations {#notation}
-------------------------
A fiber in $M$ determines a free homotopy class of surfaces in $M$, as well as an element of $H^{1}(M, \mathbb{Z})$ which is the class of the base space over which $M$ fibers. When it does not cause confusion, the same notation will be used for a surface embedded in $M$ representing the homotopy class and the fiber.\
By *curve* is meant here a free homotopy class of maps from the 1-sphere into a surface or 3-manifold that is not homotopic to a point. Curves are not necessarily simple, and will sometimes be assumed to pass through a basepoint. This basepoint in $M$ is chosen to be in the intersection of $S_1$ and $S_2$. A curve will often be confused with the image in a surface or 3-manifold of a chosen representative of the homotopy class. All curves, surfaces and 3-manifolds are assumed to be oriented.\
Let $\tilde{M}_{\tau_{1}}$ and $\tilde{M}_{\tau_{2}}$ be the infinite cyclic coverings $\tilde{M}_{\tau_{1}}\simeq S_{1}\times \mathbb{R}$ and $\tilde{M}_{\tau_{2}}\simeq S_{2}\times \mathbb{R}$. Denote by $\tilde{M}_{T}$ the smallest covering space of both $M_{\tau_{1}}$ and $M_{\tau_{2}}$; in other words, $M_{T}$ is the universal cover $\tilde{M}$ of $M$ modulo the subgroup $\pi_{1}(\tilde{M}_{\tau_{1}}) \cap \pi_{1}(\tilde{M}_{\tau_{2}})\subset \pi_{1}(M)$. The group $\pi_{1}(\tilde{M}_{T})$ is not trivial because there are curves in the intersection of $S_1$ and $S_2$ in $M$. A curve will be said to *lift* to $\tilde{M}_T$ if it is freely homotopic to a curve in the intersection $\pi_{1}(\tilde{M}_{\tau_{1}}) \cap \pi_{1}(\tilde{M}_{\tau_{2}})\subset \pi_{1}(M)$. Informally, curves in $\tilde{M}_{T}$ represent curves that are both in $S_1$ and $S_2$.\
The reader should be warned that in what follows, we will be very relaxed about where a curve lives. Any two curves $c_1$ and $c_2$ in $M$ that lift to $\tilde{M}_T$ can be homotoped onto both of the fibers $S_1$ and $S_2$, and the same notation will be used for these curves in the fibers. Similarly, when a particular fundamental domain in $S_2$, $\tilde{M}_T$, $\tilde{M}_{\tau_1}$ or $\tilde{M}_{\tau_2}$ is assumed, the same notation will be used for a curve in the fundamental domain and its projection to $M$ or one of the fibers. It will always be stated in what space we are working, and all curves mentioned should be assumed to be in that space.
The covering space $\tilde{M}_{T}$ {#intersection}
----------------------------------
The 3-manifold $\tilde{M}_{T}$ is a covering space of a manifold that retracts onto a surface, and therefore also retracts onto a surface, call it $S_{3}$.\
**Maps between homology.** The 3-manifold $\tilde{M}_T$ is a covering space of $\tilde{M}_{\tau_{1}}$. If $\alpha$ is a curve in $\tilde{M}_T$ homologous to $\beta$, the simplicial complex $S$ in $\tilde{M}_T$ bounded by $\alpha - \beta$ projects onto a simplicial complex in $\tilde{M}_{\tau_{1}}$ with boundary $\pi(\alpha)-\pi(\beta)$. A map on homology, from $H_{1}(\tilde{M}_{T};\mathbb{Z})$ into $H_{1}(\tilde{M}_{\tau_{1}}; \mathbb{Z})$ is therefore obtained. Similarly with $\tilde{M}_{\tau_{1}}$ replaced by $\tilde{M}_{\tau_{2}}$. Since the monodromies are assumed to be in the Torelli group, the embeddings of the fibers in $M$ induce isomorphisms of $H_{1}(\tilde{M}_{\tau_{1}};\mathbb{Z})$ and $H_{1}(\tilde{M}_{\tau_{2}};\mathbb{Z})$ with their images in $H_{1}(M; \mathbb{Z})$.\
The next little argument will be used throughout the paper, so has been made into a lemma.\
\[lemmachen\] The diagram in Figure \[commutative\] commutes.
Two curves in $\tilde{M}_T$ that project to homologous curves in $\tilde{M}_{\tau_{1}}$ are mapped to homologous curves in $M$ by the inclusion map of $S_{1}\cong \tilde{M}_{\tau_{1}}$ into $M$. Since the curves came from $\tilde{M}_T$, the images in $M$ represent curves in the image of the inclusion map of $S_{2}\cong\tilde{M}_{\tau_{2}}$ into $M$, whose pullbacks are also homologous in $S_2$, because the inclusion map induces an isomorphism onto its image.
**Diamonds.** To understand the covering space $\tilde{M}_T$ of $M$, note that a “diamond”, as shown in Figure \[diamonds\], lifts rigidly to $\tilde{M}_{T}$. A *diamond* is the closure of a connected component of $M{{\smallsetminus}}(S_{1}\cup S_{2})$. It is not really a polytope, but a union of 3-manifolds of the form $f\times I$, where $f$ is a subsurface of one of the fibers.\
There is a fundamental domain of the covering $\tilde{M}_T$ of $M$ consisting of a union of diamonds. The monodromies correspond to translations of lifts of diamonds in $\tilde{M}_T$, and the deck transformation group is generated by deck transformations corresponding to powers of the monodromies $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$. For simplicity, the translations of lifts of diamonds to $\tilde{M}_T$ coming from the monodromies will also be denoted by $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$. An example of a covering space $\tilde{M}_T$ is illustrated in Figure \[slant\]. In this example, $M$ is cut up into two diamonds, $d_1$ and $d_{2}$. The monodromy $\tau_2$ maps $d_1$ to $d_2$. A fundamental domain is given by connected components of lifts of the diamonds $d_1$ and $d_2$, and the deck transformation group is generated by $\tau_1$ and $\tau_{2}^{2}$ (Alternatively by $\tau_{1}^2$ and $\tau_2$, with fundamental domain $d_{1}$ and $\tau_{1}(d_{1})$). When it is clear in what manifold we are working, the same notation will be used for a diamond and a connected component of its lift to $\tilde{M}_T$, which will also be called a diamond.
Pseudo-Anosov monodromies {#translation}
-------------------------
This subsection is devoted to some consequences of the assumption that $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are pseudo-Anosov. The next example illustrates a phenomenon that the pseudo-Anosov assumption on the monodromies rules out. This subsection is not strictly needed for the proof of Theorem \[maintheorem\], but helps to understand how the two fibers and monodromies are interrelated.\
\[example\] Let $\tau_1$ be a mapping class in the Torelli group that is not pseudo-Anosov and leaves a simple curve $c$ on $S_1$ invariant. There is then a torus $T$ in $M$ that intersects $S_1$ along the curve $c$. Suppose $S_2$ is obtained from $S_1$ by Dehn twisting around $T$ in a direction transverse to $S_1$. The fibers are clearly non-isotopic, and since they have the same genus, both monodromies must be in the Torelli group.
In Example \[example\], we would like to argue that the fiberings are not really distinct in some sense, despite having non-isotopic fibers. The following formulation was suggested by N. Salter: In Example \[example\], $S_3$ is an infinite cyclic covering space of both $S_1$ and $S_2$ obtained by cutting $S_1$ or $S_2$ along $c$ and gluing together infinitely many copies. The fundamental group of $S_3$ is a free group normally generated by the elements of $\pi_{1}(S_{1}{{\smallsetminus}}c)$ or $\pi_{1}(S_{2}{{\smallsetminus}}c)$. The mapping class $\tau_1$ determines a deck transformation that acts on $\pi_{1}(S_{3})$ by the same outer automorphism class as $\tau_2$.\
Suppose the deck transformation group of the cover $S_{3}$ of $S_1$ is generated by $\tau_{2}^{k_{2}}$ and the deck transformation of the cover $S_{3}$ of $S_2$ is generated by $\tau_{1}^{k_{1}}$.
When the monodromies $\tau_1$ and $\tau_{2}$ are pseudo-Anosov, $\tau_{1}^{k_{1}}$ and $\tau_{2}^{k_{2}}$ determine deck transformations acting on $\pi_{1}(S_{3})$ in different outer automorphism classes. \[afterthought\]
Put $S_1$ and $S_2$ in minimal position in $M$, and let $\mathcal{F}_1$ be a fundamental domain of the cover $S_{3}$ of $S_1$, and $\mathcal{F}_2$ a fundamental domain of the cover $S_3$ of $S_2$, as shown in Figure \[milchschnitt\]. By construction, the surface $\mathcal{F}_1$ has the boundary curves consisting of the multicurve $m_{1}^{0}$ in the lift of the intersection of the fibers, and the multicurve $m_{2}^{0}:=\tau_{2}^{k_{2}}(m_{1}^{0})$, also in the lift of the intersection of the two fibers. Similarly, $\mathcal{F}_2$ has boundary curves consisting of $m_{1}^{0}$ and $m_{1}^{1}:=\tau_{1}^{k_{1}}(m_{1}^{0})$.\
If $\tau_{2}^{k_{2}}$ could determine the same outer automorphism of $\pi_{1}(S_{3})$ as $\tau_{1}^{k_{1}}$, then it must be that $m_{1}^{1}$ is freely homotopic in $\mathcal{F}_{1}\times \mathbb{R}\subset \tilde{M}_T$ to $m_{2}^{0}$, as illustrated in Figure \[milchschnitt\]. The fundamental domains of the covers $S_3$ of $S_1$ and $S_3$ of $S_2$ could therefore be chosen to coincide. Since $m_{1}^{0}$ is contained in the intersection of the fibers, both $\tau_{1}^{k_{1}}$ and $\tau_{2}^{k_{2}}$ map $m_{1}^{0}$ to itself, contradicting the assumption that $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_2$ are pseudo-Anosov.
Proposition \[afterthought\] does not require the monodromies to be Torelli.
Informally, the assumption that the monodromies are pseudo-Anosov is needed in the proof of Theorem to ensure that the fundamental domains of the covers $S_3$ of $S_2$ and $S_3$ of $S_1$ can not coincide. This is used to extend local properties of the fibers to all of $S_3$, which then gives the contradiction that proves Theorem \[maintheorem\].
Lifts of curves are homologous in $S_3$. {#final}
----------------------------------------
This subsection shows that the connected components of the lift of a curve to $S_3$ are all homologous in $S_3$. This is the main lemma from which Theorem \[maintheorem\] follows. The first step is to understand how “local” homology classes lift.\
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be a fundamental domain of the cover $\tilde{M}_T$ of $M$ consisting of a union of diamonds.
Let $c_1$ and $c_2$ be two curves in $M$ that can both be homotoped into $\mathcal{F}$. If $c_{1}$ and $c_2$ are homologous in $M$, there are connected components of the lifts to $\tilde{M}_T$ that are also homologous in $\tilde{M}_T$. \[localtoglobal\]
Since $c_1$ and $c_2$ both lift to $\tilde{M}_T$, each of $c_1$ and $c_2$ must be freely homotopic to curves in the fibers $S_1$ and $S_2$. By Lemma \[lemmachen\], the projections of $c_1$ and $c_2$ onto each of the fibers also gives homologous curves in the fibers.\
The fundamental domain $\mathcal{F}$ retracts onto a subsurface contained in its boundary, so by projecting onto this subsurface, it is possible to make sense of intersection numbers of the curves $c_1$ and $c_2$. If $c_{1}-c_{2}$ is not simple, resolve the points of intersection in the usual way, to obtain a multicurve homologous in $\mathcal{F}$ to $c_{1}-c_{2}$. After resolving the points of intersection if necessary, a null homologous (in $M$) multicurve in $\partial \mathcal{F}$ is obtained. Let $N$ be a submulticurve that is null homologous in $M$ without any proper null homologous submulticurves. By construction, $N$ lifts to $\tilde{M}_T$, and by Lemma \[lemmachen\], this lift projects to null homologous curves in each of the fibers.\
It is clear that $N\times \mathbb{R}$ is locally separating in $\tilde{M}_T$, i.e. $(N\times \mathbb{R})\cap d_{i}$ is either empty or is separating in $d_i$ for any diamond in $\tilde{M}_T$. This is because the boundary of any diamond can be identified with a subsurface of $S_1$ or $S_2$. A separating multicurve in a surface cuts any subsurface it intersects into two or more pieces.\
It remains to be shown that $N\times \mathbb{R}$ is globally separating in $\tilde{M}_T$. Let $\mathcal{S}\subset \tilde{M}_T$ be a connected union of diamonds in which $N\times \mathbb{R}$ is separating in $\mathcal{S}$ and such that no further diamond can be attached to $\mathcal{S}$ without destroying this property. Since $N$ and $\mathcal{S}$ are assumed to be oriented, it is possible to define the left side of $\mathcal{S}{{\smallsetminus}}(N\times \mathbb{R})$ and the right side of $\mathcal{S}{{\smallsetminus}}(N\times \mathbb{R})$. By assumption, if a diamond $d_j$ is attached to $\mathcal{S}$ along its boundary, it is attached both to the left side of $\mathcal{S}$ and to the right side, as illustrated in Figure \[doesnotlift\].\
As a consequence, there is a curve $c$ in $\mathcal{S}\cup d_j$ such that:
- $c$ intersects $N\times \mathbb{R}$ once.
- $c$ is a union of two arcs; one of which passes through $a_1$ diamonds and is contained in the lift of the fiber $S_1$, and the other passes through $a_2$ diamonds and is contained in the lift of the fiber $S_2$.\
By construction, the curve $c$ is the lift of a bouquet of curves in $M$, one of which, call it $b_1$, is contained in $S_1$, and the other, call it $b_2$, is contained in $S_2$. Also by construction, $b_1$ intersects $S_2$ $a_1$ times, and $b_2$ intersects $S_1$ $a_2$ times, where $a_1$ and $a_2$ can not both be zero.\
In order to lift to $\tilde{M}_T$, it must be possible to homotope $b_{1}b_{2}$ into both $S_1$ and $S_{2}$. However, $b_{1}b_{2}$ can not be homotoped onto $S_1$ because it has nonzero algebraic intersection number with $S_1$, nor can it be homotoped into $S_2$, for the same reason. The curve $b_{1}b_{2}$ therefore could not possibly lift to a curve in $\tilde{M}_T$. It follows that $\mathcal{S}$ is all of $\tilde{M}_T$, hence $N$ is null homologous in $\tilde{M}_T$. Since this is true for any choice of $N$, it follows that any two connected components of the lifts of $c_1$ and $c_2$ contained in a lift of $\mathcal{F}$ must be homologous in $\tilde{M}_T$.
In order to be able to use Lemma \[localtoglobal\] to establish properties of lifts of homology classes, it is convenient to be able to forget about curves not contained in fundamental domains.
\[fundamentaldomains\] Any lift of a curve $c_1$ to $\tilde{M}_T$ is homologous in $\tilde{M}_T$ to a union of curves, each of which is contained in a connected component of a lift of $\mathcal{F}$.
Since $c_1$ lifts to $\tilde{M}_T$, it must be freely homotopic into each of the fibers. It therefore has algebraic intersection number zero with each of the fibers. Homotope $c_1$ into the fiber $S_2$, and suppose $\mathcal{F}$ is a union of diamonds contained in $S_{1}\times I\cong M{{\smallsetminus}}S_{1}$. The representative of the free homotopy class corresponding to the fiber $S_2$ can be chosen such that the lift of the subsurface of $S_1$ on the boundary of $\mathcal{F}$ is connected.\
The construction so far ensures that $c_1$ does not intersect the lifts of the subsurface of $S_2$ on $\partial \mathcal{F}$, and has zero algebraic intersection number with every other connected component of the boundary. Let $p_1$ and $p_2$ be a pair of oppositely oriented points of intersection of $c_1$ with the lift of a subsurface of $S_1$ on the boundary of $\mathcal{F}$, and let $a$ be an oriented arc in this subsurface connecting $p_1$ to $p_2$. Cut the curve $c_1$ at the points $p_1$ and $p_2$, and attach the arcs $a$ and $-a$ to obtain a union of curves homologous to $c_1$ in $\tilde{M}_T$ with fewer points of intersection with $\partial \mathcal{F}$. This is called surgering the curve $c_1$ along the arc $a$. Keep surgering along arcs until a union of curves homologous to $c_1$ is obtained, each of which is contained in a connected component of a lift of $\mathcal{F}$.
Lemmas \[localtoglobal\] and \[fundamentaldomains\] are now used to show that homology classes from the fibers lift to $\tilde{M}_T$.
\[welldefined\] Suppose $\tau_1$ and $\tau_2$ are pseudo-Anosov monodromies in the Torelli group, and $c_1$ is a simple curve in $S_1$ that lifts to $S_3$. Any two connected components of the lift of $c_1$ are homologous in $S_{3}$. The same is true with $S_1$ and $S_2$ interchanged.
As a consequence of Lemma \[fundamentaldomains\], it is possible to assume without loss of generality that $c_1$ is contained in $\mathcal{F}$.\
Let $l_1$ be a connected component of the lift to $S_{3}$ of a curve $c_1$ in $S_{1}$. The other connected components of the lift are in the orbit of $l_1$ under the deck transformation $\tau_{2}^{k_2}$ of the cover $S_{3}$ of $S_1$. The curve $c_1$ is freely homotopic in $M$ to a curve in $S_2$, because otherwise it could not lift to $S_3$. However, since $\tau_2$ is a pseudo-Anosov mapping class of $S_2$, $\tau_{2}^{k_{2}}(l_{1})$ can not project to a curve freely homotopic to $c_1$ on $S_2$. Let $c_2$ be the projection of $\tau_{2}^{k_{2}}(l_{1})$ to $S_2$. Since $\tau_2$ is in the Torelli group of $S_2$, $c_2$ is homologous to $c_1$ in $S_2$, and hence in $M$ and $S_1$ by Lemma \[lemmachen\].\
The curve $c_2$ can be homotoped into $\mathcal{F}$ because $c_1$ can be, and deck transformations map fundamental domains to fundamental domains. By lemma \[localtoglobal\], there is a connected component $l_2$ of the lift of $c_2$ homologous in $S_3$ to $l_1$. Another connected component of the lift of the curve $c_2$ is $\tau_{1}^{-k_{1}}(l_{2}):=l_{3}$, where $\tau_{1}^{k_{1}}$ is the deck transformation of the cover $S_3$ of $S_2$. The curve $l_{3}$ projects to a curve $c_3$ in $S_1$ homologous to $c_1$ that can be homotoped into $\mathcal{F}$. Also by Lemma \[localtoglobal\], $l_3$ is homologous to $l_2$. It follows that any two connected components of the lift of the curve $c_2$ from $S_2$ are homologous, and hence that any two connected components of the lift of $c_1$ are homologous.
It will now be shown that Theorem \[maintheorem\] is a corollary of Lemma \[welldefined\].\
As shown in the proof of Lemma \[welldefined\], any curve in $\tilde{M}_T$ is homologous to a multicurve, each connected component of which is contained within the lift of a fundamental domain of the cover $\tilde{M}_T$ of $M$ consisting of a union of diamonds. Lemma \[welldefined\] then implies that the rank of $H_{1}(S_{3};\mathbb{Z})$ is no more than the rank of $H_{1}(S_{1};\mathbb{Z})$ or $H_{1}(S_{2};\mathbb{Z})$, which is a contradiction.
[^1]: This seems to be well known, perhaps first observed by Church-Farb
[^2]: Unpublished; communicated to the author by E. Hironaka
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The young and energetic pulsar powers a bright X-ray synchrotron nebula, embedded in the unusual supernova remnant . We present observations of this system with the [*Chandra X-ray Observatory*]{}, which show a spectacularly complicated source. The nebula is dominated by a bright collimated feature which we interpret as a relativistic jet directed along the pulsar spin axis. Several compact knots can be seen in the immediate vicinity of the pulsar. While many of these features are similar to those seen around the Crab pulsar, the nebula surrounding PSR shows important differences which are possibly a result of the the latter’s low nebular magnetic field and low density environment.'
author:
- 'Bryan M. Gaensler'
- 'Jonathan Arons, Michael J. Pivovaroff'
- 'Victoria M. Kaspi'
title: Chandra Observations of Pulsar and Supernova Remnant
---
\#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} \#1[[*\#1*]{}]{} =
\#1 1.25in .125in .25in
Introduction
============
The supernova remnant (SNR) (MSH 15–5[*2*]{}) has unusual radio and X-ray properties. At radio wavelengths (Figure \[fig\_1\]), its morphology is dominated by two distinct limbs of radio emission. Superimposed on the northern limb is a bright core of emission, coincident with the H$\alpha$ nebula RCW 89. The distinctly non-circular appearance of this source has been attributed to expansion into an elongated cavity, a claim supported by recent observations of this region (Dubner 2002). absorption towards the SNR demonstrates it to be at a distance of 5 kpc (Gaensler 1999).
At X-ray energies (Figure \[fig\_1\]), the system is dominated by a bright central point source. This corresponds to the pulsar , which has also been detected at radio wavelengths and in $\gamma$-rays. PSR is one of the youngest and most energetic pulsars known: it has a spin-period $P=151$ ms, a magnetic field $B = 1.5\times10^{13}$ G, a spin-down luminosity $\dot{E} =
1.8\times10^{37}$ erg s$^{-1}$ and a characteristic age $\tau = 1700$ yr. Surrounding the pulsar is an elongated non-thermal nebula, presumed to be the pulsar wind nebula (PWN) powered by the pulsar’s spin-down; no radio counterpart to this PWN has been identified. To the north of PSR is a source of thermal X-rays, coincident with the bright radio and optical emission from RCW 89 (Trussoni 1996; Tamura 1996).
Existing observations have raised a number of issues regarding this pulsar and its interaction with its environment. Firstly, the elongated morphology of the PWN suggests that its morphology is dominated by a collimated outflow directed along the pulsar spin-axis, which possibly collides with and is interacting with the RCW 89 region (Manchester & Durdin 1983; Tamura 1996; Brazier & Becker 1997; Gaensler 1999). Greiveldinger (1995) have claimed that there is a compact disc of nebular emission immediately surrounding the pulsar, while Brazier & Becker (1997) rather propose a “cross”-shaped morphology in this region, which they interpret as an equatorial torus and polar jets, seen edge-on.
Clearly our understanding of this complicated source can benefit from observations at higher angular resolution. We have consequently carried out observations of PSR and its surroundings with the [*Chandra X-ray Observatory*]{}. We summarize these results below; these data are discussed in more detail by Gaensler (2002).
X-ray Observations
==================
Imaging
-------
PSR was observed with the ACIS-I detector on on 2000 Aug 14, with an effective exposure time of 19 ks. The resulting image is shown in the left panel of Figure \[fig\_2\]. A number of features can be seen in this image: the pulsar itself (marked as A), a ring of X-ray clumps coincident with RCW 89 (B), a diffuse elongated PWN surrounding the pulsar (C), a “jet” feature lying along the PWN’s main axis (D), a possible counterpart to the “jet” seen as a region of [*reduced*]{} emission (E), and an arc just to the north of the pulsar which is bisected by the main nebular axis (F).
The right panel of Figure \[fig\_2\] shows the region immediately surrounding the pulsar at the full resolution of the data. This Figure shows an inner arc sitting inside feature F (marked as 1), and several knots close to the pulsar (2, 3, 4, 5).
Spectroscopy
------------
We have extracted over 50000 counts from the diffuse PWN (feature C in Figure \[fig\_2\]); these data show no spectral features. Fitting them with a power law, we find an absorbing column $N_H = (9.5\pm0.3)\times10^{21}$ cm$^{-2}$ and a photon index $\Gamma = 2.05\pm0.04$, in good agreement with previous results. The brighter features superimposed on this diffuse emission all have distinctly harder spectra: the “jet” (feature D), outer arc (F) and inner arc (1) all have $\Gamma \approx 1.6-1.7$, while the innermost knots (2–5) all have $\Gamma \approx 1.3-1.6$.
The spectrum of the RCW 89 region shows several clear emission lines, confirming its interpretation as a thermal source distinct from the other components of the system (e.g. Tamura 1996). Preliminary analysis of these data shows that the emission can be approximately fit by a non-equilibrium ionization model with variable abundances.
Discussion
==========
Radio/X-ray Comparison
----------------------
As shown in Figure \[fig\_3\], diffuse radio emission seen in the vicinity of the pulsar closely matches the extent of the diffuse X-ray PWN (feature C in Figure \[fig\_2\]). It thus seems clear that this radio emission is the long-sought radio PWN. An elongated region of reduced radio emission can be seen to the south of the pulsar, corresponding closely to the morphology of the X-ray “jet” (feature D). This argues that this is a physically distinct structure within the nebula, and does not simply result from variations in brightness.
The Diffuse Nebula
------------------
The X-ray emission surrounding shows a clear symmetry axis, oriented at a position angle $150^\circ \pm 5^\circ$ (N through E), and manifested on all spatial scales between $10''=0.2$ pc and $10'=15$ pc. Such alignment can only be enforced by the central pulsar. We think it likely that this axis represents the spin-axis of the pulsar, as has also been argued for the Crab and Vela pulsars (Hester 1995; Helfand, Gotthelf & Halpern 2001).
A variety of different arguments imply that the magnetic field in the PWN is approximately 8 $\mu$G (see Gaensler 2002 for details). This is an order of magnitude weaker than in the Crab Nebula, and implies a spectral break due to synchrotron cooling just below the X-ray band. This low magnetic field is most likely a result of the low density of the medium into which the PWN has expanded (Bhattacharya 1990). It is unlikely the pulsar is much older than $\tau$ (e.g. Gvaramadze, these proceedings), as this would require an even lower nebular field strength, not consistent with other estimates.
Outflow and Orientation
-----------------------
Feature D has a distinctly harder synchrotron spectrum than the surrounding PWN. If the injected electron spectrum in the two regions is the same and the spectral difference between them is due to synchrotron cooling, it can be shown that the flow velocity in feature D must be $>0.2c$ (Gaensler 2002). Thus this source corresponds to a true jet, which we have calculated carries away $>0.5\%$ of $\dot{E}$. This jet is directed along the pulsar spin-axis, and appears to be a much larger and more spectacular version of similar features seen for the Crab and Vela PWNe (Hester 1995; Helfand 2001).
While no direct counterpart to this outflow can be seen to the north of the pulsar, the collimated nature of feature E suggests that we are seeing a cylindrical sheath of emission around an unseen counter-jet. This lack of direct emission can be simply explained by Doppler boosting, provided the jet axis is inclined by $\zeta \la30^\circ$ to the line-of-sight. This is contrary to the edge-on morphology, $\zeta \sim 70^\circ$, argued by Brazier & Becker (1997) from lower-resolution data.
Arcs and Inner Structure
------------------------
Feature F is distinctly one-sided, and so can potentially be interpreted as a bow-shock driven by the pulsar. However, this feature is embedded within a much larger PWN, in which the pulsar’s velocity cannot be supersonic.
We thus prefer to interpret this arc as a toroidal structure, lying in a plane perpendicular to the main symmetry axis. In this case, the projected morphology of the arc implies $\zeta < 30^\circ$, consistent with the estimate made above from Doppler boosting of the jet.
Considered together, the inner and outer arcs (features 1 and F respectively) resemble the inner ring and outer torus seen in images of the Crab Nebula (Weisskopf 2000; Mori, these proceedings). There are two characteristic time-scales associated with such structures: the time-scale for radiative losses via synchrotron emission, and the flow time from the pulsar. In the torus of the Crab Nebula, these times are comparable. However, for PSR the radiative time-scale is $\sim30$ times longer than the flow time due to the lower nebular magnetic field. Thus the arcs seen here must be dynamical, not radiative, features in the PWN. We show elsewhere that they can be interpreted as “wisps” as seen in the Crab Nebula, resulting from ion compression in a particle-dominated flow (Arons, these proceedings; Gaensler 2002). In this case, we might expect outward motion of these features as is seen for the Crab. The expected proper motion would be a few arcsec per year, easily detectable with .
An interpretation for the knots close to the pulsar (features 2–5) is less clear. These knots may be emission from the unshocked pulsar wind, analogous to “knot 1” and “knot 2” seen with [*HST*]{} close to the Crab pulsar (Hester 1995).
Conclusion and Questions
========================
These data have provided a wealth of new information on PSR and its interaction with its environment. We have confirmed the presence of a collimated flow directed along the pulsar spin-axis, and have argued that the flow is relativistic and is inclined at $<30^\circ$ to our line-of-sight. We have interpreted two arcs of emission seen close to the pulsar as dynamical features in an equatorial flow, and have identified several knots at separations $<0.5$ pc from the pulsar.
Many issues still need to be investigated. Do the arcs and knots show motion and/or variability? Do any of these features have counterparts at other wavelengths? What is the nature of RCW 89 and its thermal clumps? While these questions still remain, it is clear that PSR provides a new opportunity to probe the detailed structure of a pulsar wind.
This work was supported by NASA through SAO grant GO0-1134X, Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-01107.01-A (B.M.G.), contracts NAS8-37716 and NAS8-38252 (M.J.P.), and LTSA grant NAG5-8063 (V.M.K.).
Bhattacharya, D. 1990, J. Astrophys. Astron., 11, 125 Brazier, K. T. S., & Becker, W. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 335 Dubner, G. M., et al. 2002, AJ, in press (astro-ph/0110218) Gaensler, B. M., et al. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 724 Gaensler, B. M., et al. 2002, ApJ, submitted (astro-ph/0110454) Greiveldinger, C., et al. 1995., ApJ, 454, 855 Helfand, D. J., Gotthelf, E. V., & Halpern, J. P. 2001, ApJ, 556, 380 Hester, J. J., et al. 1995, ApJ, 448, 240 Manchester, R. N., & Durdin, J. M. 1983, IAU Symposium 101, p421 Tamura, K., Kawai, N., Yoshida, A., & Brinkmann, W. 1996, PASJ, 48, L33 Trussoni, E., et al. 1996, A&A, 306, 581 Weisskopf, M. C., et al. 2000, ApJ, 536, L81
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the formation and evolution of isothermal collapse nonuniformity for rotating magnetic interstellar clouds. The initial and boundary conditions correspond to the statement of the problem of homogeneous cloud contraction from a pressure equilibrium with the external medium. The initial uniform magnetic field is collinear with the angular velocity. Fast and slow magnetosonic rarefaction waves are shown to be formed and propagate from the boundary of the cloud toward its center in the early collapse stages. The front of the fast rarefaction wave divides the gas mass into two parts. The density, angular velocity, and magnetic field remain uniform in the inner region and have nonuniform profiles in the outer region. The rarefaction wave front surface can take both prolate and oblate shapes along the rotation axis, depending on the relationship between the initial angular velocity and magnetic field. We derive a criterion that separates the two regimes of rarefaction wave dynamics with the dominant role of electromagnetic and centrifugal forces. Based on analytical estimations and numerical calculations, we discuss possible scenarios for the evolution of collapse nonuniformity for rotating magnetic interstellar clouds.'
author:
- |
Dudorov A.E.$^{1}$, Zhilkin A.G.$^{1,2}$, Zhilkina N.Y.$^{1}$\
*$^{1}$ Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia*\
*$^{2}$ Institute of Astronomy RAS, Moscow, Russia, e-mail: [email protected]*
title: 'Evolution of Collapse Nonuniformity for Rotating Magnetic Interstellar Clouds[^1]'
---
PACS numbers:
**DOI**:\
Key words: *interstellar clouds, collapse, magnetic field, rotation, magnetosonic rarefaction waves*.
Introduction
============
The evolution of isothermal collapse nonuniformity for interstellar (and, in particular, protostellar) clouds is a central problem in the theory of star formation. This problem arose immediately after the first numerical simulations of the collapse of protostellar clouds in the gasdynamic approximation (Bodenheimer 1968; Larson 1969; Penston 1969).
The collapse is essentially uniform under strong gravitational nonequilibrium (Hattory et al. 1969). A major feature of the collapse of interstellar clouds under weak gravitational nonequilibrium is its nonuniformity (Penston 1969; Bodenheimer 1968; Larson 1969), which becomes self-similar with time and leads to the separation of a low-mass ($\approx 0.003 M$, where $M$ is the mass of the collapsing cloud) opaque core and an extended envelope accreting onto it. Larson (1969) suggested considering a rarefaction wave that is produced by a pressure gradient at the outer boundary and that propagates through the gas toward the cloud center with the speed of sound as the main cause of this nonuniformity. The effect of a rarefaction wave on the pattern of collapse was first estimated by Disney (1972). Zel’dovich and Kazhdan (1970) investigated the dynamics of a rarefaction wave in a self-gravitating polytropic cloud in terms of the problem of gas outflow in to a vacuum.
The rarefaction wave generation mechanism can be easily understood in terms of the well-known piston problem (see Landau and Lifshitz 1988). For the collapse of interstellar clouds, the contact boundary between the cold dense cloud matter and the hot rarefied external interstellar medium plays the role of the piston as an interface. The gas in the inner (with respect to the contact boundary) region is compressed under cloud self-gravity.
In the simplest case of a nonrotating cloud without any magnetic field, the rarefaction wave front propagates through the collapsing gas with the speed of sound. It divides the entire cloud mass into two parts. In the inner region, the matter remains homogeneous and collapses freely (there is no pressure gradient). In the outer region, nonuniform profiles of density, velocity, and other quantities are formed.
For spherically symmetric collapse of an interstellar cloud, the rarefaction wave focusing time is defined by the dimensionless thermal parameter ${\varepsilon_{t}}={{{\Pi}/{E_g}}}$, which is the initial ratio of the scalar pressure integral $\Pi = \int PdV$ to the magnitude of the cloud gravitational energy $E_g$ (see Truelove et al. 1998; Dudorov and Zhilkin 2003 (below referred to as paper 1)).
In cold clouds (${\varepsilon_{t}}\le {\varepsilon_{t}}^{*} = 10/(3\pi^2) \approx 0.34$), the rarefaction wave focusing time is $t_{*} = t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$, where $t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}=\sqrt{3\pi/(32G\rho_0)}$ is the free-fall time and $\rho_0$ is the initial density of the cloud. In this case, the characteristic self-similar profiles of density $\rho \sim r^{-2}$ and velocity $v
\sim -r^{-1}$ are formed in the rarefaction wave region immediately adjacent to the front (Larson 1969; Penston 1969; Shu 1977). Initially, this is a narrow region, but it expands with increasing central density. After the separation of an opaque (protostellar) core, the gas motion near it becomes accretional with a characteristic density profile $\rho \sim r^{-3/2}$.
In hot clouds (${\varepsilon_{t}}>{\varepsilon_{t}}^{*}$), the focusing time is shorter than the free-fall time ($t_{*}<t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$). A nonuniform density profile is formed in the cloud after the reflection of the rarefaction wave from the center and a pressure gradient will affect significantly the subsequent contraction. Since the contraction of such clouds will be appreciably slower, this case may correspond to quasi-static contraction of hot clouds or clouds maintained by turbulent pressure.
In rotating nonmagnetic clouds, the gas velocities along and across the rotation axis are different due to the action of centrifugal forces. Therefore, the surface of the rarefaction wave front becomes oblate along the rotation axis (Tsuribe and Inutsuka 1999). In nonrotating magnetic clouds, the magnetic field remains uniform (and, hence, force-free) in the homogeneous region. Dudorov and Zhilkin (paper 1) showed that the fast magnetosonic rarefaction wave (below called the fast MHD rarefaction wave) is the main rarefaction wave responsible for the collapse nonuniformity. Since this wave propagates across the magnetic field lines faster than along the magnetic field, the rarefaction wave front takes a prolate shape along the magnetic field lines in the initial contraction stages. The outer part of the collapsing cloud (the rarefaction wave region) takes an oblate shape along the magnetic field lines due to the action of electromagnetic forces.
In this paper, we investigate the dynamics of a rarefaction wave in collapsing rotating magnetic interstellar clouds. In this case, one might expect a great variety of rarefaction wave front shapes. To narrow this variety and to simplify the problem, we consider the case where the directions of the magnetic field and the angular velocity coincide.
Statement of the problem
========================
Let us consider a homogeneous protostellar cloud (which is a special case of an interstellar cloud) of a given mass that is in pressure equilibrium with the external medium.We assume that the cloud is threaded by a uniform magnetic field ${{{{\boldsymbol{\bf B}}}}}_0$ collinear with the angular velocity ${{{{\boldsymbol{\bf \Omega}}}}}_0$ at the initial time. The gas selfgravity is initially not balanced by any forces. Therefore, a gas motion toward the center will subsequently arise throughout the cloud. Fast and slow MHD rarefaction waves propagating toward the cloud center are formed at the cloud boundary as a result of discontinuity decay (Barmin and Gogosov 1960). The fast rarefaction wave front divides the cloud into two parts. In the inner region, the density, angular velocity, and magnetic field remain uniform. An inhomogeneous region is formed behind the fast rarefaction wave front. The slow rarefaction wave propagates against the background of this inhomogeneity and shows up as a small break in the nonuniform profile. In this paper, we focus our attention on investigating the dynamics of the fast rarefaction wave, which produces the inhomogeneity and has a decisive effect on the evolution of collapse nonuniformity.
The protostellar cloud is transparent to intrinsic infrared dust radiation in the initial collapse stages. Therefore, we will consider the problem of the collapse of a rotating magnetic protostellar cloud in the approximation of ideal isothermal self-gravitational magnetohydrodynamics. Note that this approximation must also work well for other collapsing interstellar clouds.
The system of equations to describe self-gravitating isothermal MHD flows can be written as $$\label{eq201}
{{{{\displaystyle \frac{\partial{\rho}}{\partial{t}}}}}} +
\nabla \cdot \left( \rho {{{{\boldsymbol{\bf v}}}}} \right)
= 0,$$ $$\label{eq202}
{{{{\displaystyle \frac{\partial{{{{{\boldsymbol{\bf v}}}}}}}{\partial{t}}}}}} +
\left( {{{{\boldsymbol{\bf v}}}}} \cdot \nabla \right) {{{{\boldsymbol{\bf v}}}}}
=
-{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho}}} \nabla P -
{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi\rho}}} \left[ {{{{\boldsymbol{\bf B}}}}}, \left[\nabla, {{{{\boldsymbol{\bf B}}}}}\right] \right] -
\nabla \Phi,$$ $$\label{eq203}
{{{{\displaystyle \frac{\partial{{{{{\boldsymbol{\bf B}}}}}}}{\partial{t}}}}}} =
\left[\nabla, \left [ {{{{\boldsymbol{\bf v}}}}}, {{{{\boldsymbol{\bf B}}}}} \right]\right], \ \
\nabla \cdot {{{{\boldsymbol{\bf B}}}}} = 0,$$ $$\label{eq204}
\nabla^2 \Phi = 4 \pi G \rho, \ \
P = c_T^2 \rho,$$ where $c_T$ is the isothermal speed of sound; the remaining quantities have their universally accepted physical values.
Flow configuration in the inner region
======================================
To describe the flowof gas in a collapsing cloud, we will use the cylindrical $(r, \varphi, z)$ coordinates. Since the problem is axisymmetric, the variables will not depend on the azimuthal angle $\varphi$.
In the inner region, the gas remains uniform. The magnetic field, rotation, and the collapse itself must also remain uniform. Therefore, the solution to Eqs. (\[eq201\])–(\[eq204\]) in the inner region can be sought in the form $$\label{eq301}
\rho({{{{\boldsymbol{\bf r}}}}}, t) = \rho(t), \ \
{{{{\boldsymbol{\bf B}}}}}({{{{\boldsymbol{\bf r}}}}}, t) = \left( 0, 0, B(t) \right),$$ $$\label{eq302}
v_r({{{{\boldsymbol{\bf r}}}}}, t) = H_r(t) r, \ \
v_z({{{{\boldsymbol{\bf r}}}}}, t) = H_z(t) z, \ \
v_{\varphi}({{{{\boldsymbol{\bf r}}}}}, t) = \Omega(t) r,$$ where $\Omega(t)$ is the angular velocity of the cloud. The radial and vertical velocity components at each time depend linearly on the corresponding coordinates with the proportionality coefficients $H_r(t)$ and $H_z(t)$. A similar approach without including a magnetic field was used by Lynden-Bell (1964) and Tsuribe and Inutsuka (1999).
Let us change to dimensionless variables using the relations $$\label{eq303}
t = t_0 \tau, \ \
\rho(t) = \rho_0 \sigma (\tau),\ \
B(t) = B_0 b(\tau),$$ $$\label{eq304}
v_r(r, z, t) = \frac{r}{t_0} h_r(\tau), \ \
v_z(r, z, t) = \frac{z}{t_0} h_z(\tau), \ \
v_{\varphi}(r, z, t) = \frac{r}{t_0} \omega(\tau),$$ where $h_r$ and $h_z$ are dimensionless analogs of the functions $H_r$ and $H_z$, respectively. Here, the characteristic gravitational time $t_0={{{1}/{\sqrt{4\pi G \rho_0}}}}$, the initial density $\rho_0$, and the initial magnetic field $B_0$ are used as the main scales.
Using the introduced dimensionless variables, we can reduce the system of basic equations (\[eq201\]–\[eq204\]) to the following system of ordinary differential equations: $$\label{eq306}
\dot{\sigma} + \sigma(2h_r+h_z) = 0,$$ $$\label{eq307}
\dot{h_r} + h_r^{2} = \omega^{2} - \sigma G_r(e),$$ $$\label{eq308}
\dot{h_z} + h_z^{2} = -\sigma G_z(e)$$ $$\label{eq309}
\dot{\omega} + 2 h_r \omega = 0,$$ $$\label{eq310}
\dot{b} + 2 h_r b = 0,$$ where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to the dimensionless time $\tau$.
The functions $G_r(e)$ and $G_z(e)$ define the components of the gravitational force. Expressions for these functions can be derived by solving the Poisson equation for the gravitational potential of a uniform oblate ellipsoid of revolution: $$\label{eq312}
G_r(e) = {{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1 - e^2}}{2e^3}}}
\left( \arcsin e - e \sqrt{1 - e^2} \right),$$ $$\label{eq313}
G_z(e) = {{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^3}}}
\left( e - \sqrt{1 - e^2} \arcsin e \right).$$ Here, $e$ is the eccentricity of the ellipse with the semimajor and semiminor axes $a$ and $c$, respectively. In the solution for the inner region, the quantities $a(\tau)$ and $c(\tau)$ act as the spatial scales in the $r$ and $z$ directions. It is easy to verify that they satisfy the equations $$\label{eq315}
\dot{a} = a h_r, \ \
\dot{c} = c h_z.$$ The system of equations (\[eq306\])–(\[eq315\]) should be solved with the initial conditions $$\label{eq316}
\sigma(0) = b(0) = a(0) = c(0) = 1, \ \
h_r(0) = h_z(0) = 0, \ \
\omega(0) = \omega_0.$$
The order of this system can be reduced significantly using the algebraic integrals (Sedov 1981) that express the laws of conservation of mass, angular momentum, and magnetic flux: $$\label{eq317}
\sigma = \frac{1}{a^{2}c}, \ \
\omega = \frac{\omega_0}{a^{2}}, \ \
b = \frac{1}{a^{2}}$$ Using Eqs. (\[eq315\]) and (\[eq317\]), we can reduce the system of equations (\[eq306\]–\[eq310\]) to a system of two second-order equations for the functions $a(\tau)$ and $c(\tau)$: $$\label{eq318}
\ddot{a} = {{\displaystyle \frac{{\varepsilon_{\omega}}}{a^{3}}}} - {{\displaystyle \frac{G_r(e)}{a c}}}, \ \
\ddot{c} = - \frac{G_z(e)}{a^{2}},$$ where the rotational parameter ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}={{{E_{\omega}}/{E_g}}}$ is the initial ratio of the rotational energy to the magnitude of the gravitational energy of the cloud. The order of the derived system of equations can also be reduced using the energy integral (see Lynden-Bell 1964). However, this is not necessary, since an exact analytical solution of system (\[eq318\]) cannot be obtained anyway. At the same time, it is more convenient to solve numerically this system in form (\[eq318\]).
It should be noted that $\ddot{a} = 0$ at ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}= 1/3$ at the initial time and this value of the rotational parameter defines a centrifugal barrier. The cloud will expand at ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}> 1/3$ radially. Therefore, in our subsequent calculations, we will assume that the rotational parameter varies within the range $0 \le {\varepsilon_{\omega}}\le 1/3$.
Motion of the rarefaction wave front
====================================
The $R$ coordinate of the fast MHD rarefaction wave front boundary satisfies the equation $$\label{eq323}
\frac{dR}{dt} = v(R, t) - u_f,$$ where $v(R,t)$ is the gas flow velocity, $$\label{eq324}
u_{f}
=
\left\{
\frac{c_T^2 + u_A^2}{2}
+
\frac{1}{2}
\left[
(c_T^2 + u_A^2)^2
-
4 c_T^2 u_A^2
\cos^2\theta
\right]^{1/2}
\right\}^{1/2}$$ is the fast magnetosonic speed, $\theta$ is the angle between the magnetic field vector ${\bf B}$ and the normal vector ${\bf n}$ to the front surface at a given point, and $u_{A} =
{{{B}/{\sqrt{4\pi\rho}}}}$ is the Alfvèn speed. We emphasize that the velocity of the fast MHD rarefaction wave front through a collapsing gas (\[eq324\]) is determined only by the characteristic structure of the MHD equations (\[eq201\])–(\[eq204\]). Therefore, in general, it is not equal to the phase velocity of fast magnetosonic waves. A more detailed justification of Eqs. (\[eq323\]) and (\[eq324\]) for the velocity of the fast MHD rarefaction wave front in a rotating magnetic cloud is given in the Appendix.
The angle $\theta$ is 0 or $\pi$ along the magnetic field lines. Therefore, the velocity of the rarefaction wave boundary through the gas in the longitudinal direction is $u_{\parallel} = \max
\left\{c_T, u_A\right\}$. In the transverse direction ($\theta=\pm\pi/2$), this boundary moves through the gas with the velocity $u_{\perp} = \sqrt{c_{T}^{2} + u_A^2}$. Let us analyze the propagation of the fast rarefaction wave front only in the longitudinal (along the $z$ coordinate) and transverse (along the $r$ coordinate) directions. Denoting the corresponding coordinates of the front surface by $R_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ and $Z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$, we obtain $$\label{eq328}
\frac{dR_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}}{dt} = v_r(R_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}, t) - u_{\perp}, \ \
\frac{dZ_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}}{dt} = v_z(Z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}, t) - u_{\parallel}.$$
It should be noted that $u_{\parallel} < u_{\perp}$. However, at the same distance from the cloud center, the radial gas velocity will be lower than the longitudinal one due to the action of centrifugal forces. Therefore, for a given time, the rarefaction wave front surface in a rotating magnetic cloud can be both prolate and oblate along the rotation axis.
Changing to the dimensionless variables $r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}={{{R_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}}/{R_0}}}$ and $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}={{{Z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}}/{R_0}}}$ in Eqs. (\[eq325\]), where $R_0$ is the initial radius of the cloud, we transform them to $$\label{eq330}
\dot{\xi}=
- {{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}} \sqrt{\alpha_t^2 + \alpha_m^2 {{\displaystyle \frac{c}{a^{2}}}}}, \ \
\dot{\zeta}=
- {{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}}
\max{\left(\alpha_t, \alpha_m {{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{c}}{a}}}\right)},$$ where $\xi = {{{r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}}/{a}}}$, $\zeta = {{{z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}}/{c}}}$, $\alpha_t
= \sqrt{{{{{\varepsilon_{t}}}/{5}}}}$, $\alpha_m = \sqrt{{{{2{\varepsilon_{m}}}/{5}}}}$, ${\varepsilon_{m}}=
{{{E_m}/{E_g}}}$ is the initial ratio of the magnetic energy to the magnitude of the gravitational energy of the cloud. Equations (\[eq330\]) with the initial conditions $\xi(0)=\zeta(0)=1$ must be solved together with the system of equations (\[eq318\]).
It should be noted that the Alfvèn speed $u_A$ in the inner region of collapsing rotating magnetic protostellar clouds varies with time in a more complex way than it does in the case of nonrotating clouds. It can be easily shown that, in this case, it initially increases, reaching a maximum at a certain time, and then begins to decrease. The value of this maximum and the time at which it is reached are defined by the parameters ${\varepsilon_{t}}$, ${\varepsilon_{m}}$ and ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$, which characterize the initial state of the cloud.
Shape of the rarefaction wave front surface
===========================================
Generally, no analytical solution of the system of equations (\[eq318\]) and (\[eq330\]) can be obtained. The problem can be simplified significantly in the slow-rotation approximation where ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$ is a small parameter. In this case, the equations that describe the rarefaction wave dynamics can be solved approximately using a perturbation analysis. In this approximation, the values of $a$, $c$, $r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ and $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ can be sought in the form of an expansion in a power series of ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$. Retaining the first several terms of the series (the order of smallness of the approximation), we can derive equations for the coefficients of the powers of ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$. We derived explicit equations for these functions in the first perturbation order (see Dudorov et al. 2004).
In this paper, to investigate the dynamics of the fast MHD rarefaction wave in collapsing protostellar clouds, we numerically solved Eqs. (\[eq318\]) and (\[eq330\]) using the fourth-order Runge–Cutta method. Note that the solutions of these equations depend on three parameters, ${\varepsilon_{t}}$, ${\varepsilon_{m}}$ and ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$, which characterize the initial state of the cloud. It makes sense to consider separately a nonrotating magnetic cloud, ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}=0$, a rotating nonmagnetic cloud, ${\varepsilon_{m}}=0$, and a rotating magnetic cloud, ${\varepsilon_{m}}\ne 0$, ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}\ne 0$. In all cases, the thermal parameter ${\varepsilon_{t}}$ is equal to the critical value of ${\varepsilon_{t}}^{*}$ (see the Introduction).\
*A nonrotating magnetic cloud.*\
In the inner region of a collapsing nonrotating magnetic protostellar cloud, the magnetic field remains uniform (and, hence, force-free) and varies with time as $B \sim \rho^{2/3}$. Therefore, the gas velocity in the inner region can be determined by solving the problem of free-fall collapse. The weak discontinuity surface moves through the gas with the fast magnetoacoustic speed that depends on the angle between the magnetic field vector and the normal vector to a given point of the wave front surface. In paper 1, we obtained the analytical solutions of Eq. (\[eq330\]) for $r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ and $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ that correspond to this case.
\[fg1\]
In Fig. \[fg1\], the ratio $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}/r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$, which defines the degree of elongation of the rarefaction wave front surface along the magnetic field, is plotted against time. Different curves in the figure correspond to different values of the parameter ${\varepsilon_{m}}$, which characterizes the initial magnetic field. The figure shows that, while $r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ and $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ generally decrease, their ratio $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}/r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}>1$ and infinitely increases in a finite time. Consequently, the shape of the rarefaction wave front surface in a collapsing nonrotating magnetic cloud is prolate along the magnetic field lines. The rarefaction wave focusing time defines the end of the initial cloud contraction stage. At this time, the homogeneous region disappears and the cloud subsequently evolves against the background of nonuniform contraction.\
*A rotating nonmagnetic cloud.*\
In a collapsing rotating nonmagnetic protostellar cloud, the weak discontinuity surface moves through the gas with the speed of sound $c_T$. The gas velocity along the rotation axis is higher than that in the transverse direction due to the action of centrifugal forces. Therefore, the shape of the rarefaction wave front surface in this case must be oblate along the rotation axis (see Tsuribe and Inutsuka 1999).
\[fg2\]
In Fig. \[fg2\], the ratio $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}/r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ is plotted against time. In this case, it defines the degree of flattening of the rarefaction wave front surface. Different curves in the figure correspond to different values of the parameter ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$, which characterizes the initial rotation of the cloud. The figure shows that, while $r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ and $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ generally decrease, their ratio $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}/r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}} < 1$ and decreases to zero in a finite time.\
*A rotating magnetic cloud.*\
In a rotating magnetic cloud, both mechanisms considered above are in operation. Therefore, the shape of the rarefaction wave front surface in such clouds can evolve in a complex way. In Fig. \[fg3\], the ratio $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}/r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ for rotating magnetic clouds is plotted against time for ${\varepsilon_{m}}= 0.2$. Different curves in the figure correspond to different values of the parameter ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$.
\[fg3\]
Analysis of the behavior of the curves in the figure leads us to conclude that both rarefaction wave evolution scenarios are possible in collapsing rotating magnetic protostellar clouds. If the rotation is slow, then the magnetic field has a stronger effect on the rarefaction wave dynamics and the wave front surface takes a prolate shape along the magnetic field lines. In this case, $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}/r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ infinitely increases with time (the two upper curves in Fig. \[fg3\]). In the case of fast rotation, the centrifugal force is dominant. Therefore, the shape of the rarefaction wave front surface becomes oblate along the rotation axis with time, while the ratio $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}/r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ decreases to zero with time (the lower curves in Fig. \[fg3\]).
Interestingly, the shape of the rarefaction wave front surface in collapsing rotating magnetic protostellar clouds is always prolate along the rotation axis in the initial stage. In Fig. \[fg3\], all curves initially run above the straight line $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}/r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}} = 1$ and only after a lapse of time does the ratio $z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}/r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ becomes smaller than unity in the case of fast rotation.
The critical case where the effects of magnetic field and rotation on the rarefaction wave dynamics are balanced separates the two described rarefaction wave evolution scenarios in collapsing rotating magnetic protostellar clouds. Therefore, the rarefaction wave is focused in the longitudinal and transverse directions almost simultaneously. In Fig. \[fg3\], ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}\approx 0.1$ corresponds to this case.
The focusing time
=================
The focusing time $t_{*}$ is defined as the time in which the rarefaction wave front surface reaches the cloud center. The focusing time depends on three parameters: ${\varepsilon_{t}}$, ${\varepsilon_{m}}$ and ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$.
Figure \[fg4\] shows the curves of equal focusing time $t_{*}({\varepsilon_{m}},
{\varepsilon_{\omega}}) = \text{const}$ in the ${\varepsilon_{m}}$, ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$ plane in the case where the thermal parameter ${\varepsilon_{t}}={\varepsilon_{t}}^{*}$. The numbers on the curves indicate the focusing times calculated in units of the free-fall time $t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$. This figure shows that the focusing time decreases with increasing magnetic parameter ${\varepsilon_{m}}$ (at fixed ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$) and increases with increasing rotational parameter ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$ (at fixed ${\varepsilon_{m}}$). This pattern of the dependence $t_{*}({\varepsilon_{m}}, {\varepsilon_{\omega}})$ can be easily explained. The fast magnetosonic speed increases with growing magnetic field; therefore, the focusing time $t_{*}$ must decrease with increasing magnetic parameter ${\varepsilon_{m}}$. On the other hand, the centrifugal force increases with increasing angular velocity and, hence, the velocity of the collapsing gas slows down. Therefore, the focusing time $t_{*}$ must increase with increasing rotational parameter ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$.
\[fg4\]
The curves of equal focusing time undergo a break on the two lines denoted by 1 and 2. Heavy solid line 1 corresponds to the critical case where the effects of electromagnetic and centrifugal forces on the dynamics of the fast MHD rarefaction wave are balanced near the focusing time. The front surface near the focusing time has a nearly spherical shape ($z_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ and $r_{{{{r}{\!}{f}}}}$ tend to zero simultaneously as $t \to t_{*}$). This critical curve separates two regions of parameters ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$ and ${\varepsilon_{m}}$. In region A below the critical curve, the magnetic field has a stronger effect on the rarefaction wave dynamics (and on the collapse as a whole). In this case, the rarefaction wave front surface has a prolate shape along the rotation axis and, hence, the focusing is transverse. In regions B and C above the critical curve, the rarefaction wave evolves with the dominant role of rotation. Near the focusing time, the rarefaction wave front surface has an oblate shape along the rotation axis. The relationship between the rotational, ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$, and magnetic, ${\varepsilon_{m}}$, parameters on critical curve 1 can be roughly described by the empirical relation $$\label{eq601}
{\varepsilon_{\omega}}= {{\displaystyle \frac{{\varepsilon_{m}}}{2 + q {\varepsilon_{m}}^{3/2}}}}.$$ The parameter $q$ depends on ${\varepsilon_{t}}$. For ${\varepsilon_{t}}={\varepsilon_{t}}^{*}$, $q = 3.4$.
In regions B and C, the rarefaction wave is focused in the longitudinal direction. In this case, the fast magnetosonic speed is $u_{\parallel} = \max \left\{c_T, u_A\right\}$. In region C (a weak magnetic field), the Alfvèn speed $u_A$ is lower than the isothermal speed of sound $c_T$. Therefore, the focusing time $t_{*}$ in this region does not depend on the magnetic parameter ${\varepsilon_{m}}$ and is the same as that for a rotating nonmagnetic cloud. The relationship between ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$ and ${\varepsilon_{m}}$ on curve 2 that separates regions B and C can be found analytically using a perturbation analysis in the slow-rotation approximation (see Dudorov et al. 2004): $${\varepsilon_{m}}=
\left \{
\begin{array}{cc}
6{\varepsilon_{t}}{\varepsilon_{\omega}}{{\displaystyle \frac{4-15{\varepsilon_{\omega}}}{5-12{\varepsilon_{\omega}}}}} & {\varepsilon_{\omega}}\le {{{1}/{6}}} \\
{{{{\varepsilon_{t}}}/{2}}} & {\varepsilon_{\omega}}> {{{1}/{6}}}
\end{array}
\right.$$
The focusing time also depends on the thermal parameter ${\varepsilon_{t}}$. We analyzed the behavior of the critical curves that separate regions A, B, and C as a function of the thermal parameter. As ${\varepsilon_{t}}$ increases, curve 1 shifts upward, while curve 2 shifts rightward. Thus, the size of region A in which the rarefaction wave evolves with the dominant role of magnetic field increases with increasing ${\varepsilon_{t}}$. Accordingly, the size of the region in which the rarefaction wave evolves with the dominant role of rotation decreases. The relative size of region C, in which the focusing time does not depend on the magnetic parameter ${\varepsilon_{m}}$, also increases.
Comparison of analytical solutions with numerical simulations
=============================================================
The results of our analysis of the fast MHD rarefaction wave dynamics are in good agreement with our direct numerical simulations of the collapse of rotating magnetic protostellar clouds in the 2D approximation. The computations were performed on a $300 \times 800$ grid in Euler variables in cylindrical coordinates using a numerical MHD code (Dudorov et al. 1999a) that is based on the total variation diminishing (TVD) scheme for MHD equations (Dudorov et al. 1999b).
Figures \[fg5\] and \[fg6\] present two cases of our numerical simulation of the collapse of rotating magnetic protostellar clouds. In both cases, the initial parameters of the clouds correspond to the thermal and magnetic parameters ${\varepsilon_{t}}={\varepsilon_{t}}^{*}=0.34$ and ${\varepsilon_{m}}=0.2$, respectively. The rotational parameter is ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}=0.05$ in the first case (Fig. \[fg5\]) and ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}=0.15$ in the second case (Fig. \[fg6\]). The rotational parameter in the first case was chosen in such a way that the initial state of the cloud satisfied the conditions of region A (see Fig. \[fg4\]), in which the dynamics of the fast MHD rarefaction wave is dominated by electromagnetic forces. In the second case of our simulation, the chosen initial model parameters satisfied the conditions of region B, in which the dynamics of the fast MHD rarefaction wave is dominated by centrifugal forces.
\[fg5\]
\[fg6\]
Figure \[fg5\] (the left and middle panels) shows the density distributions and positions of the fast MHD rarefaction wave front (heavy solid line) for the first case of our simulation for two times, $0.53 t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$ and $0.93 t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$. The numbers on the isolines indicate the density logarithms. The rarefaction wave surface takes a prolate shape along the rotation axis similar to the shape of a prolate ellipsoid of revolution. In this case, the velocity of the collapsing gas slows down in the radial direction in the inhomogeneous region behind the rarefaction wave front due to the action of electromagnetic and centrifugal forces. Therefore, the cloud takes a flattened shape in the course of time. The middle panel corresponds to a time close to the focusing time. The shape of the rarefaction wave surface becomes highly prolate by this time. The right panel shows the density distribution in the cloud at time $1.03
t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$ after the rarefaction wave focusing. The homogeneous region disappears by this time and the subsequent collapse proceeds against the background of a nonuniform density profile. In this case of our simulation, a cloud with a flattened disklike structure is formed in the final contraction stages.
The results of our numerical simulation in the second case are presented in Fig. \[fg6\]. As in the first case, the left and middle panels show the density distribution and the positions of the fast MHD rarefaction wave front (heavy solid line) for times $0.54
t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$ and $0.98 t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$. The rarefaction wave surface takes an oblate shape along the rotation axis similar to the shape of an oblate ellipsoid of revolution by the time $0.98 t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$. An oblate shape of the cloud is also formed behind the rarefaction wave front in the inhomogeneous region. In contrast to the previous case of our simulation, the rarefaction wave surface is identical in shape to the cloud configuration forming in the final contraction stage (see the right panel).
The focusing time $t_{*}$ of the fast MHD rarefaction wave determined by our numerical simulations is $0.97 t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$ for the first case and $1.06 t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$ for the second case. These values closely match the focusing times calculated analytically in this section (see Fig. \[fg4\]).
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
In this paper, we have considered the formation of collapse nonuniformity for rotating magnetic protostellar clouds. Note that all of our results formulated for protostellar clouds are also valid for isothermal interstellar clouds. Within the framework of our statement of the problem of homogeneous cloud contraction in a pressure equilibrium with the external medium, the collapse dynamics is characterized by the generation of fast and slow MHD rarefaction waves at the cloud boundary and their subsequent propagation toward the cloud center. The surface of the fast MHD rarefaction front divides the entire volume of the collapsing cloud into two regions. In the inner region, the gas remains homogeneous and is characterized by uniform rotation and magnetic field. In this region, the pressure gradient is zero. In the outer region, nonuniform density, velocity, magnetic field, and angular velocity profiles are formed. The degree of nonuniformity can increase greatly with time. The slow MHD rarefaction wave propagates in the wake of the fast one against the background of an evolving nonuniformity, acting as a generator of perturbations in this region. Thus, the fast MHD rarefaction wave is mainly responsible for the collapse nonuniformity of rotating magnetic protostellar clouds. Its parameters (the front velocity and surface shape) determine the rate of evolution and degree of inhomogeneity of collapsing clouds.
Depending on the relationship between the parameters that characterize the initial magnetic field and rotation of the cloud, the shape of the fast MHD rarefaction wave surface can be both prolate and oblate along the rotation axis. Analyzing the rarefaction wave dynamics, we can identify two scenarios for the collapse of rotating magnetic protostellar clouds.
In the first case, the collapse takes place with the dominant role of a magnetic field. The surface of the fast MHD rarefaction wave has a prolate shape along the rotation axis and it is focused in the direction transverse to the magnetic field. In the second case, the collapse takes place with the dominant role of rotation. The surface of the fast MHD rarefaction wave has an oblate shape along the rotation axis and it is focused across the magnetic field. Here, we derived a criterion separating these two regimes of collapse (see (\[eq601\])).
The cores of interstellar molecular clouds may be considered to be observational manifestations of protostellar clouds (Dudorov 1991). A direct observational confirmation of the gravitational collapse of some molecular cloud cores is the presence of characteristic signatures of contraction in molecular spectra (Tafalla et al. 1998; Williams et al. 1999; Gregersen and Evans 2000). The density distribution in the central parts of protostellar clouds is essentially uniform (Beuther et al. 2002; Caselli et al. 2002). For some clouds (L1536, L1512, L1498, L1544, L1495, TMC- 2, and others), there is observational evidence for the presence of weak discontinuities that separate the inner homogeneous region from the outer inhomogeneous region (Caselli et al. 2002). This may be considered as evidence for the existence of rarefaction waves propagating in these clouds. The shapes of the clouds themselves are also in satisfactory agreement with theoretical predictions. For example, an inner compact core of a nearly spherical or prolate (along the symmetry axis) shape and an extended oblate envelope are clearly identified in the clouds L1495, L1527, TMC-2, Per 5, Per 7, and L1582A. In other clouds (e.g., Per 6, L1400K, TMC-1, L260, and L1221), the central quasi-homogeneous core has a distinctly flattened shape along the symmetry axis. The clouds L1512 and L234A have double cores against the background of an oblate inhomogeneous envelope along the symmetry axis. This is probably because these clouds are gravitationally fragmented due to their rapid rotation. It should be noted that the observed density profiles in protostellar clouds given in the papers cited above were averaged over all directions. From the viewpoint of this paper, it would be interesting to compare the density profiles in the longitudinal and transverse directions with respect to the symmetry axis of these clouds, which is defined by the directions of the angular velocity and the largescale magnetic field.
In the outer inhomogeneous region (behind the fastMHDrarefaction wave front), differential rotation must lead to intense generation of a toroidal magnetic field. The toroidal magnetic field produces a braking torque that contributes to the redistribution of angular momentum between the central parts of the protostellar cloud and its periphery. Depending on the relationship between the parameters ${\varepsilon_{m}}$ and ${\varepsilon_{\omega}}$, the magnetic braking of the cloud rotation can be effective or ineffective (Dudorov et al. 2004). Therefore, combining this criterion with the criterion associated with the rarefaction wave gives four fundamentally differentMHD collapse scenarios. A detailed analysis of these scenarios is the subject of a special paper. However, it is worth noting that in the case of ineffective magnetic braking, the angular momentum can be lost through other mechanisms (fragmentation, jet outflows, etc.). It should be emphasized once again that all these effects in protostellar clouds arise from the collapse nonuniformity produced by MHD rarefaction waves.
In all cases, the fast MHD rarefaction wave front surface in collapsing rotating magnetic protostellar clouds is nonspherical in shape. Therefore, its focusing and subsequent reflection from the center can be accompanied by the generation of (also nonspherical) intense nonlinear MHD waves that must affect the subsequent collapse dynamics. If the focusing time $t_{*}$ is close to the free-fall time $t_{{{{f}{\!}{f}}}}$ (weak magnetic field, slow rotation, ${\varepsilon_{t}}\le{\varepsilon_{t}}^{*}$), then the focusing will be accompanied by adiabatic gas heating in the central part of the cloud. The rise in gas temperature increases the rarefaction wave front velocity and the focusing can occur before an infinite density is reached at the cloud center (Zel’dovich and Kazhdan 1970). If the focusing time is shorter than the free-fall time (strong magnetic field, rapid rotation, ${\varepsilon_{t}}> {\varepsilon_{t}}^{*}$), then the focusing can occur even at the stage of isothermal contraction. Thus, in all cases, the rarefaction wave focusing acts as a physical factor that limits the density growth during collapse.
Thus, the fast MHD rarefaction wave that emerges in the early contraction stages not only allows the collapse nonuniformity for interstellar clouds to be explained, but also is a good tool for studying this astrophysical phenomenon. It should be noted that the conclusions reached here using semi-analytical methods are in good agreement with the direct numerical simulations of the collapse of rotating magnetic protostellar clouds that we have performed over several years in the 1.5-D, 2-D, and 3-D approximations.\
**Acknowledgement.** This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project nos. 05-02-17070, 05-02-16123, and 04-02-96050 RFBR–Ural).
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Let us derive an expression for the velocity of a rarefaction wave front in a rotating magnetic cloud. The rarefaction wave front is the surface of a weak discontinuity on which all MHD quantities remain continuous, while their derivatives undergo a discontinuity. MHD equations (\[eq201\])–(\[eq204\]) should be used in integral form to describe MHD flows with weak discontinuities (see Kulikovskii et al. 2001): $$\label{eqa1}
{{{{\displaystyle \frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}}}}}}
\int\limits_{V}
{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}dV +
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{3}
\oint\limits_{\partial V}
{{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_{k} dS_{k} =
\int\limits_{V}
{{\boldsymbol{\bf R}}}dV,$$ where ${{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}$ is the vector of conservative variables, ${{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_k=\left({{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_x,{{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_y,{{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_z\right)$ are the flux vectors in the $x$, $y$ and $z$ directions in Cartesian coordinates, and ${{\boldsymbol{\bf R}}}$ is the source vector, which can include, for example, the gravitational force, the centrifugal force, the Coriolis force, and the like. We do not write out explicit expressions for these vectors to save space. The integration in (\[eqa1\]) is over a certain stationary volume $V$ bounded by the surface $\partial V$ and $dS_{k}$ is an oriented element of this surface.
Consider a certain surface of a strong MHD discontinuity (see Fig. \[fg07\]). Let us choose a small portion of this surface and construct a normal vector ${{{{\boldsymbol{\bf n}}}}}=\left(n_x, n_y, n_z\right)$ on it. As the volume $V$, we choose a cylinder with height $h$ and base area $S$. The discontinuity surface divides this cylinder into two regions, $V_R$ and $V_L$ (above and below the surface in the figure).
\[fg7\]
The limiting quantities to the left, ${{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}_L$, and to the right, ${{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}_R$, of the discontinuity surface near the selected small portion are related by the Hugoniot conditions. To derive these conditions, we will shrink the cylinder to the discontinuity surface ($h \to 0$) while leaving the base areas fixed. Simple calculations using (\[eqa1\]) yield $$\label{eqa2}
-D_n[{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}]S +
\int\limits_{V_R} {{{{\displaystyle \frac{\partial{{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}}}{\partial{t}}}}}}dV +
\int\limits_{V_L} {{{{\displaystyle \frac{\partial{{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}}}{\partial{t}}}}}}dV +
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{3}
n_k [{{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_k] S +
\sum\limits_{k=1}^{3}
\int\limits_{S_1} {{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_{k} dS_{k} =
\int\limits_{V}
{{\boldsymbol{\bf R}}}dV,$$ where $D_n$ is the velocity of the discontinuity surface along the normal vector ${{{{\boldsymbol{\bf n}}}}}$ and the square brackets denote the difference between the limiting quantities $[{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}]={{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}_R-{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}_L$. In the limit $h\to 0$, the second and third terms on the left-hand side, the integral over the side surface $S_1$ of the cylinder, and the integral on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eqa2\]) tend to zero. As a result, we obtain the following Hugoniot conditions on the discontinuity surface: $$\label{eqa3}
D_n[{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}] = [{{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_n],$$ where ${{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_n = n_x{{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_x+n_y{{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_y+n_z{{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_z$. Note, in particular, that the source terms ${{\boldsymbol{\bf R}}}$ do not appear in this relation.
To pass to the case of a weak discontinuity, we will assume that the right limiting values of ${{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}_R$ differ from the left limiting values of ${{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}_L={{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}_0$ by infinitesimals: ${{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}_R={{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}_0+\delta{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}$. Expanding the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eqa3\]) to linear terms in $\delta{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}$ yields $$\label{eqa4}
D_n\delta{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}} = {{\sf A}} \cdot \delta{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}},$$ where ${{\sf A}} = \left. \partial {{\boldsymbol{\bf F}}}_n / \partial {{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}
\right|_{{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}={{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}_0}$ is the hyperbolicity matrix of the MHD equations. It follows from Eq. (\[eqa4\]) that the velocity $D_n$ of a weak discontinuity coincides with one of the eigenvalues $\lambda_{\alpha}$ of the matrix ${{\sf A}}$, while $\delta{{\boldsymbol{\bf u}}}$ coincides with one of its right eigenvectors. This determines the possible types of MHD weak discontinuities. For example, the fast MHD weak discontinuity (the fast MHD rarefaction wave front) considered in our paper corresponds to the eigenvalue $\lambda_{-f} = v_n-u_f$, where $v_n$ is the normal (to the discontinuity surface) gas velocity and $u_f$ is the fast magnetosonic speed. Note that a similar result for the rarefaction wave front velocity can also be obtained more formally, by considering the conditions for the derivatives of vector u on the weak discontinuity surface.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
1. A.A. Barmin and V.V. Gogosov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR **134**, 1041 (1960) \[Sov. Phys. Dokl. **5**, 961 (1960)\].
2. H. Beuther, P. Schlike, K.M. Menten, et al., Astrophys. J. **566**, 945 (2002).
3. P. Bodenheimer, Astrophys. J. **153**, 483 (1968).
4. P. Caselli, P.J. Benson, P.C. Myers, and M. Tafalla, Astrophys. J. **572**, 238 (2002).
5. M.J. Disney, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. **175**, 323 (1976).
6. A.E. Dudorov, Astron. Zh. **68**, 695 (1991) \[Sov. Astron. **35**, 342 (1991)\].
7. A.E. Dudorov, A.G. Zhilkin, and O.A. Kuznetsov, Mat. Model. **101**, 109 (1999a).
8. A.E. Dudorov, A.G. Zhilkin, and O.A. Kuznetsov, Mat. Model. **101**, 101 (1999b).
9. A.E. Dudorov and A.G. Zhilkin, Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz. **123**, 195 (2003) \[JETP **96**, 165 (2003)\].
10. A.E. Dudorov, A.G. Zhilkin, N.Y. Zhilkina, *MHD Rarefaction Wave as the Cause of Collapse Nonuniformity for Rotating Magnetic Protostellar Clouds*. Proceedings of International Scientific Conference ”VII Zababakhin Scientific Talks”, Snezhinsk, 2004, pp. 1–16, http://www.vniitf.ru/rig/konfer/7zst/reports/s3/s-3.html.
11. E.M. Gregersen and N.J. Evans, Astrophys. J. **538**, 260 (2000).
12. T. Hattory, T. Nakano, and C. Hayashi, Prog. Theor. Phys. **42**, 4 (1969).
13. A.G. Kulikovsky, N. V. Pogorelov, and A. Yu. Semenov, *Mathematical Problems of the Numerical Solution of Hyperbolic Systems of Equations* (Fizmatlit, Moscow, 2001) \[in Russian\].
14. L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, *Fluid Mechanics* (Nauka, Moscow, 1988; Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1987).
15. R.B. Larson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. *145*, 271 (1969).
16. R.B. Larson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. *156*, 437 (1972).
17. D. Lynden-Bell, Astrophys. J. *139*, 1195 (1964).
18. M.V. Penston, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. *144*, 425 (1969).
19. L.I. Sedov, *Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Mechanics* (Nauka, Moscow, 1981; Academic, NewYork, 1959).
20. F.H. Shu, Astrophys. J. **214**, 488 (1977).
21. M. Tafalla, D. Mardones, P.C. Myers, et al., Astrophys. J. **504**, 900 (1998).
22. K. Truelove, R. I. Klein,C. F.McKee, et al., Astrophys. J. **495**, 821 (1998).
23. T. Tsuribe and S. Inutsuka, Astrophys. J. **526**, 307 (1999).
24. J.P. Williams, P.C. Myers, D.J. Wilner, and J. Di Francesco, Astrophys. J. **513**, L61 (1999).
25. Ya. B. Zel’dovich and Ya. M. Kazhdan, Astrofizika **6**, 109 (1970) \[Astrophys. **6**, 50 (1970)\].
*Translated by V. Astakhov*
[^1]: Submitted in Astronomy Letters, 2006, **32**, 9, 622–632. Original Russian Text: A.E. Dudorov, A.G. Zhilkin, N.Y. Zhilkina, 2006, submitted in Pis’ma v Astronomicheskii Zhurnal, 2006, **32**, 9, 691-702.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
A simple route to prepare Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles by ultrasonication of their bulk powder materials is presented in this article. For comparison, Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles are also prepared by ball milling. The prepared samples are characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM), energy dispersive X-ray (EDX), X-ray photoelectron spectroscope (XPS), and Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID) magnetometer. XRD Rietveld analysis is carried out extensively for the determination of crystallographic parameters and the amount of crystalline and amorphous phases. FESEM images demonstrate the formation of nanoparticles with average particle size in the range of 50-100 nm for both ultrasonication and 4 hours (h) of ball milling. The bulk materials and nanoparticles synthesized by both ultrasonication and 4 h ball milling exhibit a paramagnetic to spin-glass transition. However, nanoparticles synthesized by 8 h and 12 h ball milling do not reveal any phase transition, rather show an upturn of magnetization at low temperature. The degradation of the magnetic properties in ball milled nanoparticles may be associated with amorphization of the nanoparticles due to ball milling particularly for milling time exceeding 8 h. This investigation demonstrates the potential of ultrasonication as a simple route to prepare high crystalline rare-earth based manganite nanoparticles with improved control compared to the traditional ball milling technique.\
Keywords: Rare-earth Manganites, Manganite Nanoparticles, Synthesis, Structural Analysis, Magnetic Properties
author:
- 'M. A. Basith'
- 'M. A. Islam'
- Bashir Ahmmad
- 'Md. Sarowar Hossain'
- 'K. M[ø]{}lhave'
title: 'Preparation of high crystalline nanoparticles of rare-earth based complex pervoskites and comparison of their structural and magnetic properties with bulk counterparts'
---
Introduction {#I}
============
Magnetic properties of mixed valence perovskite manganites R$_{1-x}$A$_{x}$MnO$_3$ (R = La, Gd, Pr, Nd, Sm etc and A = Sr, Ba and Ca) at the nanometer scale are currently the focus of intense investigations due to their interesting physical properties as well as potential technological applications [@ref51; @ref3; @ref501]. Along with a wide range of functional properties like colossal magnetoresistance, magnetocaloric effect, the perovskite class of manganites also exhibit multiferroic [@ref17; @ref79] properties which is technologically very important. Therefore, the past decade has seen an increased interest in the study of multiferroic perovskites [@ref17; @ref19]. A spontaneous electric polarization in the presence of magnetic fields was reported in Gd$_{1-x}$Sr$_{x}$MnO$_3$ perovskite manganites [@ref20]. When the size of magnetic particles is reduced to a few tens of nanometers, they exhibit fascinating magnetic and electronic properties that are significantly different from their bulk counterparts [@ref51; @ref5; @ref88; @ref78]. In these manganite systems, novel magnetic properties such as colossal magnetoresistance [@ref52] can be obtained around the ferromagnetic to paramagnetic transition temperature (T$_c$) [@ref53]. However, the transition temperatures, i.e. the particle size dependent T$_c$ values for the same material system were found to vary in different investigations [@ref53; @ref55; @ref10]. The conflicting results might be due to the influence of the fabrication process as well as different oxygen content of manganites [@ref51]. It is reported that the T$_c$ values of the samples can be decreased by adopting different fabrication techniques for the preparation of manganite nanoparticles due to very small variations in the chemical composition and oxygen stoichiometry [@ref3]. It is also reported that in magnetic materials, the magnetic order in the surface of the particles is modified by forming a magnetically dead layer [@ref3; @ref91; @ref98], and consequently affect the magnetization, transition temperature and anisotropy of the material system [@ref3]. By using the available wet chemical methods, it is difficult to control the complex solution processes and the size of the synthesized nanoparticles [@ref9]. Therefore, the synthesis of manganite nanoparticles with controlled size, chemical composition, oxygen stoichiometry and unmodified surface is of fundamental and technological interests.
The perovskite manganite nanoparticles of various compositions have been synthesized using the ball milling technique [@ref10; @ref11; @ref60; @ref61; @ref81] to produce nanoparticles from a few to tens nanometers [@ref10]. However, the magnetic properties of the finer particles were found to degrade. The degradation was ascribed to the increase of the defect density and surface roughness of La$_{0.8}$Sr$_{0.2}$MnO$_{3-\delta}$ nanoparticles due to the high energy ball milling [@ref11]. During the fabrication of La$_{0.67}$Sr$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ manganite particles using ball milling, for a milling time longer than 40 h, the perovskite structure disappeared and a completely amorphous phase was formed [@ref60]. Moreover, the magnetic measurements showed that ball milled samples had an inhomogeneous magnetic state [@ref60].
Notably, the utilization of ultrasonic energy in a process called sonofragmentation offers a facile, versatile synthetic tool for the preparation of nanostructured materials that is often difficult by conventional methods [@ref13; @ref701; @ref702; @ref703]. Ultrasonic dispersion has extensive use to disperse sub-micron agglomerated powders in liquid suspensions. It is possible to break down the aggregates of nanocrystalline particles by using the effects of ultrasound which generates many localized hot spots with the particles within the solution [@ref704] and during the process, the implosive collapse of the bubbles causes an inward rush of liquid known as ‘shockwaves and microsteaming’ in which high velocity is produced. Thus the agglomerates can be broken down utilizing the effects of ultrasound [@ref705], resulting in reduction of particle size. Recently, we have synthesized Bi based Bi$_{0.9}$Gd$_{0.1}$Fe$_{1-x}$Ti$_{x}$O$_3$ nanoparticles by ultrasonication of their micro-meter sized multiferroic bulk powder materials [@ref13] with particle size that can be varied as a function of sonication time. Transmission electron microscopy imaging confirmed the formation of ultrasonically prepared single crystalline nanoparticles with a mean size of 11-13 nm for 60 minutes sonication.
In the present investigation, we have synthesized nanoparticles of rare-earth based Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ by ultrasonication of their bulk powder materials. For comparison, we have also synthesized Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles by planetary ball milling. This compound was chosen due to the fact that Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ contain significant amount of heavy rare earth Gd and the magnetic properties of rare-earth based manganites are quite different from that of Bi based materials as reported elsewhere [@ref59; @ref92]. The magnetic properties of Bi based manganites are attributed to the presence of highly polarizable 6s${^2}$ lone pair of electrons present on the Bi atom, which strongly decreases the mobility of e$_g$ electrons [@ref59; @ref92]. Whereas the magnetic properties of rare earth based mixed valence perovskite manganites involve simultaneous transfer of an itinerant e$_g$ electron from the Mn$^{3+}$ to the oxygen and from the oxygen to the neighbouring Mn$^{4+}$ [@ref94]. Moreover, in these manganite systems the conversion of Mn$^{3+}$ to Mn$^{4+}$ is significantly influenced by oxygen vacancies [@ref93]. Till now, the perovskite Gd-Sr manganites [@ref56] have been well studied in the bulk form as a single crystal [@ref57] and polycrystalline samples [@ref52]. However, due to the limitation of preparation techniques that allow reproducible fabrication of high crystalline nanoparticles of complex rare-earth based pervoskite Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ manganites, many of the novel properties of these nanostructures are yet to be unveiled. Therefore, in this investigation, rare-earth based Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles were produced by ultrasonication as well as conventional ball milling techniques. The structural and magnetic properties of the synthesized nanoparticles were investigated and compared to their corresponding bulk materials.
Experimental details {#II}
====================
The perovskite manganite with nominal composition Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ was prepared initially by conventional solid state reaction technique which was described in details elsewhere [@ref14; @ref15]. The analytical grade Gd$_{2}$O$_3$, SrCO$_3$ and MnCO$_3$ powders were mixed and ground in an agate mortar till a homogeneous mixture was formed. This mixture was calcined at around 1100 $^{0}$C for 18 hours in a programmable furnace with intermediate grinding after 12 hours. The powders were pressed into pellets of thickness 1 mm and diameter 10 mm by using a hydraulic press and sintered at 1300 $^{0}$C for 6 hours [@ref14]. The sintered powder and pellets were used to measure the required structural, morphological and magnetic properties of the bulk materials. In order to prepare the nanoparticles by using ultrasonication and ball milling techniques, the ceramic pellets were ground again into powder by manual grinding to obtain powder materials.
A portion of the micro-meter size powder was subsequently mixed with isopropanol. The mixtures of isopropanol and powder with a mass percentage of $\sim$ 0.5 % were put into an ultrasonic bath (power 50 W) and sonicated for 60 minutes. After six hours rest, $\sim$ 30 % of the mass was collected as supernatant from the mixture and dried naturally for the required characterization. Another portion of the powder materials was used to prepare nanoparticles of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ manganites by using ball milling technique as was described in the published reports [@ref10; @ref11]. The bulk polycrystalline Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ powder was ball milled for 4-12 hours by conventional planetary ball mill (MTI corporation, Model: QM-3SP2) with stainless steel vials and zirconia balls. The ratio of the ball and powder weight was 50:1 and the rotating speed was set to 300 rpm. The preparation of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles by using ultrasonication and ball milling techniques is illustrated schematically in figure \[Fig:block\].
![A scheme delineating the preparation of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles by using (a) ultrasonication and (b) ball milling techniques.[]{data-label="Fig:block"}](block_diagrm.eps){width="16cm"}
The crystal structures of the bulk powder materials, nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication and also prepared by ball milling were determined from X-ray diffraction (XRD) data. XRD patterns were collected at room temperature using a diffractometer (Rigaku SmartLab) with CuK$_{\alpha}$ (${\lambda}$ = 1.5418 $\AA$) radiation. Rietveld analysis of XRD data was carried out using the ‘FULLPROF’ package [@ref101]. The microstructure of the surface of the sintered pellets, and the size and distribution of the synthesized nanoparticles were observed using a field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM, JEOL, JSM 5800). X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS, ULVAC-PHI Inc., Model 1600) analysis was carried out with a Mg-K[$\alpha$]{} radiation source. The temperature dependent magnetization measurements of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ bulk materials and nanoparticles were carried out using a Superconducting Quantum Interference Device (SQUID) magnetometer (Quantum Design MPMS-XL7, USA) both at zero field cooling (ZFC) and field cooling (FC) processes. The field dependent magnetization measurements were also carried out using the same SQUID magnetometer at 20 K and 300 K.
Results and discussions {#III}
=======================
Structural Analysis
-------------------
The measured and calculated XRD intensity patterns after Rietveld refinement of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ bulk materials, and nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication and ball milling techniques for 4 h, 8 h and 12 h milling time are shown in figures \[fig1\] (a-e) respectively. The Bragg positions of the reflections of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ and other oxides are indicated by vertical lines below the pattern. The lattice parameters and cell volumes of bulk materials and nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication and ball milling techniques are presented in Table \[Tab1\]. The structure of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ manganites is an orthorhombically distorted perovskite structure (spatial group Pbnm) determined by Rietveld refinement and is in agreement with the structure observed in related compounds [@ref52; @ref56]. The lattice parameters for the bulk polycrystalline sample are: a = 5.399 (4) ${\buildrel _{\circ} \over {\mathrm{A}}}$, b = 5.472 (1) ${\buildrel _{\circ} \over {\mathrm{A}}}$ and c = 7.625 (1) ${\buildrel _{\circ} \over {\mathrm{A}}}$. The lattice parameters are: 5.399 (1) ${\buildrel _{\circ} \over {\mathrm{A}}}$, 5.478 (1) ${\buildrel _{\circ} \over {\mathrm{A}}}$ and 7.607 (1) ${\buildrel _{\circ} \over {\mathrm{A}}}$ for the corresponding nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication. The lattice parameters are in good agreement with the reported parameters of orthorhombic Gd$_{0.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$MnO$_3$ [@ref52] manganites. In order to quantitatively express the microscopic distortion relative to the ideal perovskite structure, orthorhombic deformation (D %) defined as $$D=\frac{1}{3}\sum_{i=1}^{3}|\frac{a_i-\overline{a}}{a_i}|\times 100\\$$ where a$_1$=a, a$_2$=b, a$_3$=c/$\sqrt{2}$, and $\overline{a}$=(abc/$\sqrt{2}$)$^{1/3}$ [@ref63], have also been calculated and inserted in Table \[Tab1\]. The D % was nominally changed for ultrasonically prepared and 4 h ball milled nanoparticles. However, for milling time higher than 8 h, D % has increased significantly.
![Rietveld plots of XRD patterns of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ (a) bulk materials (b) nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication and ball milling of bulk powder materials for (c) 4 h, (d) 8 h and (e)12 h. In (a-e) the circles are the observed profile, (I$_{Obs}$), the solid blue line is the calculated pattern (I$_{Cal}$) and the bottom curve is the difference between the observed and calculated patterns (I$_{Obs}$-I$_{Cal}$). In (a-e) the small vertical marks below each profile show the Bragg position.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1.eps){width="12cm"}
[l l l l l l l l l ]{}
Samples & a$_{orth}$ $\mathrm{(\AA)}$ & b$_{orth}$ $\mathrm{(\AA)}$ & c$_{orth}$ $\mathrm{(\AA)}$ & Unit cell & Orthorhombic & Fitting\
& & & & Volume $\mathrm{(\AA ^3)}$ & Deformation & Parameters\
& & & & & D (%) &\
& & & & & & $\chi ^2$=6.95\
Bulk &5.399 (4) & 5.472 (1) & 7.625 (1) & 225.3 (1) & 0.63 & R$_B$=6.62\
& & & & & & R$_f$=3.81\
\
& & & & & & $\chi ^2$=3.54\
Nano &5.399 (1) & 5.478 (1)& 7.607 (1)& 225 (1) & 0.73 & R$_B$=3.62\
& & & & & & R$_f$=3.25\
\
& & & & & & $\chi ^2$=5.62\
4h &5.382 (2) & 5.462 (2) & 7.589 (3) & 223.1 (1) & 0.72 & R$_B$=6.90\
& & & & & & R$_f$=3.76\
\
& & & & & & $\chi ^2$=5.42\
8h &5.373 (2) & 5.472 (2) & 7.607 (4) & 223.6 (1) & 0.79 & R$_B$=3.67\
& & & & & & R$_f$=2.52\
\
& & & & & & $\chi ^2$=6.53\
12h &5.393 (3) & 5.616 (2) & 7.565 (4) & 229.6 (2) & 1.99 & R$_B$=2.93\
& & & & & & R$_f$=9.24\
. \[Tab2\]
Phases Bulk (100%) Nano (100%) 4h (100%) 8h (100%) 12h (100%)
------------------------------------ ------------- ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -- -- -- -- -- --
FWHM 0.383 0.532 0.775 0.905 0.964
Microstrain % 0.0242 (4) 0.0408 (7) 0.0833 (1) 0.0975 (4) 0.1176 (2)
Amorphousity 12.4 (6) 13.6 (1) 14.9 (6) 33.2(5) 35.9 (9)
Wt% GdSrMnO$_3$ Orthorombic (pbnm) 84.5(6) 83.2(5) 78.1(8) 61.7 (4) 61.9 (4)
Wt% Mn$_2$O$_3$ Cubic (la3) 0 0 5.2(8) 1.0 0.3
Wt% SrO$_2$ Tetragonal (l4/mmm) 3.0 2.9 1.4(1) 0.1 0.1
Wt% Gd$_2$O$_3$ Cubic (la-3) 0.1 0.1 0.4 4(2) 1.8 (1)
R$_p$ (%) 18.2 17.3 22.9 21.0 17.5
R$_{wp}$ (%) 11.6 10.8 16.3 17.0 15.2
Gof (%) 2.63 1.88 2.37 2.32 2.55
: Wt% of the phases present in Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ samples estimated from the X’Pert HighScore Plus and Rietveld analysis. The table also shows various R factors such as R$_{p}$ (profile factor), R$_{wp}$ (weighted profile factor) and Gof (goodness-of-fit)
XRD analysis is one of the common ways to investigate the nature of crystalline and amorphous phases of a material [@ref71]. The peaks intensity of the ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles slightly decrease together with a little broadening of the peaks, which indicate a decrease in crystallinity of the nanoparticles. On the contrary, the intensity peaks of the ball milled particles decrease drastically with milling time along with a large broadening of the peaks as shown in figures \[fig1\] (c-e). This indicates a notable reduction in the crystallinity of the materials due to ball milling [@ref210]. The width of the (200) peak of the bulk materials is 0.383, which was increased to 0.532 for ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles. The width of the same peaks for ball milling nanoparticles gradually increase with prolongation of the milling time. Table \[Tab2\] shows the values of the FWHM of (200) peaks for all materials under scrutiny. While performing this calculation, instrumental peak broadening factor has been taken into consideration. To determine the instrumental broadening, a diffraction profile from a standard material like silicon has been collected as a reference. In previous investigations [@ref601; @ref602], the instrumental broadening was corrected, corresponding to the peaks of the sample using the relation: $$\beta = \sqrt{\beta_{exp}^2 - \beta_{inst}^2}$$ where, $\beta$, $\beta_{exp}$ and $\beta_{inst}$ are the FWHMs of the intrinsic profile, the experimental profile and the instrumental broadening profile respectively at the same value of $2 \theta$. In fact, the FWHMs of the obtained XRD peaks from the XRD machine are not simply the summation of the actual FWHM and FWHM of the reference. Rather the obtained response is the convoluted result of the desired intrinsic sample profile along with the instrumental broadening profile [@ref603; @ref604]. Therefore, instead of simplified subtraction, using deconvolution operation, the effect of instrumental peak broadening has been minimized, and corrected FWHM of the (200) peaks of the samples were inserted in Table \[Tab2\]. By using a block diagram the deconvolution operation system has been described in supplemental information [@ref99]. It is noteworthy that lattice strain, which is a measure of the distribution of lattice constants arising from crystal imperfections and distortions, also affect the broadening of Bragg peak. Therefore, the microstrain of the synthesized samples was calculated using Williamson-Hall analysis [@ref904] and the values are inserted in Table \[Tab2\]. Like orthorhombic deformation, the micro-strain was also found to increase gradually with milling time [@ref605] and for 12 h ball milling sample the microstrain is significantly higher.
The broad and diffuse peaks particularly centered at 33$^{0}$ figures \[fig1\] (b)-(e)) is a clear indication of crystalline to amorphous like phase transition of the bulk powder materials after sonication as well as ball milling. In a previous investigation, the intensity of peaks belonging to La$_{0.67}$Sr$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ manganites was also found to decrease gradually for a milling time $>$ 12 hours [@ref60]. The decrease in intensity of peaks suggested the appearance of an amorphous phase in La$_{0.67}$Sr$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ manganites when the milling time is longer than 12 hours [@ref60]. Notably, although XRD patterns provide indication of the formation of crystalline to amorphous like phase, however, the quantification of the amount of crystalline and amorphous phases is difficult [@ref64]. In this investigation, using the Rietveld refinement procedure, the quantity of amorphous and crystalline phases of the synthesized samples have been calculated. Amorphousity has been calculated by the intensity ratio of the diffraction peaks and sum of all measured intensity with the help of X’Pert HighScore Plus where the program has been calibrated to the crystallinity analysis for a standard sample. But a completely crystalline sample has some background intensity, which arises from imperfections of the sample, the X-ray optics of the instrument, sample fluorescence and scattering. Therefore, X’Pert HighScore Plus, the background is calibrated with the granularity of 22 and a bending factor of 5 hence is applied to the correction for all the samples. The following equation was involved for amorphousity calculation $$Amorphousity \% = 100-[100 \times \Sigma I_{net.} / (\Sigma I_{tot} - I_{const.bgr})]$$ where $I_{net.}$: crystal intensity; $I_{const.bgr}$: background intensity; $I_{tot}$: total intensity. Then the wt% of crystalline and amorphous phases have been normalized (100%) to obtain the wt% of all other phases inside the samples. The wt% of crystalline and amorphous phases are inserted in Table \[Tab2\]. The amorphization % nominally increase for nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication and 4 h ball milling compared to that of bulk materials. However, for a milling time of 8 h and 12 h, the amorphous phase formation is nearly three times higher compared to that of bulk materials. For 8 h and 12 h milling time, the amorphous phase is around 33.2 wt$\%$ and 35.9 wt$\%$, respectively as shown in Table \[Tab2\].
Rietveld refinement has also been performed to estimate the amount of other oxides presence in these manganites. The wt$\%$ of other oxides obtained after refinement was inserted in Table \[Tab2\]. In the bulk materials apart from orthorhombic Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ (84.5 wt$\%$) manganites, the refined data shows the presence of SrO$_2$ (3 wt$\%$). For 4 h ball milled nanoparticles, along with orthorhombic Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ (78.1 wt$\%$) manganites, a fair amount of Mn$_2$O$_3$ (5.2 wt$\%$) is formed. For a longer milling time of 8 h and 12 h, the amount of Mn$_2$O$_3$ is reduced significantly, however, the amorphization, orthorhombic deformation and microstrain increase noticeably as mentioned earlier. In the ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles, the orthorhombic Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ phase is 83.2 wt$\%$ along with a small amount of other oxides. In figures \[fig1\] (a) - (e), the vertical lines demonstrate the Bragg positions of these oxide materials along with orthorhombic Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ manganites.
![(a) FESEM image of the surface morphology of bulk polycrystalline Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ manganites. (b) FESEM image and particle size distribution histogram of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication [@ref13]. (c-e) FESEM images and particle size histograms of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles prepared by 4 h, 8 h and 12 h ball milling, respectively.[]{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2.eps){width="16cm"}
Figures \[fig2\](a) demonstrates the surface morphology of the pellets of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ bulk perovskite manganites. The surface of the pellets are pretty homogeneous and the average grain size is around 1-1.5 $\mu m$. Figure \[fig2\](b) shows FESEM image of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ particles prepared by ultrasonication, images (b-e) show particle size for 4 h, 8 h and 12 h ball milling, respectively. The distribution of the ultrasonically and ball milled nanoparticles deduced from micrographs are also shown in images (b-e). The size of the ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles is estimated from the distribution histogram of figure \[fig2\](b) is 50-100 nm. The average size of the nanoparticles prepared by 4 h ball milling is also ranging from 50-100 nm. For a further increase of the milling time, the overall distribution of the particle size histogram did not change significantly, however, agglomeration of powder materials increase with milling time [@ref211]. In the present investigation, the calculated size of the ultrasonically prepared particles from the FWHM of (200) peak of XRD pattern using Scherrer’s formula [@ref16] is $\sim {~}$27 nm which is much smaller than the value observed from FESEM image. The large particle size determined by electron microscopy images compared to that calculated by Scherrer equation has also been reported in previous investigations [@ref301; @ref302] and this was due to the agglomeration of the particles. For ball milled nanoparticles, broadening of the (200) peak is also associated with microstrain as well as amorphization of the material. Therefore, we have not calculated the crystallite size of the ball milled nanoparticles using Scherrer equation.
Notably, the EDX analysis presented also in the supplemental Table 1 [@ref99] reveals the presence of Gd, Sr, Mn, and O elements in bulk materials as well as in ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles. However, the compositional analysis of the ball milled nanoparticles also confirms the presence of Zr along with Gd, Sr, Mn, and O. The Zr was contaminated during ball milling and the amount of Zr was increased with increasing milling time.
Figure \[fig3\] demonstrates the O 1s XPS spectra of (a) bulk polycrystalline Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ manganites, (b) ultrsonically prepared nanoparticles and (c-e) ball milled nanoparticles for 4 h, 8 h and 12 h, respectively. The O 1s XPS spectra of bulk polycrystalline Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ manganites show a slightly asymmetric peak very close to 529.5 eV along with an additional peak. The asymmetric curves of the bulk sample can be Gaussian fitted by two symmetrical peaks at 529.3 ev and 530.8 eV, respectively (figure \[fig3\] (a)). The lower binding energy peak at 529.3 eV corresponds to O 1s core spectrum, while higher binding energy peak is attributed to the oxygen vacancies i.e. to the oxygen related defects [@ref23; @ref24] in the sample. Interestingly, in the case of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication we have observed a symmetrically single XPS peak (figure \[fig3\] (b)) of O 1s [@ref21; @ref25]. This indicates the absence of oxygen vacancy in ultrasonically prepared Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles. Similar to the ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles, the ball milled nanoparticles do not show any peak corresponding to oxygen vacancy. It is expected that the presence and absence of oxygen vacancies [@ref93] in Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ bulk materials and their nanoparticles, respectively will affect the mixed Mn$^{3+}$/Mn$^{4+}$ valence state which ultimately influences their magnetization [@ref94].
![XPS spectra of the O 1s of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ (a) bulk polycrystalline powder materials, (b) nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication technique, (c-e) nanoparticles prepared by 4 h, 8 h and 12 h ball milling, respectively.[]{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3.eps){width="16cm"}
Magnetic Properties
-------------------
To investigate the phase transition temperatures of bulk materials and corresponding synthesized nanoparticles, the temperature dependent magnetization measurements were carried out. Figures \[fig4\] (a), (b) and (c) demonstrate the temperature dependent magnetization ($M-T$) curves of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ bulk materials, and nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication and by ball milling of bulk powder materials for 4 h, respectively in ZFC and FC processes. The temperature dependent ZFC and FC curves of 8 h and 12 h ball milled nanoparticles are shown in figure \[fig4\] (d). To perform the experiment in the ZFC process, the sample was initially cooled from 300 K to 5 K and data were collected while heating in the presence of the applied field. On the other hand, in the FC mode, data were collected while cooling in the presence of a 500 Oe magnetic field. In the case of bulk (**figure \[fig4\] (a)**) as well as nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication technique (figure \[fig4\] (b)), a clear splitting between ZFC and FC magnetization curves were observed below 42-47 K under the application of a magnetic field of 500 Oe. The splitting of ZFC and FC curves for 4 h ball milled nanoparticles started at higher temperature i.e. 70-75 K. The splitting of the curves suggests that Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ bulk materials and their corresponding nanoparticles are in a spin-glass-like state [@ref52; @ref54; @ref57] at lower temperatures. Moreover, the temperature dependent magnetization curves exhibit a paramagnetic to spin-glass like splitting transition for both bulk powder materials and ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles at temperatures T$_g$ = 35-40 K. The value of the transition temperature is consistent with value reported elsewhere [@ref56] for the same manganite system. However, for 4 h balled milled nanoarticles, the phase transition is observed at a relatively higher temperature (38-48 K) as seen in figure \[fig4\] (c). Moreover, on either side of this transition temperature, a different trend of the temperature variation of magnetization than that of bulk and ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles is observed. Notably, in the case of nanoparticles prepared by 8 h and 12 h ball milling, both ZFC and FC curves coincide with each other throughout the temperature range. Beside this, nanoparticles prepared by ball milling for milling time 8 h and 12 h does not show any phase transition, rather a small upturn to 0.6 emu/g is observed at low temperature. The steep increase of magnetization at low temperature may correspond to the paramagnetic contribution of the Gd$^{3+}$ moments [@ref426]. In this way, the magnetic behavior of the nanoparticles synthesized by ball milling technique is different from those of bulk materials and ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles.
![Temperature dependence of magnetization ($M-T$ curves) of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ (a) bulk materials, (b) ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles, (c) 4 h ball milled nanoparticles and (d) 8 h and 12 h ball milled nanoparticles in ZFC and FC processes.[]{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4.eps){width="16"}
![The $M-H$ curves of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ bulk materials, nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication and ball milling (4 h, 8 h, 12 h) techniques at (a) 300 K and (b) 20 K. Inset of (b): an enlarged view of $M-H$ hysteresis loops showing the enhancement of the coercivity of the ultrsonically synthesized nanoparticles (red line).[]{data-label="fig6"}](Fig6.eps){width="16"}
To further explore the difference between the magnetic properties of bulk materials and nanoparticles synthesized by two different techniques, we have carried out field dependent magnetization measurements. The magnetization vs magnetic field (M-H) hysteresis loops of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ bulk materials and nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication and ball milling techniques were carried out at 300 K and 20 K, figures \[fig6\] (a) and (b), respectively. At 300 K, the unsaturated linear curves without any detectable hysteresis as shown in figure \[fig6\] (a) indicate the paramagnetic nature of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ bulk powder materials and their corresponding ultrasonically prepared and ball milled (8 h and 12 h) nanoparticles. However, for 4 h ball milled nanoparticles, a tiny hysteresis loop is observed at 300 K which is clearly different from that of other materials under investigation. The maximum magnetizations $M_{s}$ of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ at 50 kOe for bulk materials and nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication and ball milling are inserted in supplemental Table II [@ref99]. Notably, at 300 K, the magnetization of 4 h ball milled nanoparticles is anomalously higher compared to that of other materials and it is anticipated that the presence of 5.2 wt$\%$ Mn$_{2}$O$_3$ may influence the magnetic magnetic behavior of this sample. The Mn$_{2}$O$_3$ is an antiferromagnetic material with a Néel temperature of 80-100 K [@ref610]. We think that at 300 K, the 4h ball milling sample is dominated by superparamagnetic behavior, presumably due to Mn$_{2}$O$_3$. Apart from this anomalous behavior, the magnetization is higher in bulk materials compared to that of nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication as well as ball milling for milling time 8 h and 12 h. The higher value of magnetization in bulk materials may be associated with its good crystallinity. In ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles, the amorphization is minimum compared to ball milled nanoparticles, and a reduction in magnetization is observed. For 8 h and 12 h ball milled nanoparticles, the amorphization is significant. Therefore, we think that the drastic decrease in magnetization in ball milled (8 h and 12 h) nanoparticles is associated with the amorphization of the ball milled nanoparticles. It is worth mentioning that similar class of nanoparticles of La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ [@ref10] and La$_{0.8}$Sr$_{0.2}$MnO$_{3-\delta}$ [@ref11] manganites were prepared by using ball milling from bulk polycrystalline samples. In these investigations, the particle size was found to decrease with milling time and for a longer milling time ($>$8 hours), the crystalline particle size was reduced. In addition to these, the ferromagnetic to paramagnetic transition temperatures, i,e, T$_c$ values of La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles prepared by ball milling were found to decrease compared to those of unmilled bulk polycrystalline powder materials. Moreover, magnetization of the nanoparticles synthesized by ball milling was decreased dramatically compared to the bulk polycrystalline samples. A previous investigation also reported the magnetic properties of La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ (LCM) thin films with structural disorder [@ref89]. In these reports, it was observed clearly that amorphous LCM thin film demonstrated a paramagnetic behavior whereas the crystalline film exhibited a cluster-spin-glass state [@ref89]. It is also reported that the properties of nanocrystalline manganites thin films are comparable with that of nanopowders [@ref81].
The magnetization measurement at 20 K, figure \[fig6\] (b), demonstrates hysteresis with significant coercivities in bulk materials and their corresponding nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication technique. At 20 K, the 4 h ball milled nanoparticles also exhibits a hysteresis loop with a large coercivity. In this investigation, at 20 K, the coercive fields ($H_c$) are 1500 Oe, 910 Oe and 540 Oe for ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles, and bulk materials and 4 h ball milled nanoparticles, respectively (inset of figure \[fig6\] (b)). In fact, the coercive fields are temperature dependent [@ref26] and these increase with decreasing temperatures [@ref27]. Previous investigation also demonstrated that the coercive field increases with decreasing particle size [@ref326]. In our investigation, at 20 K, the coercive field is higher for ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles compared to that of bulk materials as was also observed in [@ref61] for similar La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ manganite system. In the case of nanoparticles prepared by ball milling technique with milling time 8 h and 12 h, the M-H curve is just a straight line with zero coercivity both at 300 K and 20 K as shown in figures \[fig6\] (a) and (b), respectively.
In rare-earth based perovskite manganites, the presence of Mn$^{4+}$ ions, due to the doping, enables itinerant e$_g$ electron of a Mn$^{3+}$ to hop to the neighbouring Mn$^{4+}$ through oxygen ion [@ref94] and thus mediate magnetism and conductivity. The presence of oxygen vacancies in Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ bulk manganites is expected to enhance the conversion of a proportional number Mn$^{3+}$ to Mn$^{4+}$ [@ref93] and hence we observe higher value of the magnetization in bulk materials. Notably, the ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles are still good in terms of magnetization despite having apparently no oxygen vacancies. It may be expected from XPS measurement, figure \[fig3\], that from the surface of the nanoparticles, vacancies have been removed, while in the core of the nanoparticles it may still be present. More specifically, at 500 eV, the electron escape depth is about 5 nm and hence XPS indicates vacancies that have been removed from the particles’ surface while the core volume may still have the vacancies of the bulk.
Conclusions {#II}
===========
By using ultrasonication technique, rare-earth based Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles were produced directly from their bulk powder materials and the chemistry of the particles were likely unaltered apart from the absence of detectable surface oxygen vacancies. Hence, bulk and nanoparticle materials were more directly comparable in terms of magnetic properties than materials produced by two different synthesis techniques [@ref28]. The nanoparticles were also synthesized by ball milling of bulk powder materials prepared by solid state reaction technique. The weight % of the major orthorombic (pbnm) phase of ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles was comparable to that of bulk materials. For ball milled nanoparticles, the crystalline to amorphous phase conversion gradually increased with milling time. The transition temperature (35-40 K) of ultrsonically synthesized nanoparticles and corresponding bulk materials is unaltered. The magnetization of the nanoparticles prepared by 4 h ball milling is anomalously different as compared to that of other materials. The magnetization of the nanoparticles prepared by 8 h and 12 h ball milling is found to decrease drastically compared to the ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles as well as their bulk materials which may be associated with the amorphization and contamination of the ball milled nanoparticles. Some amorphization is also observed in ultrasonically prepared nanoparticles. Nevertheless, the size, crystallinity, amount of major phase formation, unaltered phase transition etc of ultrasonically prepared Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ nanoparticles demonstrate the potential of this synthesis route for the fabrication of these complex perovskites. To evaluate the potential of rare-earth based novel manganite nanostructures for future technical applications, the knowledge of their synthesis and the correlation of their structural and magnetic properties are essential. We believe that the demonstrated ultrasonication technique may be promising for fabrication of other rare-earth based manganite nanoparticles and can be further developed as a versatile technique for the preparation of nanoparticles of a wide range of materials.
Acknowledgements
================
This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of Bangladesh, Order No: 39.009.002.01.00.053.2014-2015/PHY’S-273/. The Institute for Molecular Science (IMS), Japan is sincerely acknowledged for providing facilities of SQUID magnetometer and Professor F. A. Khan for providing planetary ball milling facility.
[99]{} Zhang T, Wang X P, Fang Q F and Li X G 2014 Magnetic and charge ordering in nanosized manganites *Appl. Phys. Rev.* Vladimir M, Ivan F, Andrzej W, Roman P, Dmitrii M, Przemyslaw I, Piotr D and Gad G 2012 Nanometer Size Effect on Magnetic Properties of Sm$_{0.8}$Ca$_{0.2}$MnO$_{3}$ Nanoparticles *J. Phys. Chem. C* Elbio D., 2005 Open questions in CMR manganites, relevance of clustered states and analogies with other compounds including the cuprates New J. Phys. Wang J, Neaton J B, Zheng H, Nagarajan V, Ogale S B, Liu B, Viehland D, Vaithyanathan V, Schlom D G, Waghmare U V, Spaldin N A, Rabe K M, Wuttig M and Ramesh R 2003 Epitaxial BiFeO$_3$ Multiferroic Thin Film Heterostructure Science Zhu X, Liu Z and Ming N 2010 Perovskite oxide nanotubes: synthesis, structural characterization, properties and application J. Mater. Chem. Kimura T, Goto T, Shintani H, Ishizaka K, Arima T and Tokura Y 2003 Magnetic control of ferroelectric polarization Nature Kadomtseva A M, Popov Yu F, Vorobev G P, Ivanov V Yu, Mukhin A A and Balbashov A M 2005 Specificity of magnetoelectric effects in a new GdMnO$_{3}$ magnetic ferroelectric *J. Exp. Th. Phys. Lett.* Zhu T, Shen B G, Sun J R, Zhao H W and Zhan W 2001 Surface spin-glass behavior in La$_{2/3}$Sr$_{1/3}$MnO$_{3}$ nanoparticles *Appl. Phys. Lett.* Lopez-Quintela M A, Hueso L E, Rivas J and Rivadulla R 2003 Intergranular magnetoresistance in nanomanganites *Nanotechnology* Minelli A, Dolcet P, Diodati S, Gardonio S, Innocenti C, Badocco D, Gialanella S, Pastore P, Pandolfo L, Caneschi A, Trapanantif A and Gross S 2017 Pursuing the stabilisation of crystalline nanostructured magnetic manganites through a green low temperature hydrothermal synthesis *J. Mater. Chem. C* García-Landa B, De Teresa J M and Ibarra M R, Ritter C, Drost R, Lees M R 1998 Colossal magnetoresistance in Gd$_{1/2}$Sr$_{1/2}$MnO$_{3}$ *J. App. Phys.* Shankar K S, Sohini K, Subbanna G N, Raychaudhuri A K 2004 Enhanced ferromagnetic transition temperature in nanocrystalline lanthanum calcium manganese oxide (La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$) *Solid State Commun.* Muroi M, Street R and McCormick P G 2000 Enhancement of critical temperature in fine (La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_{3}$) particles prepared by mechanochemical processing *J. App. Phys.* Phan T L 2013 An Effective Route to Prepare La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_{3}$ Nanoparticles: Structural Characterization and Magnetic Properties *New Phys. Sae Mulli* Curiale J, Granada M, Troiani H E, Sanchez R D, Leyva A G, Levy P and Samwer K 2009 Magnetic dead layer in ferromagnetic manganite nanoparticles *Appl. Phys. Lett.* Sarkar T, Raychaudhuri A K, Bera A K and Yusuf S M 2010 Effect of size reduction on the ferromagnetism of the manganite La$_{1-x}$Ca$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$ (x=0.33), *New J. Phys.* Ono K, Kakefuda Y, Okuda R, Ishii Y, Kamimura S, Kitamura A and Oshima M J 2002 Organometallic synthesis and magnetic properties of ferromagnetic Sm–Co nanoclusters *J. Appl. Phys.* Roy S, Dubenko I, Edorh D D and Ali N 2004 Size induced variations in structural and magnetic properties of double exchange La$_{0.8}$Sr$_{0.2}$MnO$_{3-/delta}$ nano-ferromagnet, *J. Appl. Phys.* Gencer H, Cengiz N E, Kolat V S, Izgi T and Atalay S 2014 Production of LaCaMnO$_3$ Composite by Ball Milling, *Acta Phys. Pol. A* Spasojevic V, Mrakovic A, Perovic M, Kusigerski V, Blanusa J 2011 Superspin-glass like behavior of nanoparticle La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_{3}$ obtained by mechanochemical milling, *J. Nanopart. Res.* Stanojevic Z M, Brankovic Z, Jaglicic Z, Jagodic M, Mancic L, Bernik S, Recnik A and Brankovic G 2011 Structural and magnetic properties of nanocrystalline bismuth manganite obtained by mechanochemical synthesis, *J. Nanopart. Res.* Basith M A, Ngo D T, Quader A, Rahman M A, Sinha B L, Ahmmad B, Fumihiko H and M[ø]{}lhave K 2014 Simple top-down preparation of magnetic Bi$_{0.9}$Gd$_{0.1}$Fe$_{1-x}$Ti$_x$O$_3$ nanoparticles by ultrasonication of multiferroic bulk material, *Nanoscale* Bang J H and Kenneth S S 2010 Applications of Ultrasound to the Synthesis of Nanostructured Materials, *Adv. Mater.* **22** Gopi K R and Nagarajan R 2008 *IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol.* Energy—size reduction laws for ultrasonic fragmentation, *Powder Technol.* Liang F, Jian L, Sheng J, Fengang Z, Wen D and Mingrong S 2010 Experimental and theoretical evidence of enhanced ferromagnetism in sonochemical synthesized BiFeO$_3$ nanoparticles, *Appl. Phys. Lett.* Xia H and Wang Q 2002 Ultrasonic Irradiation: A Novel Approach To Prepare Conductive Polyaniline/Nanocrystalline Titanium Oxide Composites, *Chem. Mater.* Rao S S, Bhat S V 2007 Preparation, characterization, and magnetic studies of Bi$_{0.5}$X$_{0.5}$(X = Ca, Sr)MnO nanoparticles, *J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol.* Garcı´a-Munoz J L, Frontera C, Aranda M A G, Ritter C, Llobet A, Respaud M, Goiran M, Rakoto H, Masson O, Vanacken J and Broto J M 2003 Charge and orbital order in rare-earth and Bi manganites: a comparison, *J. Solid State Chem.* Coey J M D and Viret M 1999 Mixed-valence manganites, *Adv. Phys.* Wang Z L, Kang Z C 1998 Structural Evolution and Structure Analysis, Functional and Smart Materials, Plenum Press, New York, Chapter 8, page 441 Sagar S, Ganesan V, Joy P A, Senoy T, Liebig A, Albrecht M and Anantharaman M R 2010 Colossal thermoelectric power in Gd-Sr manganites, *EPL* Aditya A W, Anil Kumar P S, Bhat H L and Elizabeth S 2010 An investigation of first-order transition across charge ordered and ferromagnetic phases in La$_{0.5}$Sr$_{0.5}$MnO$_{3}$ single crystals by magnetic and magnetotransport studies, *J. Phys. Condens. Matter* Basith M A, Kurni O, Alam M S, Sinha B L and Ahmmad B 2014 Room temperature dielectric and magnetic properties of Gd and Ti co-doped BiFeO$_{3}$ ceramics, *J. Appl. Phys.* Basith M A, Manjura Hoque Sk, Shahparan Md, Hakim M A and Huq M 2007 Temperature features of magnetoresistance of layered manganite La$_{2}$Sm$_{0.4}$Sr$_{0.6}$MnO$_{3}$, *Physica B* Carvajal J R ‘FULLPROF: a program for Rietveld refinement and pattern matching analysis’, Abstracts of the Satellite Meeting on powder diffraction of the XV Congress of the IUCr, p 127, Toulouse, France (14990) Pollert E, Krupicka S and Kuzmicova E 1982 Structural study of La$_{1-x}$Ca$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$ and Y$_{1-x}$Ca$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$ perovskites, *J. Phys. Chem. Solids* Ramesh S and Lu S C 2011 Effect of lithium salt concentration on crystallinity of poly(vinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene)-based solid polymer electrolytes, *J. Mol. Struct.* Stingaciu M, Topole M, McGuiness P and Christensen M 2015 Magnetic properties of ball-milled SrFe$_{12}$O$_{19}$ particles consolidated by Spark-Plasma Sintering, *Sci. Rep.* Rogers K D and Daniels P 2002 An X-ray diffraction study of the effects of heat treatment on bone mineral microstructure, *Biomaterials* Khorsand Zak A, Majid W H Abd, Abrishami M E, Yousefi R 2011 X-ray analysis of ZnO nanoparticles by Williamson-Hall and size-strain plot methods, *Solid State Sci.* Warren B E 1969 *X-ray Diffraction,* Courier Corporation. Tian H H and Atzmon M 1999 Comparison of X-ray analysis methods used to determine the grain size and strain in nanocrystalline materials, *Philos. Mag. A* Supplemental table I shows the ideal composition and elemental composition of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ for bulk materials, nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication, ball milling techniques. Figure 1(S1) shows block diagram of a system with transfer function h(n). Supplemental table II shows the maximum magnetization $M_{s}$ of Gd$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_3$ at 50 kOe for bulk materials, nanoparticles prepared by ultrasonication and ball milling techniques. Suryanarayana C and Grant Norton M 1998 X-Ray Diffraction: A Practical Approach. Springer, New York. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0148-4 Aminia R, Shamsipoora A, Ghaffari M, Alizadeh M and Okyay A K 2013 Phase transformation during mechano-synthesis of nanocrystalline/amorphous Fe-32Mn-6Si alloys, *Mater. Charact.* Bertoni G, Beyers E, Verbeeck J, Mertens M, Cool P, Vansant E F and Tendeloo G V 2006 Quantification of crystalline and amorphous content in porous TiO$_2$ samples from electron energy loss spectroscopy *Ultramicroscopy* Boların A M, Sanchez F, Palomares S, Aguilar J A and Torres-Villasenor G 2007 Synthesis of calcium doped lanthanum manganite by mechanosynthesis, *J. Alloys Compd.* Liu J, Fang L, Zheng F, Ju S and Shen M 2009 Enhancement of magnetization in Eu doped BiFeO$_3$ nanoparticles, *Appl. Phys. Lett.* Selbach S M, Tybell T, Einarsrud M A and Grande T 2007 Size-Dependent Properties of Multiferroic BiFeO$_3$ Nanoparticles, *Chem. Mater.* Patterson A L 1939 The Scherrer Formula for X-Ray Particle Size Determination, *Phys. Rev.* DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.56.978 Das R, Sarkar T and Mandal K 2012 Multiferroic properties of Ba$^{2+}$ and Gd$^{3+}$ co-doped bismuth ferrite: magnetic, ferroelectric and impedance spectroscopic analysis, *J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.* Beyreuther E, Grafström S, Eng Lukas M, Thiele C and Dorr D 2006 XPS investigation of Mn valence in lanthanum manganite thin films under variation of oxygen content, *Phys. Rev. B* Dutta D P, Mandal B P, Naik R, Lawes G, Tyagi A K 2013 Magnetic, Ferroelectric, and Magnetocapacitive Properties of Sonochemically Synthesized Sc-Doped BiFeO$_3$ Nanoparticles, *J. Phys. Chem. C* Dutta D P, Mandal B P, Mukadam M D, Yusuf S M and Tyagi A K 2014 Improved magnetic and ferroelectric properties of Sc and Ti codoped multiferroic nano BiFeO$_3$ prepared via sonochemical synthesis, *Dalton Trans.* Terai T, Sasaki T, Kakeshita T, Fukuda T, Saburi T, Kitagawa H, Kindo K and Honda M 2000 Electronic and magnetic properties of R$_{0.5}$A$_{0.5}$MnO$_{3}$ compounds (R=Gd, Dy, Ho, Er; A=Sr, Ca), *Phys. Rev. B* Janaki J, Kumary T J, Nagarajan R, Mary T A, Valsakumar M C, Sastry V S, Hariharan Y and Radhakrishnan T S 2002 Tuning of the superconducting and ferromagnetic transitions by Cu doping for Ru in GdSr$_2$RuCu$_2$O$_8$, *Mater. Chem. Phys.* Wang Z H, Geng D Y, Hu W J, Ren W J and Zhang Z D 2009 Magnetic properties and exchange bias in Mn$_2$O$_3$/Mn$_3$O$_4$ nanoclusters, *J. App. Phys.* Park J S, Yu K K, Lee H K, Bae H R and Lee Y P 2005 Magnetic inhomogeneity in La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_{3}$ films with structural disorder, *Journal of the Korean Physical Society* Basith M A, Khan F A, Ahmmad B, Shigeru K, Hirose F, Ngo D T, Tran Q H and M[ø]{}lhave K 2015 Tunable exchange bias effect in magnetic Bi$_{0.9}$Gd$_{0.1}$Fe$_{0.9}$Ti$_{0.1}$O$_{3}$ nanoparticles at temperatures up to 250 K, *J. App. Phys.* Zhou J P, McDevitt J T, Zhou J S, Yin H K, Goodenough J B, Gim Y and Jia Q X 1999 Effect of tolerance factor and local distortion on magnetic properties of the perovskite manganites, *Appl. Phys. Lett.* Wesselinowa J M and Apostolova I 2007 Size, anisotropy and doping effects on the coercive field of ferromagnetic nanoparticles, *J. Phys.: Condens. Matter* Zhang T, Wang X P and Fang Q F 2011 Evolution of the Electronic Phase Separation with Magnetic Field in Bulk and Nanometer Pr$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ Particles, *J. Phys. Chem.C*
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Smarajit Karmakar and Itamar Procaccia
title: Exposing the static scale of the glass transition by random pinning
---
A well accepted theory to explain the dramatic slowing down of the dynamics of super-cooled liquids upon approaching the glass transition is still missing, even after decades of intense research efforts [@01Donth; @01DS]. One of the prominent approaches draws an analogy to the slowing down near continuous phase transitions; such an analogy requires a growing length scale that can accommodate the dynamical slowing down. The discovery of dynamic heterogeneity in super-cooled liquids both in experiments [@00Ediger] and in theoretical studies [@05Chi4; @95HH] and the detailed analysis of the associated dynamical length-scale using multi-point correlation functions [@99BDBG; @02DFGP; @00FP; @09KDS; @10KDS] seemed to point in the right direction. But in Ref. [@09KDS] it was shown that the growth of the dynamical length-scale associated with the dynamic heterogeneity upon decreasing the temperature is [*not*]{} directly related to the rapid increase in relaxation time. It was also shown in Ref. [@09KDS] that the increase in relaxation time with decreasing temperature is better correlated with the decrease in configurational entropy via the Adam-Gibbs relation [@65AG] which relates the structural relaxation time $\tau_{\alpha}$ to the configurational entropy $S_c$ as, $$\tau_{\alpha} = \tau_0 \exp\left(\frac{A}{TS_c}\right)\ .
\label{AdamGibbs}$$ Here $A$ is a temperature independent constant. This phenomenological relation is found to fit the data quite well over a large range of relaxation time in many experiments.
The question of the existence of a [*static*]{} length that
characterizes the degree of disorder in the approached glassy state remained open. Recently we were able to define and measure such a [*static*]{} length-scale $\xi_s$ [@11KLP] that grows upon approaching the glass transition. To be sure, there are other candidates in the recent literature, e.g a length-scale from the effects of boundary conditions, [@08BBCGV], point to set correlations [@07FM], the scaling of the non affine displacement field [@10MGIO] and patch correlation scale [@09KL]. In this Letter we present strong arguments to demonstrate that the length-scale extracted by us via a different approach [@11KLP] is [*the*]{} relevant static length-scale in determining the dynamics of the super-cooled liquids.
The idea to single out the relevant length scale is based on introducing by hand another length scale, to observe the crossover phenomena expected in a system with two competing length-scales. If one has two length scales that affect a relaxation process then the dominant one will be always the smaller between the two. Thus by tuning the artificial length scale we can cross over from dynamics governed by one length-scale to the other. A simple way to create a tunable length-scale is to introduce a density $\rho_{im}$ of immobile paticles. The length-scale associated with this quenched disorder will be $\xi_{im} \sim \rho^{-1/d}_{im}$, where $d$ is the space dimension. If our proposed length-scale is indeed [*the*]{} static length scale then we expect to see a crossover from dynamics governed by $\xi_s$ to a dynamics governed by the quenched disorder length-scale $\xi_{im}$.
Before going into the details of the numerical analysis we should briefly mention how to extract the static length-scale $\xi_s$ (details can be found in [@11KLP]). Our starting point is the fact that at low frequency tail of the density of state (DOS) of amorphous solids consisting of $N$ particles reflects the excess of plastic modes which do not exist in the density of states of purely elastic solid. [@02TWLB; @10Sok]. This excess of modes is sometime referred to as the ‘Boson Peak’ [@09IPRS]. Here and below the ‘mode’ refers to the eigenfunction of the underlying Hessian matrix. Recently [@11HKLP] we discovered that the eigenvalues $\{\lambda_i\}_i=1^{dN}$ (with $d$ being the space dimension) appear in two distinct families in generic amorphous solids, one corresponding to eigenvalues of the hessian matrix that are only weakly sensitive to external strains; the other of eigenvalues go to zero at certain values of the external strain, thus leading to a plastic failure. The first group of modes is decently described by the the Debye model of an elastic body, but this is not the case for the second group corresponding to the density of plastic modes.
For the purposes of the present letter it is enough to write this excess part (in the thermodynamic limit) as $B(T)f_{\rm pl}\left(\frac{\lambda}{\langle \lambda_D \rangle}\right)$, where the pre-factor $B(T)$ being strongly dependent on temperature. Particular models for this part were presented in [@10KLP]. We do not need to specify a function here, and it is only important to understand that this function is a partial characterization of the degree of disorder which grows upon approaching the glass transition. Together with the standard Debye contribution one can approximate the low-frequency tail of the density of states as $$P(\lambda) \simeq A\left( \frac{\lambda}{\langle \lambda_D \rangle} \right)^{\frac{d-2}{2}}
+ B(T) f_{\rm pl}\left( \frac{\lambda}{\langle \lambda_D \rangle} \right) \ . \label{Poflam}$$ Here $\lambda_D \simeq \mu \rho^{2/d - 1}$, is the Debye cutoff frequency and $\mu$ is the shear modulus. The physical idea that allows the determination of the static typical scale is that the [*minimal*]{} eigenvalue $\lambda_{\rm min}$ observed in a system of $N$ particles will be determined by either the first [*or*]{} the second term in Eq. (\[Poflam\]). For a system large enough, local disorder will be irrelevant in determining $\lambda_{\rm min}$, and it will be decided by the Debye contribution. For small systems the opposite is true. Thus there exists a value of $N$ where a cross-over occurs. This cross-over is interpreted in terms of a typical length-scale separating correlated disorder from asymptotic elasticity.
In Ref. [@11KLP] it was shown how to derive an implicit equation for $\frac{\langle \lambda_{\rm min}\rangle}
{\langle \lambda_{\rm D} \rangle}$ where the angular brackets represent an ensemble average over many systems prepared at the same temperature. The equation takes the form $$\frac{\langle \lambda_{\rm min} \rangle}{\langle \lambda_{\rm D} \rangle} =
{{{\mathcal{F}}}}\left[ \xi_s^d(T)\left(\frac{1}{V} -
\frac{\tilde A d}{2} \left( \frac{\langle \lambda_{\rm min} \rangle }{\langle \lambda_{\rm D} \rangle}\right)^{d/2} \right) \right].
\label{ansatz}$$ The typical scale $\xi_s(T)$ will be calculated by demanding that all the data calculated for different system sizes and temperatures should collapse into a master curve just by appropriately choosing the $\xi_s(T)$.
As an example consider the analysis done for the glass forming Kob-Andersen binary mixture [@95KA] at number density $\rho = 1.20$. The systems were equilibrated at some temperature $T> T_g$ and then inherent structures are calculated by direct energy minimization to the nearest local minimum of the potential energy landscape. At this state the Hessian was computed and the minimal eigenvalue was obtained using the Lanczos algorithm [@wik]. For a given system size $N$ and temperature $T$ this procedure was repeated to have an average $\langle \lambda_{\rm min}\rangle$ until convergence was achieved. At this point the temperature or the system size were changed and the procedure was repeated, to eventually have a table of $\langle \lambda_{\rm min}\rangle(N,T)$. In the left Panel of Fig. \[lamminKA\], we have plotted the minimal eigenvalue rescaled by the characteristic Debye value as a function of system size $N$ for different temperatures. In the right Panel the same data is plotted according to the scaling ansatz Eq. (\[ansatz\]) to extract the length-scale $\xi_s$ by collapsing the data into a master curve. The resulting data collapse into a master curve indicates that our scaling ansatz Eq. (\[ansatz\]) is obeyed to high precision. In the inset at the right panel we show how the typical scale increases when the glass transition is approached.
We also showed in [@11KLP] how our typical scale helps in understanding other measures of disorder that were proposed in the past. As an example we showed that the system size dependence of configurational entropy $S_c(T)$ [@09KDS; @SmarajitThesis2009] (the reader is referred to these publications for a full description of the method and the results) of the Kob-Andersen model in 3 dimensions can be explained using the typical scale proposed in [@11KLP]. This also gives us a direct relation between structural relaxation time and the static length-scale using the Adam-Gibbs relation [@65AG]. Below we will see how this relation along with the static length-scale helps us to understand the effect of immobile particles on the dynamics of supercooled liquid.
We start with the Adam-Gibbs relation Eq. (\[AdamGibbs\]). In the presence of immobile impurities of density $\rho_{\rm im}$ the configurational entropy changes, and we propose that it has a scaling form, reading $$S_c(\rho_{\rm im},T)= S_c(T) g( \rho_{\rm im}\xi_s^d(T)) \ ,\label{Sc}$$ where $g(x)$ is an unknown scaling function. Thus with the presence of randomly pinned particles the relaxation time will depend on the scaling function $g(x)$ and $\rho_{im}\xi^d_s$ as $$\tau_{\alpha}(\rho_{im},T) = \tau_0 \exp\left(\frac{A}{TS_c g(\rho_{im}\xi^d_s)}\right)\ .
\label{imAG}$$ The scaling function $g(x)$ must have the following asymptotic behavior $$g(x) \to 1, \quad \mbox{as} \,\, x \to 0.
\label{scalingFn}$$ So using Eq. (\[imAG\]) and Eq. (\[AdamGibbs\]), we end up with following equality $$\log\left[ \frac{\tau_{\alpha}(\rho_{im},T)}{\tau_{\alpha}(0,T)}\right] =
\frac{A}{TS_c }\left(\frac{1}{g(\rho_{im}\xi^d_s)} - 1\right)
\label{ratioRelx}$$ Now using Eq. (\[scalingFn\]), we can expand the scaling function $g(x)$ for small $x$ as $$g(x) \simeq 1 - |g^{'}_0| x + {\cal O}(x^2),
\label{appScalFn}$$ We expect $g(x)$ to be a decreasing function of $x$ as we noticed before that with increasing disorder density $\rho_{im}$ the relaxation time $\tau_{\alpha}$ increases so the first derivative calculated at $x=0$, $|g^{'}_0|$ will be negative. Putting Eq. (\[appScalFn\]) in Eq. (\[ratioRelx\]) we arrive at the following relation after little bit of algebraic manipulation, $$TS_c\log\left[ \frac{\tau_{\alpha}(\rho_{im},T)}{\tau_{\alpha}(0,T)}\right] \simeq
A\left( |g^{'}_0|\rho_{im}\xi^d_s + {\cal O} \left[(\rho_{im}\xi^d_s)^2\right] \right)
\label{appRatioRelx}$$ This relation is expected to be valid only in the dilute disorder limit. Next we explain the details of the experiment and the results that validate this scaling theory.
The experiment is done as follows. We first equilibrate a system of $N = 1000$ particles interacting via the Kob-Andersen Potential [@95KA]. The interaction potential is given by $$V_{\alpha\beta}(r)=4\epsilon_{\alpha\beta}[(\frac{\sigma_{\alpha\beta}}{r})^{12}-
(\frac{\sigma_{\alpha\beta}}{r})^{6}]$$ where $\alpha,\beta \in \{A,B\}$ and $\epsilon_{AA}=1.0$, $\epsilon_{AB}=1.5$, $\epsilon_{BB}=0.5$, $\sigma_{AA}=1.0$, $\sigma_{AB}=0.80$, $\sigma_{BB}=0.88$. The Interaction Potential was cut off at 2.50$\sigma_{\alpha\beta}$. We have performed the simulations at six different temperatures in range $T \in [{1.00,\, 0.45}]$. Then we take the equilibrated system and randomly choose $N_{im} = N*\rho_{im}$ number of particles and freeze their degrees of freedom and run the dynamics to calculate the relaxation time.
We have calculated the overlap function defined below to estimate the structural relaxation time $\tau_{\alpha}$, $$Q(t) = \frac{1}{N - N_{im}}\sum_{i=1}^{N\,\,\,\prime} w(|\vec{r}_i(t) - \vec{r}_i(0)|),$$ where the weight function $w(x) = 1$ if $x<0.30$ and zero otherwise. The prime sign in the summation indicates that immobile pinned particles are not included in the summation while calculating the correlation function. In Fig. \[corlFn\], we plotted the overlap function $Q(t)$ averaged over $50$ different realization of quenched disorder for different density of disorder at temperature $T = 0.700$.
The Relaxation time $\tau_{\alpha}$ is defined to be the time where the correlation function $Q(t) = 1/e$, where $e$ is the base of natural logarithm.
In Fig. \[tauImp\], we have shown the dependence of $\tau_{\alpha}$ as a function of disorder density $\rho_{im}$ for the six simulated temperatures. Note that as one decreases the temperature the effect of disorder in the relaxation time kicks in for smaller disorder density. This can be understood easily from the fact that the effect of the quenched disorder is to pin the correlated region to one place causing hindrance to relaxation. Now as one decrease the temperature the size of these correlated region grows and one needs less number of pinning sites to freeze the whole system.
In Fig. \[tauBeforeScaling\], we have plotted $TS_c\log\left[ \tau_\alpha(\rho_{im})/\tau_{\alpha}(0)\right]$ measured for all the simulated temperatures against $\rho_{im}$ and in Fig. \[tauScaling\], we have plotted the same data but rescaling the abscissia by the appropriate power of static length-scale $\xi_s$. The quality of the collapse suggests that indeed our proposed scaling ansatz Eq. (\[ratioRelx\]) is obeyed to a high precission. The solid line is the approximate scaling form derived in Eq. (\[appRatioRelx\]). It is clear from the figure that the approximate form of the scaling function is indeed a very good approximation in the dilute disorder regime. We also want to point out here that Eq. (\[appScalFn\]) suggests that one can have an ideal glass transition as a function of disorder density at a critical density of disorder $\rho^c_{im}(T)$ given by $$\rho^c_{im}(T) \simeq \frac{1}{|g^{'}_0|\xi^d_s(T)}.$$
In summary, we have showed that the dynamics of supercooled liquid under the influence of externally imposed quenched disorder can be understood completely by our proposed static length-scale. This analysis also suggests that one can get the static length-scale by studying the dynamics of the supercooled liquids under externally imposed quenched disorder instead of calculating it from the scaling of minimal eigenvalue which may be less trivial to access in experiments. It would be really nice if one could experimentally study the dynamics of supercooled liquids under externally imposed disorder, since the configurational entropy which is needed to have the data collapse is also easily calculable in experiments. We hope that this kind of analysis will be done on other model glass formers and also in laboratory experiments by other groups to enhance the understanding of the glass transition.
This work had been supported in part by an ERC “ideas" grant, the Israel Science Foundation and by the German Israeli Foundation. We benefitted from discussions with Eran Bouchbinder and Konrad Samwer.
[99]{} E. Donth, The Glass Transition (Springer, Berlin, 2001).
P. G. Debenedetti, F. H. Stillinger, Nature [**410**]{}, 259 (2001).
M. D. Ediger, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 51, 99 (2000).
L. Berthier, G. Biroli, J.-P. Bouchaud, L. Cipilletti, D. El Masri, D. L’Hôte, F. Ladieu and M. Pierno, Science [**310**]{}, 1797 (2005).
M. M. Hurley, P. Harrowell, Phys. Rev. E. [**52**]{}, 1694 (1995).
C. Bennemann, C. Donati, J. Baschnagel, S. C. Glotzer, Nature [**399**]{}, 246 (1999).
C. Donati, S. Franz, S. C. Glotzer, G. Parisi, J. Non-Cryst. Solids [**307-310**]{}, 215 (2002).
S. Franz and G. Parisi, J. Phys. Condens. Matter. [**12**]{}, 6335–6342 (2000).
S. Karmakar, C. Dasgupta, and S. Sastry, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA) 106, 3675 (2009).
S. Karmakar, C. Dasgupta, and S. Sastry, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 015701 (2010).
G. Adam and J.H. Gibbs, J Chem Phys [**43**]{}, 139–146 (1965).
S. Karmakar, E. Lerner and I. Procaccia, ArXiv cond-matt 1104.1036 ( 2011).
G. Biroli, J.-P. Bouchaud, A. Cavagna, T.S. Grigera and P. Verrocchio, Nature Physics, [**4**]{}, 771 (2008).
S. Franz, and A. Montanari, J. Phys. A, [**40**]{}, F251 (2007).
M. Mosayebi, E. Del Gado, P. Ilg and H.C, Öttinger, Phys. Rev. Lett, [**104**]{}, 205704 (2010).
J. Kurchan and D. Levine, ArXiv cond-matt 0904.4850.
A. Sokolov, http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/glasses-c10/sokolov/
A. Tanguy, J.P. Wittmer, F. Leonforte, J.L. Barrat, Phys.Rev. B [**66**]{}, 174205 (2002).
V. Ilyin, I. Procaccia, I. Regev, Y. Shokef, Phys. Rev. B [**80**]{}, 174201 (2009).
H.G.E. Hentschel, Smarajit Karmakar, Edan Lerner, Itamar Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E in press, also arXiv:1101.0101.
S. Karmakar, E. Lerner and I. Procaccia, Phys.Rev. E, [**82**]{}, 055103(R) (2010).
W. Kob and H. C. Andersen, Phys. Rev. E [**51**]{}, 4626 (1995).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanczos\_algorithm
S. Karmakar, PhD Thesis, Numerical Studies Of Slow Dynamics And Glass Transition In Model Liquids, http://etd.ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/handle/2005/633.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We translate the main theorem in Tom McKay’s paper “On plethysm conjectures of Stanley and Foulkes” (J. Alg. 319, 2008, pp. 2050–2071) to the language of weight spaces and projections onto invariant spaces of tensors, which makes its proof short and elegant.'
author:
- 'Christian Ikenmeyer${}^1$'
title: 'On McKay’s propagation theorem for the Foulkes conjecture'
---
Keywords: Representation theory of the symmetric group; Plethysm; Foulkes Conjecture; Foulkes-Howe Conjecture
MSC2010: 20C30
Introduction
============
The Foulkes conjecture [@Fou:50] states an inequality of certain representation theoretic multiplicities. It comes in several different equivalent formulations, the most straightforward one being the following.
\[conj:foulkes\] Let $a, b \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_{>0}$ with $a \leq b$. Let $U$ be a finite dimensional vector space of dimension at least $b$. Then for every partition $\lambda$ the multiplicity of the irreducible ${\mathsf{GL}}(U)$ representation $\{\lambda\}$ in the plethysm ${\mathsf{Sym}}^a({\mathsf{Sym}}^b U)$ is at most as large as the multiplicity of $\{\lambda\}$ in ${\mathsf{Sym}}^b({\mathsf{Sym}}^a U)$.
The inequality $a \leq b$ is important: We know that ${\mathsf{Sym}}^a({\mathsf{Sym}}^b U)$ contains irreducible ${\mathsf{GL}}(U)$ representations with up to $a$ parts, but ${\mathsf{Sym}}^b({\mathsf{Sym}}^a U)$ contains irreducible ${\mathsf{GL}}(U)$ representations with up to $b$ parts.
Using Schur-Weyl duality [@Gay:76] (see also [@Ike:12b]) one can interpret Conjecture \[conj:foulkes\] in terms of representations of the symmetric group and we will use that interpretation later in this paper.
Conjecture \[conj:foulkes\] is true for $a \leq 5$: for $a \leq 2$ see the explicit formulas in [@Thr:42], for the case $a \leq 3$ see [@DS:00], and see Corollary \[cor:computation\] for $a \leq 4$ and Corollary \[cor:bettercomputation\] for $a \leq 5$. Brion [@Bri:93] showed that Conjecture \[conj:foulkes\] is true in the cases where $b$ is large enough with respect to $a$. Conjecture \[conj:foulkes\] is true if we only consider partitions ${\lambda}$ with at most 2 rows [@Her:1854], a phenomenon called Hermite reciprocity. Manivel showed that Conjecture \[conj:foulkes\] is also true for all partitions with very long first rows [@mani:98 Thm. 4.3.1]. In this case we do not only have an inequality of the multiplicities, but equality.
Conjecture \[conj:foulkes\] is equivalent to saying that there exists a ${\mathsf{GL}}(U)$ equivariant inclusion map $$\label{eq:foulkesconj}
{\mathsf{Sym}}^a({\mathsf{Sym}}^b U) \hookrightarrow {\mathsf{Sym}}^b({\mathsf{Sym}}^a U).$$ A natural candidate for the map in was the following map $\Psi_{a \times b}$: $$\xymatrix{
{\mathsf{Sym}}^a({\mathsf{Sym}}^b U) {\ar@{^{(}->}}[d]^\iota \ar[r]^{\Psi_{a \times b}} & {\mathsf{Sym}}^b ({\mathsf{Sym}}^a U) \\
{\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^a({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^b U) \ar[r]^{r} & {\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^b ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^a U) {\ar@{->>}}[u]_{\varrho}
}$$ where $\iota$ denotes the canonical embedding of symmetric tensors in the space of all tensors, $\varrho$ is the canonical projection, and $r$ is the canonical isomorphism given by reordering tensor factors. This map has a natural analog $\psi_{a\times b}$ in the symmetric group interpretation that we will discuss in Section \[sec:prelim\]. It was combinatorially defined in [@BL:89].
Hadamard conjectured [@Had:97] that $\Psi_{a\times b}$ is injective for all $a \leq b$. Howe [@How:87 p. 93] wrote that this “is reasonable to expect”. However, Müller and Neunhöffer [@MN:05] showed that $\Psi_{5\times 5}$ has a nontrivial kernel. In [@CIM:15] the kernel of $\Psi_{5\times 5}$ is determined as a ${\mathsf{GL}}(U)$ representation: It is multiplicity free and consists of the following types of irreducible representations: (14, 7, 2, 2), (13, 7, 2, 2, 1), (12, 7, 3, 2, 1), (12, 6, 3, 2, 2), (12, 5, 4, 3, 1), (11, 5, 4, 4, 1), (10, 8, 4, 2, 1), and (9, 7, 6, 3). Also it is shown in [@CIM:15] that $\Psi_{6\times 6}$ is not injective.
McKay [@McK:08] contributed the following main theorem.
\[thm:main\] If $\Psi_{a \times (b-1)}$ is injective, then $\Psi_{a \times c}$ is injective for all $c \geq b$.
The proof uses the analog map $\psi_{a \times b}$, defined in Section \[sec:prelim\], and decomposes it into a composition of two maps (Section \[sec:decomp\]) whose injectivity is proved independently (Sections \[subsec:leftfactor\] and Sections \[subsec:rightfactor\]).
Theorem \[thm:main\] allows us to verify Conjecture \[conj:foulkes\] in infinitely many cases while only doing a finite calculation: [@MN:05] calculate that $\Psi_{4 \times 4}$ is injective, so Theorem \[thm:main\] implies the following corollary.
\[cor:computation\] Conjecture \[conj:foulkes\] is true in all cases where $a = 4$.
Although $\Psi_{5\times 5}$ is not injective, if $a=b$ then ${\mathsf{Sym}}^a({\mathsf{Sym}}^b U) = {\mathsf{Sym}}^b({\mathsf{Sym}}^a U)$. The recent calculation [@CIM:15] reveals that $\Psi_{5 \times 6}$ is injective, therefore Theorem \[thm:main\] implies the following corollary.
\[cor:bettercomputation\] Conjecture \[conj:foulkes\] is true in all cases where $a = 5$.
Let ${\textsf{Ch}}_b:=\overline{{\mathsf{GL}}_b (X_1 X_2 \cdots X_b)} \subseteq {\mathsf{Sym}}^b {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^b$ denote the ${\mathsf{GL}}_b$ orbit closure of the monomial $X_1 X_2 \cdots X_b$. We call this orbit closure the $b$th Chow variety. The kernel of $\Psi_{a \times b}$ is known to be the homogeneous degree $a$ part of the vanishing ideal of ${\textsf{Ch}}_b$, as was shown by Hadamard, see e.g. [@Lan:11 Section 8.6].
For more information on the history of the Foulkes conjecture and the kernel of $\Psi_{a \times b}$ we refer the interested reader to [@Lan:15 Section 7.1].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
---------------
I thank JM Landsberg for bringing McKay’s paper to my attention, for valuable discussions, and for providing help with the historical background.
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
Fix natural numbers $a, b \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_{>0}$ and let $V:={\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^a \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^b$. The group ${\mathsf{GL}}_a \times {\mathsf{GL}}_b$ acts canonically on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^a \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^b$ and hence on the $ab$th tensor power ${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$ be the symmetric group on $a$ letters and embed ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a \subseteq {\mathsf{GL}}_a$ via permutation matrices. Let $a \times b := (b,b,\ldots,b)$ denote the partition of $ab$ whose Young diagram is a rectangle with $a$ rows and $b$ columns (in anglophone notation). Let $\emptyset$ denote the empty partition, i.e., $\emptyset := 0 \times 0$. For complex numbers $s_1,\ldots,s_a$ let $\operatorname{diag}(s_1,\ldots,s_a)$ denote the diagonal matrix with $s_1,\ldots,s_a$ on the main diagonal. Analogously for $\operatorname{diag}(t_1,\ldots,t_b)$. For $\alpha \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}^a$ and $\beta\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}^b$ the set of tensors $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{\alpha,\beta} := $ $$\{w \in {\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V \mid (\operatorname{diag}(s_1,\ldots,s_a),\operatorname{diag}(t_1,\ldots,t_b))w = s_1^{\alpha_1}\cdots s_a^{\alpha_a} t_1^{\beta_1}\cdots t_b^{\beta_b} w\}$$ is called the $(\alpha,\beta)$ weight space of ${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V$. Here $\alpha$ and $\beta$ might be partitions, but could also be *weak compositions*, i.e., we do not require the entries of $\alpha \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_{\geq 0}^a$ and $\beta\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}_{\geq 0}^b$ to be ordered. The weight space $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{a \times b,\emptyset}$ is closed under the action of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$. Let $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{a \times b,\emptyset}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a}$ denote the ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$ invariant space. Analogously define $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{\emptyset,b \times a}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_b}$. On the space of tensors ${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V$ we have the canonical action of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_{ab}$ via permutation of the tensor factors. To avoid confusion with ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$ or ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_b$, we use the symbol ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{S}}}_{ab}$ for the group ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_{ab}$ if it acts by permuting the tensor factors. Since the actions of ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{S}}}_{ab}$ and ${\mathsf{GL}}(V)$ commute, $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{a \times b}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a}$ and $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{b \times a}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_b}$ are ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{S}}}_{ab}$ representations. Recall that the irreducible ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{S}}}_{ab}$ representations ${[{{\lambda}}]}$ are indexed by partitions ${\lambda}$ whose Young diagrams have $ab$ boxes, i.e., $|{\lambda}|=ab$.
Let $e_1,\ldots,e_a$ denote the standard basis of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^a$ and let $f_1,\ldots,f_b$ denote the standard basis of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^b$. For $d \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, $W:={\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^d V$, $1 \leq i \leq a$ and $1 \leq j \leq b$ we define $\varphi_{i,j}:W\to W$ to be the raising operator that projects each $(\alpha,\beta)$ weight space in $W$ to the $(\alpha-e_i,\beta+f_j)$ weight space. For example $\varphi_{2,1}$ maps the $((3,2,1),(2,2))$ weight space to the $((3,1,1),(3,2))$ weight space.
\[cla:commute\] All the $\varphi_{i,j}$ commute.
We postpone the proof to Section \[subsec:proofs\].
Define the map $\varphi_{a \times b}: ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{a \times b,\emptyset} \to ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{\emptyset,b \times a}$ via $$\label{eq:def:phiaxb}
\varphi_{a \times b} := \varphi_{1,1} \circ \varphi_{1,2} \circ \cdots \varphi_{1,b} \circ \varphi_{2,1} \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{2,b} \circ \cdots \cdots \circ \varphi_{a,b}.$$ Note that according to Claim \[cla:commute\] the order of the factors in does not matter. The restriction of $\varphi_{a \times b}$ to the linear subspace of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$ invariants shall be denoted by $$\psi_{a \times b} : ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{a\times b,\emptyset}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a} \to ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{\emptyset,b\times a}.$$ It is easy to see that $\psi_{a \times b}$ actually maps to $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{\emptyset,b\times a}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_b}$, but we will omit this detail in the upcoming proofs. Since each $\varphi_{i,j}$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{S}}}_{ab}$ equivariant, the map $\psi_{a\times b}$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{S}}}_{ab}$ equivariant.
Using Schur-Weyl duality we see that the multiplicity of $\{{\lambda}\}$ in ${\mathsf{Sym}}^a({\mathsf{Sym}}^b U)$ equals the multiplicity of the irreducible ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{S}}}_{ab}$ representation $[{\lambda}]$ in $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{a\times b,\emptyset}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a}$ and the multiplicity of $\{{\lambda}\}$ in ${\mathsf{Sym}}^b({\mathsf{Sym}}^a U)$ equals the multiplicity of $[{\lambda}]$ in $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{b\times a,\emptyset}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_b}$. Moreover, the multiplicity of $\{{\lambda}\}$ in the kernel of $\Psi_{a \times b}:{\mathsf{Sym}}^a({\mathsf{Sym}}^b U)\to{\mathsf{Sym}}^b({\mathsf{Sym}}^a U)$ is precisely the multiplicity of $[{\lambda}]$ in the kernel of $\psi_{a\times b}$. Therefore we can phrase McKay’s Theorem \[thm:main\] as follows:
\[thm:mainsn\] If $\psi_{a \times (b-1)}$ is injective, then $\psi_{a \times c}$ is injective for all $c \geq b$.
The rest of this paper is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[thm:mainsn\]. Using induction it suffices to prove it for the case $b=c$. The proof goes by decomposing $\psi_{a \times b}$ into a composition of two maps (Section \[sec:decomp\]) and then proving injectivity for the left factor (Section \[subsec:leftfactor\]) and the right factor (Section \[subsec:rightfactor\]) separately.
Decomposition of the canonical map {#sec:decomp}
==================================
Let $a < b$ and set $B := b-1$ to simplify notation. We interpret ${\mathsf{GL}}_B \subseteq {\mathsf{GL}}_b$ as $B \times B$ matrices embedded in the upper left corner of $b \times b$ matrices with an additional 1 at the lower right corner. Let $V:={\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^a \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^b$.
\[cla:mapstoinv\] Given a tensor power $W:={\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^d V$. The composition $$\varphi_{1,b} \circ \varphi_{2,b} \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{a,b}: W \to W$$ maps ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$-invariants to ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$-invariants.
We postpone the proof to Section \[subsec:proofs\].
Let $(0^B,a)$ denote the weak composition $(0,0,...,0,a) \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}^b$ that is zero everywhere but in the last entry.
Consider the map $\psi_{a \times b} : ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{a\times b,\emptyset}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a} \to ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{\emptyset,b\times a}$. According to Claim \[cla:mapstoinv\] the right factor of $$\label{eq:leftrightfactor}
\psi_{a \times b} = (\underbrace{\varphi_{1,1} \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{1,B} \circ \varphi_{2,1} \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{a,B}}_{\text{left factor}}) \circ (\underbrace{\varphi_{1,b} \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{a,b}}_{\text{right factor}}).$$ maps ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$ invariants to ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$ invariants, so that we can write $$({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{a\times b,\emptyset}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a} \stackrel{\text{right factor}}{\longrightarrow} ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{a\times B,(0^B,a)}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a} \stackrel{\text{left factor}}{\longrightarrow} ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{\emptyset,b\times a}.$$ The left factor is similar to $\psi_{a \times B}$, but with a larger domain of definition. The proof idea for Theorem \[thm:mainsn\] is to prove injectivity of both factors independently, where the injectivity of the left factor will follow from the induction hypothesis that $\psi_{a \times B}$ is injective.
The left factor {#subsec:leftfactor}
===============
We want to be more precise about the relationship between the left factor of and $\psi_{a \times B}$. Let ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^B \subseteq {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^b$ be embedded as vectors that have a zero as their last component. Let $V':= \langle e_1,\ldots,e_a,f_1,\ldots,f_B\rangle = {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^a \oplus {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^B \subseteq V$ be the complement of the 1-dimensional vector space spanned by the basis vector $f_b$. We decompose ${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V$ as follows. ${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V = $ $$\label{eq:decomposeleft}
\bigoplus_{Q \subseteq [ab]} \langle \{ v_{1} \otimes v_{2} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{ab} \mid v_{i} \in V' \text{ if } i \notin Q, \ v_{i}=f_b \text{ if } i \in Q \}\rangle,$$ where $[ab]:=\{1,2,\ldots,ab\}$ and $\langle\ \rangle$ denotes the linear span. We denote by ${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V$ the summand in corresponding to $Q$. The weight spaces split as follows: $$({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{a\times B,(0^B,a)}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a} = \bigoplus_{{Q \subseteq [ab]}\atop{|Q|=a}} ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V)_{a\times B,(0^B,a)}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a}$$ and $$({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}V)_{\emptyset,b \times a} = \bigoplus_{{Q \subseteq [ab]}\atop{|Q|=a}} ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V)_{\emptyset,b \times a}.$$ As a ${\mathsf{GL}}_a \times {\mathsf{GL}}_B$ representation, ${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V$ is canonically isomorphic to ${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab-|Q|} V'$. Using this isomorphism, for $|Q|=a$ we see that the following diagram commutes: $$({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V)_{a\times B,(0^B,a)}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a} \simeq ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{aB} V')_{a\times B,\emptyset}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a}$$ $$\psi_{a \times B}^Q \downarrow \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \downarrow \psi_{a \times B}$$ $$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V)_{\emptyset,b \times a} \simeq ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{aB} V')_{\emptyset,B \times a}$$ where $\psi_{a \times B}^Q$ is the left factor of restricted to $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V)_{a\times B,(0^B,a)}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a}$. Hence we have $$\psi_{a \times b} = (\bigoplus_{{Q \subseteq [ab]} \atop {|Q|=a}} \psi_{a \times B}^Q) \circ (\varphi_{1,b}\circ \varphi_{2,b} \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{a,b}).$$ We see that since $\psi_{a \times B}$ is injective by induction hypothesis, each $\psi_{a \times B}^Q$ is injective, and $\psi_{a \times b}$ is injective as a direct sum of injective maps whose ranges form a direct sum.
The right factor {#subsec:rightfactor}
================
To show that the right factor of is injective it suffices to show injectivity for the $a$ factors $\varphi_{i,b}$, $1 \leq i \leq a$. Let $\gamma_i$ denote the weak composition $$\gamma_i := (\underbrace{B,B,\ldots,B}_{i \text{ times}}, \underbrace{b,b,\ldots,b}_{a-i \text{ times}})$$ whose Young diagram has $ab-i$ boxes (if we flip the rows, then it is a partition). We have $\gamma_0=a \times b$ and $\gamma_a=a \times B$. With this notation we can write $$({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V)_{a \times b,\emptyset} \hspace{10cm}$$ $$\rotatebox{90}{=} \hspace{10cm}$$ $$({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V)_{\gamma_0,(0^B,0)} \stackrel{\varphi_{1,b}}{\to} ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V)_{\gamma_1,(0^B,1)} \stackrel{\varphi_{2,b}}{\to} ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V)_{\gamma_2,(0^B,2)} \stackrel{\varphi_{3,b}}{\to} \cdots \stackrel{\varphi_{a,b}}{\to} ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V)_{\gamma_a,(0^B,a)}$$ $$\hspace{11cm} \rotatebox{90}{=}$$ $$\hspace{10.5cm} ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V)_{a \times B,(0^B,a)}$$ Note that formally we are only required to prove the injectivity of this chain $\varphi_{a,b}\circ\cdots\circ\varphi_{1,b}$ restricted to the ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$ invariant space $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V)_{a \times b,\emptyset}^{{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a}$. We ignore the action of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$ and in the following claim we prove the injectivity of each factor of the chain, which finishes the proof of Theorem \[thm:mainsn\].
Let $a < b$ and $1 \leq i \leq a$. The map $$\varphi_{i,b} : ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V)_{\gamma_{i-1},(0^B,i-1)} \to ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V)_{\gamma_{i},(0^B,i)}$$ is injective.
Fix $i$ with $1 \leq i \leq a$. Note that the inequality $i \leq B$ holds, because $i \leq a < b$. We will use it later.
We proceed similary to the proof for the left factor. Let $V'=\langle e_1,\ldots,e_{i-1},e_{i+1},\ldots,e_a,f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_B\rangle$ be the complement of $\langle e_i,f_b\rangle$. For a subset $Q \subseteq [ab]$ we denote by ${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V$ the vector space spanned by $$\{ v_{1} \otimes \cdots \otimes v_{ab} \mid v_{i} \in V' \text{ if } i \in Q, v_{i} \in \langle e_i,f_b\rangle \text{ if } i \notin Q \}.$$ The weight spaces split as follows: $$({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V)_{\gamma_{i-1},(0^B,i-1)} = \bigoplus_{Q \subseteq [ab]\atop{|Q|=ab-(B+i)}} ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V)_{\gamma_{i-1},(0^B,i-1)}$$ and $$({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab} V)_{\gamma_{i},(0^B,i)} = \bigoplus_{Q \subseteq [ab]\atop{|Q|=ab-(B+i)}} ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V)_{\gamma_{i},(0^B,i)}.$$ We embed ${\mathsf{GL}}_2 \subseteq {\mathsf{GL}}(V)$ to be the ${\mathsf{GL}}_2$ that preserves the linear space $\langle e_i,f_b\rangle$. As a ${\mathsf{GL}}_2$ representation ${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_QV$ is canonically isomorphic to ${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab-|Q|}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^2$. Using this isomorphism, for $|Q|=ab-(B+i)$ we see that the following diagram commutes: $$({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V)_{\gamma_{i-1},(0^B,i-1)} \simeq ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{B+i} {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^2)_{b,i-1}$$ $$\varphi_{i,b}^Q \downarrow \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \quad \downarrow \zeta$$ $$({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V)_{\gamma_{i},(0^B,i)} \simeq ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{B+i} {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^2)_{B,i}$$ where $\varphi_{i,b}^Q$ is the raising operator $\varphi_{i,b}$ restricted to the weight space $({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{ab}_Q V)_{\gamma_{i-1},(0^B,i-1)}$, and $\zeta : ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{B+i} {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^2)_{b,i-1} \to ({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{B+i} {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^2)_{B,i}$ is the canonical ${\mathsf{GL}}_2$ raising operator.
It remains to show that $\zeta$ is injective, because then all $\varphi_{i,b}^Q$ are injective and hence $\varphi_{i,b} = \bigoplus_Q \varphi_{i,b}^Q$ is injective as a direct sum of injective maps whose ranges form a direct sum. We will use the fact that $i \leq B$.
By Schur-Weyl duality, $${\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{B+i}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^2 = \bigoplus_{\lambda} \{{\lambda}\} \otimes [{\lambda}]$$ as a ${\mathsf{GL}}_2 \times {\ensuremath{\mathsf{S}}}_{B+i}$ representation, where $\lambda$ runs over all partitions with $B+i$ boxes and at most 2 parts, and $\{{\lambda}\}$ denotes the irreducible ${\mathsf{GL}}_2$ representation of type ${\lambda}$. The Kostka number determines the dimension of the $(b,i-1)$ weight space in ${\{{{\lambda}}\}}$: It is 1-dimensional iff $i-1 \geq {\lambda}_2$ and zero otherwise. Therefore as an ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{S}}}_{B+i}$ representation we have $$({\smash{\textstyle\bigotimes}}^{B+i}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^2)_{(b,i-1)} = \bigoplus_{\lambda \atop {i-1 \geq {\lambda}_2}} [{\lambda}]. $$ By Schur’s lemma, since $\zeta$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathsf{S}}}_{B+i}$ equivariant, it suffices to check for each partition $\lambda$ that a single $(b,i-1)$ weight vector in the ${\lambda}$-isotypic ${\mathsf{GL}}_2$ component is not mapped to zero by $\zeta$. We will choose an explicit weight vector as follows. Let $\{e,f\}$ be the standard basis of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}^2$. For $B > i-1 \geq {\lambda}_2$ we calculate $$(e \wedge f)^{{\lambda}_2} \otimes (e^{b-{\lambda}_2} \cdot f^{i-1-{\lambda}_2}) \quad \stackrel{\zeta}{\mapsto} \quad (e \wedge f)^{{\lambda}_2} \otimes (e^{B-{\lambda}_2} \cdot f^{i-{\lambda}_2}) \ \neq \ 0,$$ where $\cdot$ denotes the symmetric product.
Appendix: Proofs of the preliminary claims {#subsec:proofs}
==========================================
The map $\varphi_{i,j}$ is defined on basis tensors as follows:\
$\varphi_{i,j}(v_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes v_d) = $ $$\tfrac 1 d\Big( \zeta_{i,j}(v_1) \otimes v_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes v_d + v_1 \otimes \zeta_{i,j}(v_2) \otimes \cdots \otimes v_d + \cdots + v_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes \zeta_{i,j}(v_d)\Big),$$ where all $v_k \in \{e_1,\ldots,e_a,f_1,\ldots,f_b\}$, and $\zeta_{i,j}:V \to V$ maps $e_i$ to $f_j$ and vanishes on all other basis vectors. Since $\zeta_{i,j} \circ \zeta_{i',j'} = 0$, for the composition of maps $\varphi_{i,j} \circ \varphi_{i',j'}$ we have $$(\varphi_{i,j}\circ \varphi_{i',j'})(v_1 \otimes \cdots \otimes v_d) = \tfrac 1 {d(d-1)} \sum_{{p,q=1}\atop{p\neq q}}^d
v_1 \otimes v_2 \otimes \zeta_{i,j}(v_p) \otimes \cdots \otimes \zeta_{i',j'}(v_q) \otimes \cdots \otimes v_d.$$ This expression is symmetric in $p$ and $q$. Therefore $\varphi_{i,j}\circ \varphi_{i',j'}=\varphi_{i',j'}\circ \varphi_{i,j}$.
The action of ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$ permutes the weight spaces. More precisely, for $\pi \in{\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$ and $w \in W$ we have $$\pi \varphi_{i,b}(w) = \varphi_{\pi(i),b}(\pi w).$$ Therefore, if we take $w$ to be ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$-invariant, we see that $$\pi\Big((\varphi_{1,b} \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{a,b})(w)\Big) =
(\underbrace{\varphi_{\pi(1),b} \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{\pi(a),b}}_{\stackrel{\ref{cla:commute}}{=}\varphi_{1,b} \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{a,b}})(\underbrace{\pi w}_{=w})$$ for every $\pi \in {\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$, and hence $(\varphi_{1,b} \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{a,b})(w)$ is ${\ensuremath{\mathfrak{S}}}_a$-invariant.
[McK08]{}
S.C. Black and R.J. List. A note on plethysm. , 10(1):111 – 112, 1989.
Michel Brion. Stable properties of plethysm: on two conjectures of [F]{}oulkes. , 80(4):347–371, 1993.
Man-Wai (Mandy) Cheung, Christian Ikenmeyer, and Sevak Mkrtchyan. Symmetrizing tableaux and the 5th case of the Foulkes conjecture. arXiv:1509.03944, 2015.
Suzie C. Dent and Johannes Siemons. On a conjecture of [F]{}oulkes. , 226(1):236–249, 2000.
H. O. Foulkes. Concomitants of the quintic and sextic up to degree four in the coefficients of the ground form. , 25:205–209, 1950.
David A. Gay. Characters of the [W]{}eyl group of [S]{}[U]{}(n) on zero weight spaces and centralizers of permutation representations. , 6(3), 1976.
J. Hadamard. Mémoire sur l’élimination. , 20(1):201–238, 1897.
Charles Hermite. Sur la théorie des fonctions homogenes à deux indéterminées. , 9:172–217, 1854.
Roger Howe. -duality and symmetric plethysm. , 97(1-3):85–109 (1988), 1987.
Christian Ikenmeyer. . PhD thesis, Institute of Mathematics, University of Paderborn, 2012. Online available at <http://math-www.uni-paderborn.de/agpb/work/ikenmeyer_thesis.pdf>.
Joseph Landsberg. , volume 128 of [*Graduate Studies in Mathematics*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2011.
J. M. Landsberg. Geometric complexity theory: an introduction for geometers. , 61(1):65–117, 2015.
L. Manivel. Gaussian maps and plethysm. In [*Algebraic geometry ([C]{}atania, 1993/[B]{}arcelona, 1994)*]{}, volume 200 of [*Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math.*]{}, pages 91–117. Dekker, New York, 1998.
Tom McKay. On plethysm conjectures of [S]{}tanley and [F]{}oulkes. , 319(5):2050–2071, 2008.
J[ü]{}rgen M[ü]{}ller and Max Neunh[ö]{}ffer. Some computations regarding [F]{}oulkes’ conjecture. , 14(3):277–283, 2005.
R. M. Thrall. On symmetrized [K]{}ronecker powers and the structure of the free [L]{}ie ring. , 64:371–388, 1942.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
First, we present a combined analysis of $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe$ and $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj$ at next-to-leading order, including both and electroweak corrections. Second, we provide all-order predictions for $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu
\Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe+\mathrm{jets}$ using merged parton-shower simulations that also include approximate effects. A fully inclusive sample for $\PW\PW$ production is compared to the fixed-order computations for the zero- and one-jet selections. The various higher-order effects are studied in detail at the level of cross sections and differential distributions for realistic experimental set-ups. Our study shows that merged predictions are significantly more stable than the fixed-order ones in particular regarding ratios between the two processes.
author:
- |
Stephan Bräuer$^{1\,}$[^1], Ansgar Denner$^{2\,}$[^2], Mathieu Pellen$^{3\,}$[^3], Marek Schönherr$^{4\,}$[^4], Steffen Schumann$^{1\,}$[^5]\
[*$^1$ Georg-August Universität Göttingen, Institut für Theoretische Physik,*]{}\
[*Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1, 37077 Göttingen, Germany*]{}\
[*$^2$ Universität Würzburg, Institut für Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik,*]{}\
[*Emil-Hilb-Weg 22, 97074 Würzburg, Germany*]{}\
[*$^3$ University of Cambridge, Cavendish Laboratory,*]{}\
[*19 JJ Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, United Kingdom*]{}\
[*$^4$ Institute for Particle Physics Phenomenology, Durham University,*]{}\
[*Durham DH1 3LE, United Kingdom*]{}\
bibliography:
- 'wwj.bib'
title: |
\
\
**Fixed-order and merged parton-shower predictions for $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ production at the LHC including NLO and corrections**
---
Introduction
============
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is entering a precision era with the analysis of the full run 2 data set. Many processes will be measured with an unprecedented accuracy and, in that respect, the consideration and evaluation of all possible theoretical effects is mandatory.
Measurements of $\PW^+\PW^-$ production have been long on-going, leading to very precise results [@Aaboud:2019nkz]. They are largely motivated by the search for anomalous triple gauge-boson couplings [@Sirunyan:2017bey] and in turn provide stringent tests of the Standard Model. However, so far, only a single measurement of di-boson production in association with a jet has been published [@Aaboud:2016mrt]. Such a measurement is complementary to the di-boson ones as it probes similar physics effects in a different kinematics.
On the theoretical side, many higher-order computations have been performed for $\PW^+\PW^-$ production in order to match the experimental precision. It started many years ago with the calculation of next-to-leading order (NLO) corrections for the production of two W bosons [@Ohnemus:1991kk; @Baur:1995uv; @Campbell:1999ah]. These have been subsequently matched to parton-shower simulations [@Frixione:2002ik; @Hamilton:2010mb]. Electroweak () corrections have been computed over several years [@Kuhn:2011mh; @Bierweiler:2012kw; @Baglio:2013toa; @Gieseke:2014gka; @Biedermann:2016guo; @Kallweit:2017khh]. The NNLO corrections have been obtained a few years ago [@Gehrmann:2014fva; @Gehrmann:2014fva]. These have been recently combined with corrections [@Kallweit:2019zez] and with parton-shower corrections [@Re:2018vac]. Resummed computations [@Grazzini:2015wpa] as well as the gluon–gluon loop-induced contribution [@Caola:2015rqy; @Grazzini:2020stb] are also available. Very recently, a combination of fixed-order predictions with resummed ones has been presented in for vetoed cross sections and transverse observables. Concerning $\PW\PW\Pj$ production, far fewer results are available. Owing to the higher multiplicity the NNLO corrections have not been evaluated yet. However, the NLO corrections are known [@Dittmaier:2009un; @Cascioli:2013gfa], and merged predictions based on the prescription have been presented [@Hamilton:2016bfu]. The NLO corrections for on-shell W bosons have been computed recently [@Li:2015ura].
The present work focuses on the computation and the combination of NLO corrections of and type for the processes $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe$ and $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+
\nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj$ at the LHC. For the first time, NLO and NLO corrections for the off-shell production of both $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ are presented together. All off-shell, non-resonant, and interference contributions are taken into account. Subsequently, all-order predictions based on multi-jet merged parton-shower simulations as implemented in the framework are provided. These predictions also include effects by combining them with the NLO merged predictions of different jet multiplicity using the virtual approximation of the corrections [@Kallweit:2015dum] applied to the dominant part of the QCD corrections. The fully inclusive merged sample for $\PW\PW$ production can be used in combination with the zero- and one-jet selections. We also compare these sub-samples using two merging prescriptions against fixed-order predictions, hence providing a deeper insight in the merging procedure.
[All results presented in this work have been obtained with the fully automated framework [@Biedermann:2017yoi] in realistic experimental set-ups. In particular, vetoes on extra jets are applied for both processes in order to avoid large $K$ factors. Hadronisation and underlying-event effects are not included in the present study but can easily be incorporated thanks to the framework. The results are presented in the form of cross sections and differential distributions. Given the similarity of the $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ production processes, we provide ratios of cross sections and differential distributions between the two processes. They deliver useful information concerning the correlations between the two channels. We also state for reference the cross sections of the loop-induced contributions [@Caola:2015rqy; @Grazzini:2020stb; @Cascioli:2013gfa], which can be treated completely independently and simply be added to our results.]{}
This article is organised as follows: in , the features of the calculations are explained. In particular, the various contributions included and the methods used are reviewed. Technical details and the set-ups of the calculations are provided. Section \[se:results\] is devoted to the numerical results and their discussion. It is divided into two parts: in the fixed-order predictions are displayed, and in results based on multi-jet merging are presented. In each section, various cross sections and a wide range of differential distributions are discussed. Finally, contains a short summary and concluding remarks.
Features of the calculations {#se:features}
============================
Born contributions
------------------
In this work, we consider two hadronic processes corresponding to $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ production at the LHC. The first one, $$\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe ,$$ describes the production of two off-shell W bosons that decay leptonically. The leading-order (LO) cross section is of order $\mathcal{O} \left( \alpha^4 \right)$. The contributing partonic channels have initial states $\Pq \bar \Pq$ with $\Pq = \Pu, \Pd, \Pc,
\Ps$ and $\gamma\gamma$.
The second process involves in addition an extra jet, $$\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj .$$ The dominant partonic channels contribute to the cross section at order $\mathcal{O} \left( \alpha_{\rm s} \alpha^4 \right)$, where besides the $\Pq \bar \Pq$ channels also contributions from $\Pg\Pq$ and $\Pg\bar\Pq$ initial states appear. Sample diagrams are shown in Fig. \[fig:diagLO\]. Subleading contributions of order $\mathcal{O} \left( \alpha^5 \right)$ originate from initial states $\gamma\Pq$ and $\gamma\bar\Pq$, where again $\Pq = \Pu, \Pd, \Pc, \Ps$. While always considering the full off-shell production, in the following, both processes are sometimes referred to as $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$, respectively. {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
In addition to tree-level contributions, there are also loop-induced contributions with two gluons in the initial state, $\Pg\Pg \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe$ and $\Pg\Pg \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pg$ for $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$, respectively. In , their LO fiducial cross sections are given for reference but no in-depth analysis is presented. Such contributions are known at NLO for $\PW\PW$ [@Caola:2015rqy; @Grazzini:2020stb] and have also been studied in detail for $\PW\PW\Pj$ [@Cascioli:2013gfa].
corrections
------------
The corrections to the cross section for $\PW\PW$ production are of order $\mathcal{O} \left( \alpha_{\rm s} \alpha^4 \right)$, while those for $\PW\PW\Pj$ production are of order $\mathcal{O} \left(
\alpha^2_{\rm s} \alpha^4 \right)$. They consist of real and virtual contributions. While both the 5- and 4-flavour scheme can be used for such a computation, we have opted for the 4-flavour scheme here. Thus, bottom quarks are treated as massive, and contributions with bottom quarks in the initial state do not appear. Moreover, partonic processes with bottom quarks in the final state are omitted.
When partonic processes with external bottom quarks are included, contributions such as $\Pg\Pb \to \PW^+\PW^-\Pb$ or $\Pg\Pg \to
\PW^+\PW^-\Pb \bar \Pb$ appear. These are dominated by $\PW\Pt$ and $\Pt\bar\Pt$ production, respectively and should be considered separately. Neglecting external b-quark contributions in the 5-flavour scheme is made possible by using prescriptions to regulate infrared (IR) divergences related to the splitting $\Pg \to \Pb \bar \Pb$ in the real radiation [@Dittmaier:2009un; @Cascioli:2013gfa]. In the 4-flavour scheme, such IR divergences are regulated by the finite bottom-quark mass. In order to avoid the use of extra prescriptions and to simplify the computation, we employ the 4-flavour scheme throughout.
corrections
------------
The corrections to $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ production are of order $\mathcal{O} \left( \alpha^5 \right)$ and $\mathcal{O} \left(
\alpha_{\rm s} \alpha^5 \right)$, respectively. For both processes, *usual* corrections are included, consisting of virtual corrections as well as real-photon radiation. A sample virtual diagram with the insertion of neutral gauge bosons is shown in Fig. \[fig:diagNLO\] (left). {width="30.00000%"} {width="30.00000%"}
Given that a recombination algorithm is used to cancel IR divergences differentially, soft and collinear photons are recombined with jets. At NLO , these jets are either made of a single gluon or a single quark. This opens the possibility to recombine a soft gluon with a hard photon into a jet which suffers from IR singularities related to soft gluons. These singularities are, by definition, not cancelled by the virtual corrections but by virtual corrections to $\Pq\bar\Pq \to \PW^+\PW^-\gamma$.[^6] To deal with such configurations properly, prescriptions for photon–jet separation are needed. For the processes studied here, the related effects are, however, rather suppressed.[^7] Therefore, for the results presented here no prescriptions for photon–jet separation have been used. To justify this procedure, we provide in the appendix a comparison of results obtained without any such prescriptions and a fully consistent approach employing a photon–jet separation based on jet-energy fractions and fragmentation functions following .
For $\PW\PW\Pj$ production, another type of contributions appears in the real corrections, namely interferences between diagrams of orders $\mathcal{O} \left( g_{\rm s}^2 g^4 \right)$ and $\mathcal{O}
\left(g^6 \right)$ for $\Pq\bar\Pq \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar
\nu_\Pe \Pq'\bar\Pq'$. These contributions are IR-finite and have two (anti-)quarks in both the initial and final state. An example of such an interference term is shown in Fig. \[fig:diagint\]. {width="55.00000%"}
Also, the corrections to the photon-induced processes in $\Pp\Pp \to
\mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj$ are counted as part of the corrections. Indeed, even if these are corrections to the underlying process of order $\mathcal{O} \left( \alpha^5 \right)$, $\gamma\Pq \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pq$, they give rise to contributions of order $\mathcal{O} \left( \alpha_{\rm s} \alpha^5
\right)$, of the same order as the corrections to the dominant LO contributions. One example of such contributions is shown in Fig. \[fig:diagNLO\] (right).
Finally, there are further corrections for $\PW\PW\Pj$ of order $\mathcal{O} \left( \alpha^6 \right)$. They result from pure contributions to partonic processes $\Pq\bar\Pq \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu
\Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pq'\bar\Pq'$. They include IR-singular contributions from the splitting $\gamma^* \to \Pq \bar \Pq$, which have been first encountered in the computation of corrections to WZ vector-boson scattering [@Denner:2019tmn]. They can be treated using the photon-to-jet conversion function introduced in , where a numerical study for Z+j production has been presented. This study showed that the corrections of relative order $\mathcal{O} \left( \alpha^2/\alpha_\mathrm{s} \right)$ are of the order of a per cent for the fiducial cross section and reach up to $10\%$ for large transverse momenta. Owing to their reduced numerical size, the $\mathcal{O} \left( \alpha^6 \right)$ corrections have been neglected in the present work.
Merged predictions with virtual approximation {#se:merged_predictions}
----------------------------------------------
Besides calculating $\PW$-pair production in association with zero and one jet at fixed-order, we also match both calculations to the parton shower and build a multi-jet merged event simulation that incorporates exact NLO corrections and approximate corrections for both the $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ final states, based on the method [@Hoeche:2009rj; @Hoche:2010kg; @Hoeche:2012yf; @Gehrmann:2012yg] implemented in the Monte Carlo event generator. The aim of the method is to generate an inclusive event sample wherein the hardest $n=0,1,\ldots,\nmax$ associated jets are described by $n$-jet matrix elements of the desired LO or NLO accuracy. A measure $Q_n$ and a resolution criterion are introduced such that $Q_1>\ldots>Q_n>\Qcut>Q_{n+1}>\ldots$ defines the $n$-jet process and, thus, separates the $n$-jet region from the $n+1$-jet region. The measure $Q_n$ is only required to be the clustering scale of an infrared-safe jet algorithm but otherwise arbitrary. In practice we choose it to coincide with the parton-shower branching scale $t_n$ at the reconstructed splitting.
At LO [@Hoeche:2009rj], , the exclusive cross section with $n<n_\text{max}$ jets reads $$\begin{split}
\done\sigma_n^\MEPSatLO
=&\;\done\Phi_n\,\mr{B}_n(\Phi_n)\,\Theta(Q_n-\Qcut)\,\mc{F}_n(\muQ^2;<\Qcut)\,.
\end{split}$$ Herein, $\mr{B}_n$ is the Born matrix element of the $n$-jet process, including all PDF, flux and symmetry/averaging factors, while $\Phi_n$ is the $n$-jet phase-space configuration. The $\Theta$-function ensures that all $n$ jets are resolved under the jet criterion . The parton-shower generating functional $\mc{F}_n(\muQ^2;<\Qcut)$ [@Hoeche:2014rya] applies a truncated vetoed parton shower to the $n$-jet configuration starting at the hard scale $\muQ$ and ensures that all further emissions fall into the unresolved region, *i.e.*$Q_{n+k}<\Qcut$ ($k>0$). For the highest multiplicity, $n=\nmax$, this veto is increased to $Q_{\nmax}$ to render the highest multiplicity fully inclusive with respect to additional emissions. The application of this veto also supplies the respective Sudakov form factors to the $n$-jet configuration, resumming the hierarchy of reconstructed parton-shower branching scales $t_1,\ldots,t_n$. In concert with the CKKW scale choice $\muR=\muCKKW$, defined through [@Catani:2001cc], $$\label{eq:muRCKKW}
\begin{split}
\alpha_s^n(\muCKKW^2)
=&\;\alpha_s(t_1)\cdots\alpha_s(t_n)\;,
\end{split}$$ and the factorisation and shower-starting scales fixed by the scale of the core process, *i.e.* $\muF=\muQ=\mucore$, a smooth transition across is ensured. With these definitions, $\mucore$ is the only free scale of the CKKW algorithm and fixes the other relevant perturbative scales. In analogy to the fixed-order calculations, the core scale for the reconstructed $\Pp\Pp\to\mu^+\nu_\mu\Pe^-\bar\nu_\Pe$ process is chosen as $$\label{eq:mQCKKW}
\begin{split}
\mucore
={}&\tfrac{1}{2}\left(E_{\mr{T},\PW^+}+E_{\mr{T},\PW^-}\right)
\equiv\tfrac{1}{2}\,\overline{E}_{\mr{T},\PW}\,.
\end{split}$$ This construction can now be lifted to NLO accuracy in , the method [@Hoeche:2012yf; @Gehrmann:2012yg]. Its exclusive $n$-jet cross section, for $n<\nmaxnlo$, based on the expression in , is defined as $$\label{eq:mepsnlo}
\begin{split}
\done\sigma_n^{\MEPSatNLOQCD}
={}&\Theta(Q_n-\Qcut)\left[
\done\Phi_n\Bbar_n^\QCD(\Phi_n)\,\widetilde{\mc{F}}_n(\muQ^2;<\Qcut)
\vphantom{\int}
\right.\\
&\left.{}
+\done\Phi_{n+1}\,\mr{H}_n^\QCD(\Phi_{n+1})\,\Theta(\Qcut-Q_{n+1})\,
\mc{F}_{n+1}(\muQ^2;<\Qcut)
\vphantom{\int}
\right]
\,.
\end{split}$$ Here, $\Bbar_n^\QCD$ describes configurations with $n$ resolved emissions with $Q_n>\Qcut$, and takes the form $$\begin{split}
\Bbar_n^\QCD(\Phi_n)
={}&\;\mr{B}_n(\Phi_n)+\tilde{\mr{V}}_n^\QCD(\Phi_n)
+\int\done\Phi_1\,\mr{D}_n^\QCD(\Phi_n,\Phi_1)\,\Theta(\muQ^2-t_{n+1})\,.
\end{split}$$ It contains NLO renormalised virtual corrections including initial-state mass-factorisation counterterms, $\tilde{\mr{V}}_n^\QCD$, and the integral over the real-emission corrections described by splitting functions in $\mr{D}_n^\QCD$. The functions $\mr{D}_n^\text{QCD}$ are, by construction, also the emission kernels of the fully colour- and spin-correlated parton shower $\widetilde{\mc{F}}_n$ [@Hoeche:2014rya; @Hoeche:2011fd] generating the $(n+1)$-th emission. The $\mr{H}_n^\QCD$ term corrects its approximate emission pattern to the exact NLO expression. It takes the form $$\begin{split}
\mr{H}_n^\QCD(\Phi_{n+1})
=&\;\mr{R}_n^\QCD(\Phi_{n+1})-\mr{D}_n^\QCD(\Phi_n,\Phi_1)\,\Theta(\muQ^2-t_{n+1})\;,
\end{split}$$ with the NLO real-emission matrix element $\mr{R}_n^\QCD$.
When $\nmax>\nmaxnlo$, *i.e.* when only the first emissions can be described at NLO accuracy, the additional $\nmax-\nmaxnlo$ emissions are added at LO accuracy. In this case the method [@Hoche:2010kg; @Gehrmann:2012yg; @Hoeche:2014rya] is used for $n=\nmax^\text{NLO}+k$ ($k>0$), $$\begin{split}
\done\sigma_n^\MENLOPS
=&\;\done\Phi_n\,k_{\nmaxnlo}(\Phi_{\nmaxnlo}(\Phi_n))\,
\mr{B}_n(\Phi_n)\,\Theta(Q_n-\Qcut)\,
\mc{F}_n(\muQ^2;<\Qcut)\,.
\end{split}$$ It thus furnishes a local $K$ factor, defined on the highest multiplicity phase space for which NLO corrections are available, $\Phi_{\nmaxnlo}$, $$\begin{split}
k_n(\Phi_n)
=&\;\frac{\Bbar_n(\Phi_n)}{\mr{B}_n(\Phi_n)}
\left(1-\frac{\mr{H}_n(\Phi_{n+1})}{\mr{B}_{n+1}(\Phi_{n+1})}\right)
+\frac{\mr{H}_n(\Phi_{n+1})}{\mr{B}_{n+1}(\Phi_{n+1})}\;,
\end{split}
\label{eq:local_k-factor}$$ to the expression of that multiplicity. Expanded to $\mc{O}(\alphas)$, it retains both the NLO accuracy of the $\nmaxnlo$-parton process and the LO accuracy of the $n$-parton process, while simultaneously guaranteeing a smooth transition across the merging parameter .
Approximate NLO corrections are incorporated by replacing the usual NLO $\Bbar_n$ function of Eq. (\[eq:mepsnlo\]) with [@Kallweit:2015dum; @Gutschow:2018tuk] $$\label{eq:mepsnlo_qcdpew}
\begin{split}
\overline{\mr{B}}_n^\QCDpEW(\Phi_n)
=&\;\overline{\mr{B}}_n^\QCD(\Phi_n)
+\mr{B}_n(\Phi_n)\,\deltaEWapprox(\Phi_n)
+\mr{B}_n^\text{sub}(\Phi_n)
\end{split}$$ in an additive combination of and corrections or $$\label{eq:mepsnlo_qcdtew}
\begin{split}
\overline{\mr{B}}_n^\QCDtEW(\Phi_n)
=&\;\overline{\mr{B}}_n^\text{QCD}(\Phi_n)\left(1+\deltaEWapprox(\Phi_n)\right)
+\mr{B}_n^\text{sub}(\Phi_n)
\end{split}$$ in a multiplicative manner. In both cases, the approximate correction is defined as $$\begin{split}
\deltaEWapprox(\Phi_n)
=&\;\frac{\mr{V}_n^\EW(\Phi_n)+\mr{I}_n^\EW(\Phi_n)}{\mr{B}_n(\Phi_n)}\;.
\end{split}$$ Herein, $\mr{V}_n^\EW$ represents the renormalised virtual corrections and $\mr{I}_n^\EW$ the approximate real-emission corrections integrated over the real-emission phase space.[^8] Finally, $\mr{B}_n^\text{sub}$ are possible Born contributions at subleading orders, which are, however, zero in the processes under consideration in this article. We stress that the modified $\Bbar_n$ functions and, thus, the corrections also enter the local $K$ factor in Eq. applied to the higher-multiplicity processes. They thus receive approximate corrections through $k_n$ from the $\nmaxnlo$-jet process, guaranteeing their continuity across the merging parameter $\Qcut$ and consistency with respect to whether an additional jet at LO accuracy is merged or not.
It should be noted, however, that the phase-space-point-wise definition of the multiplicative combination of Eq. differs from the usual definition constructed on histogram level. The above construction applies the approximate corrections only to the part of the correction that is formed by the virtual corrections and the soft-collinear limit of the real-emission corrections, but not to its hard wide-angle radiation part. In turn, the results will differ from the bin-by-bin multiplicative combination of and corrections of the fixed-order calculation if hard real radiation described through the $\mr{H}_n$ events forms a substantial part of the event sample. We have checked, however, that this is not the case for any observable presented in this paper. In fact, in our set-up for $\PW\PW+{}$ jets production, the $\mr{H}_n$-terms’ contribution never exceeds 20% (15%) for the zero-jet (one-jet) selection for inclusive observables and 5% (5%) in the Sudakov regime.
Finally, the approximation of integrated-out real-emission corrections can be problematic for leptonic observables in particular. Here, radiative energy loss through photon bremsstrahlung can amount to $\order{1}$ effects below the on-shell -pair production threshold or the pole (see for instance ). If not via explicit real-radiation matrix elements, these effects can be included through either QED parton showers or a soft-photon resummation, the latter of which will be employed in this work. It is important to note, however, that both solutions lead to a double counting of virtual QED corrections which remains unresolved. As these corrections are applied to the respective decays only, it is ensured that they do not interfere with the logarithms in the Sudakov regime [@Kallweit:2015dum; @Kallweit:2017khh]. The unitarity of these resummations also ensures that inclusive cross sections remain unaffected.
Validation and technical aspects
--------------------------------
The results presented here have been obtained with the combination [@Biedermann:2017yoi] which has already been used for several NLO and computations [@Schonherr:2018jva; @Reyer:2019obz; @Baberuxki:2019ifp]. [@Bothmann:2019yzt; @Gleisberg:2008ta] is a multi-purpose Monte Carlo event generator capable to compute both and corrections in a general and automated way. It implements the tree-level matrix-element generators [@Gleisberg:2008fv] and [@Krauss:2001iv] and employs an implementation of the Catani–Seymour dipole subtraction method for both and soft and collinear singularities [@Gleisberg:2007md; @Schonherr:2017qcj]. To simulate parton cascades it employs the dipole-shower algorithm presented in . For the merging of parton-shower-evolved hard processes at tree and one-loop level a truncated-shower approach is employed [@Hoeche:2009rj; @Hoche:2010kg; @Hoeche:2012yf]. Higher-order QED corrections are effected through the soft-photon resummation of Yennie, Frautschi, and Suura (YFS) [@Yennie:1961ad], as implemented in .
[@Actis:2016mpe; @Actis:2012qn] is a matrix-element generator that provides any one-loop amplitude in the Standard Model. It relies on the library [@Denner:2014gla; @Denner:2016kdg] to numerically evaluate the one-loop scalar [@'tHooft:1978xw; @Beenakker:1988jr; @Dittmaier:2003bc; @Denner:2010tr] and tensor integrals [@Passarino:1978jh; @Denner:2002ii; @Denner:2005nn]. The interface between and is fully general and hence enables the computation of any NLO cross section in the Standard Model. The interface is compatible with [Recola2]{} [@Denner:2017wsf] which features a considerable reduction of the memory needs when computing many channels at a time. This is made possible by the use of crossing symmetries in order to compute the minimum number of processes and has already been exploited in .
The computation of NLO corrections with has by now become a standard. However, the possibility to compute one-loop corrections in an automated manner is still rather recent [@Schonherr:2017qcj]. To that end, we have carefully tested the implementation of the corrections against an independent program, namely the combination , that has already been used for a variety of processes including V+jets production [@Biedermann:2016yds; @Biedermann:2017bss; @Denner:2019tmn].
The framework has already been utilised for NLO and computations for multi-jet [@Reyer:2019obz], V+jet [@Kallweit:2014xda; @Kallweit:2015dum], di-boson [@Kallweit:2017khh; @Chiesa:2017gqx], tri-boson [@Greiner:2017mft; @Schonherr:2018jva], and $t\bar{t}$+jet production [@Gutschow:2018tuk]. Di-boson-production processes, in particular, have been cross-validated among various programs including and in .
Set-up {#se:setup}
------
### Numerical inputs {#numerical-inputs .unnumbered}
The predictions presented here are obtained for the LHC operating at $\sqrt{s} = 13 \TeV$. For the parton distribution function (PDF), the `NNPDF31_nlo_as_0118_luxqed` set [@Bertone:2017bme] is used and interfaced through <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lhapdf</span> [@Buckley:2014ana]. It is based on for the extraction of the photon content. The choice of the renormalisation and factorisation scales follows the one of and reads $$\muR = \muF = \frac12 \left( E_{\rm T, \PW^+} + E_{\rm T, \PW^-} \right)
\equiv\tfrac{1}{2}\,\ETWmean\; ,$$ with $E_{\rm T, \PW} = \sqrt{\MW^2 + \left( \vec{p}_{\rm T,
\Pl} + \vec{p}_{\rm T, \nu} \right)^2}$. The value of the strong coupling is chosen consistently with the used PDF set, *i.e.*$$\alphas(M^2_\PZ)= 0.118\;.$$ To fix the coupling, the $G_\mu$ scheme [@Denner:2000bj; @Dittmaier:2001ay] is employed throughout with $$\alpha = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi} G_\mu \MW^2 \left( 1 - \frac{\MW^2}{\MZ^2} \right) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \GF = 1.16637\times 10^{-5}\GeV^{-2}\;.$$ We use the following values for the masses and widths: $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Mt &= 173.21\GeV, & \quad \quad \quad \Mb &= 4.8 \GeV, \nonumber \\
\MZOS &= 91.1876\GeV, & \quad \quad \quad \GZOS &= 2.4952\GeV, \nonumber \\
\MWOS &= 80.385\GeV, & \GWOS &= 2.085\GeV, \nonumber \\
M_{\rm H} &= 125.0\GeV, & \GH &= 4.07 \times 10^{-3}\GeV.\end{aligned}$$ Both the top- and bottom-quark widths are taken to be zero as these particles do not appear as resonances in our computations. The values for the Higgs-boson mass and width follow the recommendations of the Higgs cross section working group [@Heinemeyer:2013tqa]. The pole masses and widths used for the simulations are obtained from the measured on-shell (OS) values for the W and Z bosons according to [@Bardin:1988xt] $$M_{\text{V}} = \frac{\MVOS}{\sqrt{1+(\GVOS/\MVOS)^2}}\;,\qquad
\Gamma_{\text{V}} = \frac{\GVOS}{\sqrt{1+(\GVOS/\MVOS)^2}}\;,$$ with ${\text{V}}=\PW, \PZ$.
### Event selection {#event-selection .unnumbered}
The event-selection criteria are based on and are specified for both processes in the following. To cluster jets we use the anti-$k_\rT$ algorithm [@Cacciari:2008gp] with a jet-resolution parameter of $R=0.4$. Photons are recombined with charged leptons and jets using a standard cone algorithm with a radius parameter of $R=0.1$.
- The charged leptons are required to fulfil $$\begin{aligned}
\ptsub{\Pl} > 20\GeV\;,\qquad |y_{\Pl}| < 2.5\;,\qquad \Delta R_{\Pl\Pl'} > 0.1\;,
\label{eq:lepton_cuts_1}\end{aligned}$$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
m_{\Pl \Pl} > 10\GeV\;,\qquad p_{\mathrm{T},\text{miss}} > 20\GeV\;.
\label{eq:lepton_cuts_2}\end{aligned}$$ In addition, a jet-veto is applied in order to limit the size of the corrections. In particular, any event with an identified jet such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{jet:def}
\ptsub{\Pj} > 25\GeV = \ptsub{\Pj,\text{cut}}
\qquad {\rm and} \qquad |y_{\Pj}| < 2.5\end{aligned}$$ is rejected.
- For the production of two off-shell $\PW$ bosons in association with a jet, the lepton cuts and are preserved. In addition, one jet has to fulfil Eq. and $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta R_{\Pl^\pm \Pj} > 0.4\;.\end{aligned}$$ A veto with the same parameters is then applied on the occurrence of any additional jet.
Note that experimentally, a further veto on b-jets is usually applied, both, for $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ production, thereby eliminating contributions from single-top and top-pair production. However, as we exclude events with final-state b quarks in our computation, *i.e.* resonant top-quark propagators, there is no need to apply such veto here. The analysis for the following results has been implemented in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rivet</span> [@Buckley:2010ar].
### calculation {#calculation .unnumbered}
For the predictions we merge the NLO matrix elements for $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe$ and $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+
\nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj$ and the tree-level matrix elements for $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj\Pj$ and $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+
\nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj\Pj\Pj$, provided by [@Gleisberg:2008fv]. The merging scale is set to $$\Qcut = 30\;\GeV\,.$$ Per default we use the CKKW scale-setting prescription of Eqs. and to define the renormalisation, factorisation, and resummation scales, with the scale of the inner core process, $\mucore$, given by $$\mucore=\tfrac{1}{2}\,\overline{E}_{\mr{T},\PW}\,.$$ As discussed in , this directly fixes the renormalisation scale to the CKKW scale, $\muR=\muCKKW$, and the factorisation and parton-shower starting scale to the core scale $\muF=\muQ=\mucore$. We describe the $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ production processes at NLO , *i.e.* $\nmaxnlo=1$ and evaluate approximate NLO corrections up to this order. LO contributions are taken into account for $\PW\PW\Pj\Pj$ and $\PW\PW\Pj\Pj\Pj$ production processes, *i.e.* $\nmax=3$, that are subject to local $K$ factors, cf. Eq. . All Standard Model parameters and event-selection criteria are defined as detailed above, thus, in compliance with the fixed-order calculations.
Numerical results {#se:results}
=================
In this section, we discuss the numerical results obtained for the processes $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe$ and $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+
\nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj$. We present both, fiducial cross sections and differential distributions. We provide theoretical predictions at LO, NLO and , as well as incorporating corrections in the virtual approximation. Particular emphasis is put on the combination of and corrections and the impact of the parton shower.
In this article, the NLO and cross sections are defined as $$\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCD} = \sigma^{\mathrm{Born}} + \delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCD} \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\EW} = \sigma^{\mathrm{Born}} + \delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\EW}\,,$$ respectively. The additive prescription to combine and corrections reads $$\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCDpEW} = \sigma^{\mathrm{Born}} + \delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCD} + \delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\EW}\,,$$ while the multiplicative one is defined as $$\begin{split}
\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCDtEW}
=&{}\; \sigma^{\mathrm{Born}}
\Bigg(
1 + \frac{\delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCD}}{\sigma^{\mathrm{Born}}}
\Bigg)
\Bigg(
1 + \frac{\delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\EW}}{\sigma^{\mathrm{Born}}}
\Bigg)\\
=&{}\; \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCD}
\Bigg(
1 + \frac{\delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\EW}}{\sigma^{\mathrm{Born}}}
\Bigg)
= \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\EW}
\Bigg(
1 + \frac{\delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCD}}{\sigma^{\mathrm{Born}}}
\Bigg)\;.
\end{split}$$ The difference between these two prescriptions could be used as an estimate of the missing mixed corrections. In this context, the NLO combination can be understood as an improved prediction when the typical scales of the and corrections are well separated. In the following, we argue that this is the case for the processes at hand. For the first time, we also present predictions based on a multiplicative scheme, cf. Eq. (\[eq:mepsnlo\_qcdtew\]), to implement approximate NLO corrections in merged calculations of NLO matrix elements for $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ production matched to the parton shower.
To estimate the theoretical uncertainty of our predictions we consider the usual set of 7-point scale variations, *i.e.*$\{(\tfrac{1}{2}\muR,\tfrac{1}{2}\muF)$, $(\tfrac{1}{2}\muR,\muF)$, $(\muR,\tfrac{1}{2}\muF)$, $(\muR,\muF)$, $(\muR,2\muF)$, $(2\muR,\muF)$, $(2\muR,2\muF)\}$. The uncertainties quoted for fiducial cross sections and differential distributions in the following correspond to the resulting envelope. All systematic variations are evaluated on-the-fly using the implementation of the algorithm presented in in the framework.
Fixed-order results {#se:results:fo}
-------------------
### WW production {#se:results:fo:WW}
In Table \[tab:ww\], fiducial cross sections for $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe$ at LO, NLO , and NLO accuracy are compiled. Thanks to the jet veto, the corrections amount to $+0.4\%$ only, while the corrections reach $-3\%$. The two prescriptions of combining the and corrections lead to practically identical results. The contribution from $\gamma\gamma$ initial states contained in the LO cross section amounts to $4.006(5)\fb$, $1.3\%$. The scale uncertainty of the LO prediction is estimated, in the absence of a renormalisation scale dependence, by variations of the factorisation scale by factors of $\tfrac{1}{2}$ and $2$. For the NLO result we consider the full 7-point variations. For the LO prediction this yields an estimated uncertainty of order $6\%$, while at NLO it is reduced to the $2\%$ level, a result accidentally reduced by the precise form of the jet veto.
In addition to the channels considered in Table \[tab:ww\], there exists a loop-induced contribution from the partonic process $\Pg\Pg \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe$ at order $\mathcal{O} \left(\alphas^2 \alpha^4 \right)$. In the present set-up, it amounts to $29.38(1)^{+24.6\%}_{-17.9\%} \fb$, *i.e.* $9.2\%$ of the LO prediction for $\Pq\bar \Pq \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe$.
[c|c|c|c|c]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma^{\mathrm{LO}}$ \[$\fb$\] & $\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCD}$ \[$\fb$\] & $\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\EW}$ \[$\fb$\] & $\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCDpEW}$ \[$\fb$\] & $\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCDtEW}$ \[$\fb$\]\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
319.7(1)$^{+5.2\%}_{-6.3\%}$ & 321.1(8)$^{+2.1\%}_{-2.2\%}$ & 310.8(5) & 312.2(9) & 312.1(9)
In the following, several differential distributions are presented. In the upper panels of the plots, absolute predictions at LO, NLO , NLO , and NLO accuracy are shown, while the lower panels contain the corresponding results normalised to the NLO ones. Accordingly, in what follows we quote corrections/deviations relative to the NLO prediction, corresponding to the ratio plots provided. The scale uncertainty of the NLO prediction, given by the envelope of the 7-point variations of $\muR$ and $\muF$, is indicated by the green band.
In Fig. \[fig:transverse\_ww\], various transverse-momentum observables as well as the distribution in the rapidity of the anti-muon are shown. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
For the distribution in the transverse momentum of the anti-muon, the effect of corrections is rather large. They tend to lower the predictions for larger transverse momentum and exceed $-40\%$ at $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu^+}=400\GeV$. The large negative corrections result from the jet-veto cuts. Owing to the Sudakov logarithms in the virtual corrections, the corrections follow the same trend and exceed $-25\%$ at $400\GeV$ with respect to the NLO prediction. For the rapidity distribution of the anti-muon, the corrections are moderate throughout, being about $-1\%$ in the central region, while becoming positive in the peripheral region at a level of $+5\%$. On the other hand, the corrections exceed the estimated NLO scale uncertainty but do not feature a sizeable shape distortion. The distributions in the transverse momentum of the anti-muon–electron system and the missing transverse energy display very similar behaviour both qualitatively and quantitatively. This is explained by the fact that the missing momentum is defined as the sum of the two neutrino momenta. This observable has thus a very similar kinematics as the transverse momentum of the two charged leptons. In both cases, the NLO corrections reach about $-40\%$ at $400\GeV$, while the ones are of order $-15\%$ for the same transverse momentum. Around $100\GeV$ the NLO prediction suddenly exceeds the LO one at a level of $20\%$. The corrections then turn negative towards high transverse momentum. This can be understood as follows. At LO, contributions with two resonant W bosons require these bosons to be back-to-back and therefore cannot contribute to events with transverse momenta $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu^+\Pe^-}$ or $p_{\mathrm{T},\text{miss}}$ larger than about $\MW$ [@Biedermann:2016guo; @Kallweit:2017khh]. Thus, at LO such events can only result from contributions with at most one resonant W boson and are therefore suppressed. At NLO, the momentum of the extra jet can balance the momenta of the two resonant W bosons allowing for large $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu^+\Pe^-}$ and/or $p_{\mathrm{T},\text{miss}}$ also in the presence of two resonant W bosons. Going towards higher transverse momenta, such configurations are then suppressed by the jet veto that forbids hard jets that would balance the $\PW\PW$ system.
In Fig. \[fig:invariant\_ww\], invariant-mass distributions and angular distributions are displayed. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
For the distribution in the invariant mass of the two charged leptons, the corrections are largely negative, increasing towards high invariant mass and reach $-50\%$ above $0.8\TeV$. On the other hand, the corrections steadily approach $-20\%$ at $0.8\TeV$ thanks to the effect of enhanced logarithms. Despite not being a physical observable, the distribution in the invariant mass of the four leptons is interesting to study as it serves as a proxy in studies of physics beyond the Standard Model. The behaviour is qualitatively similar to the one of the di-lepton invariant-mass distribution. The distribution in the cosine of the angle between the two charged leptons displays corrections of the order of $-2\%$ near $\theta=\pi$ reaching $+8\%$ near $\theta=0$. Thus, when the two leptons are back-to-back the corrections are negative, while when they are aligned they turn positive. The latter kinematic situation is the most probable and corresponds to a central production of the two gauge bosons. The corrections are rather smooth and vary by less than $3\%$ between the two extreme kinematic configurations. Finally, the distribution in the azimuthal distance between the two charged leptons displays rather moderate corrections. They reach $-10\%$ around $\Delta \phi_{\mu^+\Pe^-} \simeq 140^{\circ}$, when the two charged leptons are almost in a back-to-back configuration. In both angular distributions corrections are at the level of a few per cent, however, exceeding the NLO scale-uncertainty estimate.
The difference between the additive and multiplicative prescriptions for combining and corrections is in general small. However, in regions where both and corrections become large, such as for high transverse momenta or invariant masses, the difference can amount to ten per cent or more.
### WWj production {#se:results:fo:WWj}
In the same way as for di-boson production, fiducial cross sections at LO, NLO , and NLO accuracy are given for $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj$ in Table \[tab:wwj\]. Notably, scale uncertainties are almost a factor two larger than for $\PW\PW$ production owing to the additional power in the strong coupling already at LO. As before, the inclusion of NLO corrections reduces the scale uncertainties observed at LO.
[c|c|c|c|c]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma^{\mathrm{LO}}$ \[$\fb$\] & $\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCD}$ \[$\fb$\] & $\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\EW}$ \[$\fb$\] & $\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCDpEW}$ \[$\fb$\] & $\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\QCDtEW}$ \[$\fb$\]\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
162.5(1)$^{+11.2\%}_{-9.1\%}$ & 129.5(5)$^{+5.1\%}_{-8.9\%}$ & 155.5(1) & 122.5(5) & 123.9(5)\
In our calculational set-up, the numerical value of the NLO corrections differ significantly from those for the $\PW\PW$ channel and amount to $-20\%$ owing to the strong jet veto. The NLO corrections amount to $-4.3\%$, very similar to the case of $\PW\PW$ production. This could be expected, since the additional gluon does not take part in the interaction. As a consequence of the sizeable corrections, the additive and multiplicative combination of and corrections differ by about $1\%$.
As for $\PW\PW$, there exists a loop-induced contribution at order $\mathcal{O} \left(\alphas^3 \alpha^4 \right)$ from the partonic process $\Pg\Pg \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe \Pg$, which is not included in Table \[tab:wwj\]. Its fiducial cross section amounts to $11.941(3)^{+41.3\%}_{-27.5\%} \fb$, *i.e.* $7.3\%$ of the tree-level prediction, which is slightly smaller in comparison to the corresponding contribution to the $\PW\PW$ process. However, the scale uncertainty on this channel is particularly large.
In the following, the same set of distributions is shown as for the case of $\PW\PW$ production. In addition, we include the distributions in the transverse momentum and rapidity of the hardest jet (ordered in transverse momentum), which are displayed first in Fig. \[fig:transverse\_wwj\]. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
The distribution in the transverse momentum of the jet features very large NLO corrections as well as sizeable NLO corrections. For the distribution in the rapidity of the jet, the corrections (not visible on the lower panel) can be as large as $-40\%$. On the other hand, the corrections are rather stable over the whole kinematic range. The qualitative behaviour is similar for the distributions in the transverse momentum and the rapidity of the anti-muon. Quantitatively the corrections are smaller for the distribution in the transverse momentum for the anti-muon than in the one for the leading jet, but are at the same level for the rapidity distributions of the anti-muon and leading jet. Finally, the corrections to the distributions in the transverse momentum of the anti-muon–electron system and in the missing transverse momentum are rather different from the case of $\PW\PW$ production, being much larger at large transverse momenta. The different behaviour just above $\MW$ is due to the fact that for $\PW\PW\Pj$ production configurations with two resonant $\PW$ bosons contribute in this phase-space region, while these are excluded for $\PW\PW$ production at LO. On the other hand, the corrections to the distributions in $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu^+\Pe^-}$ or $p_{\mathrm{T},\text{miss}}$ are similar to those for the distribution in the transverse momentum of the jet owing to the recoil of the jet against the $\PW\PW$ system. The corrections exceed $-100\%$ above $150\GeV$ (when normalised to LO, the corrections stay below $100\%$ in the considered range). This is an effect of the jet veto, which reduces the cross section even stronger in the presence of high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ jets. The scale uncertainty grows very large towards high transverse momentum owing to the large NLO contribution and the cancellations between LO and NLO . As a consequence, for all observables considered in Fig. \[fig:transverse\_wwj\] the NLO corrections stay within the NLO scale uncertainty bands.
In Fig. \[fig:invariant\_wwj\] we present the di-lepton and four-lepton invariant-mass distribution as well as the distributions in the polar and azimuthal separation of the charged leptons. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
Both invariant-mass distributions receive corrections of about $-80\%$ for large invariant masses. The corrections are more moderate and reach $-20\%$ in the considered kinematic range, thereby almost exceeding the NLO scale uncertainties. As in the case of $\PW\PW$ production, both angular observables do not exhibit enhanced corrections. The corrections (not visible in the lower panels) are essentially flat, and the corrections vary by a few per cent only.
As a consequence of the very large corrections and sizeable corrections for the invariant-mass and, in particular, transverse-momentum distributions, the two prescriptions to combine and corrections give rather different predictions at high invariant masses and transverse momenta. The cross section becomes even negative in the additive combination for large transverse momenta.
### Ratios of WW and WWj {#se:results:fo:ratios}
In this section, ratios of fiducial cross sections and differential distributions between $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe$ and $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj$ are studied. Motivated by the closely related final states of the two processes, the level of universality of the higher-order and corrections can be probed. Furthermore, this cross-section ratio has been measured by the ATLAS collaboration in . Ratios of fiducial cross sections at LO, NLO and as well as their additive and multiplicative combination are compiled in Table \[tab:ratio\].
[c|c|c|c|c]{} LO & NLO & NLO & NLO & NLO\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.508$^{+17.5\%}_{-13.5\%}$ & 0.403$^{+2.9\%}_{-6.9\%}$ & 0.500 & 0.392 & 0.397\
In these ratios as well as in the ratios of distributions below we always treat the scale uncertainties of $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ production as correlated. While the NLO corrections to the ratio amount to $-20\%$, the corrections yield $-1.5\%$ only. As a consequence, the additive and multiplicative prescriptions for the combination of and corrections agree within $1.3\%$, which is basically the difference observed for the $\PW\PW\Pj$ cross section. We furthermore note, that the scale uncertainty on the cross-section ratio (with fully correlated scale uncertainties for $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$) significantly reduces when including the NLO corrections.
Next, we show ratios for those differential distributions that have already been discussed for the process $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^-
\bar\nu_\Pe$ in . In the upper panels, the ratios $$\label{eq:ratios}
R^{1\Pj}_{0\Pj}(x)= \frac{\frac{\rd\sigma}{\rd x}(\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^-
\bar\nu_\Pe \Pj)}{\frac{\rd\sigma}{\rd x}(\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^-
\bar\nu_\Pe)}$$ are displayed at LO, NLO , NLO , and NLO accuracy. In the lower panels, these ratios are again normalised to the respective NLO prediction.
In Fig. \[fig:transverse\_ratio\], the ratios for the transverse-momentum and rapidity distribution of the anti-muon are shown. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
For the transverse-momentum distribution, NLO corrections are very large and stabilise the ratio towards high transverse momenta. At LO the jet veto just affects the $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+\nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe \Pj$ channel, only from NLO on it is active for the $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^-\bar\nu_\Pe$ process. The two processes receive NLO corrections of rather different size providing the observed stabilisation in the ratios. The two prescriptions to combine and corrections behave rather differently. While the additive combination differs considerably from the pure result for $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu^+}>200\GeV$, the multiplicative one stays close to it. This is in agreement with the observation that the leading-logarithmic corrections for the two processes $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ are strongly correlated. In fact, these are related to the charges of the external lines, which are the same for both processes. This can be deduced from the general results on the leading one-loop corrections presented in and from the results based on soft-collinear effective theory in . This is a strong motivation to prefer the multiplicative prescription. It justifies the merging approach presented in which rests on the assumption that leading corrections are rather similar for different final-state jet multiplicities. While the anti-muon rapidity distribution does not exhibit a strong difference between the two combinations over the whole phase space, the ratio for the multiplicative combination is closer to the pure result and less dependent on the rapidity.
The ratios of the distributions in the transverse momentum of the two charged leptons and the missing energy show very large variations. They are particularly sensitive to the applied jet veto, which is adequately accounted for at NLO only, in particular for the $\PW\PW$ channel. Indeed, at LO the $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ processes have rather different kinematics. With the inclusion of real radiations the descriptions of both processes become closer, and the ratios stabilise.
The ratios for the invariant-mass and angular distributions shown in Fig. \[fig:invariant\_ratio\] confirm the trend seen in the other distributions. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
When using the multiplicative prescription to include the corrections on top of the corrections, the ratios depend only very weakly on the invariant masses and angles, while for the additive combination this dependence is more pronounced. The more or less decent behaviour of the additive prescription, in particular for the angular distributions, is due to the smallness of the corresponding and corrections.
Multi-jet merged results {#sec:results:merged}
------------------------
In this section we present predictions based on the merging of the NLO matrix elements for $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe{}+0,1\,\Pj$ and tree-level matrix elements for $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe{}+2,3\,\Pj$, each matched to the Catani–Seymour parton shower. We implement approximate NLO corrections in an additive or multiplicative manner for the zero- and one-jet matrix elements. However, these also enter the higher-multiplicity tree-level processes through a local $K$ factor (cf. ). By merging parton-shower matched matrix elements of varying final-state parton multiplicity we arrive at a fully inclusive event sample for $\PW\PW$ production. This sample can then be analysed for the zero- and one-jet selection criteria, without the need to perform dedicated calculations, as it is the case for the NLO fixed-order predictions. Furthermore, the inclusion of higher-multiplicity processes and parton-shower resummation accounts for possible higher jet multiplicities and in turn provides a more adequate description of the jet-veto conditions applied. In the following we neglect effects from the parton-to-hadron transition, as well as underlying-event contributions appearing in hadron collisions, which allows us to directly compare fixed-order calculations with perturbative parton-shower Monte Carlo predictions.
### Fixed-order vs. merged results {#sec:results:merged:fo-vs-merged}
We begin the discussion by comparing predictions from for the zero- and one-jet event selections against the fixed-order NLO results presented in . To this end, we present predictions following the [*default*]{} CKKW scale-setting prescription as outlined in . Accordingly, for each hard-partonic event configuration a clustering algorithm is applied to reconstruct the kinematics of the corresponding $\Pp\Pp\to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe$ core process. This clustering procedure defines the CKKW scale $\muCKKW$ through the reconstructed parton branching scales, cf. Eq. , as well as the core scale $\mucore$ defined on the arrived-at core process. In turn, $\mucore$ then determines $\muF$ and $\muQ$ through Eq. . Through this procedure both the fixed-order accuracies of the matrix-element calculations and the resummation accuracy of the parton shower are preserved.
Furthermore, we present results based on an [*alternative*]{} scale-setting prescription, dubbed *proto-merging*, where for each hard-parton configuration we use $$\muR = \muF =\muQ =\tfrac{1}{2}\,\ETWmean
\label{eq:muproto}$$ of the $n$-jet process without clustering any partons first, *i.e.* we set all three scales equal to the scales used in the corresponding fixed-order calculation without reconstructing emission scales or a core process. While this respects the fixed-order NLO accuracy of each partonic subsample, it spoils the resummation property of the parton shower.[^9] It thus cannot be considered a consistently merged description, but is included in the following comparison for illustrative purposes.
By invoking the parton shower we include all-order corrections to the inclusive $\Pp\Pp\to\mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe$ production process and, as a consequence, the jet veto affects also the zero- and one-jet selections. As we focus on corrections, we do not include corrections due to soft-photon emission [@Schonherr:2008av] or effects at this stage.
To estimate the dominant theoretical uncertainties we consistently vary the renormalisation and factorisation scales in the matrix-element and parton-shower components [@Bothmann:2016nao; @Badger:2016bpw]. As before, we consider the 7-point variations of the two scales $\muR$ and $\muF$ by factors of $\tfrac{1}{2}$ and $2$. We do not assess the systematics associated with the choice of the merging parameter $\Qcut$ as well as the resummation scale $\muQ$ as these can be expected to be of smaller size [@Cascioli:2013gfa; @Kallweit:2015dum; @Hoeche:2013mua; @Hoeche:2014rya; @Hoeche:2014lxa; @Hoeche:2014qda].
In the following plots we compare the NLO fixed-order results with predictions for two different scale choices. In the upper panels we show absolute predictions at NLO accuracy as well as with parton-shower matching for the default CKKW scale setting and as well as for the scale setting corresponding to the fixed-order results. The lower panels show the corresponding results normalised to the NLO ones. Scale uncertainties are indicated by the envelopes of the bands.
### WW production {#ww-production .unnumbered}
In Figs. \[fig:fo-vs-merged-0j-1\] and \[fig:fo-vs-merged-0j-2\] we compile the set of exclusive zero-jet observables for the process $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe$ studied in already. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
We begin by considering the anti-muon transverse-momentum distribution in Fig. \[fig:fo-vs-merged-0j-1\]. The two predictions agree well with the NLO result. For low to intermediate transverse momenta the uncertainty of the proto-merged prediction reproduces well the fixed-order uncertainty. However, for larger $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu^+}$ it is significantly reduced, as the method accounts for a proper resummation of higher-order corrections. For the default fully multi-jet merged prediction this effect is also observed. However, at lower transverse momenta the uncertainty increases, due to the typically smaller value of the renormalisation scale, determined by the emission scale of the associated partons. From the anti-muon rapidity distribution one can read off that the central production rate predicted by the default CKKW scale-setting prescription is in fact closer to the fixed-order cross section, whereas it features a larger scale uncertainty of about $\pm 8\%$, compared to only $\pm 2\%$ of the fixed-order result. While the proto-merged prediction exhibits an uncertainty more closely resembling the fixed-order estimate, its central cross section is reduced by about $4\%$.
For the distributions in the transverse momentum of the charged-lepton pair and the missing transverse momentum the differences in the theoretical predictions are much more sizeable. Up to about the $\PW$-boson mass the merged predictions agree well with the fixed-order result, however, they predict significantly smaller event rates beyond $\MW+\ptsub{\Pj,\text{cut}}$. This originates from the same reason as in the fixed-order case namely that, due to kinematic constraints, the inclusion of real radiations beyond the W-boson mass lifts the cross section. In addition, above this threshold the jet-veto criterion plays a significant role as in the NLO calculation of $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe$ it is addressed only at LO accuracy. In the merged calculations, however, the jet veto is modelled by the NLO $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe\Pj$ calculation dressed with the parton-shower resummation, leading to a more realistic description of this event-selection criterion. In particular, at high transverse momenta an increased activity is expected that in consequence triggers the jet veto thereby reducing the cross section.
For the observables depicted in Fig. \[fig:fo-vs-merged-0j-2\] the observed pattern is further confirmed. The default multi-jet merged predictions agree nicely with the fixed-order results, with an increased systematic uncertainty in the bulk. However, in particular in the region of high dilepton invariant mass the uncertainty is indeed sizeably reduced with respect to the one of the fixed-order computation. For the angular separation between the two charged leptons the region of $\Delta\phi_{\mu^+\Pe^-}\approx\pi$ is affected by the parton-shower resummation. This originates from the suppression of the LO for $\PW\PW$ production in this bin (cf. Fig. \[fig:invariant\_ww\]). As a consequence, the CKKW prescription differs by more than $10\%$ from the fixed-order prediction.
### WWj production {#wwj-production .unnumbered}
In Figs. \[fig:fo-vs-merged-1j-1\] and \[fig:fo-vs-merged-1j-2\] we present predictions for the exclusive one-jet selection for the process $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe\Pj$, studied at NLO in already. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
Most notably, a significant reduction of the systematic uncertainty in phase-space regions affected by the jet-veto criterion is observed as a consequence of including parton-shower resummation. In particular the various transverse-momentum distributions, *i.e.* $p_{\mathrm{T},\Pj_1}$, $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu^+}$, $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu^+\Pe^-}$, and $p_{\mathrm{T},\text{miss}}$, receive huge corrections from the inclusion of multiple-emission effects through the parton shower and the higher-multiplicity matrix elements. This results in significantly harder $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ spectra, as through multiple emissions larger recoil can be achieved without triggering the applied jet veto. For the $p_{\mathrm{T},\mu^+\Pe^-}$ and $p_{\mathrm{T},\text{miss}}$ distributions the difference with respect to the NLO prediction gets as large as a factor of 4. It is to note, however, that these sizeable differences are still compatible with the fixed-order predictions’ scale-uncertainty estimates. In contrast, for the merged predictions the uncertainties remain at the $10\%$ level.
From the jet and anti-muon rapidity distributions in Fig. \[fig:fo-vs-merged-1j-1\] it is apparent that the total production rate obtained for the default CKKW scale-setting prescription used in the fully multi-jet merged calculation is in very good agreement with the fixed-order NLO result. In fact, for these rather inclusive observables these two central predictions almost coincide, while the proto-merged prediction, using the scale $\muR=\muF=\muQ=\tfrac{1}{2}\,\ETWmean$ throughout shows a small shape distortion. However, as observed for the zero-jet process already, the estimated systematic uncertainty of the fully merged sample is somewhat increased with respect to the proto-merged and the fixed-order calculation.
In Fig. \[fig:fo-vs-merged-1j-2\] the $\cos\theta_{\mu^+\Pe^-}$ distribution confirms this pattern. For the charged-leptons’ polar-angle separation, however, a small enhancement towards smaller values of $\Delta\phi_{\mu^+\Pe^-}$ can be observed in the merged predictions. For the two invariant-mass distributions a significant reduction of the scale uncertainty in the high-mass regions is observed. The merged sample tends to populate these phase-space regions somewhat more, though the central predictions stay within the uncertainty band of the fixed-order result.
### Including corrections via the virtual approximation {#sec:results:merged:merged}
Having compared the predictions against the fixed-order calculations for the zero- and one-jet selection, we now progress by considering the inclusion of approximate NLO corrections into the merged calculations. The central prediction is formed by the fully multi-jet merged sample based of the NLO matrix elements for $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe$ and $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+
\nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj$ and the tree-level ones for $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj\Pj$ and $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+
\nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj\Pj\Pj$, all matched to the Catani–Seymour dipole shower.
For all matrix-element multiplicities we now include soft-photon resummation effects via the YFS approach. For the zero- and one-jet one-loop matrix elements we furthermore employ the virtual approximation, described in , both in the additive and multiplicative manner, cf. Eqs. (\[eq:mepsnlo\_qcdpew\]) and (\[eq:mepsnlo\_qcdtew\]), respectively. We would like to remind the reader that an overlap of the QED corrections provided by the soft-photon resummation and the approximate corrections exists. It does, however, not impact the accuracy of the method in the targeted Sudakov regime, cf. the discussion at the end of .
As an additional reference, we furthermore compile predictions from merging the LO matrix elements for $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe+0,1,2,3\,\Pj$ using the approach [@Hoeche:2009rj]. As for the calculations we use $\Qcut=30\;\GeV$ here.
In and \[tab:xs-j1-merged\] we compile the fiducial cross sections for the various theoretical predictions in the zero- and one-jet selection, respectively.
[c|c|c|c]{} &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fb\] & \[fb\] & \[fb\] & \[fb\]\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
279.8$^{+7.8\%}_{-8.0\%}$ & 322.8$^{+7.3\%}_{-5.8\%}$ & 318.8 & 318.4\
[c|c|c|c]{} &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\[fb\] & \[fb\] & \[fb\] & \[fb\]\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
108.7$^{+17.6\%}_{-10.2\%}$ & 131.8$^{+9.6\%}_{-6.9\%}$ & 129.2 & 129.0\
These can be directly compared to the respective fixed-order results quoted in and \[tab:wwj\]. We recognise that the cross sections for both event selections are significantly lower ($12\%$ for $\PW\PW$ and $33\%$ for $\PW\PW\Pj$ production) than at fixed order, originating from the inclusion of parton emissions off the respective Born configuration that can trigger the applied jet veto and thus reduce the naïve LO cross section. Both cross sections are in very good agreement with the respective fixed-order result (within $2\%$ for both $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ production). The NLO corrections amount to $+15\%$ for $\PW\PW$ and $+21\%$ for $\PW\PW\Pj$. While the scale uncertainty is only marginally reduced by going to NLO for $\PW\PW$, it decreases by almost a factor of two for $\PW\PW\Pj$. The rates for the additive and multiplicative inclusion of approximate NLO corrections come out somewhat larger than at fixed order. In fact, for both selections these corrections stay below $-1.5\%$. Again, it is to note that these corrections are tailored to the Sudakov regime and are not expected to fully reproduce the exact NLO corrections for inclusive observables.
In Figs. \[fig:merged-0j-1\] and \[fig:merged-0j-2\] we display differential distributions for the zero-jet event selection, while results for the one-jet selection are presented in Figs. \[fig:merged-1j-1\] and \[fig:merged-1j-2\]. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
Finally, in Figs. \[fig:merged\_ratio\_1\] and \[fig:merged\_ratio\_2\] we present predictions for the ratio of differential distributions between $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe$ and $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj$, that have been studied at LO , NLO , NLO , and NLO in .
In all these plots in the upper panels we display the predictions, now including YFS soft-photon resummation, as green dashed line including its 7-point scale variation uncertainty band. The corresponding predictions are indicated by the blue solid line and the hatched uncertainty band. Furthermore, predictions including the virtual approximation in its additive (dotted red) and multiplicative (solid black) manner, are provided. In the lower panels we compile the ratios with respect to the prediction.
We begin the discussion with the results for the zero-jet event selection. In Figs. \[fig:merged-0j-1\] and \[fig:merged-0j-2\] we recognise, that the inclusion of the NLO matrix elements for the zero- and one-jet processes increases the fiducial cross section by about $15\%$ as already seen in but has a comparably mild impact on the shapes of differential distributions. Most notably, for the transverse momentum of the anti-muon the shape distortion reaches about $15\%$, and the corrections decrease with increasing transverse momentum.
Concerning the impact of the approximate NLO corrections, two patterns emerge. For the transverse-momentum-type observables, as well as the invariant masses $m_{\mu^+\Pe^-}$ and $m_{2\ell2\nu}$, corrections suppress the high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and high-mass tails, up to about $-20\%$ for the considered observable ranges as a consequence of enhanced logarithmic corrections. For the anti-muon rapidity distributions, as well as the two considered angular observables, *i.e.* $\cos\theta_{\mu^+\Pe^-}$ and $\Delta\phi_{\mu^+\Pe^-}$, the corrections are very small and essentially flat, consistent with the observation for the fixed-order calculations.
However, in contrast to the fixed-order results presented in , the additive and multiplicative approach of combining and corrections here yield very similar results, with the size of the corrections being close to the multiplicative fixed-order scheme. This is due to several reasons. First of all, the corrections are much smaller in the merged calculation since more contributions are incorporated in the corresponding LO results and on top of that even tend to decrease with increasing transverse momenta where corrections are sizeable. Second, the additive combination as defined in Eq. takes corrections into account via the explicit higher-multiplicity processes and the parton showers.
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
For the observables in the one-jet event selection, presented in Figs. \[fig:merged-1j-1\] and \[fig:merged-1j-2\], similar conclusions apply. The inclusion of the NLO corrections in the calculations increases the fiducial cross section by about $21\%$ with respect to , cf. . At the same time the systematic uncertainties get reduced by almost a factor two. In particular, for the transverse-momentum and invariant-mass distributions the NLO corrections have significant impact on the distributions’ shape, however, much smaller than for the fixed-order evaluation of the observables. This is caused by the inclusion of additional real-radiation processes through the parton shower and the higher-multiplicity matrix elements, modelling in particular the jet-veto process more reliably. In fact, for the jet transverse-momentum distribution, the shape is only very mildly affected by the NLO corrections.
For the jet and anti-muon rapidity distribution, as well as the two angular observables, approximative corrections are of $1$–$2\%$ size only, well within the uncertainty bands, and essentially flat. For the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$-type and the invariant-mass distributions sizeable Sudakov-logarithmic suppression effects are found, compatible with the observations for the fixed-order results in .
The large deviations seen between the NLO and NLO predictions at fixed order are not present in the merged calculations. As in the case of $\PW\PW$ production, this is due to the fact that the calculation incorporates already a sizeable fraction of the corrections, and that the merged NLO predictions include corrections.
### Ratios of WW and WWj {#sec:results:merged:ratios}
[c|c|c|c]{} &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& & &\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.388$^{+20.6\%}_{-13.9\%}$ & 0.408$^{+4.4\%}_{-3.2\%}$ & 0.405 & 0.405\
Given the predictions with and without the inclusion of approximate NLO corrections for the exclusive zero- and one-jet event selections, we can now proceed to study ratios of fiducial cross sections and differential distributions. Corresponding fixed-order predictions have been presented in .
In Table \[tab:ratio\_merged\] we compile the cross-section ratios between $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe \Pj$ and $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar \nu_\Pe$ for the , , , and calculations. In particular for the predictions the ratio is significantly smaller than at LO and closer to the NLO result, cf. Table \[tab:ratio\]. As discussed before, pure LO calculations do not address the applied jet vetoes, while in the approach these as well as many higher-order contributions are addressed by the parton shower off the respective Born process and higher-multiplicity matrix elements. In contrast, the agrees with its fixed-order equivalent within $1\%$. The inclusion of corrections in the and approach amounts to a reduction of the ratio by less than $1\%$, respectively, somewhat less than at fixed order.
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
In Figs. \[fig:merged\_ratio\_1\] and \[fig:merged\_ratio\_2\] we present ratios between differential distributions for the one- and zero-jet selection as defined in Eq. (\[eq:ratios\]). What we observed for the ratios of fiducial cross sections, is even more prominent in the kinematic distributions. When comparing to Figs. \[fig:transverse\_ratio\] and \[fig:invariant\_ratio\] we recognise a dramatic difference between the LO and the prediction. The huge NLO corrections observed before get reduced to at most $10\%$ for the merged results, with the exception of the low mass region in the $m_{2\ell2\nu}$ distribution. For $m_{2\ell2\nu}\lsim2\MW\approx 161\GeV$ the production of two resonant W bosons is not possible, and the effect of singly-resonant diagrams with different kinematics and a huge $K$ factor becomes relevant. In this phase-space region the LO $\PW\PW$ cross section is stronger suppressed than the cross sections with real-jet emission. With the exception of this phase-space region, for all the considered distributions the ratios are considerably stabilised by the inclusion of the parton shower and higher-multiplicity matrix elements.
The associated (correlated) scale uncertainties get significantly reduced when going from to . In particular for the phase-space regions of large transverse momenta and large invariant masses these are much smaller than for the fixed-order evaluations. Apart from the low-mass region in $m_{2\ell2\nu}$ the uncertainties remain of order $\pm 5\%$.
The approximate NLO corrections have only mild impact on the ratios of differential distributions. They largely cancel between numerator and denominator and stay below $5\%$ also in the tails of the transverse-momentum and invariant-mass distributions. Furthermore, the and predictions yield almost identical results, in contrast to the NLO fixed-order prediction. This is basically a consequence of the reduced NLO corrections in the merged calculations. Overall, apart from the high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ and high-mass tails, the corrections stay within the uncertainty band.
The results for the corrections in the merged calculation should be taken with some caution. First, only virtual corrections are included exactly, while real corrections are integrated out in an approximated way. This approximation is expected to yield good results for observables in the Sudakov regime where the kinematic invariants are large with respect to the -boson mass but not for inclusive observables such as the fiducial cross section. Second, the difference between and predictions does not provide a reliable error estimate on the missing corrections since both prescriptions are too close to each other.
Conclusion {#se:conclusion}
==========
This article provides a combined analysis of $\PW\PW$ and $\PW\PW\Pj$ production at higher order including effects of off-shell and non-resonant contributions, emphasising the combination of and corrections. It is the first time that NLO and NLO corrections to both $\Pp\Pp \to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe$ and $\Pp\Pp \to
\mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar\nu_\Pe \Pj$ are presented together in consistent set-ups. Both processes are analysed while applying jet vetoes in order to avoid large corrections. It is worth noticing that results including NLO corrections for the off-shell $\PW\PW\Pj$ production are presented here for the first time. In addition to strictly fixed-order results, merged predictions including different jet multiplicities and parton showers are provided. These are combined in an approximate way with corrections in the virtual approximation. All results have been obtained with the framework, which is completely automated. Though we did not study their phenomenological impact in this article, non-perturbative corrections to the parton-shower predictions due to hadronisation and multiple-parton interactions can be easily invoked in the framework.
After discussing numerical results at fixed order for $\PW$-pair production with and without an extra jet separately, ratios of cross sections and differential distributions are presented. For fixed-order calculations, our results clearly support a preference for the multiplicative combination of and corrections as suggested by the structure of the enhanced logarithmic corrections. This further justifies the use of the approximative corrections in merged predictions as it relies on the assumption that processes with different jet multiplicities have similar corrections. In addition to the predictions of the multi-jet merged sample, we present comparisons of zero- and one-jet predictions between the fixed-order calculations and the merged ones using two different scale choices. These comparisons emphasise the benefits of the calculation based on multi-jet merging which do not suffer from some of the limitations of the fixed-order calculations. In the end, our study shows that the merged calculations provide more stable predictions, in particular regarding ratios of cross sections and distributions for $\PW\PW\Pj$ versus $\PW\PW$ production.
Finally, the results presented here are particularly relevant for the experimental measurements at Run 2 and the upcoming high-luminosity phase of the LHC. We hope that these (as well as the corresponding tools) will be fully exploited by both the ATLAS and CMS collaborations.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Jean-Nicolas Lang for supporting and continuously improving . SB, SS, and MS received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme as part of the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Innovative Training Network MCnetITN3 (grant agreement no. 722104). AD acknowledges financial support by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) under contract no. 05H18WWCA1. The research of MP has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (grant agreement no. 683211). MS is funded by the Royal Society through a University Research Fellowship. SS acknowledges support through the Fulbright-Cottrell Award and from BMBF (contract no. 05H18MGCA1).
Fragmentation function
======================
This appendix is devoted to estimate the numerical impact of a proper IR-safe photon recombination. To that end, fragmentation functions have been implemented in following . The implementation has been validated against the code used in for the computation of corrections for $\Pp\Pp\to\ell^+\ell^-\Pj\Pj$. The photon–jet energy fraction $$z_{\gamma} = \frac{E_\gamma}{E_\gamma+E_a}$$ has been taken to be equal to $0.7$, where $E_\gamma$ and $E_a$ denote the energies of the photon and a parton, respectively. The fit parameters entering the fragmentation function are the ones obtained from and read $$\mu_0 = 0.14 \GeV \qquad {\rm and} \qquad C = -13.26 \;.$$
In this simulation, the LO only includes partons in the initial state, contributions with initial-state photons are omitted. Concerning the corrections, only photon radiation and virtual corrections are considered, while interference contributions in the real radiation from matrix elements at different orders in the couplings are not taken into account.
In Table \[tab:ff\], NLO cross sections with consistent inclusion of photon–jet separation (cons.) and in the simplified set-up of (simp.) are given. The difference between these two prescriptions is about a per mille only.
[c|c|c|c]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma^{\mathrm{LO}}$ \[$\fb$\] & $\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{EW,cons.}}$ \[$\fb$\] & $\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{EW,simp.}}$ \[$\fb$\] & $\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{EW,simp.}}/\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{EW,cons.}}-1$ \[$\%$\]\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$162.545(3)$ & $155.696(5)$ & $155.883(5)$ & $0.12$\
In addition, in Fig. \[fig:ff\] two differential distributions are shown in both set-ups: the distribution in the transverse momentum of the hardest jet (left) and the distribution in the invariant mass of the anti-muon–electron system (right). {width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
For large transverse momentum or large invariant mass, the shape of the ratio of the distributions in both methods is dominated by the Monte Carlo statistical error. Disregarding these fluctuations, one notices differences of a few per mille for the transverse-momentum distribution and of only about one per mille for the invariant-mass distribution. This reduced effect can be explained by the fact that leptonic observables are only indirectly sensitive to effects from photon–jet separation. Overall, this analysis indicates that the effect of a consistent treatment of photon–jet separation is rather small for our calculational set-up. This justifies the simplified approach that we have taken.
Moreover, we investigated the dependence of the simplified approach on the technical cuts used in the generator. We did not observe a dependence beyond the per-mille level for reasonable parameter values.
[^1]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^2]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^3]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^4]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^5]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^6]: Note that in the corresponding dipoles are always included by default. These have an underlying Born configuration of the form $a+b\to \mu^+ \nu_\mu \Pe^- \bar
\nu_\Pe \gamma$ with $a$ and $b$ partons. However, such configurations would never be accepted by the selector function that requires at least one jet in the final state.
[^7]: In practice, the IR singularities are regulated by technical cuts, but the dependence on these cuts is very small.
[^8]: In practice, we use the Catani–Seymour $\mr{I}$ operator [@Schonherr:2017qcj] with $\alpha=1$.
[^9]: This can be seen by considering two effects:\
1. The shower starting scale $\muQ$ will not be set to the scale of the reconstructed core process for all processes with at least one parton in the final state. This existing parton will then not be correctly embedded in the parton-shower evolution of this core process. Since $\muQ$ will be typically higher than when using a proper merging procedure, the Sudakov vetoes generated will be too large.
2. The scale of the strong coupling associated with the emission of a parton needs to be set to the relative transverse momentum with respect to its reconstructed emitter parton in order to recover the logarithms produced by the parton shower. Since here a global scale is used which typically is larger than its nodal value, the resulting strong coupling will be too small.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present optical measurements of the faint end of the luminosity function in the core of the Coma cluster. Dwarf galaxies are detected down to a limiting magnitude of $R \sim 25.75$ in images taken with the Hubble Space Telescope. This represents the faintest determination of the Coma luminosity function to date. With the assumption that errors due to cosmic variance are small, evidence is found for a steep faint end slope with $\alpha \lesssim -2$. Such a value is expected in theories in which reionization and other feedback processes are dependent on density.'
author:
- 'Margaret L. Milne, Christopher J. Pritchet, Gregory B. Poole and Stephen D. J. Gwyn'
- J J Kavelaars
- 'William E. Harris'
- 'David A. Hanes'
title: The Faint End of the Luminosity Function in the Core of the Coma Cluster
---
INTRODUCTION
============
The galaxy luminosity function (LF) is a fundamental observational probe of galaxy formation and evolution. Defined as the number of galaxies per unit magnitude per unit area on the sky$^2$, the LF depends on both the initial density fluctuation spectrum and on baryonic processes such as cooling, star formation and supernova feedback. Any theory attempting to explain how galaxies form and evolve must test its predictions against the observed shape of the LF.
The faint end of the LF is of particular interest. The standard cold dark matter (CDM) model predicts a steep faint end slope to the galaxy LF; the Press-Schechter approximation (1974) combined with a CDM-like power spectrum leads to an increasing number of dark halos as mass scales decrease [@white]. A steep faint end slope has been seen in some environments, mainly those of high density [e.g., @trent1; @phillips]. In less extreme environments, however, flatter slopes are observed [e.g., @pritchet; @trent3]. Why are CDM-consistent slopes not seen in all environments?
Studies of the faint end of the LF are hampered by the extreme difficulty of obtaining complete samples of faint, low surface brightness galaxies. It is always possible that the differences in the faint end slope of the LF are simply due to faint galaxies being missed in less dense regions. Other explanations have also been suggested. @tully, for example, use semi-analytic models to show that more low mass halos form earlier in regions that eventually become massive clusters. They then point out that the reionization of the universe could inhibit gas collapse in low mass halos. Combining these ideas, they conclude that dense regions start forming small, faint galaxies before reionization, and so can form many, while less dense regions begin small halo formation later, and so can only form few.
In this work, we examine the faint end of the LF in the core of the Coma Cluster. Coma is a very rich cluster (Abell class 2); Tully et al.’s model would therefore predict Coma to have formed many low mass halos before reionization. We expect to find a steep faint end slope to the Coma LF. We choose to use the method of statistical background subtraction [@zwicky] to remove background galaxy counts from our sample of cluster galaxy counts: we count the number of galaxies in the cluster direction and then subtract the count of galaxies in a “blank sky” control field.
Many Coma LFs have appeared in the literature (Table \[tab:cfothers\]). This work differs from previous studies in that we use HST images of Coma and of our control field to determine the LF. The increased depth and resolution of these images improves the determination of the faint end slope of the Coma LF.
[c c c c c c]{}
Thompson & Gregory 1993 & b & 14 292 & 18.56 & 20 & -1.43\
Biviano et al. 1995 & b & 2 496 & 67.2 & 20 & -1.2 $\pm$ 0.2\
Bernstein et al. 1995 & R & 52.2 & 0.473 & 23.5 & -1.42 $\pm$ 0.05\
Secker et al. 1997 & R & $\sim$ 700 & 0.53 & 22.5 & -1.41 $\pm$ 0.05\
Lobo et al. 1997 & V & 1 500 & 0.3145 & 21 & -1.8 $\pm$ 0.05\
Trentham 1998b & R & 674 & 0.22 & 23.83 & -1.7\
Adami et al. 2000 & R & 52.2 & 0.473 & 22.5 & -1\
Andreon & Cuillandre 2002 & B & 720 & 0.206 & 22.5 & -1.25\
& V & 1 044 & 0.206 & 23.75 & -1.4\
& R & 1 044 & 0.206 & 23.25 & -1.4\
Beijersbergen et al. 2002 & U & 4 680 & 0.333 & 21.73 & $-1.32^{+0.018}_{-0.028}$\
& B & 18 720 & 0.333 & 21.73 & $-1.37^{+0.024}_{-0.016}$\
& r & 18 720 & 0.333 & 21.73 & $-1.16^{+0.012}_{-0.019}$\
Mobasher et al. 2003 & R & 3 600 & 0.21 & 19.5 & $-1.18^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$\
Iglesias-P[á]{}ramo et al. 2003 & r’ & 3 600 & 0.333 & 20.5 & $-1.47^{+0.08}_{-0.09}$\
OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION
===============================
Coma Data
---------
Our Coma data consist of observations obtained from the HST archive. We selected 16 F606W exposures, totaling 20400 s, and 6 F814W exposures, totaling 7800 s, of a single WFPC2 pointing taken with the center of the PC chip placed on the nucleus of NGC 4874. Due to light contamination from this galaxy, we discarded the PC chip from this project. The combined area of the three WF chips is $\sim 16650$ arcsec$^2$ (after trimming), with a plate scale of 0.1$''$ pix$^{-1}$. For further details of these observations, see @jj.
The raw data were processed with the standard HST pre-processing pipeline. We then registered the images to within $\sim 0.2$ pix using $\sim 20$ stellar objects on each chip. We scaled the images based on their exposure time and applied a standard cosmic ray rejection algorithm. Finally, we combined the images using the median pixel value, ending with coadded images with effective exposure times of 1300 s.
The coadded Coma images for each chip were dominated with light from a number of bright elliptical galaxies. To remove this light, we used elliptical isophotes to construct photometric models of the six brightest galaxies on the three WF chips. We then subtracted these models from the coadded images. We trimmed the elliptical-subtracted coadded images to remove the regions affected by edge effects, and trimmed the ellipse model images to match. We then ring median-filtered the elliptical-subtracted and trimmed images to create a smoothed map of the background light for each WF chip. We subtracted these background light maps to create final background-subtracted images. We also added the background light map to the trimmed ellipse model image for each chip to create final models of the background for each chip.
Control Field Data
------------------
For control field data, we obtained F606W and F814W images of the Hubble Deep Field North (HDF) [@hdf] from the STScI website$^3$. These images had been registered, drizzled onto an image with a sampling of 0.04$''$ pix$^{-1}$, background subtracted and normalized to an exposure time of 1 s.
In the method of differential counts, it is imperative to recreate the detection characteristics of the data field as closely as possible in the control field (for a good discussion of this topic, see @bern and @frenchie). We imposed the Coma pixel scale on the HDF frames by rebinning the images by a factor of 2.5. To match the Coma images’ effective exposure time of 1300 s, we multiplied each HDF image by 1300. We also trimmed the HDF images to match the area of the trimmed Coma images.
To match the noise of the Coma images, we generated a [*spatially-dependent*]{} noise frame for each chip. At each pixel of the noise frame, the expected noise level of the corresponding Coma background model pixel was calculated based on the background level at that pixel, the read noise, and the number of frames that were coadded to create the image. A value for the noise pixel was then drawn at random from a Gaussian distribution centered on zero with standard deviation equal to that expected noise value. The generated value was multiplied by 0.85 [*a priori*]{} to better match the measured noise levels in the background-subtracted Coma images. We added the resulting noise frames directly to the corresponding rebinned, scaled and trimmed HDF chips, as the existing Poisson noise in the HDF images is negligible.
Finally, we subtracted the background of the HDF images in the same manner as the Coma images to keep all processing steps as similar as possible.
CREATING THE OBJECT CATALOGS
============================
Globular Cluster Contamination
------------------------------
One of the advantages of using HST data is its superior resolution over ground-based data. This is important in this work because of the danger of globular cluster blends contaminating the LF. Globular clusters are point sources at the distance of Coma, but two or more globular clusters (or other stellar objects) can appear to be a single extended object when close enough together, and thus be misclassified as a cluster galaxy. This effect was discussed by @frenchie, who noted that a large number of faint, extended objects in their CFHT images of the Coma cluster were resolved into separate point sources in corresponding HST images.
Examination of our preliminary catalogs revealed that while globular clusters were certainly [*visible*]{} as separate point sources, these separate sources would still sometimes be blended into a single object by our detection algorithm. We found this to be a function of the choice of convolution kernel; when the image was convolved with a moderate-sized Gaussian kernel (FWHM $\sim
3$ pix) to enhance detection of extended sources, nearby point sources could be blended into a single extended object (Figure \[fig:blends\]). Convolving with a smaller kernel (FWHM $\sim 1.5$ pix) prevented this effect, but using such a small kernel caused some of the more extended faint galaxies to be missed.
To prevent globular cluster blends from contaminating our catalog while still including as many cluster galaxies as possible, we chose to employ a two-pass detection and photometry procedure. We convolved the images once with a small kernel to detect every point source as a separate object. We separated the resulting catalog into “stars” and galaxies on the basis of central concentration, and created a stellar mask for each chip. We applied this mask in a second pass with a larger kernel, such that pixels associated with stellar objects in the first pass could not be detected on the second pass. The results of this second pass then formed our catalog.
The HDF has many fewer point sources than the Coma images, and therefore is much less affected by the danger of point source blends. However, in the interest of processing the data and control images as identically as possible, we applied the same two-pass procedure to the HDF images as well.
Detection and Photometry
------------------------
We used the SExtractor package [@sex] for detection and photometry. We performed the first detection/photometry pass on the F606W images, convolving with a FWHM = 1.5 pix Gaussian kernel. We set the detection threshold to 1.48 in units of background standard deviation in the unconvolved image; this corresponds to a threshold of $\sim 3.5$ $\sigma$ on the convolved image. We gave the final Coma background model to SExtractor as a variance-type weight map for both the Coma image and the corresponding HDF image. SExtractor uses these weight maps, which describe the noise intensity at each pixel in units of relative weight or relative variance, to slightly adjust the threshold at each pixel to compensate for noise varying across the frame.
To identify the stellar objects in the detection lists, we calculated a “simplified” Petrosian radius $r_{petros}$ for each object. This is defined as the radius at which the function $$\eta' = \frac{F(< r)}{r}$$
reaches its maximum, where $F(< r)$ is the flux within an aperture with radius $r$. Note that $\eta'$ is proportional to signal-to-noise when an image is sky-noise dominated. This measure is loosely based on the @petros radius, which has been used to determine central concentration for various purposes in numerous studies (see, for example, Strauss et al. 2002).
We plotted the $r_{petros}$ for each object versus its [ MAGBEST]{} magnitude (Figure \[fig:stargal\]). We chose a cut of $r_{petros} = 1.35$ to separate stellar objects from galaxies. Some stars do fall above this line; however, as the object of this step is to block as many stars as possible while not losing any galaxies, a lower value is preferable. We then used the segmentation image produced by SExtractor to identify the pixels associated with each stellar object. We created a weight map where these pixels were assigned a weight of zero, while the remaining pixels received a weight equal to the inverse of the value of the corresponding Coma background model pixel.
We performed the second detection/photometry pass using this weight map. The image was convolved with a FWHM = 3 pix Gaussian kernel, and we set the detection threshold to 0.86 (again equivalent to $\sim 3.5$ sigma on the convolved image). We set the weight threshold such that no pixels with weights of zero would be included in the detected objects. Photometry was performed on both the F606W and F814W images; object positions and image moments were determined on the (deeper) F606W frames, and then applied to both the F606W and F814W frames to calculate magnitudes. Fixed-aperture magnitudes were also determined in both filters for later use in calculating colors.
Galaxy Selection
----------------
We trimmed the preliminary Coma catalogs to remove objects which fell in the cores of the subtracted Coma elliptical galaxies. The HDF had no large elliptical galaxies to subtract; however, its noise was generated from the Coma background models containing these galaxies, and so we removed HDF objects in the trim regions from the catalogs as well. Finally, to remove any remaining stellar objects from the catalogs, we cut all objects with $r_{petros} \leq
1.55$.
Limiting Magnitude
------------------
We performed add-galaxy experiments to determine the limiting magnitude of our catalogs. For each of 12 0.5 magnitude bins, we generated 100 fake galaxies and added them to one chip of the Coma and HDF images. After running SExtractor on the added-object images, we determined the number of added objects that were recovered. We repeated this process 20 times for both Coma and the HDF and combined the results.
Figure \[fig:ndet.ndet\] shows the results for both Coma and the HDF. As can be seen, the Coma catalog is over 80% complete to an instrumental F606W magnitude of -4.25. This can then be considered the limiting instrumental magnitude of the catalog.
Magnitude Transformation
------------------------
Finally, we transformed our magnitudes to the Vega system Johnson-Cousins B, R and I bands. To transform from instrumental magnitudes to the Vega system, we used the HDF photometric zeropoints on the STScI webpage$^4$; to transform from F606W to B and R, and from F814W to I, we used the data of @fuku. We determined the F606W - F814W color necessary for this transformation from the fixed-aperture magnitudes calculated by SExtractor. To those objects for which SExtractor could not determine fixed-aperture magnitudes, we assigned a color of F606W - F814W = 0.8, chosen as the typical color from a histogram of object colors in the final Coma catalog. Under this transformation, our limiting magnitude (80% completeness) becomes R = 25.75 in the Vega system.
Color and Morphology
--------------------
The method of statistical background subtraction can be improved when combined with other forms of background subtraction. A common technique is to pre-select cluster members based on morphology or color before performing the statistical background subtraction. This reduces the number of background galaxies that must be removed statistically, therefore reducing the errors inherent in statistical subtraction.
Unfortunately, the objects found in our Coma fields are too small to derive meaningful morphology information. The objects in the final Coma catalog have a typical effective radius of $\sim 2$ pix. This is simply too few pixels to determine morphological type.
Pre-selecting based on color also proved impossible with these data. Figure \[fig:cmd\] shows color-magnitude diagrams of objects in the final Coma and HDF catalogs. As can be seen, the distributions are very similar. There is no obvious way to select Coma cluster members based on their color.
Cosmic Variance
---------------
Cosmic variance - the fact that background counts vary from pointing to pointing due to clustering and large scale structure - must be considered when using statistical background subtraction. To understand the effects of cosmic variance on the luminosity function, we evaluated the expression of @peebles for the variance of the count $N$ of objects in a randomly placed cell. This expression is given by $$\label{eqn:variance}
\langle (N - \eta\Omega)^2 \rangle = \eta\Omega + \eta^2 \int d\Omega_1
d\Omega_2 w(\theta_{12})$$
where $\eta$ is the mean density of objects on the sky, $\Omega$ is the size of the cell, and $w(\theta_{12})$ is the two-point angular correlation function.
The two-point angular correlation function of galaxies is usually parameterized by $w(\theta_{12}) = A_w \theta^{-\delta}$, where $A_w$ is often a function of magnitude. A search of the literature yielded no applicable studies of the two-point galaxy angular correlation function in the Vega R band. We chose therefore to use the results of @wilson, who did her work in the Vega V band. Wilson’s data can be applied to this work if a constant Vega V-R color is assumed for the objects in the Coma and HDF catalogs. As discussed earlier, the typical Vega F606W-F814W color of objects in the final Coma catalog is 0.8. Using the transformations of @fuku, this corresponds to a typical Vega V-R color of 0.5. Therefore, Wilson’s coefficients for the bin $m_1 < V \leq
m_2$ were applied to the bin $m_1-0.5 < R \leq m_2-0.5$ in this work. The values used can be found in Table \[tab:cv\]
For $\eta$, we determined the mean density of background galaxies from the compilation of published field number counts available from the Durham Cosmology Group$^5$. Because counts in the Vega V band were not available, the counts in the Vega R band were used. Following the reasoning used above, the counts in the bin $m_1-0.5 < R \leq m_2-0.5$ were used as the counts in the bin $m_1 < V
\leq m_2$. From the given data, the average count in each 0.5 mag bin was determined. This value was divided by 3600 to get the average number of galaxies per arcmin$^2$ in each bin. As the cosmic variance was to be calculated in 1.0 mag bins, the results from pairs of bins were added together. The resulting values can be found in Table \[tab:cv\].
Finally, for $\Omega$, we simply calculated the total field size of this work by adding together the trimmed areas of the three WF chips. This value can also be found in Table \[tab:cv\]
Using these values, we then evaluated Peebles’ integral numerically for each of the four 1.0 magnitude bins. The distance between points was calculated as the linear distance; this approximation is valid for fields as small as the one used here. The resulting values of cosmic variance and standard deviation for each of the bins can be found in Table \[tab:cv\].
[c c c c c c c c]{} 20.5 - 21.5 & 21.0 - 22.0 & 0.8 & -1.13 $\pm$ 0.06 & 1.15 & 4.62 & 7.72 & 2.78\
21.5 - 22.5 & 22.0 - 23.0 & 0.8 & -1.49 $\pm$ 0.05 & 2.69 & 4.62 & 21.3 & 4.62\
22.5 - 23.5 & 23.0 - 24.0 & 0.8 & -1.72 $\pm$ 0.05 & 6.37 & 4.62 & 48.4 & 6.96\
23.5 - 24.5 & 24.0 - 25.0 & 0.8 & -2.26 $\pm$ 0.09 & 14.6 & 4.62 & 96.2 & 9.81\
To convert the cosmic variance to an error in the luminosity function, two steps were necessary. First, as the luminosity function was to be expressed in terms of 0.5 mag bins, the error in each 1.0 mag bin due to cosmic variance had to be divided between two bins. We chose to do this based on the relative population of the two bins: If $\sigma_T$ is the standard deviation due to cosmic variance for a 1.0 mag bin, and $n_1$ and $n_2$ are the background counts in two 0.5 mag bins, then the standard deviation due to cosmic variance in the two 0.5 mag bins is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:cverr} \sigma_1 &=& \sigma_T \frac {n_1}
{n_1 + n_2} \\ \sigma_2 &=& \sigma_T \frac {n_2} {n_1 + n_2} \end{aligned}$$
Second, the error due to cosmic variance only applies to background counts. For the HDF, all the counts in each bin are due to background galaxies. For Coma, however, only a fraction of the counts in each bin are from background galaxies. The exact number for each bin is unknown; statistically, it is assumed to be the same as the HDF count for the corresponding bin. Therefore, we set the error due to cosmic variance for each Coma bin equal to the error due to cosmic variance for the corresponding HDF bin.
We are not able to give an estimate of the cosmic variance all the way down to our limiting magnitude, because Wilson’s study does not go this deep. Therefore, we are forced to assume that the error due to cosmic variance remains small. Further, by using Wilson’s work, we are assuming that the conditions of her study - instrument sensitivity, seeing, detection and photometry algorithm, and so on - are sufficiently similar to the conditions of this study to warrant the comparison.
Obviously, these are very strong assumptions. Ideally, we would evaluate cosmic variance by obtaining additional data taken and reduced under the same conditions of the Coma data. However, this is beyond the scope of this paper, and so we continue under the assumptions stated above.
RESULTS
=======
Comparison to Other Dwarfs
--------------------------
To compare the objects in our Coma catalog to known dwarf galaxies, we collected six published catalogs of dwarf galaxies (Table \[tab:cfsize\]) and obtained the magnitude and half-light radius for each of the galaxies in physical units. When a distance to the group or galaxy was given with the catalog, we adopted that value. For the Virgo cluster, we followed @jj and used a distance modulus of (m-M) = 30.99.
[c c c]{} Local Group & 21 & Bender et al. 1992\
M101 & 18 & Bremnes et al. 1999\
M81 & 19 & Bremnes et al. 1998\
Northern Field & 17 & Barazza et al. 2001\
Southern Field & 24 & Parodi et al. 2002\
Virgo Cluster & 365 & Binggeli & Cameron 1993\
We converted the magnitudes and half-light radii of objects in our final Coma catalog into physical units, adopting a distance modulus of (m-M) = 35.05 [@jj]. For comparison, we also determined magnitudes and half-light radii for Coma’s globular clusters (i.e., the objects found to be stellar while constructing the globular cluster mask).
Figure \[fig:cfsize\] shows half-light radius as a function of magnitude for all the objects. Although the Coma galaxies are much fainter than most known dwarf galaxies, they fall in the same general locus. The distribution is understandably more scattered: background galaxies are also present in the Coma catalog, and these show a range of half-light radii at each magnitude. The Coma globular clusters, however, clearly occupy a very different region in the plot. From this plot, we conclude that the objects in the Coma catalog are [*not*]{} globular clusters, and do have the same general morphology as known dwarf galaxies.
The Luminosity Function
-----------------------
Table \[tab:lf\] shows the data that were used to construct the LF. The number of galaxies in the HDF image is scaled to the unblocked area of the Coma image; the Coma image has many more point sources, and therefore more pixels are blocked by the stellar mask.
Poisson counting errors and errors due to cosmic variance are given separately. The error due to cosmic variance in each 0.5 mag bin could be added in quadrature to the Poisson error. However, the calculation here was performed only to serve as an estimate of the effects of cosmic variance on the slope of the luminosity function. A full treatment would have to account for the correlations in error between magnitude bins introduced by cosmic variance. Due to the simplistic approach and many assumptions used here, we choose to present the two errors separately.
[c c c c c c]{} 20.25 & 1.00 & 1.00 & & 2.89 & 2.89\
20.75 & 1.00 & 1.00 & 1.04 & 2.89 & 2.89\
21.25 & 2.00 & 1.41 & 1.74 & 3.19 & 3.04\
21.75 & 4.00 & 2.00 & 2.31 & 3.49 & 3.19\
22.25 & 8.00 & 2.83 & 2.31 & 3.79 & 3.34\
22.75 & 8.00 & 2.83 & 2.07 & 3.79 & 3.34\
23.25 & 14.00 & 3.74 & 4.89 & 4.04 & 3.46\
23.75 & 27.00 & 5.20 & 3.68 & 4.32 & 3.61\
24.25 & 50.00 & 7.07 & 6.13 & 4.59 & 3.74\
24.75 & 80.00 & 8.94 & & 4.79 & 3.84\
25.25 & 134.00 & 11.58 & & 5.02 & 3.95\
25.75 & 203.00 & 14.25 & & 5.20 & 4.04\
20.25 & 1.97 & 1.39 & & 3.18 & 3.03\
20.75 & 2.96 & 1.71 & 1.04 & 3.36 & 3.12\
21.25 & 4.92 & 2.20 & 1.74 & 3.58 & 3.23\
21.75 & 6.90 & 2.61 & 2.31 & 3.73 & 3.31\
22.25 & 6.91 & 2.61 & 2.31 & 3.73 & 3.31\
22.75 & 10.81 & 3.26 & 2.07 & 3.93 & 3.40\
23.25 & 25.60 & 5.02 & 4.89 & 4.30 & 3.59\
23.75 & 20.68 & 4.51 & 3.68 & 4.21 & 3.55\
24.25 & 34.45 & 5.82 & 6.13 & 4.43 & 3.66\
24.75 & 78.75 & 8.81 & & 4.79 & 3.84\
25.25 & 70.91 & 8.36 & & 4.74 & 3.81\
25.75 & 107.32 & 10.28 & & 4.92 & 3.90\
20.25 & -0.97 & 1.71 & & &\
20.75 & -1.96 & 1.98 & 1.48 & &\
21.25 & -2.92 & 2.62 & 2.46 & &\
21.75 & -2.90 & 3.29 & 3.27 & &\
22.25 & 1.09 & 3.85 & 3.27 & 2.93 & 3.48\
22.75 & -2.81 & 4.32 & 2.92 & &\
23.25 & -11.60 & 6.26 & 6.92 & &\
23.75 & 6.32 & 6.88 & 5.20 & 3.69 & 3.73\
24.25 & 15.55 & 9.16 & 8.67 & 4.08 & 3.85\
24.75 & 1.25 & 12.55 & & 2.99 & 3.99\
25.25 & 63.09 & 14.28 & & 4.69 & 4.05\
25.75 & 95.68 & 17.57 & & 4.87 & 4.14\
Figure \[fig:counts\] shows the number counts of the Coma field and the scaled HDF field. As can be seen, cluster counts do not start to dominate over the background until the last two bins. This is due to the small field size surveyed here: cluster galaxies with $20 \lesssim R \lesssim 24$ are so rare that $\lesssim$ 1 is expected in a field this size. The galaxies in this magnitude range that are detected in the Coma field are due to background contamination, and so their numbers match those found in the background-only field.
Figure \[fig:loglf\] shows the result of subtracting the HDF counts from the Coma counts – the luminosity function. The shape of the luminosity function is generally parameterized by the Schechter function, which can be written in terms of magnitude as $$\phi (M) dM \sim 10^{-0.4(\alpha + 1) M}
e^{-10^{0.4(M^* - M)}}$$
At faint magnitudes, the first term dominates and so the slope of the logarithmic luminosity function is directly related to the parameter $\alpha$. Fitting a straight line to our logarithmic LF using a weighted least-squares fit, we obtain $\alpha = -2.29 \pm 0.33$.
DISCUSSION
==========
Comparison to Other Work
------------------------
We have found an extremely steep slope for the faint end of the luminosity function in the Coma cluster. This is especially striking when compared to studies of the faint-end LF in clusters such as Virgo and Fornax. These clusters are close enough that measurements can easily be made at the same absolute magnitudes reached here. For example, in the Virgo cluster, @trenthodge found magnitude-dependent slopes ranging from $-1.49 \pm 0.11
\leq \alpha \leq -1.02 \pm 0.09$ for $-15 \leq M_B \leq -12$ (roughly equivalent to our absolute magnitude range of $-13 \lesssim M_R \lesssim -9$). @sab found a slightly steeper slope of $\alpha = -1.6$ for Virgo in the range $-14 \leq M_B \leq -10$, though this is still significantly flatter than our slope. For Fornax, @hilker found an extremely flat slope of $\alpha
= 1.1 \pm 0.1$ in the range $-16 \lesssim M_V \lesssim -9$.
Another interesting comparison is to look at other studies of the LF in the Coma cluster. As noted in the Introduction, many other such studies have appeared in the literature. Table \[tab:cfothers\] indicates that little consensus has been reached on the “true” slope of the LF. To better compare these studies, we constructed a composite LF.
We obtained background-subtracted number counts for the Coma cluster from the studies listed in Table \[tab:cfothers\] that were conducted in the R band. We converted the magnitudes to absolute magnitudes using a distance modulus of $(m-M) = 34.83$ [@trent2]. We then scaled the counts and errors to an area of 1 deg$^2$, using the field size reported by the authors.
No other normalization was performed. This introduces some scatter to the composite LF; to be perfectly correct, larger surveys – covering more of the low density cluster outskirts and hence having a lower average surface density of galaxies – should be scaled differently than surveys covering only the high density cluster core. However, taking the scale radius (i.e., the radius at which the slope of the profile is the average of the inner and outer slope) of the Coma cluster to be $r_{s} = 320$ kpc for H$_o$ = 70 km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ [@lokas], the largest survey included here [@mobasher] covers an area roughly 9 times that of the Coma cluster core. Assuming a standard surface density profile ($\sigma(r) = (1+(r/r_{s})^n)^{-1}$, for $n=1$ or $2$), moving to a radius $\sim 3r_{s}$ would roughly halve the average surface density determined from observing only the cluster core. This corresponds to a scatter of $\pm 0.3$ in our logarithmic composite LF, an acceptable level of error for our purposes.
Figure \[fig:cflf\] shows the composite R band luminosity function for the Coma cluster. The bright end shows good agreement among the various surveys. At the faint end, the counts of this work are a clean continuation of the brighter counts from the literature and clearly show a steep faint end slope for the Coma cluster LF.
Especially interesting are the counts of @mobasher and @adami. Of the $R$ band studies discussed here, they were the only groups to use spectroscopic redshifts to determine cluster membership. As can be seen in Table \[tab:cfothers\], their values for $\alpha$ are among the lowest published. This trend of lower $\alpha$ values for spectroscopic studies has sometimes been interpreted as an indication that statistical background subtraction causes artificially steep slopes.
However, looking at the composite LF, the spectroscopic counts of Mobasher et al. agree very well with those obtained by using photometric methods to determine cluster membership. Their counts stop before moving into the truly faint regimes of the LF; spectroscopic studies, by their nature, are limited to bright galaxies and so rarely probe the faint end of the LF. The flatter slopes reported by spectroscopic studies may simply be a result of probing only the brighter, less steeply rising part of the LF.
The counts of Adami et al. do extend into fainter regions of the luminosity function. Their study worked with a small sample of only 88 redshifts. They did not calculate error bars for their luminosity function, but assumed them to be the same as those shown for the (much higher) counts of @bern. With these error bars, their counts are consistent at a $1 \sigma$ level with those obtained using photometric methods. The general trend of the points may hint at a possible systematic error arising from using photometric methods to construct a luminosity function, but it is dangerous to draw conclusions based on such small numbers and rough error estimates. Unless a larger, better characterized sample of redshifts are obtained which show the same results, we see no compelling evidence that statistical background subtraction leads to an artificially steep LF slope.
Perhaps the most important thing that Figure \[fig:cflf\] shows is that, [ *although the various studies did not agree on a value for $\alpha$, the counts themselves agree very well.*]{} Caution must always be used when comparing results via parameterized values rather than the underlying data.
Implications of a Steep Faint-End Slope
---------------------------------------
We have found a steep faint end slope to the Coma LF. Such steep slopes are not seen in all environments. What could cause this difference between faint end slopes in different environments?
Qualitatively, our results agree with the idea of @tully: Coma, being a rich cluster, formed many dwarf galaxies before reionization “squelched” dwarf galaxy formation. A more quantitative analysis of this idea was performed by @benson. They used detailed semi-analytic models of galaxy formation, including the effects of supernova feedback, photoionization suppression, and dynamical friction and mass loss due to tidal forces, to determine the properties of galaxies in a range of environments. They found that when photoionization suppression was switched on, faint end slopes in poor environments did become flatter than those in rich environments. However, comparing their results to the observational data of @trenthodge, they found that photoionization alone cannot flatten the slope enough to match the luminosity functions observed in the Local Group and Ursa Major.
This conclusion is supported by @grebel, who examined the ages of stellar populations in Local Group dwarfs. They found no evidence for a halt or reduction in star formation at $20 < z < 6.4$, the typical range of epochs for reionization. This indicates that reionization cannot be the dominant influence in the evolution of Local Group dwarfs. Other feedback mechanisms must also be at work.
Obviously, further theoretical efforts are needed to refine the exact processes that shape the luminosity function. Based on the results of this and similar work, these studies must now also explain how these processes can lead to a luminosity function that is different in environments of different densities.
CONCLUSION
==========
We have found a steep faint end slope for the galaxy luminosity function in the core of the Coma cluster. Using the method of statistical background subtraction and archival HST images has allowed us to achieve a limiting magnitude of R = 25.75, making this the faintest and highest resolution determination of the Coma luminosity function to date. The fine pixel scale of the WFPC2 camera and our globular cluster mask enabled us to effectively eliminate globular cluster contamination from the final catalog. We find the slope of the luminosity function to be fit by $\alpha = -2.29 \pm 0.33$. While this value is not in agreement with other published values of $\alpha$ for the Coma cluster, a composite luminosity function shows our counts to be in good agreement with previous counts. This result could be affected if the errors due to cosmic variance are larger than our estimate. Assuming they are not, the steep slope found in this work is consistent with theories that predict photoionization and other feedback effects will affect environments of low density more severely than environments of high density.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
===============
This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) through Discovery Grants to CJP and WEH. This work was also supported in part by a Post-Graduate Scholarship to MLM from the NSERC. MLM was a Guest User, Canadian Astronomy Data Centre, which is operated by the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada.
Adami, C., Ulmer, M. P., Durret, F., Nichol, R. C., Mazure, A., Holdne, B. P., Romer, A. K., & Savine, C. 2000, , 353, 930
Andreon, S. & Cuillandre, J.-C. 2002, , 569, 144
Barazza, F. D., Binggeli, B., & Prugniel, P. 2001, , 373, 12
Beijersbergen, M., Hoekstra, H., van Dokkum, P. G., & van der Hulst, T. 2002, , 329, 385
Bender, R., Burstein, D., & Faber, S. M. 1992, , 399, 462
Benson, A. J., Frenk, C. S., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., & Lacey, C. G. 2003, , 343, 679
Bernstein, G. M., Nichol, R. C., Tyson, J. A., Ulmer, M. P., & Wittman, D. 1995, , 110, 1507
Bertin, E. & Arnouts, S. 1996, A&AS, 117, 393
Binggeli, B. & Cameron, L. M. 1993, , 98, 297
Biviano, A., Durret, F., Gerbal, D., Le Fevre, O., Lobo, C., Mazure, A., & Slezak, E. 1995, , 297, 610
Bremnes, T., Binggeli, B., & Prugniel, P. 1998, , 129, 313
Bremnes, T., Binggeli, B., & Prugniel, P. 1999, , 137, 337
Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., & Ichikawa, T. 1995, , 107, 945
Grebel, E. K. & Gallagher, J. S. 2004, , 610, L89
Hilker, M., Mieske, S., & Infante, L. 2003, , 397, L9
Iglesias-P[' a]{}ramo, J., Boselli, A., Gavazzi, G., Cortese, L., & V[í]{}lchez, J. M. 2003, , 397, 421
Kavelaars, J. J., Harris, W. E., Hanes, D. A., Hesser, J. E., & Pritchet, C. J. 2000, , 533, 125
Lobo, C., Biviano, A., Durret, F., Gerbal, D., Le Fevre, O., Mazure, A., & Slezak, E. 1997, , 317, 385
Lokas, E. L. & Mamon, G. A. 2003, , 343, 401
Mobasher, B. et al. 2003, , 587, 605
Parodi, B. R., Barazza, F. D., & Binggeli, B. 2002, , 388, 29
Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
Petrosian, V. 1976, , 209, L1
Phillips, S., Parker, Q. A., Schwartzenberg, J. M., & Jones, J. B. 1998, , 493, L59
Press, W. H. & Schechter, P. 1974, , 187, 425
Pritchet, C. J. & van den Bergh, S. 1999, , 118, 883
Sabatini, S., Davies, J., Scaramella, R., Smith, R., Baes, M., Linder, S. M., Roberts, S., & Testa, V. 2003, , 341, 981
Secker, J., Harris, W. E., & Plummer, J. D. 1997, , 109, 1377
Strauss, M. A. et al. 2002, , 124, 1810
Thompson, L. A. & Gregory, S. A. 1993, , 106, 2197
Trentham, N. 1998a, , 294, 193
Trentham, N. 1998b, , 293, 71
Trentham, N., Tully, R. B., & Verheijen, M. A. W. 2001, , 325, 385
Trentham, N. & Hodgkin, S. 2002, , 333, 423
Tully, R. B., Somerville, R. S., Trentham, N., & Verheijen, M. A. W. 2002, , 569, 573
White, S. D. M. & Rees, M. J. 1978, , 183, 341
Williams, R. E. et al. 1996, , 112, 1335
Wilson, G. 2003, , 585, 191
Zwicky, F. 1957, Morphological Astronomy (Berlin: Springer)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Introduction
============
The recent progress in superstring theory provides us the new picture of the universe, so called brane world, where our universe is like domain wall in higher dimensional spacetimes. The matter is confined on the 3-brane. The simplest model was proposed by Randall and Sundrum[@RSI; @RSII]. In their model the bulk spacetimes is 5-dimensional anti-deSitter spacetimes and the brane is four dimensional Minkowski spacetimes. Their first model(RS1) gives us the geometrical solution to the gauge hierarchy problem. The RS1 model consists of two brane, the positive and negative tension branes. For the gauge hierarchy problem, it is supposed that the visible brane where we are is the negative tension one. The linealised theory has been carefully investigated in [@Tama; @Rubakov](See Ref. [@Csaba; @Gen; @Kazuya] for the cosmological cases. See Ref [@Other] for another issues.). As a result, it is turned out that the gravity on the brane looks like the scalar-tensor gravity. However, we have no successful analysis on the non-linear aspect of the gravity except for the second order perturbation[@Kudoh2]. Recently there are impressive progress[@Toby; @Kanno; @Kanno2] on this issue. In Ref. [@Kanno], the effective equation is derived at the low energy scale.
In this paper we re-derive the effective theory for two brane systems which was obtained by Kanno and Soda[@Kanno](See also [@Toby]) in the metric based approach. On the other hand, our approach is based on the covariant curvature formalism[@Tess; @Roy]. As seen later, our derivation is much simpler than the metric based approach and straightforward. The covariant curvature formalism gives us a gravitational equation on the branes. For RS2 models which consists of the single brane, this is powerful approach to look at the full view of the brane world. Indeed, it was easy to see that the Newton gravity is recovered at the low energy. The approach, however, is not regarded as so useful for RS1 models. We shall show this is not true. This is the main purpose in this paper. For simplicity, we will not address the stabilisation issue of two branes(radion stabilisation problems) [@Wise; @Tama2; @Csaba2].
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. In the section 2, we summarise the covariant curvature formalism. In the section 3, we formally solve the bulk perturbatively up to the 1st order. The infinitesimal and dimensionless parameter is the ratio of the bulk to brane curvature radii. After then we derive the effective theory at the 1st order. The equation includes the non-linear part of the induced gravity on the branes. In the section 4, we summarise the present work.
Covariant curvature formalism
=============================
We employ the following metric form[^1] $$\begin{aligned}
ds^2=e^{2\phi(y,x)}dy^2+q_{\mu\nu}(y,x)dx^\mu dx^\nu.\end{aligned}$$ In the above it is supposed that the positive and negative tension branes are located at $y=0$ and $y=y_0$, respectively. The proper distance between two branes is given by $d_0(x)=\int_0^{y_0} dy
e^{\phi (y,x)}$. $q_{\mu\nu}(y,x)$ is the induced metric of $y=$constant hypersurfaces.
We follow the geometrical procedure(covariant curvature formalism) developed in Ref. [@Tess; @Roy]. For simplicity, we do not include the bulk fields except for the bulk consmological constant. From the Gauss-Codacci equations, first of all, we have two key equations $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(4)}G^\mu_\nu & = & \frac{3}{\ell^2} \delta^\mu_\nu+KK^\mu_\nu-K^\mu_\alpha K^\alpha_{\nu}
\nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{2}\delta^\mu_\nu (K^2-K^\alpha_\beta K^\beta_\alpha)-E^\mu_\nu \label{Gauss}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
D_\mu K^\mu_\nu-D_\mu K =0,\end{aligned}$$ where $D_\mu$ is the covariant derivative with respect to $q_{\mu\nu}$. $\ell$ is the bulk curvature radius. ${}^{(4)}G_{\mu\nu}$ is the 4-dimensional Einstein tensor with respect to $q_{\mu\nu}$, $K_{\mu\nu}$ is the extrinsic curvature of $y=$constant hypersurfaces defined by $$\begin{aligned}
K_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}\mbox \pounds_n q_{\mu\nu}=\nabla_\mu n_\nu+n_\mu D_\nu \phi,\end{aligned}$$ where $n=e^{-\phi}\partial_y$. Here note that $a^\mu= n^\nu \nabla_\nu n^\mu=-D^\mu \phi (y,x)$. $E_{\mu\nu}$ is a part of the projected Weyl tensor defined by $$\begin{aligned}
E^\mu_\nu & = & {}^{(5)}C_{\mu\alpha\nu\beta}n^\alpha n^\beta \nonumber \\
& = & -D^\mu D_\nu \phi - D^\mu \phi D_\nu \phi - \mbox \pounds_n K^\mu_\nu-K^\mu_\alpha K^\alpha_\nu
\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{\ell^2}\delta^\mu_\nu, \label{defE}\end{aligned}$$ where ${}^{(5)}C_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$ is the 5-dimensional Weyl tensor.
The junction conditions on the branes are $$\begin{aligned}
[K^\mu_\nu-\delta^\mu_\nu K ]_{y=0}=-\frac{\kappa^2}{2}\biggl(-\sigma_1 \delta^\mu_\nu+T^{\mu}_{1~\nu} \biggr) \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
[K^\mu_\nu-\delta^\mu_\nu K ]_{y=y_0}=\frac{\kappa^2}{2}\biggl(-\sigma_2 \delta^\mu_\nu+T^{\mu}_{2~\nu} \biggr). \end{aligned}$$ $T^\mu_{1~\nu}$ and $T^\mu_{2~\nu}$ are the energy-momentum tensor localised on the positive and negative branes. $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$ are the brane tensions. If one substitutes the above conditions to Eq (\[Gauss\]), we might be able to derive the Einstein equation on the brane. Indeed, this was successful procedure for the single brane[@Tess]. This is because $E_{\mu\nu}$ comes from just Kaluza-Klein modes and vanishes at the low energy[@Tama; @Tess]. For the two brane systems, on the other hand, we have to carefully evaluate $E_{\mu\nu}$ due to the existence of the radion fields. Otherwise, we have a wrong prediction on the gravity on the branes. So we need the evolutional equation for $E_{\mu\nu}$ in the bulk. Even for the low energy scale, we learned from the linealised theory[@Tama] that $E_{\mu\nu}$ is not negligible.
To evaluate $E_{\mu\nu}$ in the bulk, we derive its evolutional equation. The result is $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox \pounds_n E_{\alpha\beta} & = & D^\mu B_{\mu (\alpha\beta)}+K^{\mu\nu}{}^{(4)}C_{\mu\alpha\nu\beta}
+4K^\mu_{(\alpha}E_{\beta) \mu} \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{3}{2}KE_{\alpha\beta}-\frac{1}{2}q_{\alpha\beta}K^{\mu\nu}E_{\mu\nu}
+2D^\mu \phi B_{\mu (\alpha\beta)}
\nonumber \\
& & +2\tilde K^\mu_\alpha \tilde K_{\mu\nu} \tilde K^\nu_\beta-\frac{7}{6}\tilde K_{\mu\nu}
\tilde K^{\mu\nu}\tilde K_{\alpha\beta} \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{1}{2}q_{\alpha\beta}\tilde K_{\mu\nu}
\tilde K^\mu_\rho \tilde K^{\rho\nu}, \label{evoE}\end{aligned}$$ where $B_{\mu\nu\alpha}=q_\mu^\rho q_\nu^\sigma {}^{(5)}C_{\rho\sigma\alpha\beta}n^\beta$ and $\tilde K_{\mu\nu}=K_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{4}q_{\mu\nu}K$. Since the right-hand side contains $B_{\mu\nu\alpha}$, $K_{\mu\nu}$ and ${}^{(4)}C_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$, we also need their evolutional equations. After long calculation we are resulted in $$\begin{aligned}
& & \mbox \pounds_n {}^{(4)}R_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}+2{}^{(4)}R_{\mu\nu\rho [\alpha}K^\rho_{\beta]}
+2D_{[\mu}B_{|\alpha\beta |\nu]} \nonumber \\
& &~~~ +2(D_\mu D_{[\alpha} \phi+ D_\mu \phi D_{[\alpha} \phi)K_{\beta]\nu} \nonumber \\
& & ~~~-2(D_{\nu}D_{[\alpha} \phi -D_\nu \phi D_{[\alpha}\phi )K_{\beta ] \mu}
\nonumber \\
& &~~~ -2 B_{\alpha \beta [ \mu }D _{\nu ]} \phi -2
B_{\mu \nu [ \alpha } D_{\beta ]} \phi =0\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& & \mbox \pounds_n B_{\mu\nu\alpha}+2D_{[\mu} E_{\nu ]\alpha}
+2D_{[\mu}\phi E_{\nu]\alpha} \nonumber \\
& & ~~~- B_{\mu\nu\beta}K^\beta_\alpha+2 B_{\alpha\beta [\mu}
K_{\nu]}^\beta \nonumber \\
& &~~~ +({}^{(4)}R_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}-K_{\mu\alpha}K_{\nu\beta}
+K_{\mu\beta}K_{\nu\alpha})D^\beta \phi =0\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-\phi}\partial_y K^\mu_\nu & = & -D^\mu D_\nu \phi-D^\mu \phi D_\nu \phi \nonumber \\
& & -K^\mu_\alpha
K^\alpha_\nu+\frac{1}{\ell^2}\delta^\mu_\nu -E^\mu_\nu. \label{evoK}\end{aligned}$$ Eq (\[evoK\]) is just the rearrangement of Eq (\[defE\]). The derivation is basically same with that in Ref [@Tess].
The junction condition directly implies the boundary condition on the branes for $K_{\mu\nu}$ and $B_{\mu\nu\alpha}$ because of $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\mu\nu\alpha}=2D_{[\mu} K_{\nu]\alpha}.\end{aligned}$$
Derivation of low energy effective theory
=========================================
It is now ready to derive the low energy theory for two brane systems. To do so, as stressed in the previous section, we must know $E_{\mu\nu}$ and solve the equation for $E_{\mu\nu}$ in the bulk. By low energy we mean that the typical scale of the curvature scale($L$) on the brane is much larger than the bulk curvature scale($\ell$), that is, $L \gg \ell$. The dimensionless parameter is $\epsilon=(\ell /L)^2$ which is tacitly entered into the equations below. We expand $K^\mu_\nu$ and $E^\mu_\nu$ as $$\begin{aligned}
K^\mu_\nu= {}^{(0)}K^\mu_\nu + {}^{(1)}K^\mu_\nu+\cdots\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
E^\mu_\nu= {}^{(1)}E^\mu_\nu+\cdots.\end{aligned}$$
0-th order
----------
At the 0-th order, the evolutional equation which we have to solve is only one for $K_{\mu\nu}$; $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-\phi}\partial_y {}^{(0)}K^\mu_\nu= \frac{1}{\ell^2}\delta^\mu_\nu-{}^{(0)}K^\mu_\alpha
{}^{(0)}K^\alpha_\nu.\end{aligned}$$ And $K_{\mu\nu}$ satisfies the constraint $$\begin{aligned}
D_\mu {}^{(0)}K^\mu_\nu-D_\nu {}^{(0)}K =0.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that the solution is $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(0)}K^\mu_\nu=-\frac{1}{\ell}\delta^\mu_\nu.\end{aligned}$$ From the definition $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2}e^{-\phi}\partial_y{}^{(0)}q_{\mu\nu}=-\frac{1}{\ell}{}^{(0)}q_{\mu\nu},\end{aligned}$$ the metric at the 0th order becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(0)}q_{\mu\nu}(y,x)=e^{-2d(y,x)/\ell}h_{\mu\nu}(x),\end{aligned}$$ where $h_{\mu\nu}(x)$ is a tensor field depending on only the coordinate $x$ on the brane and $d(y,x)=\int^y_0 e^{\phi (y',x)}dy'$.
At this order the junction condition is $$\begin{aligned}
[{}^{(0)}K^\mu_\nu-\delta^\mu_\nu {}^{(0)}K ]_{y=0}=\frac{\kappa^2}{2} \sigma_1 \delta^\mu_\nu\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
[{}^{(0)}K^\mu_\nu-\delta^\mu_\nu {}^{(0)}K ]_{y=y_0}=-\frac{\kappa^2}{2} \sigma_2 \delta^\mu_\nu.\end{aligned}$$ Thus the junction condition implies the relation between the bulk curvature radius $\ell$ and the brane tension $\sigma_{1,2}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{\ell}=\frac{1}{6}\kappa^2 \sigma_1=-\frac{1}{6}\kappa^2 \sigma_2.\end{aligned}$$ This is just the fine-tuning of Randall-Sundrum models[@RSI; @RSII].
1st order
---------
At the first order, the Riemann tensor does appear in the basic equations. So we can expect that the Einstein field equation will be able to described at this order. Indeed, the Gauss equation of Eq (\[Gauss\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(4)}G^\mu_\nu=-\frac{2}{\ell} ({}^{(1)}K^\mu_\nu-\delta^\mu_\nu {}^{(1)}K)-{}^{(1)}E^\mu_\nu. \end{aligned}$$ The first term in the right-hand side will be easily written in terms of the energy-momentum tensor on the branes using the junction condition at this order. So the unknown tensor is ${}^{(1)}E^\mu_\nu$.
The evolutional equation which we must solve are $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-\phi} \partial_y {}^{(1)}E_{\mu\nu}=\frac{2}{\ell}{}^{(1)}E_{\mu\nu}. \label{evoE1st} \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
e^{-\phi}\partial_y {}^{(1)}K^\mu_\nu & = & -(D^\mu D_\nu \phi+D^\mu \phi D_\nu \phi) \nonumber \\
& & +\frac{2}{\ell}{}^{(1)}K^\mu_\nu -{}^{(1)}E^\mu_\nu. \label{evoK1st}\end{aligned}$$ Eq (\[evoE1st\]) is easily solved as $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(1)}E_{\mu\nu}=e^{2d(y,x)/\ell} e_{\mu\nu}(x),\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(1)}E^\mu_{\nu}=e^{4d(y,x) /\ell} \hat e^{\mu}_\nu (x), \label{solE}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat e^{\mu}_\nu (x)= h^{\mu\alpha}e_{\alpha \nu}(x)$.
Substituting the expression Eq (\[solE\]) into Eq (\[evoK1st\]), we can obtain the solution for ${}^{(1)}K^\mu_\nu$ easily; $$\begin{aligned}
& & {}^{(1)}K^\mu_\nu (y,x) \nonumber \\
& & ~~~= e^{2d/\ell}{}^{(1)}K^\mu_\nu (0,x)-\frac{\ell}{2}
(1-e^{-2d/\ell}){}^{(1)}E^\mu_\nu (y,x) \nonumber \\
& & ~~~~~~~-\biggl[D^\mu D_\nu d-\frac{1}{\ell} \biggl( D^\mu d D_\nu d -\frac{1}{2}\delta^\mu_\nu
(Dd)^2 \biggr) \biggr]
\label{solK1st}\end{aligned}$$ For the comparison, note that $e_{\mu\nu}$ cannot be determined by the junction condition in the RS2 model[@Kanno2; @Tess]. To do so we need the boundary condition near the Cauchy horizon.
Low energy effective theory for two brane systems
-------------------------------------------------
At the 1st order the junction condition on the positive and negative tension branes becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(1)}K^\mu_\nu (0,x)-\delta^\mu_\nu {}^{(1)}K(0,x)=-\frac{\kappa^2}{2}T^\mu_{1~\nu}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(1)}K^\mu_\nu (y_0,x)-\delta^\mu_\nu {}^{(1)}K(y_0,x)=\frac{\kappa^2}{2}T^\mu_{2~\nu}.
\label{jun1st}\end{aligned}$$ Using the above Eq (\[jun1st\]), the Gauss equation on the negative tension brane becomes $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(4)}G^\mu_\nu & = & -\frac{2}{\ell} \biggl( {}^{(1)}K^\mu_\nu (y_0,x) -\delta^\mu_\nu {}^{(1)}K(y_0,x) \biggr)
\nonumber \\
& & ~~~~~~-{}^{(1)}E^\mu_\nu (y_0,x) \nonumber \\
& = & -\frac{\kappa^2}{\ell}T^\mu_{2~\nu}-{}^{(1)}E^\mu_\nu(y_0,x).\end{aligned}$$ Using the expression of Eq (\[solK1st\]), the junction condition on the negative tension brane is written as $$\begin{aligned}
& & {}^{(1)}K^\mu_\nu(y_0,x)-\delta^\mu_\nu {}^{(1)}K(y_0,x) \nonumber \\
& & ~~=-\frac{\kappa^2}{2}e^{2d_0/\ell}T^\mu_{1~\nu}\nonumber \\
& & ~~~~-\biggl(D^\mu D_\nu d_0 -D^\mu D_\nu d_0 \biggr) \nonumber \\
& & ~~~~+\frac{1}{\ell}\biggl( D^\mu d_0 D_\nu d_0
+\frac{1}{2}\delta^\mu_\nu (D d_0)^2 \biggr) \nonumber \\
& & ~~~~-\frac{\ell}{2}(1-e^{-2d_0/\ell}){}^{(1)}E^\mu_\nu (d_0,x) \nonumber \\
& & ~~=\frac{\kappa^2}{2}T^\mu_{2~\nu}.
\label{jun2}\end{aligned}$$ In the right-hand side of the first line, we used the solution of Eq (\[solK1st\]). The second line is just junction condition. From Eq (\[jun2\]), then, the tensor $e_{\mu\nu}$(and then ${}^{(1)}E_{\mu\nu}$) is completely fixed as $$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac{\ell}{2}(1-e^{-2d_0/\ell}) e^{4d_0/\ell}\hat e^\mu_\nu (x)\nonumber \\
& &~~~ = -\frac{\kappa^2}{2}(e^{2d_0/\ell}T^\mu_{1~\nu}+T^\mu_{2~\nu}) \nonumber \\
& &~~~~~ -\biggl( D^\mu D_\nu d_0 -\delta^\mu_\nu D^2 d_0 \biggr)\nonumber \\
& & ~~~~~+\frac{1}{\ell}\biggl( D^\mu d_0 D_\nu d_0 +\frac{1}{2} \delta^\mu_\nu
(D d_0)^2 \biggr). \label{finalE}\end{aligned}$$ The trace of Eq (\[finalE\]) gives the equation for $d_0$ because $e^\mu_\nu$ is traceless. In general the radion field is massive. Substituting Eq (\[finalE\]) into the Gauss equation at the first order, we can obtain the effective equation on the branes. On the negative tension brane, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(4)}G^\mu_\nu & = & \frac{\kappa^2}{\ell} \frac{1}{\Phi}T^\mu_{2~\nu}+\frac{\kappa^2}{\ell}
\frac{(1+\Phi)^2}{\Phi}T^\mu_{1~\nu} \nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{\Phi}(D^\mu D_\nu \Phi-\delta^\mu_\nu D^2\Phi)
\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{\omega(\Phi)}{\Phi^2}\biggl(D^\mu \Phi D_\nu \Phi-\frac{1}{2}\delta^\mu_\nu
(D\Phi)^2 \biggr),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi=e^{2d_0/\ell}-1$ and $\omega(\Phi)=-\frac{3}{2}\frac{\Phi}{1+\Phi}$. As should be so, this is exactly same result obtained by Kanno and Soda[@Kanno]. We also derive the effective equation on the positive tension brane easily; $$\begin{aligned}
{}^{(4)}G^\mu_\nu & = & \frac{\kappa^2}{\ell} \frac{1}{\Psi}T^\mu_{1~\nu}+\frac{\kappa^2}{\ell}
\frac{(1-\Psi)^2}{\Psi} T^\mu_{2~\nu} \nonumber \\
& & +\frac{1}{\Psi}(\hat D^\mu \hat D_\nu \Psi-\delta^\mu_\nu \hat D^2\Psi)
\nonumber \\
& & +\frac{\omega(\Psi)}{\Psi^2}\biggl(\hat D^\mu \Psi \hat D_\nu \Psi-\frac{1}{2}\delta^\mu_\nu
(\hat D\Psi)^2 \biggr),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi=1-e^{-2d_0/\ell}$, $\omega(\Psi)=\frac{3}{2}\frac{\Psi}{1-\Psi}$ and $\hat D$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the induced metric $h_{\mu\nu}$ on the positive tension brane.
Summary
=======
In this paper we derived the gravitational equation on the branes for the two brane systems at the low energy using the covariant curvature formalism[@Tess] and low energy expansion scheme[@Kanno; @Kanno2]. The theory obtained here is presumably applicable to the cosmology and non-linear gravity at low energy scales. What we have done here is the evaluation of $E_{\mu\nu}$ at the low energy. In Ref [@Tess], we thought that the anti-gravity appears on the negative tension brane supposing $E_{\mu\nu}$ is negligible. However, this is not correct and $E_{\mu\nu}$ is not negligible even at the low energy.
Here we should comment on the difference between the study in Ref [@Kanno] and the present one. In Ref [@Kanno] $E_{\mu\nu}$ appears as the “constant of integration". Thus it is difficult to proceed the discussion while keeping the physical meaning. This is just because of the metric based approach. On the other hand, $E_{\mu\nu}$ explicitly enters into the basic equations in the covariant curvature formalism and its physican meaning is manifest. Yet, the evolutional equation for $E_{\mu\nu}$ is simple at the low energy limit.
For simplicity, we focused on the two brane systems without the radion stabilisation. If one is serious about the gauge hierarchy problem, we must assume that we are living on the negative tension brane. In this case, the gravity on the negative tension brane is scalar-tensor type and the scalar coupling is not permitted from the experimental point of view[@Tama]. So we should reconstruct our formalism in two brane systems with the radion stabilisation mechanism. This issue is left for future study.
We are also interested in the higher order effects. We can expect that the effective theory with higher order corrections is higher-derivative type due to the non-local feature of the brane world[@Kanno; @Kanno2; @Mukohyama].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Jiro Soda, Sugumi Kanno, Daisuke Ida and Roy Maartens for fruitful discussions. TS’s work is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan(No. 13135208, No.14740155 and No.14102004).
[22]{}
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 3370 (1999).
L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4690 (1999).
J. Garriga and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2778 (2000).
C. Charmousis, R. Gregory and V. A. Rubakov, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{}, 067505(2000).
C. Csaki, M. Graesser, L. Randall and J Terning, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{}, 045015(2000).
U. Gen and M. Sasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**105**]{}, 591(2001); gr-qc/0201031.
K. Koyama, gr-qc/0204047.
P. Binetruy, C. Deffayet and D. Langlois, Nucl. Phys. [**B615**]{}, 219(2001); Z. Chacko and P. Fox, Phys. Rev. [**D64**]{}, 024015(2001); D. Langlois and L. Sorbo, Phys. Lett. [**B543**]{},155(2002); P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.-C. Davis and C. S. Rhodes, hep-th/0209158.
H. Kudoh and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{}, 104034(2002);hep-th/0205041.
T. Wiseman, Class. Quantum Grav. [**19**]{}, 3083(2002).
S. Kanno and J. Soda, hep-th/0207029
S. Kanno and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. [**D66**]{}, 043526(2002).
T. Shiromizu, K. Maeda and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{}, 024012 (2000); M. Sasaki, T. Shiromizu and K. Maeda, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{}, 024008 (2000).
R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. [**D62**]{}, 084023(2000).
W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 4922(1999); Phys. Lett. [**B475**]{}, 275(2000).
T. Tanaka and X. Montes, Nucl. Phys. [**B582**]{}, 259(2000).
C. Csaki, M. Graesser and G. D. Kribs, Phys. Rev. [**D63**]{}, 065002(2001).
S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. [**D65**]{}, 084036(2002).
[^1]: In Ref [@Kanno] it is assumed that $\phi(y,x)$ does not depend on $y$. However, as seen later, the assumption can be removed.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The paper continues the development of the rigorous supersymmetric transfer matrix approach to the random band matrices started in [@SS:den], [@SS:ChP]. We consider random Hermitian block band matrices consisting of $W\times W$ random Gaussian blocks (parametrized by $j,k \in\Lambda=[1,n]^d\cap \mathbb{Z}^d$) with a fixed entry’s variance $J_{jk}=\delta_{j,k}W^{-1}+\beta\Delta_{j,k}W^{-2}$, $\beta>0$ in each block. Taking the limit $W\to\infty$ with fixed $n$ and $\beta$, we derive the sigma-model approximation of the second correlation function similar to Efetov’s one. Then, considering the limit $\beta, n\to\infty$, we prove that in the dimension $d=1$ the behaviour of the sigma-model approximation in the bulk of the spectrum, as $\beta\gg n$, is determined by the classical Wigner – Dyson statistics.'
author:
- 'Mariya Shcherbina [^1]'
- 'Tatyana Shcherbina [^2]'
title: 'Universality for 1d random band matrices: sigma-model approximation'
---
*This paper is dedicated to Tom Spencer on the occasion of his 70th birthday.*
Introduction {#s:1}
============
Random band matrices (RBM) represent quantum systems on a large box in $\mathbb{Z}^d$ with random quantum transition amplitudes effective up to distances of order $W$, which is called a bandwidth. They are natural intermediate models to study eigenvalue statistics and quantum propagation in disordered systems as they interpolate between Wigner matrices and random Schr$\ddot{\hbox{o}}$dinger operators: Wigner matrix ensembles represent mean-field models without spatial structure, where the quantum transition rates between any two sites are i.i.d. random variables; in contrast, random Schr$\ddot{\hbox{o}}$dinger operator has only a random diagonal potential in addition to the deterministic Laplacian on a box in $\mathbb{Z}^d$.
The density of states $\rho$ of a general class of RBM with $W\gg 1$ is given by the well-known Wigner semicircle law (see [@BMP:91; @MPK:92]): $$\label{rho_sc}
\rho(E)=(2\pi)^{-1}\sqrt{4-E^2},\quad E\in[-2,2].$$ The main feature of RBM is that they can be used to model the celebrated Anderson metal-insulator phase transition in $d\ge 3$. Moreover, the crossover for RBM can be investigated even in $d = 1$ by varying the bandwidth $W$.
More precisely, the key physical parameter of RBM is the localization length $\ell_\psi$, which describes the length scale of the eigenvector $\psi(E)$ corresponding to the energy $E\in (-2,2)$. The system is called delocalized if for all $E$ in the bulk of spectrum $\ell_\psi$ is comparable with the system size, $\ell_\psi\sim n$, and it is called localized otherwise. Delocalized systems correspond to electric conductors, and localized systems are insulators.
In the case of 1d RBM there is a fundamental conjecture stating that for every eigenfunction $\psi(E)$ in the bulk of the spectrum $\ell_\psi$ is of order $W^2$ (see [@Ca-Co:90; @FM:91]). In $d=2$, the localization length is expected to be exponentially large in $W$, in $d\ge 3$ it is expected to be macroscopic, $\ell_\psi\sim n$, i.e. system is delocalized (for more details on these conjectures see [@Sp:12]).
The questions of the localization length are closely related to the universality conjecture of the bulk local regime of the random matrix theory. The bulk local regime deals with the behaviour of eigenvalues of $N\times N$ random matrices on the intervals whose length is of the order $O(N^{-1})$. According to the Wigner – Dyson universality conjecture, this local behaviour does not depend on the matrix probability law (ensemble) and is determined only by the symmetry type of matrices (real symmetric, Hermitian, or quaternion real in the case of real eigenvalues and orthogonal, unitary or symplectic in the case of eigenvalues on the unit circle). In terms of eigenvalue statistics the conjecture about the localization length of RBM in $d=1$ means that 1d RBM in the bulk of the spectrum changes the spectral local behaviour of random operator type with Poisson local eigenvalue statistics (for $W\ll \sqrt{N}$) to the local spectral behaviour of the GUE/GOE type (for $W\gg \sqrt{N}$).
The conjecture supported by physical derivation due to Fyodorov and Mirlin (see [@FM:91]) based on supersymmetric formalism, and also by the so-called Thouless scaling. However, there are only a few partial results on the mathematical level of rigour. At the present time only some upper and lower bounds for $\ell_\psi$ for the general class of 1d RBM are proved rigorously. It is known from the paper [@S:09] that $\ell_\psi\le W^8$. Recently this bound was improved in [@wegb:16] to $W^7$. On the other side, for the general Wigner matrices (i.e. $W=n$) the bulk universality has been proved in [@EYY:10; @TV:11], which gives $\ell_\psi \ge W$. By a development of the Erdős-Yau approach, there were also obtained some other results, where the localization length is controlled in a rather weak sense, i.e. the estimates hold for *“most”* eigenfunctions $\psi$ only: $\ell_\psi \ge W^{7/6}$ in [@EK:11] and $\ell_\psi\ge W^{5/4}$ in [@Yau:12]. GUE/GOE gap distributions for $W\sim n$ was proved recently in [@BEYY:16].
The study of the decay of eigenfunctions is closely related to properties of the Green function $(H-E-i\varepsilon)^{-1}$ with a small $\varepsilon$. For instance, if $(H-E-i\varepsilon)^{-1}_{ii}$ (without expectation) is bounded for all $i$ and some $E\in (-2,2)$, then the normalized eigenvector $\psi(E)$ of $H$ is delocalized on scale $\varepsilon^{-1}$ in a sense that $$\max_i |\psi_i(E)|^2\lesssim \varepsilon,$$ and so $\psi$ is supported on at least $\varepsilon^{-1}$ sites. In particular, if $(H-E-i\varepsilon)^{-1}_{ii}$ can be controlled down to the scale $\varepsilon\sim 1/N$, then the system is in the complete delocalized regime. Moreover, in view of the bound $$\mathbb{E}\{|(H-E-i\varepsilon)^{-1}_{jk}|^2\}\sim C\varepsilon^{-1}\, e^{-\|j-k\|/\ell}$$ which is supposed to be valid for localized regime, the problem of localization/delocalization reduces to controlling $$\mathbb{E}\{|(H-E-i\varepsilon)^{-1}_{jk}|^2\}$$ for $\varepsilon\sim 1/N$. As will be shown below, similar estimates of $\mathbb{E}\{|{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(H-E-i\varepsilon)^{-1}|^2\}$ for $\varepsilon\sim N^{-1}$ are required to work with the correlation functions of RBM.
Despite many attempts, such control has not been achieved so far. The standard approaches of [@EYY:10] and [@Yau:12] do not seem to work for $\varepsilon \le W^{-1}$, and so cannot give an information about the strong form of delocalization (i.e. for *all* eigenfunctions). Classical moment methods, even with a delicate renormalization approach [@S:11], could not break the barrier $\varepsilon\sim W^{-1}$ either.
Another method, which allows to work with random operators with non-trivial spatial structures, is supersymmetry techniques (SUSY) based on the representation of the determinant as an integral over the Grassmann variables. Combining this representation with the representation of the inverse determinant as an integral over the Gaussian complex field, SUSY allows to obtain an integral representation for the main spectral characteristics (such as density of states, second correlation functions, or the average of an elements of the resolvent) as the averages of certain observables in some SUSY statistical mechanics models containing both complex and Grassmann variables (so-called *dual* representation in terms of SUSY). For instance, according to the properties of the Stieljes transform, the second correlation function $R_{2}$ defined by the equality $$\label{R_2}
\mathbf{E}\Big\{ \sum_{j_{1}\neq j_{2}}\varphi
(\lambda_{j_{1}},\lambda_{j_{2}})\Big\}=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{2}} \varphi
(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2})R_{2}(\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2})
d\lambda_{1} d\lambda_{2},$$ where $\{\lambda_j\}$ are eigenvalues of a random matrix, the function $\varphi: \mathbb{R}^{2}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is bounded, continuous and symmetric in its arguments, and the summation is over all pairs of distinct integers $
j_{1},j_{2}\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, can be rewritten as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cor=det}
R_{2}(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)=&(\pi N)^{-2}\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}
\mathbb{E}\{\Im\,{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(H-\lambda_1-i\varepsilon)^{-1}\Im\, {\mathrm{Tr}\,}(H-\lambda_2-i\varepsilon)^{-1}\}\\ \notag
=&(2i\pi N)^{-2}\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}
\mathbb{E}\Big\{\Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}(H-\lambda_1-i\varepsilon)^{-1}-{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(H-\lambda_1+i\varepsilon)^{-1}\Big)\\ \notag
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad\quad\times \Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}(H-\lambda_2-i\varepsilon)^{-1}-{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(H-\lambda_2+i\varepsilon)^{-1}
\Big)\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ and since $$\begin{aligned}
\label{r_det}
&\mathbb{E}\{{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(H-z_1)^{-1}{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(H-z_2)^{-1}\}= \frac{d^2}{dz_1'dz_2'}\mathbb{E}\Big\{\frac{ \det(H-z_1)\det(H-z_2))}{\det(H-z_1')\det(H-z_2'))}\Big\}\Big|_{z'=z},\end{aligned}$$ $R_{2}$ can be represented as a sum of derivatives of the expectation of the ratio of four determinants, which we will call the generalized correlation function.
The derivation of SUSY integral representation is basically an algebraic step, and usually can be done by the standard algebraic manipulations. SUSY is widely used in the physics literature, but the rigorous analysis of the obtained integral representation is a real mathematical challenge. Usually it is quite difficult, and it requires a powerful analytic and statistical mechanics techniques, such as a saddle point analysis, transfer operators, cluster expansions, renormalization group methods, etc. However, it can be done rigorously for some special class of RBM. For instance, by using SUSY the detailed information about the averaged density of states of a special case of Gaussian RBM in dimension 3 including local semicircle low at arbitrary short scales and smoothness in energy (in the limit of infinite volume and fixed large band width $W$) was obtained in [@DPS:02]. The techniques of that paper were used in [@DL:16] to obtain the same result in 2d. A similar result in 1d was obtained by the SUSY transfer matrix approach in [@SS:den]. Moreover, by applying the SUSY approach in [@TSh:14], [@SS:ChP] the crossover in this model (in 1d) was proved for the correlation functions of characteristic polynomials. In addition, the rigorous application of SUSY to the Gaussian RBM which has the special block-band structure was developed in [@TSh:14_1], where the universality of the bulk local regime for $W\sim n$ was proved. The block band matrices are the special class of Wegner’s orbital models (see [@We:79]), i.e. Hermitian matrices $H_N$ with complex zero-mean random Gaussian entries $H_{jk,\alpha\beta}$, where $j,k \in\Lambda=[1,n]^d\cap \mathbb{Z}^d$ (they parameterize the lattice sites) and $\alpha, \gamma= 1,\ldots, W$ (they parameterize the orbitals on each site), such that $$\label{H}
\langle H_{j_1k_1,\alpha_1\gamma_1}H_{j_2k_2,\alpha_2\gamma_2}\rangle=\delta_{j_1k_2}\delta_{j_2k_1}
\delta_{\alpha_1\gamma_2}\delta_{\gamma_1\alpha_2} J_{j_1k_1}$$ with $$\label{J_old}
J=1/W+\beta\Delta/W,$$ where $W\gg 1$ and $\Delta$ is the discrete Laplacian on $\Lambda$. The probability law of $H_N$ can be written in the form $$\label{pr_l}
P_N(d H_N)=\exp\Big\{-\dfrac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{j,k\in\Lambda}\sum\limits_{\alpha,\gamma=1}^W
\dfrac{|H_{jk,\alpha\gamma}|^2}{J_{jk}}\Big\}dH_N.$$ Combining the approach of [@TSh:14_1] with Green’s function comparison strategy the delocalization (in a strong sense) for $W\gg n^{6/7}$ has been proved in [@EB:15] for the block band matrices (\[H\]) with rather general non-Gaussian element’s distribution.
As it was mentioned above, the main advantage of SUSY techniques is that the main spectral characteristics of the model (\[H\]) – (\[J\_old\]) such as a density of states, $R_{2}$, $\mathbb{E}\{|G_{jk}(E+i\varepsilon)|^2\}$, etc. can be expressed via SUSY as the averages of certain observables in nearest-neighbour statistical mechanics models on $\Lambda$. This in particular in 1d case allows to combine the SUSY techniques with a transfer matrix approach. The supersymmetric transfer matrix formalism in this context was first suggested by Efetov (see [@Ef]) and on a heuristic level it was adapted specifically for RBM in [@FM:94] (see also references therein), although its rigorous application to the main spectral characteristics is quite difficult due to the complicated structure and non self-adjointness of the corresponding transfer operator. The rigorous application of this method to the density of states and correlation function of characteristic polynomials was done in [@SS:den], [@SS:ChP]. In this paper we make the next step in the developing of this approach and apply the technique to the so-called sigma-model approximation, which is often used by physicists to study complicated statistical mechanics systems. In such approximation spins take values in some symmetric space ($\pm 1$ for Ising model, $S^1$ for the rotator, $S^2$ for the classical Heisenberg model, etc.). It is expected that sigma models have all the qualitative physics of more complicated models with the same symmetry (for more detailes see, e.g., [@Sp:12]). The sigma-model approximation for RBM was introduced by Efetov (see [@Ef]), and the spins there are $4\times 4$ matrices with both complex and Grassmann entries (this approximation was studied in [@FM:91], [@FM:94]). Let us mention also that the average conductance for 1d Efetov’s sigma-model for RBM was computed in [@SpDZ]. The aim of this paper is to derive the sigma-model approximation for the second correlation function for RBM and then analyse it rigorously in the dimension one by the transfer matrix formalism.
The mechanism of the crossover for the sigma-model is essentially the same as for the correlation functions of characteristic polynomials (see [@SS:ChP]). It is based on the fact that the spectral gap between two largest eigenvalues of the transfer operator is $\beta^{-1}$ (it corresponds to $W^{-2}$ in [@SS:ChP]). This implies that for $n/\beta\gg 1$ the $n$-th degree of the transfer operator converges to the rank one projection on the eigenvector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue, while for $n/\beta\ll 1$ the $n$-th degree of the transfer operator behaves like the multiplication operator. But the structure of the transfer operator for the sigma-model is more complicated: now it is a $6\times 6$ matrix kernel whose entries are kernels depending on two unitary $2\times 2$ matrices $U,U'$ and two hyperbolic $2\times 2$ matrices $S, S'$. Hence the spectral analysis in the case of sigma-model is much more involved (see Section \[s:5\]). We would like to mentioned that in the case of the second generalized correlation function of the 1d block band matrices ((\[H\])-(\[J\_old\]) with $\beta=\alpha W$), the transfer operator becomes $70\times 70$ matrix, whose spectral analysis provides serious structural problems. Thus the analysis of the sigma-model approximation is an important intermediate step.
Set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{z}
z_1&=E+i\varepsilon/N+\xi_1/N\rho(E),\quad z_2=
E+i\varepsilon/N+\xi_2/N\rho(E),\\ \notag
z_1^\prime&=E+i\varepsilon/N+\xi_1^\prime/N\rho(E),\quad z_2^\prime=
E+i\varepsilon/N+\xi_2^\prime/N\rho(E),\end{aligned}$$ where $E\in (-2,2)$, $\varepsilon>0$, $\rho(E)$ is defined in (\[rho\_sc\]), and $\xi_1,\xi_2, \xi_1^\prime,
\xi_2^\prime\in [-C,C]\subset\mathbb{R}$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G_2}
\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)&=\mathbf{E}\bigg\{\dfrac{{\mathrm{det}}(H_N-z_1){\mathrm{det}}(H_N-\overline{z}_2)}
{{\mathrm{det}}(H_N-z_1'){\mathrm{det}}(H_N-\overline{z}_2^\prime)}\bigg\},\\ \notag
\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{++}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)&=\mathbf{E}\bigg\{\dfrac{{\mathrm{det}}(H_N-z_1){\mathrm{det}}(H_N-z_2)}
{{\mathrm{det}}(H_N-z_1'){\mathrm{det}}(H_N-z_2^\prime)}\bigg\}\end{aligned}$$ for $\xi=(\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_1^\prime,\xi_2^\prime)$.
To derive the sigma-model approximation for the model (\[H\]) – (\[J\_old\]), we take $\beta$ in (\[J\_old\]) of order $1/W$, i.e. put $$\label{J}
J=1/W+\beta\Delta/W^2, \quad \beta>0.$$ The main result states that in the model (\[J\]) with fixed $\beta$ and $|\Lambda|$, and with $W\to\infty$, the correlators $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}$ and $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{++}$ of (\[G\_2\]) converge to the values given by the sigma-model approximation. More precisely, we get
\[thm:sigma\_mod\] Given $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}$ of (\[G\_2\]) ,(\[H\]) and (\[J\]), with any dimension $d$, any fixed $\beta$, $|\Lambda|$, $\varepsilon>0$, and $\xi=(\xi_1,\bar\xi_2, \xi_1',\bar\xi_2')\in\mathbb{C}^4$ ($|\Im\xi_j|<\varepsilon\cdot \rho(E)/2$) we have, as $W\to\infty$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sigma-mod}
&\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon, \xi)\to\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon, \xi),\quad
\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}}{\partial\xi_1'\partial\xi_2'}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\to
\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}}{\partial\xi_1'\partial\xi_2'}(E,\varepsilon, \xi),
\\ \hbox{where}\quad&\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon, \xi)=
C_{E,\xi}\int \exp\Big\{\dfrac{\tilde\beta}{4}\sum{\mathrm{Str}\,}Q_jQ_{j-1}-\dfrac{c_0}{2|\Lambda|}\sum {\mathrm{Str}\,}Q_j\Lambda_{\xi, \varepsilon}\Big\} d Q,
\notag\end{aligned}$$ $\tilde\beta=(2\pi\rho(E))^2\beta$, $U_j\in \mathring{U}(2)$, $S_j\in \mathring{U}(1,1)$ (see notation (\[U\]) below), $$C_{E,\xi}=e^{E(\xi_1+\xi_2-\xi_1'-\xi_2')/2\rho(E)},$$ and $Q_j$ are $4\times 4$ supermatrices with commuting diagonal and anticommution off-diagonal $2\times 2$ blocks $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Q}
Q_j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
U_j^*&0\\
0&S_j^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
(I+2\hat\rho_j\hat\tau_j)L&2\hat\tau_j\\
2\hat\rho_j&-(I-2\hat\rho_j\hat\tau_j)L
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
U_j&0\\
0&S_j
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
d Q=\prod d Q_j,\quad d Q_j=(1-2n_{j,1}n_{j,2})\, d \rho_{j,1}d \tau_{j,1}\,d \rho_{j,2}d \tau_{j,2}\, d U_j\,d S_j\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&n_{j,1}=\rho_{j,1}\tau_{j,1},
\quad n_{j,2}=\rho_{j,2}\tau_{j,2},\\ \notag
&\hat\rho_j=\mathrm{diag}\{\rho_{j1},\rho_{j2}\},\quad \hat\tau_j=\mathrm{diag}\{\tau_{j1},\rho_{j2}\},\quad L=\mathrm{diag}\{1,-1\}
$$ Here $\rho_{j,l}$, $\tau_{j,l}$, $l=1,2$ are anticommuting Grassmann variables, $${\mathrm{Str}\,}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A&\sigma\\
\eta&B
\end{array}\right)={\mathrm{Tr}\,}A-{\mathrm{Tr}\,}B,$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_{\xi,\varepsilon}=\mathrm{diag}\,\{\varepsilon-i\xi_1/\rho(E),-\varepsilon-i\xi_2/\rho(E),\varepsilon-i\xi_1'/\rho(E),-\varepsilon-i\xi_2'/\rho(E)\}.\end{aligned}$$
\[t:2\] Given $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{++}$ of (\[G\_2\]) ,(\[H\]) and (\[J\]), with any dimension $d$, any fixed $\beta$, $|\Lambda|$, $\varepsilon>0$, and $\xi=(\xi_1,\xi_2, \xi_1',\xi_2')\in\mathbb{C}^4$ ($|\Im\xi_j|<\varepsilon\cdot\rho(E)/2$) we have, as $W\to\infty$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G++_lim}
&\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{++}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\to e^{{ia_+}(\xi_1'+\xi_2'-\xi_1-\xi_2)/{\rho(E)}},\\
&\frac{\partial^2\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{++}}{\partial\xi_1'\partial\xi_2'}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\to-a_+^2/\rho^2(E)\cdot e^{{ia_+}(\xi_1'+\xi_2'-\xi_1-\xi_2)/{\rho(E)}},
\qquad a_{+}=(iE+\sqrt{4-E^2})/{2}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$
Note that $Q_j^2=I$ for $Q_j$ of (\[Q\]) and so the integral in the r.h.s of (\[sigma-mod\]) is a sigma-model approximation similar to Efetov’s one (see [@Ef]).
The next theorem describes the behaviour of $\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)$ of the sigma-model (\[sigma-mod\]) in the regime $n\to\infty $, $\beta> Cn \log^2 n$:
\[t:1\] If $n,\beta\to\infty$ in such a way that $\beta>Cn\log^2n$, then for any fixed $\varepsilon>0$ and $\xi=(\xi_1,\xi_2, \xi_1',\xi_2')\in\mathbb{C}^4$ ($|\Im\xi_j|<\varepsilon\cdot\rho(E)/2$) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{t1.1}
\mathcal{R}^{+-}_{n\beta}\to &C_{E,\xi}\cdot e^{-c_0(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}\Big(\delta_1\delta_2(e^{2c_0\alpha_1}-1)/\alpha_1\alpha_2
-(\delta_1+\delta_2)e^{2c_0\alpha_1}/\alpha_2+e^{2c_0\alpha_1}\alpha_1/\alpha_2\Big),\\
\label{alp}
\hbox{where}\quad&\alpha_1=\varepsilon-{i(\xi_1-\xi_2)}/{2\rho(E)},\quad \alpha_2=\varepsilon-{i(\xi_1'-\xi_2')}/{2\rho(E)},\\
&\delta_1={i(\xi_1'-\xi_1)}/{2\rho(E)},\quad\delta_2={i(\xi_2-\xi_2')}/{2\rho(E)}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$
Now Theorems \[thm:sigma\_mod\] – \[t:1\] and (\[cor=det\]) – (\[r\_det\]) imply the main result of the paper:
\[thm:cor\] In the dimension $d=1$ the behavior of the sigma-model approximation of the second order correlation function (\[R\_2\]) of (\[H\]), as $\beta\gg n$, in the bulk of the spectrum coincides with those for the GUE. More precisely, if $\Lambda=[1,n]\cap \mathbb{Z}$ and $H_N$, $N=Wn$ are matrices (\[H\]) with $J$ of (\[J\]), then for any $|E|<\sqrt{2}$ $$\label{Un}
(N\rho(E))^{-2}
R_2\left(E+\displaystyle\frac{\xi_1}{\rho(E)\,N},
E+\displaystyle\frac{\xi_2}{\rho(E)\,N}\right)\longrightarrow
1-\dfrac{\sin^2 (\pi(\xi_1-\xi_2))}
{\pi^2(\xi_1-\xi_2)^2},$$ in the limit first $W\to\infty$, and then $\beta, n\to\infty$, $\beta\ge Cn \log^2 n$.
Notice that to prove universality of bulk local regime from the delocalization side of random block band matrices (\[H\]) – (\[pr\_l\]) without a sigma-model approximation one have to take $J$ of (\[J\_old\]), fix $\beta$, and prove (\[Un\]) in the limit $W,n\to\infty$, $W\gg n$, which is different from the asymptotic regime considered in the current paper (first $W\to\infty$ with fixed $\beta$, then $\beta\gg n$, $\beta, n\to \infty$).
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[s:2\] we obtain a convenient SUSY integral representation for $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}$ and $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{++}$ of (\[G\_2\]). In Section \[s:3\] we prove Theorems \[thm:sigma\_mod\] and \[t:2\], in Section \[s:4\] we derive Theorem \[thm:cor\] from Theorems \[t:2\] and \[t:1\], in Section \[s:5\] we prove Theorem \[t:1\] modulo some auxiliary result proven in Section \[s:6\].
**Acknowledgement.** We are grateful to Yan Fyodorov for his suggestion of this particular model for the derivation of sigma-model approximation for RBM. TS would like to thank Tom Spencer for his explanation of the nature of sigma-model approximation and for many fruitful discussions without that this paper would never have been written.
Notation
--------
We denote by $C$, $C_1$, etc. various $|\Lambda|$, $\beta$, $W$-independent quantities below, which can be different in different formulas. Integrals without limits denote the integration (or the multiple integration) over the whole real axis, or over the Grassmann variables.
Moreover,
- $N=W|\Lambda|;$
- indices $i,j,k$ vary in $\Lambda$ and correspond to the number of the site (or the number of the block), index $l$ is always $1$ or $2$ (this is the field index), and Greek indices $\alpha, \gamma$ vary from $1$ to $W$ and correspond to the position of the element in the block;
- variables $\phi$ and $\Phi$ with different indices are complex variables or vectors correspondingly; if $x_j$ means some variable (vector or matrix) which corresponds to the site $j\in \Lambda$, then $x$ means vector $\{x_j\}_{j\in\Lambda}$, $dx=\prod dx_j$, and $dx_j$ means the product of the differentials which correspond to functionally independent coefficients of $x_j$;
- variables $\psi$, $\Psi$, $\rho$, and $\tau$ with different indices are Grassmann variables or vectors or matreces correspondingly; if $\rho_j$ corresponds to the site $j\in \Lambda$, then $\rho$ means vector $\{\rho_j\}_{j\in\Lambda}$, $d\rho=\prod d\rho_j$, and $d\rho_j$ means the product of the differentials which correspond the components (for vectors) or entries (for matrices) taken into the lexicographic order;
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{a_pm}
\bullet \,\,\, & a_{\pm}=\dfrac{iE\pm\sqrt{4-E^2}}{2},\quad c_{\pm}=1+a_{\pm}^{-2},\quad c_0=
\sqrt{4-E^2}=2\pi\rho(E);\\
\label{L_pm}
&L=\hbox{diag}\,\{1,-1\},\quad L_{\pm}=\hbox{diag}\,\{a_+,a_-\};
\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{U}
\bullet \,\,\, &
\mathring{U}(2)=U(2)/U(1)\times U(1),\quad \mathring{U}(1,1)=U(1,1)/U(1)\times U(1),
\end{aligned}$$
where $U(p)$ is a group of $p\times p$ unitary matrices, and $U(1,1)$ is a group of $2\times 2$ hyperbolic
matrices $S$ such that $S^*LS=L$;
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{L_cal}
\bullet \,\,\,\mathcal{L}_\pm(E)&=\Big\{r\Big(iE/2\pm\sqrt{4-E^2}/2\Big)|r\in [0,+\infty)\Big\};\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\bullet \,\,\,\tilde{\beta}=c_0^2\,\beta \label{beta_til};\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Z}
\bullet \,\,\,\
&Z_1=E\cdot I+i\varepsilon\cdot L/N+\hat{\xi}/N\rho(E), \quad\, Z_2=E\cdot I+i\varepsilon \cdot L/N+\hat{\xi}'/N\rho(E),\\
&Z_1^+=E\cdot I+i\varepsilon \cdot I/N+\hat{\xi}/N\rho(E), \quad Z_2^+=E\cdot I+i\varepsilon\cdot I/N+\hat{\xi}'/N\rho(E),\label{Z+}\\
&\hat\xi=\hbox{diag}\{\xi_1,\xi_2\},\quad \hat\xi'=\hbox{diag}\{\xi_1',\xi_2'\}.\label{xi_hat}
$$
Integral representations {#s:2}
========================
In this section we perform the standard algebraic manipulations to obtain an integral representation for the determinant ratio $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)$ of (\[G\_2\]).
\[p:int\_repr\] For any dimension $d$, the determinant ratio $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)$ of (\[G\_2\]) can be written as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sup}
\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)&=\dfrac{{\mathrm{det}}^2 J\cdot (-1)^{|\Lambda|W}}{(2\pi^3)^{|\Lambda|}\big((W-1)!(W-2)!\big)^{|\Lambda|}}\displaystyle\int dXdY \cdot\exp\big\{
i\sum\limits_{j\in \Lambda} {\mathrm{Tr}\,}Y_jLZ_2\big\}\\ \notag
&\times\exp\Big\{-
\dfrac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{j,k\in\Lambda}J_{jk}{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(Y_jL)(Y_kL)-\dfrac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{j,k\in\Lambda}(J^{-1})_{jk}{\mathrm{Tr}\,}X_jX_k\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times {\mathrm{det}}\big\{J^{-1}_{jk}\mathbf{1}_4-\delta_{jk}(iZ_1+X_j)^{-1}\otimes (Y_jL)\big\}_{j,k\in\Lambda}\prod\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\dfrac{{\mathrm{det}}^W (iZ_1+X_j){\mathrm{det}}^W Y_j }{{\mathrm{det}}^2 Y_j},\end{aligned}$$ where $\{X_j\}_{j\in\Lambda}$ are Hermitian $2\times 2$ matrices with standard $dX_j$ , $\{Y_j\}_{j\in\Lambda}$ are $2\times 2$ positive Hermitian matrices with $dY_j$ of Proposition \[p:supboz\], and $Z_{1,2}$ are defined in (\[Z\]).
A similar formula is valid for $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{++}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)$ with $Y_j$ instead of $Y_jL$ and $Z_l^+$ instead of $Z_l$, $l=1,2$ (see (\[Z+\])).
Introduce complex and Grassmann fields: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_l=\{\phi_{jl}\}^t_{j\in\Lambda},&\quad \phi_{j l}=(\phi_{j l 1}, \phi_{j l 2},\ldots,
\phi_{j l W}),\quad l=1,2,
\quad -\quad \hbox{complex},\\
\Psi_l=\{\psi_{jl}\}^t_{j\in\Lambda}, &\quad \psi_{j l}=(\psi_{j l 1}, \psi_{j l 2},\ldots,
\psi_{j l W}),\quad l=1,2, \quad -\quad \hbox{Grassmann}.\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[G\_C\]) – (\[G\_Gr\]) (see Appendix) we can write $$\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)
=\pi^{-2W|\Lambda|}\mathbf{E}\Big\{\displaystyle\int \exp\{i\Psi_1^+(z_1^\prime-H_N)\Psi_1
-i\Psi_2^+(\overline{z}_2'-H_N)\Psi_2\}\\
\times\exp\{i\Phi_1^+(z_1-H_N)\Phi_1-i\Phi_2^+
(\overline{z}_2-H_N)\Phi_2\}d\Phi d\Psi\Big\}\\
=\displaystyle\int d\Phi d\Psi\,\, \exp\Big\{i(z_1^\prime\Psi_1^+\Psi_1
+z_1\Phi_1^+\Phi_1)-i(\overline{z}_2'\Psi_2^+\Psi_2
+\overline{z}_2\Phi_2^+\Phi_2)\Big\}\\
\times\mathbf{E}\Big\{\exp\Big\{-\sum\limits_{j\le k}\sum\limits_{\alpha, \gamma}
\Big(i\Re H_{jk,\alpha\gamma}\chi^+_{jk,\alpha\gamma}
-\Im H_{jk,\alpha\gamma}\chi^-_{jk,\alpha\gamma}\Big)\Big\}\Big\},
\end{array}$$ where $z_l, z_l^\prime$ are defined in (\[z\]), $$\begin{aligned}
&\chi^{\pm}_{jk,\alpha\gamma}=\eta_{jk,\alpha\gamma}\pm \eta_{kj,\gamma\alpha},\\
&\eta_{jk,\alpha\gamma}=\overline{\psi}_{j 1\alpha}\psi_{k 1\gamma}-
\overline{\psi}_{j 2\alpha}\psi_{k 2\gamma}+\overline{\phi}_{j 1\alpha}\phi_{k 1\gamma}-
\overline{\phi}_{j 2\alpha}\phi_{k 2\gamma},\\
&\eta_{jj,\alpha\alpha}=(\overline{\psi}_{j 1\alpha}\psi_{j 1\alpha}-
\overline{\psi}_{j 2\alpha}\psi_{j 2\alpha}+\overline{\phi}_{j 1\alpha}\phi_{j 1\alpha}-
\overline{\phi}_{j 2\alpha}\phi_{j 2\alpha})/2.\end{aligned}$$ Averaging over (\[pr\_l\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)=&\pi^{-2W|\Lambda|}\int d\Phi d\Psi\,\, \exp\Big\{i(z_1^\prime\Psi_1^+\Psi_1
+z_1\Phi_1^+\Phi_1)-i(\overline{z}_2'\Psi_2^+\Psi_2
+\overline{z}_2\Phi_2^+\Phi_2)\Big\}\\
&\times\exp\Big\{-\sum\limits_{j<k}\sum\limits_{\alpha,\gamma} J_{jk}\,\,
\eta_{jk,\alpha\gamma}\eta_{kj,\gamma\alpha}-\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{j, \alpha} J_{jj}\,\,
\eta_{jj,\alpha\alpha}^2\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, $$\label{G_av}
\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)=\pi^{-2W|\Lambda|}{\displaystyle\int}d\Phi d\Psi\,\, \exp\Big\{i\sum\limits_{j\in \Lambda} {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{X}_jLZ_1+
i\sum\limits_{j\in \Lambda} {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{Y}_jLZ_2\Big\}\\
\times \exp\Big\{\dfrac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{j,k\in\Lambda}J_{jk}{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(\tilde{X}_jL)(\tilde{X}_kL)-
\dfrac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{j,k\in\Lambda}J_{jk}{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(\tilde{Y}_jL)(\tilde{Y}_kL)\Big\}\\
\times \exp\Big\{-\sum\limits_{j,k\in\Lambda}J_{jk}
\big(\overline{\psi}_{j1}\psi_{k1}(\overline{\phi}_{k1}\phi_{j1}-
\overline{\phi}_{k2}\phi_{j2})+\overline{\psi}_{j2}\psi_{k2}(\overline{\phi}_{k2}\phi_{j2}-
\overline{\phi}_{k1}\phi_{j1})\big)\Big\},
\end{array}$$ where $L$, $Z_{1,2}$ are defined in (\[L\_pm\]), (\[Z\]), and $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{X}_j=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
\psi_{j1}^+\psi_{j1}& \psi_{j1}^+\psi_{j2}\\
\psi_{j2}^+\psi_{j1}& \psi_{j2}^+\psi_{j2}
\end{array}
\right),& \quad \tilde{Y}_j=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
\phi_{j1}^+\phi_{j1}& \phi_{j1}^+\phi_{j2}\\
\phi_{j2}^+\phi_{j1}& \phi_{j2}^+\phi_{j2}
\end{array}
\right).
$$ Using the standard Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation, we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Hub}
\big(2\pi^2\big)^{|\Lambda|}{\mathrm{det}}^{2}J\cdot\exp\Big\{\dfrac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{j,k\in\Lambda}J_{jk}{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(\tilde{X}_jL)(\tilde{X}_kL)\Big\}\\
=\int \exp\Big\{-\dfrac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{j,k\in\Lambda}(J^{-1})_{jk}{\mathrm{Tr}\,}X_jX_k+
\sum\limits_{j\in\Lambda}{\mathrm{Tr}\,}X_j\big(\tilde{X}_jL\big)\Big\}dX,\end{gathered}$$ where $X_j$ are $2\times 2$ Hermitian matrices with the standard measure $dX_j$.
Substituting (\[Hub\]) to (\[G\_av\]) and integrating over $d\Psi$ (see (\[G\_Gr\])), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G_M}
\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)&=\dfrac{{\mathrm{det}}^{-2}J}{\big(2\pi^{2(1+W)}\big)^{|\Lambda|}}
\int \exp\Big\{
i\sum_{j\in \Lambda} {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\tilde{Y}_jLZ_2-
\dfrac{1}{2}\sum_{j,k\in\Lambda}J_{jk}{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(\tilde{Y}_jL)(\tilde{Y}_kL)\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times \exp\Big\{-\dfrac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{j,k\in\Lambda}(J^{-1})_{jk}{\mathrm{Tr}\,}X_jX_k\Big\}\cdot {\mathrm{det}}\, M\cdot\,d\Phi\,
\, dX\end{aligned}$$ with $M=M^{(1)}-M^{(2)}$, where $M^{(1)}$ and $M^{(2)}$ are $2W|\Lambda|\times 2W|\Lambda|$ matrices with entries $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
M^{(1)}_{j\alpha l, k\gamma l'}&=\delta_{jk}\delta_{\alpha\gamma} (iZ_1+X_j)_{ll'}L_{ll},\quad
j,k\in \Lambda,\,\,\alpha,\gamma=1,\ldots, W,\,\,l,l'=1,2, \\ \label{M_1,2}
M^{(2)}_{j\alpha l, k\gamma l'}&=J_{jk}\delta_{ll'} L_{ll}\sum\limits_{\nu=1}^2\varphi_{j\alpha\nu}\overline{\varphi}_{k\gamma\nu} L_{\nu\nu}.\end{aligned}$$ We can rewrite $$\label{mdet}
{\mathrm{det}}M={\mathrm{det}}M^{(1)}\cdot {\mathrm{det}}\Big(1-\big(M^{(1)}\big)^{-1}M^{(2)}\Big)=:{\mathrm{det}}M^{(1)}\cdot {\mathrm{det}}\Big(1-\mathcal{M}\Big)$$ with $$\label{Mcal}
\mathcal{M}_{j\alpha l, k\gamma l'}=J_{jk}(iZ_1+X_j)_{ll'}^{-1}\sum\limits_{\nu=1}^2\varphi_{j\alpha\nu}\overline{\varphi}_{k\gamma\nu} L_{\nu\nu}.$$ Note that $\mathcal{M}=AB$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
A_{j\alpha l, k\sigma l'}&=J_{jk}(iZ_1+X_j)^{-1}_{ll'}\,\varphi_{j\alpha\sigma}, \quad j,k\in \Lambda,\,\,\alpha,\gamma=1,\ldots, W,\,\,l,l',\sigma=1,2,\\ \label{AB}
B_{j\sigma l, k\alpha l'}&=\delta_{jk}\delta_{ll'}L_{\sigma\sigma}\,\overline{\varphi}_{k\alpha\sigma}. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, using that ${\mathrm{det}}(1-AB)={\mathrm{det}}(1-BA)$, (\[Mcal\]), and (\[AB\]), we get $$\label{ch_M}
{\mathrm{det}}\Big(1-\mathcal{M}\Big)={\mathrm{det}}\Big(1-BA\Big)=:{\mathrm{det}}\Big(1-\tilde{\mathcal{M}}\Big),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Mcal_til}
\tilde{\mathcal{M}}_{j\sigma l, k\sigma' l'}&=\sum\limits_{p,\alpha,\nu}B_{j\sigma l, p\alpha\nu} A_{p\alpha\nu, k\sigma' l'}=
J_{jk}(iZ_1+X_j)^{-1}_{ll'}\sum\limits_{\alpha=1}^W\overline{\varphi}_{j\alpha\sigma}\varphi_{j\alpha\sigma'}L_{\sigma\sigma}\\ \notag
&=J_{jk}(iZ_1+X_j)^{-1}_{ll'} (\tilde{Y}_jL)_{\sigma\sigma'}.\end{aligned}$$ This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{det_fin}
{\mathrm{det}}\Big(1-\tilde{\mathcal{M}}\Big)&={\mathrm{det}}\big\{\delta_{j,k}\mathbf{1}_4-J_{j,k}(iZ_1+X_j)^{-1}\otimes (\tilde{Y}_jL)\big\}_{j,k\in\Lambda}\\ \notag
&={\mathrm{det}}^4 J\cdot {\mathrm{det}}\big\{J^{-1}_{jk}\mathbf{1}_4-\delta_{jk}(iZ_1+X_j)^{-1}\otimes (\tilde{Y}_jL)\big\}_{j,k\in\Lambda}.\end{aligned}$$ Besides, $$\label{mdet1}
{\mathrm{det}}M^{(1)}=(-1)^{|\Lambda|W}\prod\limits_{j\in\Lambda}{\mathrm{det}}^W (iZ_1+X_j).$$ Now substituting (\[M\_1,2\]) – (\[Mcal\]) and (\[ch\_M\]) – (\[mdet1\]) to (\[G\_M\]) and applying the bosonization formula (see Proposition \[p:supboz\]), we obtain (\[sup\]).
The formula for $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{++}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)$ can be obtained by the same way.
Derivation of the sigma-model approximation {#s:3}
===========================================
Proof of Theorem \[thm:sigma\_mod\]
-----------------------------------
Let $\beta$ and $|\Lambda|$ be fixed, and $W\to \infty$.
Defining $|\Lambda|\times |\Lambda|$ matrix $R$ as $$J^{-1}=W\big(1-\dfrac{\beta}{W}\triangle+\dfrac{\beta^2}{W^2}\triangle^2-\ldots\big)=:W\big(1-\dfrac{\beta}{W}\triangle+\dfrac{1}{W^2}R\big),$$ putting $B_j=W^{-1}Y_jL$, and shifting $iZ_1+X_j\to X_j$, we can rewrite (\[sup\]) of Proposition \[p:int\_repr\] as $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)=Q^{(1)}_{W, |\Lambda|}\displaystyle\int dXdB\cdot{\mathrm{det}}\Big\{\big(\mathbf{1}-\dfrac{\beta}{W}\triangle+\dfrac{1}{W^2}R \big)_{jk}\mathbf{1}_4-\delta_{jk} \cdot X_j^{-1}\otimes B_j\Big\}_{j,k\in\Lambda}\\ \label{sup1}
&\times\exp\Big\{-\dfrac{W}{2}\sum\limits_{j\in \Lambda} \Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}(B_j-iZ_2)^2+{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(X_j-iZ_1)^2\Big)\Big\}\cdot\prod\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\dfrac{{\mathrm{det}}^W X_j{\mathrm{det}}^W B_j }{{\mathrm{det}}^2 B_j}\\ \notag
&\times\exp\Big\{
\dfrac{\beta}{2}\sum\limits_{j\sim k}\Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}(B_j-B_k)^2-{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(X_j-X_k)^2\Big)+\dfrac{1}{2W}\sum\limits_{j, k}
R_{jk}\,{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(X_j-iZ_1)(X_k-iZ_1)\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{(1)}_{W, |\Lambda|}&=\dfrac{{\mathrm{det}}^2 J\cdot W^{2(W+1)|\Lambda|}\cdot e^{-W|\Lambda|{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Z_2^2/2}}{(2\pi^3)^{|\Lambda|}\big((W-1)!(W-2)!\big)^{|\Lambda|}}\\ \notag
&=\dfrac{ W^{4|\Lambda|}\cdot e^{2W|\Lambda|-W|\Lambda|{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Z_2^2/2}}{(2\pi^2)^{2|\Lambda|}}\cdot \Big(1+O\big(W^{-1}\big)\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Change the variables to $$\begin{aligned}
X_j&=U_j^*\hat{X}_jU_j,\,\,\,\,\,\, \hat{X}_j=\hbox{diag}\,\{x_{j,1},x_{j,2}\},\,\,\,\, U_j\in \mathring{U}(2),
\quad\,\,\, x_{j,1}, x_{j,2}\in \mathbb{R},\\ \notag
B_j&=S_j^{-1}\hat{B}_jS_j,\,\,\,\, \hat{B}_j=\hbox{diag}\,\{b_{j,1},b_{j,2}\},\quad
S_j\in \mathring{U}(1,1),
\,\,\, b_{j,1}\in \mathbb{R}^+,\, b_{j,2}\in \mathbb{R}^-.\end{aligned}$$ The Jacobian of such a change is $$2^{|\Lambda|}(\pi/2)^{2|\Lambda|}\prod\limits_{j\in\Lambda}(x_{j,1}-x_{j,2})^2
\prod\limits_{j\in\Lambda}(b_{j,1}-b_{j,2})^2.$$ This and (\[sup1\]) yield $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G_last}
&\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)=Q^{(2)}_{W, |\Lambda|}
\int dSdU
\int d x\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^{|\Lambda|}\times \mathbb{R}_-^{|\Lambda|}} d b
\cdot \prod\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\dfrac{(x_{j,1}-x_{j,2})^2
(b_{j,1}-b_{j,2})^2}{b_{j,1}^2b_{j,2}^2}\\ \notag
&\times {\mathrm{det}}\,\mathcal{D}(\hat{X}, \hat{B}, U, S)\cdot
\exp\Big\{-W\sum\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\sum\limits_{l=1}^2\left(f(x_{j,l})+f(b_{j,l})\right)\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times \exp\Big\{
\dfrac{\beta}{2}\sum\limits_{j\sim k}\Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}(S_j^{-1}\hat{B}_jS_j-S_k^{-1}\hat{B}_kS_k)^2-{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(U_j^*\hat{X}_jU_j-U_k^*\hat{X}_kU_k)^2\Big)\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times\exp\Big\{\dfrac{1}{2W}\sum\limits_{j, k}
R_{jk}\,{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(U_j^*\hat{X}_jU_j-iZ_1)(U_k^*\hat{X}_kU_k-iZ_1)\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times\exp\Big\{\dfrac{i}{|\Lambda|}\sum\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}U_j^*\hat{X}_jU_j\big(i\varepsilon L+\hat{\xi}/\rho(E)\big)+{\mathrm{Tr}\,}S_j^{-1}\hat{B}_jS_j\big(i\varepsilon L+\hat{\xi}'/\rho(E)\big)\Big)\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{D}
\det \mathcal{D}(\hat{X}, \hat{B}, U, S)=\det\Big\{\Big(\mathbf{1}-\dfrac{\beta}{W}\triangle+\dfrac{1}{W^2}R \Big)_{jk}\mathbf{1}_4-\delta_{jk} \cdot X_j^{-1}\otimes B_j\Big\}_{j,k\in\Lambda}\\ \notag
=\det
\Big\{\delta_{jk}\big(\mathbf{1}-\hat{X}_j^{-1}\otimes \hat{B}_j\big)+\dfrac{1}{W}\Big(-\beta\triangle+\dfrac{1}{W}R \Big)_{jk}\cdot U_jU_k^*\otimes S_jS_k^{-1}\Big\}_{j,k\in\Lambda},\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{(2)}_{W, |\Lambda|}&=2^{|\Lambda|}(\pi/2)^{2|\Lambda|}\cdot e^{W|\Lambda|({\mathrm{Tr}\,}Z_1^2+{\mathrm{Tr}\,}Z_2^2)/2-W|\Lambda| (2+E^2)} \cdot Q^{(1)}_{W, |\Lambda|}\\ \notag
&=\dfrac{ W^{4|\Lambda|}\cdot e^{E(\xi_1+\xi_2)/\rho(E)}}{2^{3|\Lambda|}\pi^{2|\Lambda|}}\cdot \Big(1+O\big(W^{-1}\big)\Big),\\
\notag
f(x)&=x^2/2-iE x-\log x -(2+E^2)/4.\end{aligned}$$ The constant in $f(x)$ is chosen in such a way that $\Re f(a_\pm)=0$. Measures $dU_j$, $dS_j$ in (\[G\_last\]) are the Haar measures over $\mathring{U}(2)$ and $\mathring{U}(1,1)$ correspondingly. Also it is easy to see that for $|E|\le\sqrt{2}$ we can deform the contours of integration as
- for $x_{j,1}$, $x_{j,2}$ to $iE/2+\mathbb{R}$;
- for $b_{j,1}$ to $\mathcal{L}_+(E)$ of (\[L\_cal\]);
- for $b_{j,2}$ to $\mathcal{L}_-(E)$ of (\[L\_cal\]).
To prove Theorem \[thm:sigma\_mod\], we are going to integrate (\[G\_last\]) over the “fast” variables: $\{x_{j,l}\}, \{b_{j,l}\}$, $l=1,2$, $j\in \Lambda$. The first step is the following lemma:
\[l:s\_point\] The integral (\[G\_last\]) over $\{x_{j,l}\}, \{b_{j,l}\}$, $l=1,2$, $j\in \Lambda$ can be restricted to the integral over the $W^{-(1-\kappa)/2}$-neighbourhoods (with a small $\kappa>0$) of the points
- $x_{j,1}=a_+$, $x_{j,2}=a_-$ or $x_{j,1}=a_-$, $x_{j,2}=a_+$, $b_{j,1}=a_+$, $b_{j,2}=a_-$ for any $j\in\Lambda$;
- $x_{j,1}=x_{j,2}=a_+$, $b_{j,1}=a_+$, $b_{j,2}=a_-$ for any $j\in\Lambda$;
- $x_{j,1}=x_{j,2}=a_-$, $b_{j,1}=a_+$, $b_{j,2}=a_-$ for any $j\in\Lambda$.
Moreover, the contributions of the points II and III are $o(1)$, as $W\to\infty$.
The proof of the first part of the lemma is straightforward and based on the fact that $\Re f(z)$ for $z=x+iE/2$, $x\in \mathbb{R}$ has two global minimums at $z=a_\pm$, and for $z\in\mathcal{L}_\pm(E)$ has one global minimum at $z=a_\pm$.
To prove the second part of the lemma, consider the neighbourhood of the point II (the point III can be treated in a similar way). Change the variables as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{change1}
\begin{array}{ll}
x_{j,1}=a_++{\tilde{x}_{j,1}}/{\sqrt{W}}, &x_{j,2}=a_++\tilde{x}_{j,2}/{\sqrt{W}},\\
b_{j,1}=a_+\big(1+{\tilde{b}_{j,1}}/{\sqrt{W}}\big), &b_{j,2}=a_-\big(1+{\tilde{b}_{j,2}}/{\sqrt{W}}\big).
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ This gives the Jacobian $(-1)^{|\Lambda|} W^{-2|\Lambda|}$ and also the additional $W^{-|\Lambda|}$ since $$\begin{aligned}
x_{j,1} -x_{j,2}=(\tilde{x}_{j,1}-\tilde{x}_{j,2})/\sqrt{W}.\end{aligned}$$ Together with $Q^{(2)}_{W, |\Lambda|}$ this gives $W^{|\Lambda|}$ in front of the integral (\[G\_last\]). In addition, expanding $f$ into the series, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_exp}
&f(x_{j,l})=f(a_+)+\dfrac{c_+}{2}\frac{\tilde{x}_{j,l}^2}{W}-\dfrac{1}{2a_+^3}\frac{\tilde{x}_{j,l}^3}{W^{3/2}}+O\Big(\dfrac{\tilde{x}_{j,l}^4}{W^{2}}\Big), \quad l=1,2\\ \notag
&f(b_{j,1})=f(a_+)+\dfrac{a_+^2c_+}{2}\cdot \dfrac{\tilde{b}_{j,1}^2}{W}-\dfrac{1}{2}\cdot \dfrac{\tilde{b}_{j,1}^3}{W^{3/2}}+O\Big(\dfrac{\tilde{b}_{j,1}^4}{W^{2}}\Big),\\ \notag
& f(b_{j,2})=f(a_-)+\dfrac{a_-^2c_-}{2}
\cdot \dfrac{\tilde{b}_{j,2}^2}{W}-\dfrac{1}{2}\cdot \dfrac{\tilde{b}_{j,2}^3}{W^{3/2}}+O\Big(\dfrac{\tilde{b}_{j,2}^4}{W^{2}}\Big),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{c_pm}
c_\pm=1+a_\pm^{-2}, \quad f(a_+)=-f(a_-)\in i\mathbb{R}.$$
We are going to compute the leading order of the integral over $\{\tilde{x}_{j,l}\}, \{\tilde{b}_{j,l}\}$, $l=1,2$, $j\in \Lambda$. To this end, we leave the quadratic part of $f$ (see (\[f\_exp\])) in the exponent, expand everything else into the series of $\tilde{x}_{j,l}/\sqrt{W}, \tilde{b}_{j,l}/\sqrt{W}$ around the saddle-point $\tilde{x}_{j,l}=\tilde{b}_{j,l}=0$, and compute the Gaussian integral of each term of this expansion. We are going to prove that all this terms are $o(1)$.
Indeed, consider the expansion of the diagonal elements of $\mathcal{D}(\hat{X}, \hat{B}, U, S)$ of (\[D\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&d_{j,l1}=1-x_{j,l}^{-1}b_{j,1}=(\tilde{x}_{j,l}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,1})/\sqrt{W}+({\tilde{x}_{j,l}\tilde{b}_{j,1}/a_+-\tilde{x}_{j,l}^2/a_+^2}){W}+O\big(W^{-3(1-\kappa)/2}\big),\\
&d_{j,l2}=1-x_{j,l}^{-1}b_{j,2}=c_--({\tilde{x}_{j,l}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,2}})/a_-^2\sqrt{W}+O\big(W^{-1+\kappa}\big),\quad l=1,2.\label{d_exp1_1}\end{aligned}$$ If we rewrite the determinant of $\mathcal{D}(\hat{X}, \hat{B}, U, S)$ in a standard way, then each summand has strictly one element from each row and column. Because of (\[d\_exp1\_1\]), each element in the rows $(j,11)$ and $(j,21)$ has at least $W^{-1/2}$, and so the expansion of ${\mathrm{det}}\,\mathcal{D}(\hat{X}, \hat{B}, U, S)$ starts from $W^{-|\Lambda|}$. Moreover, to obtain $W^{-|\Lambda|}$ (i.e. non-zero contribution) we must consider the summands of the determinant expansion that have only diagonal elements $d_{j,ls}$ (since non-diagonal elements of $\mathcal{D}(\hat{X}, \hat{B}, U, S)$ are $O(W^{-1})$ or less), and furthermore only the first terms in the expansions (\[d\_exp1\_1\]) and all other function in (\[G\_last\]). Thus we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{++}
C\cdot \Big\langle\prod\limits_{j\in\Lambda} \dfrac{\tilde{x}_{j,1}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,1}}{\sqrt{W}}\cdot \dfrac{\tilde{x}_{j,2}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,1}}{\sqrt{W}} \cdot (\tilde{x}_{j,1}
-\tilde{x}_{j,2})^2\Big\rangle_{++}+o(1),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle \cdot \Big\rangle_{++}=\int \Big(\cdot\Big) \exp\Big\{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\in\Lambda}\Big({c_+(\tilde x_{j,1}^2+\tilde x_{j,2}^2)}+
{a_+^2c_+ \tilde b_{j,1}^2}
+{a_-^2c_- \tilde b_{j,2}^2}\Big)\Big\} d\tilde{x}\, d\tilde{b}.\end{aligned}$$ But it is easy to see that the Gaussian integral in (\[++\]) is zero, which completes the proof of the lemma.
According to Lemma \[l:s\_point\] the main contribution to (\[G\_last\]) is given by the neighbourhoods of the saddle points $x_{j,1}=a_+$, $x_{j,2}=a_-$ or $x_{j,1}=a_-$, $x_{j,2}=a_+$. All such points can be obtained from each other by rotations of $U_j$, so we can consider only $x_{j,1}=a_+$, $x_{j,2}=a_-$ for all $j\in\Lambda$. Similarly to the proof of Lemma \[l:s\_point\], change variables as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{change}
\begin{array}{ll}
x_{j,1}=a_++{\tilde{x}_{j,1}}/{\sqrt{W}}, &x_{j,2}=a_-+{\tilde{x}_{j,2}}/{\sqrt{W}},\\
b_{j,1}=a_+\big(1+{\tilde{b}_{j,1}}/{\sqrt{W}}\big), &b_{j,2}=a_-\big(1+{\tilde{b}_{j,2}}/{\sqrt{W}}\big).
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ That slightly change the expansions (\[f\_exp\]) and (\[d\_exp1\_1\]). We get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f_exp2}
&f(x_{j,2})=f(a_-)+\dfrac{c_-}{2}\cdot \dfrac{\tilde{x}_{j,2}^2}{W}-\dfrac{1}{2a_-^3}\cdot \dfrac{\tilde{x}_{j,2}^3}{W^{3/2}}+O\Big(\dfrac{\tilde{x}_{j,2}^4}{W^{2}}\Big),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{d_exp1}
&d_{j,11}=1-x_{j,1}^{-1}b_{j,1}=\dfrac{\tilde{x}_{j,1}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,1}}{\sqrt{W}}+
\dfrac{a_+\tilde{x}_{j,1}\tilde{b}_{j,1}-\tilde{x}_{j,1}^2}{a_+^2W}+O\big(W^{-3(1-\kappa)/2}\big),\\ \notag
&d_{j,22}=1-x_{j,2}^{-1}b_{j,2}=\dfrac{\tilde{x}_{j,2}/a_--\tilde{b}_{j,2}}{\sqrt{W}}+\dfrac{a_-\tilde{x}_{j,2}\tilde{b}_{j,2}-\tilde{x}_{j,2}^2}
{a_-^2W}+O\big(W^{-3(1-\kappa)/2}\big),\\
\notag
&d_{j,12}=1-x_{j,1}^{-1}b_{j,2}=c_+-\dfrac{\tilde{x}_{j,1}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,2}}{a_+^{2}\sqrt{W}}-\dfrac{a_+\tilde{x}_{j,1}\tilde{b}_{j,2}-\tilde{x}_{j,1}^2}{a_+^4W}
+O\big(W^{-3(1-\kappa)/2}\big), \\ \notag
&d_{j,21}=1-x_{j,2}^{-1}b_{j,1}=c_- -\dfrac{{\tilde{x}_{j,2}/a_--\tilde{b}_{j,1}}}{a_-^{2}\sqrt{W}}-\dfrac{a_-\tilde{x}_{j,2}\tilde{b}_{j,1}-\tilde{x}_{j,2}^2}{a_-^4W}
+O\big(W^{-3(1-\kappa)/2}\big).\end{aligned}$$ The change (\[change\]) gives the Jacobian $W^{-2|\Lambda|}$, which together with $Q^{(2)}_{W, |\Lambda|}$ gives $W^{2|\Lambda|}$ in front of the integral (\[G\_last\]). Similarly to the proof of Lemma \[l:s\_point\], we are going to compute the leading order of the integral (\[G\_last\]) over $\{\tilde{x}_{j,l}\}, \{\tilde{b}_{j,l}\}$, $l=1,2$, $j\in \Lambda$, and so we leave the quadratic part of $f$ (see (\[f\_exp\]) and (\[f\_exp2\])) in the exponent, expand everything else into the series of $\tilde{x}_{j,l}/\sqrt{W}, \tilde{b}_{j,l}/\sqrt{W}$ around the saddle-point $\tilde{x}_{j,l}=\tilde{b}_{j,l}=0$, and compute the Gaussian integral of each term of this expansion. We are going to prove, that the non-zero contribution is given by the terms having at least $W^{-2|\Lambda|}$.
\[l:det\_exp\] Formula (\[G\_last\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G_main}
\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}&(E,\varepsilon,\xi)=(c_0/2\pi)^{2|\Lambda|}C_{E,\varepsilon}\int dz\, d\tilde\rho\, d\tilde\tau \,d U\, d S\,\\ &\times\exp\Big\{-\dfrac{1}{2}(Mz, z)+W^{1/2}(z,h^0)+
W^{-1/2}(z,h+\zeta/|\Lambda)|)\Big\} \notag \\ \notag
&\times \exp\Big\{{\beta}\sum{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\Big(U_j^*\tilde\rho_jS_j-U_{j-1}^*\tilde\rho_{j-1}S_{j-1}\Big) \Big(S_j^{-1}\tilde\tau_jU_j-
S_{j-1}^{-1}\tilde\tau_{j-1}U_{j-1}\Big)\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times \exp\Big\{\sum\Big(c_+ n_{j,12}+c_- n_{j,21}- n_{j,1}/{c_0a_+}+n_{j,2}/{c_0a_-}\Big)-\beta c_0^2\sum (v_j^2+t_j^2)\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times\exp\Big\{\dfrac{ic_0}{2|\Lambda|}\sum\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}U_j^*L U_j\big(i\varepsilon L+\hat{\xi}/\rho(E)\big)+{\mathrm{Tr}\,}S_j^{-1} L S_j\big(i\varepsilon L+
\hat{\xi}'/\rho(E)\big)\Big)\Big\}
+o(1),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rt_tilde}
&\tilde\rho_j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\rho_{j,11}&\rho_{j,12}/\sqrt{W}\\
\rho_{j,21}/\sqrt{W}&\rho_{j,22}
\end{array}\right), \quad \tilde\tau_j=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\tau_{j,11}&\tau_{j,12}/\sqrt{W}\\
\tau_{j,21}/\sqrt{W}&\tau_{j,22}
\end{array}\right)
\\
\notag
&n_{j,12}=\rho_{j,12}\tau_{j,12},\quad n_{j,21}=\rho_{j,21}\tau_{j,21},\\ \notag
&n_{j,1}=\rho_{j,11}\tau_{j,11},\quad\,\, n_{j,2}=\rho_{j,22}\tau_{j,22},\\ \notag
&z=(z_{j,11},z_{j,22},z_{j,12},z_{j,21})=(\tilde x_{j,1},\tilde x_{j,2},\tilde b_{j,1},\tilde b_{j,1}),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M}
&M=M_0+W^{-1}\tilde{M}\\
\label{M_0}
&(M_0 z,z)=\sum\limits_{j\in \Lambda}\Big(c_+\tilde x_{j,1}^2+c_-\tilde x_{j,2}^2+a_+^2c_+\tilde b_{j,1}^2+a_-^2c_-\tilde b_{j,2}^2\Big) \\
\label{tilde_M}
&(\tilde{M}z,z)=-2\beta\sum \Big(\tilde{x}_{j,1}\tilde{x}_{j-1,1}+\tilde{x}_{j,2}\tilde{x}_{j-1,2}-a_+^2\tilde{b}_{j,1}\tilde{b}_{j-1,1}-a_-^2\tilde{b}_{j,2}\tilde{b}_{j-1,2}\Big)\\ \notag
&+2 \beta \sum \Big( v_j^2\,(\tilde x_{j,1}-\tilde x_{j,2})(\tilde x_{j-1,1}-\tilde x_{j-1,2})+t_j^2\,(a_+\tilde b_{j,1}-a_-\tilde b_{j,2})(a_+\tilde b_{j-1,1}-a_-\tilde b_{j-1,2})\Big)\\ \notag
&-\sum\Big(\dfrac{4}{c_0^2} (\tilde x_{j,1}\tilde x_{j,2}-\tilde b_{j,1}\tilde b_{j,2})
-2(a_+^{-3}n_{j,12}\tilde x_{j,1}\tilde b_{j,2}+a_-^{-3}n_{j,21}\tilde x_{j,2}\tilde b_{j,1})\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Here $\zeta=\{\zeta_j\}_{j\in\Lambda}$, $\zeta_j=(\zeta_{j,11},\zeta_{j,22}, a_+\zeta_{j,12},a_-\zeta_{j,21})$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&\zeta_{j,11}={-\varepsilon+i\xi_1/\rho(E)}
+2\alpha_1u_j^2,\quad
\zeta_{j,22}={\varepsilon+i\xi_2/\rho(E)}
-2\alpha_1u_j^2,\\ \notag
&\zeta_{j,12}={-\varepsilon+i\xi_1'/\rho(E)}
-2\alpha_2s_j^2,\quad
\zeta_{j,21}={\varepsilon+i\xi_2'/\rho(E)}
+2\alpha_2s_j^2,
$$ where $\alpha_{1,2}$ are defined in (\[alp\]). We also denoted $$\label{h}
\begin{array}{ll}
h=\{h_{j,ls}\}_{j\in\Lambda,l,s=1,2},& h^0=\{h^0_{j,ls}\}_{j\in\Lambda,l,s=1,2},\\
h_{j,11}={2}/{c_0}-\beta c_0 v_j^2-\beta c_0 v_{j+1}^2+{a_-n_{j,12}}/{a_+^2}, \quad &h^0_{j,11}={n_{j,1}}/{a_+},\\
h_{j,22}=-{2}/{c_0}+\beta c_0 v_j^2+\beta c_0 v_{j+1}^2+{a_+n_{j,21}}/{a_-^2}, \quad &h^0_{j,22}={n_{j,2}}/{a_-},\\
h_{j,12}={2a_+}/{c_0}-2-\beta c_0 a_+ t_j^2-\beta c_0 a_+ t_{j+1}^2-n_{j,21}{a_+}/{a_-},\quad &h^0_{j12}=-{n_{j,1}},\\
h_{j,21}=-{2a_-}/{c_0}-2+\beta c_0 a_- t_j^2+\beta c_0 a_- t_{j+1}^2-n_{j,12}{a_-}/{a_+}, \quad &h^0_{j,21}=-{n_{j,2}},\\
\end{array}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
u_j=|(U_j)_{12}|,\quad v_j=|(U_jU_{j-1}^*)_{12}|,\quad s_j=|(S_j)_{12}|,\quad t_j=|(S_jS_{j-1}^{-1})_{12}|.\end{aligned}$$
Rewriting the determinant in (\[D\]) in a standard way, we obtain $$\label{exp_det}
{\mathrm{det}}\,\mathcal{D}(\hat{X}, \hat{B}, U, S)= \sum\limits_{\bar\sigma} (-1)^{|\sigma|} \prod\limits_{j\in |\Lambda|} P_{j,\bar\sigma_j}(\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j2}, \tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1}),$$ where $\bar\sigma$ is a permutation of $\{(j,ls)\}$, $l,s=1,2$, $j\in \Lambda$, $\bar\sigma_j$ is its restriction on $\{(j,ls)\}_{l,s=1}^2$, $(-1)^{|\sigma|}$ is a sign of $\sigma$ and $P_{j,\bar\sigma_j}$ is an expansion in $\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j2}$, $\tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1}$ of the product of four elements from the rows $\{(j,ls)\}_{l,s=1}^2$ taken with respect to $\bar\sigma_j$.
Let us prove that for each $j\in\Lambda$ and any $\bar\sigma$ each term of $P_{j,\bar\sigma_j}(\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j2}, \tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1})$ of (\[exp\_det\]) belongs to one of the three following groups:
- has a coefficient $W^{-2}$ or lower;
- has a coefficient $W^{-3/2}$ and at least one of variables $\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j2}$, $\tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1}$ of the odd degree;
- has a coefficient $W^{-1}$ and at least two variables of $\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j2}$, $\tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1}$ of the odd degree;
Note that each element in the expansion of the coefficients of the rows $(j,11)$ and $(j,22)$ has a coefficient $W^{-1/2}$ or lower, and so $P_{j,\bar\sigma_j}(\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j2}, \tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1})$ has a coefficient $W^{-1}$ or lower. In addition, if $P_{j,\bar\sigma_j}(\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j,2}, \tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1})$ contains any terms with $R_{jk}$ (see (\[D\])), or at least one off-diagonal elements in $(j,12)$ and $(j,21)$, we get a coefficient $W^{-2}$ or lower (and so obtain the group (i)).
We are left to consider terms with $d_{j,12}d_{j,21}$. If $P_{j,\bar\sigma_j}(\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j,2}, \tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1})$ contains two off-diagonal elements in rows $(j,11)$ and $(j,11)$, we get group (i). One off-diagonal element and $d_{j,11}$ (or $d_{j,22}$) gives group (ii) or group (i) (since off-diagonal elements do not depend on $\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j,2}$, $\tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1}$), and it is easy to see from (\[d\_exp1\]) that all the terms in expansion of $d_{j,11}d_{j,22}d_{j,12}d_{j,21}$ belongs to groups (i) – (iii).
To get a non-zero contribution, we have to complete the expression $P_{j,\bar\sigma_j}(\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j,2}, \tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1})$ by some other terms of the expansion of the exponent of (\[G\_last\]) in order to get an even degree of each variable $\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j,2}$, $\tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1}$. But all such a terms have the coefficient $W^{-1/2}$ or lower, and therefore Lemma \[l:det\_exp\] yields that the coefficient near each $j$ in terms that gives a non-zero contribution must be $W^{-2}$ or lower. Since we have a coefficient $W^{2|\Lambda|}$ in (\[G\_last\]) after the change (\[change\]), this means that to get a non-zero contribution each coefficient must be exactly $W^{-2}$. Note that the terms of $P_{j,\bar\sigma_j}(\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j,2}, \tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1})$ that can be completed to the monomial with all even degrees and with a coefficients $W^{-2}$ does not contain any terms with $R_{jk}$, and any terms of the expansion $d_{j,ls}$, $l,s=1,2$ of order $W^{-3/2}$ or lower. They also cannot be completed to the monomial with all even degrees and with a coefficients $W^{-2}$ by any terms of the exponent of (\[G\_last\]) that has a coefficient lower then $W^{-1/2}$ for some $j$. Thus we need to consider the terms up to the third order in the expansions (\[f\_exp\]) and (\[f\_exp2\]), the linear terms of the functions in the second and the forth exponents of (\[G\_last\]), and the linear terms in $-2\log b_{j,l}$, $l=1,2$ coming from $$b_{j,l}^{-2}=e^{-2\log b_{j,l}},\quad l=1,2.$$ Note that the terms containing $\tilde x_{j,1}\tilde b_{j,1}/W$ in $d_{j,11}$ (see (\[d\_exp1\])) cannot contribute to the limit, since if we complete them to the monomial with even degrees of $\tilde x_{j,1},\tilde b_{j,1}$, then it will contain $W^{-2}$ and an additional $W^{-1}$ should come from the line containing $d_{j,22}$. Moreover, the terms containing $\tilde x_{j,1}^2$ in $d_{j,11}$ can give a non-zero contribution only if the resulting monomial contains only $\tilde x_{j,1}^2$, since otherwise, taking into account the contribution of the line containing $d_{j,22}$, we again obtain at least $W^{-3}$. Thus we can replace $\tilde x_{j,1}^2$ by its average via Gaussian measure $(2\pi/c_+)^{-1/2} e^{-c_+\tilde x_{j,1}^2/2}$, i.e. by $ c_+^{-1}$. The same is true for $\tilde x_{j,2}\tilde b_{j,2}/W$ and for $\tilde x_{j,2}^2$ which could be replaced by $ c_-^{-1}$. Similar argument yields that the contribution of the terms with $\tilde x_{j,1}^2$ in the line containing $d_{j,12}$ and $\tilde x_{j,2}^2$ in the line containing $d_{j,21}$ disappear in the limit $W\to\infty$. Thus the term corresponding to $W^{2|\Lambda|}\det\mathcal{D}$ in (\[G\_last\]) can be replaced by the term $$\begin{aligned}
\label{det'}
\int d\rho\,d\tau \exp&\Big\{\beta\sum{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\Big(U_j^*\tilde\rho_jS_j-U_{j-1}^*\tilde\rho_{j-1}S_{j-1}\Big) \Big(S_j^{-1}\tilde\tau_jU_j-
S_{j-1}^{-1}\tilde\tau_{j-1}U_{j-1}\Big)\\ \notag
&+\sum\Big(c_+n_{j,12}+c_-n_{j,21}-n_{j,1}/c_0a_++ n_{j,2}/c_0a_- \Big)\\ \notag
&+{W}^{1/2}\sum\Big(\big(\tilde{x}_{j,1}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,1})n_{j,1}+(\tilde{x}_{j,2}/a_--\tilde{b}_{j,2})n_{j,2}\big)\\
& -W^{-1/2}\sum\Big(a_+^{-2}\big(\tilde{x}_{j,1}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,2}\big)n_{j,12}+a_-^{-2}\big(\tilde{x}_{j,2}/a_--\tilde{b}_{j,1}\big)n_{j,21}\Big)\Big\}
+O(W^{-1/2}),
\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde \rho_j$, $\tilde \tau_j$, $n_{j,12}$, $n_{j,21}$, $n_{j,1}$, $n_{j,2}$ are defined in (\[rt\_tilde\]). Here we have used Grassmann variables $\{\rho_{j,ls}\}$, $\{\tau_{j,ls}\}$, $j\in \Lambda$, $l,s=1,2$ to rewrite the determinant (\[D\]) with respect to (\[G\_Gr\]), have substituted (\[d\_exp1\]) and left only terms that give the contribution (according to arguments above), and then have changed $\rho_{j,11}\to \sqrt{W}\rho_{j,11}$, $\tau_{j,11}\to \sqrt{W}\rho_{j,11}$. Note also $$\label{capm}
c_+a_+^2=c_0a_+,\quad c_-a_-^2=-c_0a_-.$$
Now let us prove that the contribution of the third order in the expansions (\[f\_exp\]) and (\[f\_exp2\]) is small. Indeed, the terms $P_{j,\bar\sigma_j}(\tilde{x}_{j,1},\tilde{x}_{j,2}, \tilde{b}_{j,1},\tilde{b}_{j,1})$ that can be completed to the monomial with all even degrees and with a coefficients $W^{-2}$ by these cubic terms can be one of two types
1\. terms $\big(\tilde x_{j,1}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,1}\big)\cdot x\cdot c_+\cdot c_-$, where $c_+$, $c_-$ come from the zero terms of $d_{j,12}$, $d_{j,21}$ (see (\[d\_exp1\])) and $x$ is an element of the row $(j,22)$ and so does not depend on $\tilde{x}_{j,1}$, $\tilde{b}_{j,1}$ (or similar terms with $\big(\tilde x_{j,2}/a_--\tilde{b}_{j,2}\big)$);
2\. terms of $\big(\tilde x_{j,1}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,1}\big)\big(\tilde x_{j,2}/a_--\tilde{b}_{j,2}\big) \big(\tilde x_{j,1}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,2}\big) \cdot c_-$ with $\tilde x_{j,1}^2$ or $\tilde b_{j,2}^2$ (or similar terms with $c_+$ coming from $d_{j,12}$) ;
But it is easy to see that $$\int \big(\tilde x^4_{j,1}/(3a_+^4)-\tilde{b}_{j,1}^4/3\big) \cdot e^{-\frac{c_+\tilde x^2_{j,1}}{2}-\frac{a_+^2c_+\tilde b^2_{j,1}}{2}}\,d\tilde x_{j,1}\, d\tilde b_{j,1}= \dfrac{2\pi}{a_+c_+}\Big(\dfrac{1}{a_+^4c_+^2}-\dfrac{1}{a_+^4c_+^2}\Big)=0,$$ and so the contribution of (1) is zero. Similarly the contribution (2) is zero.
Therefore, the contribution of the third order in the expansions (\[f\_exp\]) is small, and using (\[det’\]) and also $$\begin{aligned}
&\exp\Big\{\dfrac{i}{|\Lambda|}\sum\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}U_j^*L_\pm U_j\big(i\varepsilon L+\hat{\xi}_1/\rho(E)\big)+{\mathrm{Tr}\,}S_j^{-1} L_\pm S_j\big(i\varepsilon L+
\hat{\xi}_2/\rho(E)\big)\Big)\Big\}\\
=&\exp\big\{-E(\xi_1+\xi_2+\xi_1'+\xi_2')/2\rho(E)\big\}\\
&\times \exp\Big\{\dfrac{ic_0}{2|\Lambda|}\sum\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}U_j^*L U_j\Big(i\varepsilon L+
\frac{\hat{\xi}}{\rho(E)}\Big)+{\mathrm{Tr}\,}S_j^{-1}
LS_j\Big(i\varepsilon L+
\frac{\hat{\xi}'}{\rho(E)}\Big)\Big)\Big\}\end{aligned}$$ for $L_\pm$, $L$ defined in (\[L\_pm\]), we get (\[G\_main\]).
Denoting the exponent in the second line of (\[G\_main\]) by $\mathcal{E}(z)$ and taking the Gaussian integral over $d z$ with $z$ of (\[rt\_tilde\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G_main1}
\int_{\mathbb{R}^{4|\Lambda|}} \mathcal{E}(z)dz&=(2\pi)^{2|\Lambda|}{\mathrm{det}}^{-1/2} M\\
&\exp\Big\{\frac{1}{2}(M^{-1}(W^{1/2}h^0+W^{-1/2}(h+\zeta/\Lambda)), W^{1/2}h^0
+W^{-1/2}(h+\zeta/|\Lambda|))\Big\} .
\notag\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see from (\[M\]) – (\[tilde\_M\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\det \,M&= \det\,M_0(1+O(W^{-1}))=(c_+^2c_-^2a_+^2a_-^2)^{|\Lambda|} (1+O(W^{-1}))=c_0^{4|\Lambda|}(1+O(W^{-1}))\end{aligned}$$ with $c_\pm$ of (\[c\_pm\]). Note now that $$M^{-1}=\big(M_0+\dfrac{1}{W}\tilde{M}\big)^{-1}=M_0^{-1}-\dfrac{1}{W}M_0^{-1}\tilde{M}M_0^{-1}+O(W^{-2}).$$ Since $M_0$ is diagonal and $h^0_{j,ls}$ is proportional to $n_{j,1}$ or $n_{j,2}$ and $n_{j,l}^2=0$, we have $$(M_0^{-1}h^0,h^0)=0.$$ Hence, the exponent in the r.h.s. of (\[G\_main1\]) takes the form $$\begin{gathered}
\dfrac{1}{2}\Big((M_0^{-1}h^0,h+\zeta/\Lambda)+(M_0^{-1}(h+\zeta/\Lambda),h^0)\\-(M_0^{-1}\tilde M M_0^{-1}h^0,h^0)\Big)+o(1)
=
I_1+I_2-I_3+o(1).\end{gathered}$$ Then we can rewrite (recall (\[h\]) and (\[capm\])) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{M_0h,h}
I_1&+I_2=\sum \Big(\dfrac{(h_{j,11}+\zeta_{j,11}/|\Lambda| )n_{j,1}}{a_+c_+}+\dfrac{(h_{j,22}+\zeta_{j,22}/\Lambda )n_{j,2}}{a_-c_-}\\
&-\dfrac{(h_{j,12}+a_+\zeta_{j,12}/|\Lambda| )n_{j,1}}{a_+^2c_+}
-\dfrac{(h_{j,21}+a_-\zeta_{j,21}/|\Lambda| )n_{j,2}}{a_-^2c_-}\Big)\notag\\
\notag &=\sum n_{j,1}\Big(\dfrac{2}{a_+c_0}+\beta\big(t_j^2+t_{j+1}^2-v_j^2-v_{j+1}^2\big)+\dfrac{a_-n_{j,12}}{a_+^2c_0}+\dfrac{n_{j,21}}{a_-c_0}
+\dfrac{\zeta_{j,11}-\zeta_{j,12}}{c_0|\Lambda|}\Big)\\ \notag
&+\sum n_{j,2}\Big(-\dfrac{2}{a_-c_0}+\beta\big(t_j^2+t_{j+1}^2-v_j^2-v_{j+1}^2\big)-\dfrac{a_+n_{j,21}}{a_-^2c_0}-\dfrac{n_{j,12}}{a_+c_0}
-\dfrac{\zeta_{j,22}-\zeta_{j,21}}{c_0|\Lambda|}\Big)+O(W^{-1}),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&I_3=\dfrac{4}{c_0^4}\sum n_{j,1}n_{j,2}-\dfrac{1}{a_+^2c_0^2}\sum n_{j,12}n_{j,1}n_{j,2}
-\dfrac{1}{a_-^2c_0^2}\sum n_{j,21}n_{j,1}n_{j,2}\\
\label{tilMh,h} &+\sum \dfrac{\beta(v_j^2+t_j^2)}{c_0^2}\big(n_{j,1}n_{j+1,1}+n_{j,1}n_{j+1,2}
+n_{j,2}n_{j+1,1}+n_{j,2}n_{j+1,2}\big)+O(W^{-1}).\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gr_lapl}
&\exp\Big\{\beta\sum{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\Big(U_j^*\tilde\rho_jS_j-U_{j-1}^*\tilde\rho_{j-1}S_{j-1}\Big) \Big(S_j^{-1}\tilde\tau_jU_j-
S_{j-1}^{-1}\tilde\tau_{j-1}U_{j-1}\Big)\Big\}\\ \notag
&=\exp\Big\{\dfrac{\beta}{W}\sum{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\Big(U_j^*\hat\rho_jS_j-U_{j-1}^*\hat\rho_{j-1}S_{j-1}\Big) \Big(S_j^{-1}\hat\tau_jU_j-
S_{j-1}^{-1}\hat\tau_{j-1}U_{j-1}\Big)\Big\}+O(W^{-1/2}),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\rho_j=\hbox{diag}\{\rho_{j,11},\rho_{j,22}\},\quad
\hat\tau_j=\hbox{diag}\{\tau_{j,11},\tau_{j,22}\}.
$$ Combining (\[M\_0h,h\]) – (\[gr\_lapl\]) we can integrate the main term of (\[G\_main1\]) with respect to $\rho_{j,12}$, $\tau_{j,12}$, $\rho_{j,21}$, $\tau_{j,21}$ according to (\[G\_Gr\]). This integration gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\prod\limits_{j\in\Lambda} \Big(c_++\dfrac{a_-n_{j,1}}{a_+^2c_0}-\dfrac{n_{j,2}}{a_+c_0}+\dfrac{n_{j,1}n_{j,2}}{a_+^2c_0^2}\Big)
\Big(c_-+\dfrac{n_{j,1}}{a_-c_0}-\dfrac{a_+n_{j,2}}{a_-^2c_0}+\dfrac{n_{j,1}n_{j,2}}{a_-^2c_0^2}\Big)\\ \notag
&=c_0^2+\dfrac{c_0n_{j,2}}{a_-}-\dfrac{c_0n_{j,1}}{a_+} +\big(1+2/c_0^2\big)n_{j,1}n_{j,2}=
c_0^2\cdot \exp\Big\{-\dfrac{n_{j,1}}{a_+c_0}+\dfrac{n_{j,2}}{a_-c_0}\Big\}\cdot \Big(1+\dfrac{2}{c_0^4}n_{j,1}n_{j,2}\Big),\end{aligned}$$ which together with (\[M\_0h,h\]) – (\[gr\_lapl\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)=& c_0^{4|\Lambda|}C_{E,\varepsilon}\int d\hat\rho\, d\hat \tau \,dU\, d S \prod_{j\in \Lambda}
\Big(1-\dfrac{2}{c_0^4}n_{j,1}n_{j,2}\Big)\exp\Big\{-\beta c_0^2\sum (v_j^2+t_j^2)\Big\} \\ \notag
&\times\exp\Big\{\beta\sum{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\Big(U_j^*\hat\rho_jS_j-U_{j-1}^*\hat\rho_{j-1}S_{j-1}\Big) \Big(S_j^{-1}\hat\tau_jU_j-
S_{j-1}^{-1}\hat\tau_{j-1}U_{j-1}\Big)\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times \exp\Big\{\sum n_{j,1}\Big(\beta\big(t_j^2+t_{j+1}^2-v_j^2-v_{j+1}^2\big)+\dfrac{\zeta_{j,11}-\zeta_{j,12}}{c_0|\Lambda|}|\big)\Big)\Big\}\\
\notag&\times \exp\Big\{\sum n_{j,2}\Big(\beta\big(t_j^2+t_{j+1}^2-v_j^2-v_{j+1}^2\big)-\dfrac{\zeta_{j,22}-\zeta_{j,21}}{c_0|\Lambda|}\big)\Big)\Big\}+o(1),\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $$(1+2n_{j,1}n_{j,2}/c_0^4)\cdot e^{-4n_{j,1}n_{j,2}/c_0^4}=1-2n_{j,1}n_{j,2}/c_0^4.$$ Now changing $$\rho_{j,11}\to c_0 \rho_{j,1}, \quad \tau_{j,11}\to c_0 \tau_{j,1},\quad \rho_{j,22}\to c_0 \rho_{j,2},\quad \tau_{j,22}\to c_0 \rho_{j,2}$$ with an appropriate change in $n_{j,1}$, $n_{j,2}$, $\hat\rho_j$, $\hat\tau_j$, and recalling (\[beta\_til\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,&\xi)=C_{E,\varepsilon} \int d\hat\rho\, d\hat \tau \,dU\, d S \prod_{j\in \Lambda}
\Big(1-2n_{j,1}n_{j,2}\Big) \exp\Big\{-\tilde\beta\sum (v_j^2+t_j^2)\Big\}\\
\notag
&\times\exp\Big\{\tilde\beta\sum{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\Big(U_j^*\hat\rho_jS_j-U_{j-1}^*\hat\rho_{j-1}S_{j-1}\Big) \Big(S_j^{-1}\hat\tau_jU_j-
S_{j-1}^{-1}\hat\tau_{j-1}U_{j-1}\Big)\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times \exp\Big\{\sum n_{j,1}\Big(\tilde\beta\big(t_j^2+t_{j+1}^2-v_j^2-v_{j+1}^2\big)+c_0(\zeta_{j,11}-\zeta_{j,12})/|\Lambda|\big)\Big)\Big\}\\
\notag&\times \exp\Big\{\sum n_{j,2}\Big(\tilde\beta\big(t_j^2+t_{j+1}^2-v_j^2-v_{j+1}^2\big)-c_0(\zeta_{j,22}-\zeta_{j,21})/|\Lambda|\big)\Big)\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times\exp\Big\{\dfrac{ic_0}{2|\Lambda|}\sum\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}U_j^*L U_j\big(i\varepsilon L+\hat{\xi}/\rho(E)\big)+{\mathrm{Tr}\,}S_j^{-1} LS_j\big(i\varepsilon L+
\hat{\xi}'/\rho(E)\big)\Big)\Big\},
$$ which can be rewritten as (\[sigma-mod\]). The second relation of (\[sigma-mod\]) follows from the uniform in $\xi$ convergence of $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)$, as $W\to\infty$.
$\square$
Proof of Theorem \[t:2\].
-------------------------
Theorem \[t:2\] can be proved in a similar way. First of all we can write an analogue of (\[G\_last\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{G+_last}
&\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{++}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)=Q^{(2)}_{W, |\Lambda|}\displaystyle
\int dVdU
\int d x\int_{\mathbb{R}_+^{2|\Lambda|}} d b\prod_{j\in\Lambda}\dfrac{(x_{j,1}-x_{j,2})^2
(b_{j,1}-b_{j,2})^2}{b_{j,1}^2b_{j,2}^2}\\ \notag
&\times
\exp\Big\{-W\sum\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\sum\limits_{\sigma=1}^2\left(f(x_{j,\sigma})+f(b_{j,\sigma})\right)\Big\}
\cdot {\mathrm{det}}\,\mathcal{D}(\hat{X}, \hat{B}, U, V) \\ \notag
&\times \exp\Big\{
\dfrac{\beta}{2}\sum\limits_{j\sim k}\Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}(V_j^*\hat{B}_jV_j-V_k^*\hat{B}_kV_k)^2-{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(U_j^*\hat{X}_jU_j-U_k^*\hat{X}_kU_k)^2\Big)\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times\exp\Big\{\dfrac{1}{2W}\sum\limits_{j, k}
R_{jk}\,{\mathrm{Tr}\,}(U_j^*\hat{X}_jU_j-iZ_1)(U_k^*\hat{X}_kU_k-iZ_1)\Big\} \\ \notag
&\times\exp\Big\{\dfrac{i}{|\Lambda|}\sum\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\Big({\mathrm{Tr}\,}U_j^*\hat{X}_jU_j\big(i\varepsilon\cdot I+\hat{\xi}_1/\rho(E)\big)+{\mathrm{Tr}\,}V_j^*\hat{B}_jV_j\big(i\varepsilon\cdot I+\hat{\xi}_2/\rho(E)\big)\Big)\Big\}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that (\[G+\_last\]) has unitary $V_j$ instead of hyperbolic $S_j$ and $i\varepsilon\cdot I$ instead of $i\varepsilon\cdot L$. Then we deform the contours of integration as
- for $x_{j,1}$, $x_{j,2}$ to $iE/2+\mathbb{R}$;
- for $b_{j,1}, b_{j,2}$ to $\mathcal{L}_+(E)$ of (\[L\_cal\])
and prove the following lemma in the same way as Lemma \[l:s\_point\]):
\[l:s\_point+\] The integral (\[G+\_last\]) over $\{x_{j,l}\}, \{b_{j,l}\}$, $l=1,2$, $j\in \Lambda$ can be restricted to the integral over the neighbourhood of the points
- $x_{j,1}=a_+$, $x_{j,2}=a_-$ or $x_{j,1}=a_-$, $x_{j,2}=a_+$, $b_{j,1}=b_{j,2}=a_+$ for any $j\in\Lambda$;
- $x_{j,1}=x_{j,2}=a_+$, $b_{j,1}=b_{j,2}=a_+$ for any $j\in\Lambda$;
- $x_{j,1}=x_{j,2}=a_-$, $b_{j,1}=b_{j,2}=a_+$ for any $j\in\Lambda$.
Moreover, the contributions of the points I and II are $o(1)$, as $W\to\infty$.
Indeed, the contribution of the point II is small, since after an appropriate change of variables similar to (\[change1\]) (which gives $W^{-2|\Lambda|}$) the expression $$(x_{j,1}-x_{j,2})^2(b_{j,1}-b_{j,2})^2$$ gives $W^{-2|\Lambda|}$, and the expansion of ${\mathrm{det}}\,\mathcal{D}(\hat{X}, \hat{B}, U, V)$ starts from $W^{-2|\Lambda|}$ (see (\[d\_exp1\])).
For the points I the expression for ${\mathrm{det}}\,\mathcal{D}(\hat{X}, \hat{B}, U, V)$ starts from $W^{-|\Lambda|}$, and another $W^{-|\Lambda|}$ comes from $(b_{j,1}-b_{j,2})^2$. Therefore similarly to (\[++\]) we get that the main contribution around these saddle-points is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b++}
C\cdot \Big\langle\prod\limits_{j\in\Lambda}\big(\tilde{x}_{j,1}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,1}\big)\cdot \big(\tilde{x}_{j,1}/a_+-\tilde{b}_{j,2}\big) \cdot (\tilde{b}_{j,1}
-\tilde{b}_{j,2})^2\Big\rangle+o(1),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\langle \cdot \Big\rangle=\int \Big(\cdot\Big) \exp\Big\{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\in\Lambda}\big({c_+\tilde x_{j,1}^2+c_-\tilde x_{j,2}^2
+a_+^2c_+ (\tilde b_{j,1}^2+
\tilde b_{j,2}^2})\big)\Big\} d\tilde{x}d\tilde{b}.\end{aligned}$$ But it is easy to see that the Gaussian integral in (\[b++\]) is zero.
Thus we are left to compute the contribution of the point III. Doing again an appropriate change of variables similar to (\[change1\]) , we see that the expression $$(x_{j,1}-x_{j,2})^2(b_{j,1}-b_{j,2})^2$$ already gives $W^{-2|\Lambda|}$, and hence to obtain a non-zero contribution we have to compute $$\begin{aligned}
&\int \prod\limits_{j\in\Lambda} (\tilde x_{j,1}-\tilde x_{j,2})^2(\tilde b_{j,1}-\tilde b_{j,2})^2 \exp\Big\{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j\in\Lambda}\big({c_-(\tilde x_{j,1}^2+-\tilde x_{j,2}^2)
+a_+^2c_+ (\tilde b_{j,1}^2+
\tilde b_{j,2}^2})\big)\Big\} d\tilde{x}d\tilde b\\
&=\Big((2\pi)^{2}\cdot 4 (c_+c_-a_+)^{-2}\Big)^{|\Lambda|}\end{aligned}$$ and take only zero terms in the expansions of all other functions in (\[G+\_last\]). That gives the first relation of (\[G++\_lim\]). The second relation of (\[G++\_lim\]) follows from the uniform in $\xi$ convergence of $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{++}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)$ as $W\to\infty$. $\Box$
Proof of Theorem \[thm:cor\] {#s:4}
============================
According (\[cor=det\]), (\[G\_2\]), (\[sigma-mod\]), and (\[G++\_lim\]), to prove Theorem \[thm:cor\], it is sufficient to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{main}
(2\pi)^{-2}\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\lim_{\beta,n\to \infty} \dfrac{\partial^2}{\partial \xi_1' \partial \xi_2'}&\Big(
\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)+
\overline{\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\\ \notag
&-\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{++}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)-\overline{\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{++}}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\Big)\Big|_{\xi^\prime=\xi}=1-\dfrac{\sin^2 (\pi(\xi_1-\xi_2))}
{\pi^2(\xi_1-\xi_2)^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[G++\_lim\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lim_++}
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\,\lim_{\beta,n\to \infty}\dfrac{\partial^2}
{\partial\xi_1^\prime\partial\xi_2^\prime}\left(\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{++}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)+\overline{\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{++}}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\right)\Big|_{\xi^\prime=\xi}
=-\dfrac{a_+^2+a_-^2}{\rho^2(E)}.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, $\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)$ are analytic functions in any of $\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_1',\xi_2'$ for $\Im\xi_1',\Im\xi_1'>-\varepsilon$, and they are uniformly bounded in $n,\beta$ for $\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_1',\xi_2'$ varying in any compacts satisfying this condition. Hence, we can replace the order of the derivative and the limiting transition and by (\[t1.1\]) obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{\beta,n\to \infty}\dfrac{\partial^2}
{\partial\xi_1^\prime\partial\xi_2^\prime} \mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\Big|_{\xi^\prime=\xi}\\=
&\dfrac{\partial^2}
{\partial\xi_1^\prime\partial\xi_2^\prime} C_{E,\varepsilon}
e^{-c_0(\alpha_1+\alpha_2)}\Big(\delta_1\delta_2(e^{2c_0\alpha_1}-1)/\alpha_1\alpha_2
-(\delta_1+\delta_2)e^{2c_0\alpha_1}/\alpha_2+e^{2c_0\alpha_1}\alpha_1/\alpha_2\Big)\Big|_{\xi^\prime=\xi}.
$$ Computing the derivative, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\beta,n\to \infty} \dfrac{\partial^2}
{\partial\xi_1^\prime\partial\xi_2^\prime}\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\Big|_{\xi^\prime=\xi}
=\dfrac{1}{\rho^2(E)}-\dfrac{1-e^{2\pi i\theta_\varepsilon}}{\theta_\varepsilon^2},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\theta_\varepsilon=2i\alpha_1\rho(E)=2i\varepsilon\rho(E)+\xi_1-\xi_2.$$ This yields $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\beta,n\to \infty}\dfrac{\partial^2}
{\partial\xi_1^\prime\partial\xi_2^\prime}\left(\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)+\overline{\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\right)\Big|_{\xi^\prime=\xi}
=\dfrac{2}{\rho^2(E)}+\dfrac{(e^{i\pi\theta_\varepsilon}-e^{-i\pi \theta_\varepsilon})^2}{\theta_\varepsilon^2},\end{aligned}$$ and hence $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\varepsilon\to 0}\,\lim_{\beta,n\to \infty} \dfrac{\partial^2}
{\partial\xi_1^\prime\partial\xi_2^\prime}\left(\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)+\overline{\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\right)\Big|_{\xi^\prime=\xi}
=\dfrac{2}{\rho^2(E)}-\dfrac{4\sin^2(\pi(\xi_1-\xi_2))}{(\xi_1-\xi_2)^2},\end{aligned}$$ which combined with (\[lim\_++\]), and $$a_+^2+a_-^2+2=(a_+-a_-)^2=4\pi^2\rho(E)^2,$$ gives (\[main\]), thus Theorem \[thm:cor\].
Proof of Theorem \[t:1\] {#s:5}
========================
Let us note that to prove Theorem \[t:1\], it suffices to prove it only for $\xi$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cond_xi}
&\Re\xi_1=\Re\xi_2,\quad\Re\xi_1'=\Re\xi_2',\quad \xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_1',\xi_2'\in\Omega_{c\varepsilon}\\
&\Omega_{c\varepsilon}=\{\xi:\Im\xi>-c\varepsilon\},\quad (0<c<1).
\notag\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, assume that $\{\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\}$ are uniformly bounded in $n,\beta$ for $\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_1',\xi_2'\in\Omega_{c\varepsilon}$. Consider $\{\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\}$ as functions on $\xi_1$ with fixed $\xi_2,\xi_1',\xi_2'$ such that $\Re\xi_1'=\Re\xi_2'$. Since these functions are analytic in $\Omega_{c\varepsilon}$, the standard complex analysis argument yields that (\[t1.1\]) on the segment $\Re\xi_1=\Re\xi_2$ implies (\[t1.1\]) for any $\xi_1\in\Omega_{c\varepsilon}$, hence for any $\xi_1,\xi_2\in \Omega_{c\varepsilon}$. Then, fixing any $\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_2'$, we can consider $\{\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\}$ as a sequence of analytic functions on $\xi_1'$. Since, by the above argument, (\[t1.1\]) is valid on the segment $\Re\xi_1'=\Re\xi_2'$, the same argument yields that (\[t1.1\]) is valid for any $\xi_1',\xi_2'$. Therefore, it is enough to prove Theorem \[t:1\] for real $\alpha_1>\varepsilon/2$, $\alpha_2>\varepsilon/2$, which means that we take $c=\rho(E)$ (see the definition (\[alp\])).
To check that $\{\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)\}$ are uniformly bounded in $n,\beta$ for $\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_1',\xi_2'\in\Omega_{c\varepsilon}$, we apply the Schwartz inequality to $\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)$ in the form (\[G\_2\]). Then we get $$\begin{aligned}
&|\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)|^2\le |\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi_1)|\,|\mathcal{R}_{Wn\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi_2)|\\
\Rightarrow &\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)|^2\le |\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi_1)|\,|\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi_2)|\end{aligned}$$ where $\xi_1=(\xi_1,\xi_1,\xi_1',\xi_1')$, $\xi_2=(\xi_2,\xi_2,\xi_2',\xi_2')$. Since $\xi_1,\xi_2$ satisfy (\[cond\_xi\]), the uniform boundedness of the r.h.s. follows from the uniform convergence (in $\xi$, satisfying (\[cond\_xi\])) of (\[t1.1\]) (see Section \[ss:t1\]).
Representation of $\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}$ in the operator form
------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we are going to represent $\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}$ in 1d case in the operator form. Put $n=|\Lambda|$, and set $${\mathcal{M}}(Q,Q')=\mathcal{F}(Q)H(Q,Q') \mathcal{F}(Q'),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H_op}
&H(Q,Q')=\exp\Big\{\dfrac{\tilde\beta}{4}{\mathrm{Str}\,}QQ'\Big\} (1-n_1n_2) (1-n_1'n_2')
\\ \notag
&\mathcal{F}(Q)=\exp\Big\{-\dfrac{c_0}{4n}{\mathrm{Str}\,}Q \Lambda_{\xi, \varepsilon}\Big\}=F(U,S)\cdot \exp\Big\{n_1\cdot F_1(U,S)+n_2\cdot F_2(U,S)\Big\} \end{aligned}$$ with $Q$, $Q'$ of the form (\[Q\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{F}
&F(U,S)=\exp\big\{-\dfrac{c_0}{n}\big(\alpha_1(1-|U_{12}|^2)
+\alpha_2\cdot |S_{12}|^2\big)\big\},\\ \notag
&F_1(U,S)=-{c_0}\big(\delta_1-\alpha_1 \cdot |U_{12}|^2-\alpha_2\cdot |S_{12}|^2\big)/n,\\ \notag
&F_2(U,S)=-{c_0}\big(\delta_2-\alpha_1 \cdot |U_{12}|^2-\alpha_2\cdot |S_{12}|^2\big)/n,\\
\notag
&n_l=\rho_l\tau_l,\quad n_l'=\rho'_l\tau'_l,\quad l=1,2,
$$ and $\alpha_{1,2},\delta_{1,2}$ defined in (\[alp\]). Hence, by (\[sigma-mod\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{trans}
\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)=&C_{E,\varepsilon}e^{c_0(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)}
\int (1-n_1n_2) \mathcal{F}(Q){\mathcal{M}}^{n-1}(Q,Q')\mathcal{F}(Q') (1-n_1'n_2') dQ dQ'\end{aligned}$$ with $$dQ=d\rho_1d\tau_1d\rho_2d\tau_2 dU dS.$$ Note that $\mathcal{M}$, $H$, $\mathcal{F}$ can be considered as operators acting on the space of polynomials of Grassmann variables $\rho_l'$, $\tau_l'$, $l=1,2$ with coefficients from $L_2(U)\otimes L_2(S)$, where $L_2$ are taken with respect to the Haar measures on $\mathring U(2)$, $\mathring U(1,1)$. It is easy to see these that operators transform any even Grassmann polynomial into an even polynomial and an odd one into an odd one. In addition, they preserve the modulo of the difference between the number of $\rho_{l}$ and the number of $\tau_{l}$. Since we are going to apply these operators only to even polynomials which contain equal numbers of $\rho_{l}$ and $\tau_{l}$, we need to study a restriction of $\mathcal{M}$, $H$, $\mathcal{F}$ to the space $\mathcal P_6\cong (L_2(U(2))\otimes L_2(U(1,1)))^6$ of polynomials $$\label{P_6}
\widehat q=q_0+q_1n_1'+q_2n_2'+q_3n_1'n_2'+q_4\rho_1'\tau_2'+q_5\rho_2'\tau_1'.$$ Thus $\mathcal{M}$ is represented by a $6\times 6$ matrix $\mathcal P_6\to \mathcal P_6$ (which we also denote $\mathcal{M}$) of the form $\mathcal{ F} H\mathcal{ F}\big|_{\mathcal P_6}$, the entries of the matrix $H$ are the integral operators on $L_2(U)\otimes L_2(S)$ with the kernels of the form $v(U(U')^*,S(S')^{-1})$ (the integrals are taken with respect to $dU'dS'$), and the entries of the matrix $\mathcal{F}$ are operators of multiplication in $L_2(U)\otimes L_2(S)$. Then (\[trans\]) takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{trans1}
&\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)= C_{E,\varepsilon}e^{c_0(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)}
\int (\mathcal{M}^{n-1}\tilde f(U',S'),\tilde g(U,S))_{6}dUdS dU'dS',\\
\notag
&\tilde f(U,S):= \mathcal{F}\cdot (1-n_1n_2),\quad
\tilde g(U,S):=\mathcal{F}\cdot (1-n_1n_2),
$$ where by $(\cdot,\cdot)_{6}$ we mean the “scalar” product in $\mathcal P_6$ which gives the coefficient in front of $n_1n_2$ in the product of two polynomials of the form (\[P\_6\]).
Proof of Theorem \[t:1\] for $\alpha_1,\alpha_2>\varepsilon/2$ {#ss:t1}
---------------------------------------------------------------
As it was mentioned in the beginning of Section 5, it suffices to prove Theorem \[t:1\] for real $\alpha_1,\alpha_2>\varepsilon/2$.
The proof of (\[t1.1\]) is based on the following representation of $\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)$.
\[p:repr\] For any $\xi$ such that $\alpha_1,\alpha_2>\varepsilon/2$ (see (\[alp\])) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{repr1}
&\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)=\frac{C_{E,\varepsilon}e^{c_0(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)}}{2\pi i}\oint_{\omega_A}z^{n-1}(\widehat G(z)\widehat f,\widehat g)dz,\quad \omega_A=\{z:|z|=1+A/n\},\\ \label{M_hat}
& \widehat G(z)=(\widehat M-z)^{-1},\quad\widehat M=\widehat F\widehat K\widehat F,\quad \widehat K=\widehat K_0+O(\beta^{-1}),\end{aligned}$$ where operators $\widehat K_0$, $\widehat F$ and the vectors $\widehat f$, $\widehat g$ have the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{repr2}
&\quad \widehat K_0=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}K_{US}&\widetilde K_1&\widetilde K_2&\widetilde K_3\\
0&K_{US}&0&\widetilde K_2\\0&0&K_{US}&\widetilde K_1\\0&0&0&K_{US}\end{array}\right),\quad
\widehat F=F\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1&F_1 &F_2&F_1 F_2\\
0&1&0&F_2\\0&0&1&F_1\\0&0&0&1\end{array}\right)\\ \notag
&\hat f=\widehat F (e_4- e_1),\quad\hat g=\widehat F^{(t)}(e_1- e_4)\end{aligned}$$ with $F$ and $ F_{1,2}$ being the operator on $L_2(U)\otimes L_2(S)$ of multiplication by the functions $F$ and $F_{1,2}$ defined in (\[F\]), $K_{US}=K_U\otimes K_S$ and $K_U$ and $K_S$ being the integral operators in $L_2(U)$ and $L_2(S)$ with a “difference” kernels $$\begin{aligned}
K_U(U,U')=K_U(U(U')^*)=\tilde{\beta} e^{-\tilde{\beta} |(U(U')^*)_{12}|^2},\\
K_S(S,S')=K_S(S(S')^{-1})=\tilde{\beta} e^{-\tilde{\beta} |(S(S')^{-1})_{12}|^2}.
\notag\end{aligned}$$ Here $\widetilde K_p$, $p=1, 2, 3$ are normal operators on $L_2(U)\otimes L_2(S)$, they commute with $K_{US}$ and with the Laplace operators $\widetilde\Delta_U,\widetilde\Delta_S$ on the corresponding groups and satisfy the bounds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bound_re}
&|\widetilde K_p|\le C(1-K_{US})\le -C(\widetilde\Delta_U+\widetilde\Delta_S)/\beta,
$$ where the Laplace operators $\widetilde\Delta_U,\widetilde\Delta_S$ for the functions depending only on $|S_{12}|^2$ and $|U_{12}|^2$ have the form $$\widetilde\Delta_S(\varphi)=-\frac{d}{dx} x(x+1)\frac{d\varphi}{dx} \quad (x=|S_{12}|^2),\qquad
\widetilde\Delta_U(\varphi)=-\frac{d}{dx} x(1-x)\frac{d\varphi}{dx} \quad (x=|U_{12}|^2).$$
We postpone the proof of the proposition to Section \[s:6\] and now derive (\[t1.1\]) from it. To this end, set $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat M_0=\widehat F^2,\quad \widehat G_0=(\widehat M_0-z)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ and consider $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta G:=\widehat G-\widehat G_0=-\widehat G_0(\widehat M-\widehat M_0)\widehat G_0-\widehat G_0(\widehat M-\widehat M_0)\widehat G(\widehat M-\widehat M_0)\widehat G_0.\end{aligned}$$ We apply the following lemma, which we will prove later:
\[l:bG\] For any $z\in\omega_A$ (see (\[repr1\])) we have the bounds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b_1}
&\|(\widehat M-\widehat M_0)\widehat G_0\widehat f\|^2\le C(n/\tilde{\beta})^2,\quad \|(\widehat M-\widehat M_0)\widehat G_0\widehat g\|^2\le C(n/\tilde{\beta})^2\\
&|(\widehat G_0(\widehat M-\widehat M_0)\widehat G_0\widehat f,\widehat g)|\le n\tilde{\beta}^{-1}/|z-1|,\quad
\|\widehat G\|\le C\log^2n/|z-1|.\quad
\notag\end{aligned}$$
The lemma implies that $$\begin{aligned}
&\Big|\frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{\omega_A}z^{n-1}(\Delta G\widehat f,\widehat g)dz\Big|\le C\oint_{\omega_A} |(\widehat G_0(\widehat M-\widehat M_0)\widehat G_0\widehat f,\widehat g)|\,|dz|\\
&+ C\oint_{\omega_A}\|\widehat G(z) \|\cdot \|(\widehat M-\widehat M_0)\widehat G_0(z)\widehat f\|\cdot
\|(\widehat M-\widehat M_0)\widehat G_0(\bar z)\widehat g\|\,|dz|\\
&\le C(n/\tilde{\beta})\oint_{\omega_A}\frac{|dz|}{|z-1|}\le Cn\log n/\tilde{\beta}\to 0,\end{aligned}$$ where we used $n\log^2 n\ll \tilde\beta$ and $$\oint_{\omega_A}\frac{|dz|}{|z-1|}\le C\log n.$$ Thus we have proved that (recall (\[repr2\])) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_{n\tilde{\beta}}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)&=\frac{C_{E,\varepsilon}e^{c_0(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)}}{2\pi i}\oint_{\omega_A}z^{n-1}
(\widehat G_0(z)\widehat f,\widehat g)dz+o(1)=C_{E,\varepsilon}e^{c_0(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)}(\widehat F^{2n-2}\widehat f,\widehat g)+o(1)\\
&=C_{E,\varepsilon}e^{c_0(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)}\int \big(4n^2F_1F_2-2) F^{2n}dUdS+o(1).\end{aligned}$$ Performing the integration with respect to $dU$, $dS$ we obtain (\[t1.1\]). $\square$
*Proof of Lemma \[l:bG\]*. To prove the first inequality of (\[b\_1\]), observe that since $\widehat F$ is bounded we have $$\|(\widehat M-\widehat M_0)\widehat G_0\widehat f\|^2=\|\widehat F(\widehat K-1)\widehat F\widehat G_0\widehat f\|^2\le C \|(\widehat K_0-1)\widehat F\widehat G_0\widehat f\|^2.$$ Moreover, since $\widetilde K_\alpha$ and $1-K_{US}$ commute with $\widetilde\Delta_U,\widetilde\Delta_S$, (\[bound\_re\]) implies $$\begin{aligned}
&(\widehat K_0-1)^*(\widehat K_0-1)\le C\tilde{\beta}^{-2}(\widetilde\Delta_U+\widetilde\Delta_S)^2\\
\Rightarrow& \|(\widehat M-\widehat M_0)\widehat G_0\widehat f\|^2\le C\tilde{\beta}^{-2} \|(\widetilde\Delta_U+\widetilde\Delta_S)\widehat F\widehat G_0\widehat f\|^2\le
C'\tilde{\beta}^{-2}( \|\widetilde\Delta_U\widehat G_0\widehat F\widehat f\|^2+ \|\widetilde\Delta_S\widehat G_0\widehat F\widehat f\|^2)\\
&\le C'\tilde{\beta}^{-2}\max_{\mu,\nu\le 4}( \|\widetilde\Delta_U(\widehat G_0)_{\mu\nu}(\widehat F\widehat f)_\nu\|^2+ ( \|\widetilde\Delta_S(\widehat G_0)_{\mu\nu}(\widehat F\widehat f)_\nu\|^2).\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see that $\widehat G_0$ has the same form as the matrices in (\[repr2\]) with zeros below the main diagonal and $$\begin{aligned}
(\widehat G_0)_{ii}=G_0:=(F^2-z)^{-1},\quad (\widehat G_0)_{23}=0,\quad (\widehat G_0)_{12}=(\widehat G_0)_{34}=-2F_1G_0^2F^2\\
(\widehat G_0)_{13}=(\widehat G_0)_{24}=-2F_1G_0^2F^2,\quad (\widehat G_0)_{14}=8F_1F_2G_0^3F^4-4F_1F_2G_0^2F^2\end{aligned}$$ (recall that here all operators commute with each other). In addition $(\widehat F\widehat f)_\nu,\,\nu=1,..,4$ are the linear combinations of the functions $ (F_1)^{\gamma_1} (F_2)^{\gamma_2}F^\sigma$ with $\gamma_{1,2}=0,1,2$, $\sigma=1,2$. Let us estimate the term which appears after the application of $\widetilde\Delta_SF^4F_1F_2G_0^3$ to the function $F^2$ (the other terms can be estimated similarly). Rewrite $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde{\beta}^{-2}\|\widetilde \Delta_SF_1 F_2(F^2-z)^{-3}F^6\|^2\\
=&C\tilde{\beta}^{-2}\int_0^\infty dx\Big|\frac{d}{dx}(x^2+x)\frac{d}{dx}\frac{(x+c_1)(x+c_2)}{n^2}\frac{e^{-3\alpha x/n}}{(e^{-\alpha x/n}-z)^3}\Big|^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1$ and $c_2$ correspond to the terms of (\[F\]), which do not depend on $x=|S_{12}|^2$, end $\alpha=2c_0\alpha_2>0$. Changing $\tilde x=x/n$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde{\beta}^{-2}n\int_0^\infty d\tilde x\Big|\frac{d}{d\tilde x}\tilde x(\tilde x+1/n)\frac{d}{d\tilde x}(\tilde x+c_1/n)
(\tilde x+c_2/n)\frac{e^{-3\alpha\tilde x}}{(e^{-\alpha\tilde x}-z)^3}\Big|^2\\
\le &C\tilde{\beta}^{-2}n\int_0^\infty d\tilde x\Big|\frac{(\tilde x+c/n)^{2}}{|e^{-\alpha\tilde x}-z|^3}+\frac{(\tilde x+c/n)^{3}}{|e^{-\alpha\tilde x}-z|^{4}}
+\frac{(\tilde x+c/n)^{4}}{|e^{-\alpha\tilde x}-z|^{5}}\Big|^2e^{-6\alpha\tilde x}\\
\le &C\tilde{\beta}^{-2}n\int_0^\infty \frac{e^{-6\alpha\tilde x}}{|e^{-\alpha\tilde x}-z|^2}d\tilde x\le C(n/\tilde{\beta})^2, \quad |z|\ge 1+A/n.\end{aligned}$$ Here $c=\max\{|c_1|,|c_2|,1\}$.
The second and the third inequality in (\[b\_1\]) can be obtained similarly.
To obtain the bound for $\|\widehat G\|$, we introduce $$\widehat M_1:=\widehat F\widehat K_0\widehat F,\quad \widehat G_1:=(\widehat M_1-z)^{-1}$$ and prove that $$\begin{aligned}
\|\widehat G_1\|\le C\log^2n/|z-1|,\end{aligned}$$ or, equivalently, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b_G1}
\|\widehat G_{1,ij}\|\le C\log^2n/|z-1|.\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $\widehat M_1$ have the same form as the matrices in (\[repr2\]) with $K_{US}\to FK_{US}F$, $\widetilde K_i\to L_i$, where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L}
L_1=&FK_{US}FF_1+F_1FK_{US}F+F\widetilde K_1 F,\quad \\ \notag
L_2=&FK_{US}FF_2+F_2FK_{US}F+F\widetilde K_2 F\\ \notag
L_3=&F\widetilde K_3F+F_1F_2FK_{US}F+FK_{US}FF_1F_2+F_1FK_{US}FF_2+F_2FK_{US}FF_1\\ \notag
&+F\widetilde K_1FF_2+F_1F\widetilde K_2F+F\widetilde K_2FF_1+F_2F\widetilde K_1F.\end{aligned}$$ Then the matrix $\widehat G_1:=(\widehat F\widehat K_0\widehat F-z)^{-1}$ has zeros at the same places as in (\[repr2\]) and $$\begin{aligned}
&\widehat G_{1,ii}=G:=(FK_{US}F-z)^{-1},\quad \widehat G_{1,1i}=\widehat G_{1,(4-i)4}=-GL_{i-1}G,\quad i=2,3,\\
&\widehat G_{1,14}=GL_1GL_2G+GL_2GL_1G-G L_3G,\end{aligned}$$ Since the spectrum of $FK_{US}F$ belongs to $[0,1]$, it is evident that $$\label{Gii}
\|G_{1,ii}\|=\|G\|\le C/|z-1|.$$ To estimate the non-diagonal entries, we set $$G_*:=G(z)\Big|_{z=1+A/n}$$ and prove the bounds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{b_GKG}
&\|G^{1/2}_*F\widetilde K_{\alpha}FG_*^{1/2}\|\le \|G^{1/2}_*F|\widetilde K_{\alpha}|FG_*^{1/2}\|\le C,\quad
\|G_*^{-1/2}G^{1/2}\|\le C,\quad \alpha=1,2,3,\\
&\|G^{1/2}_*F_{\alpha}FK_{US}FG_*^{1/2}\|\le C\log n,\quad \alpha=1,2\label{b_GKG1}\\
& \|G^{1/2}_*F_{1}F_{2}FK_{US}FG_*^{1/2}\|\le C\log^2 n,
\quad\|G^{1/2}_*F_{1}FK_{US}FF_{2}G_*^{1/2}\|\le C\log ^2n\notag\\
& \|G^{1/2}_*F_{\alpha}^2FG_*^{1/2}\|\le C\log^2 n,\quad \alpha=1,2.
\notag \end{aligned}$$ It is easy to see from (\[L\]) that $GL_{1,2}G$, $GL_{1}GL_2G$ and $GL_{2}GL_1G$ can be represented as a linear combination of the terms $G^{1/2}\Pi G^{1/2}$, where $\Pi$ is some product of the operators whose bounds are given in (\[b\_GKG\]) and the first line of (\[b\_GKG1\]) or operators similar to them (e.g., $G^{1/2}_*FK_{US}FF_{\alpha}G_*^{1/2}$ instead of $G^{1/2}_*F_{\alpha}FK_{US}FG_*^{1/2}$, etc.). For instance, $$GFK_{US}FF_1G=G^{1/2} \cdot (G^{1/2}G_*^{-1/2})\cdot (G_*^{1/2}FK_{US}FF_1G_*^{1/2})\cdot (G_*^{-1/2}G^{1/2}) \cdot G^{1/2}.$$ Therefore (\[Gii\]) and the first line of (\[b\_GKG1\]) yield $$\|GL_{1,2}G\|\le C\log n \cdot \|G\|\le C\log n/|z-1|,\quad \|GL_{1}GL_2G\|+ \|GL_{1}GL_2G\|\le C\log^2 n/|z-1|.$$ To estimate $GL_3G$, we use the bounds from the last two lines of (\[b\_GKG1\]), combined with the inequality (recall that $G_*$ and $F$ are self-adjoint, and $F$ commutes with $F_2$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{est}
\|G^{1/2}_*F\widetilde K_1FF_2G^{1/2}_*\|\le &\|G^{1/2}_*F\widetilde K_1F\widetilde K_1^* FG^{1/2}_*\|^{1/2}\cdot \|G^{1/2}_*F_2F \bar F_2G^{1/2}_*\|^{1/2}\\ \notag
\le &\|G^{1/2}_*F|\widetilde K_1 |FG^{1/2}_*\|^{1/2}\cdot \|G^{1/2}_*|F_2|^2F G^{1/2}_*\|^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ The terms in the r.h.s. above can be estimated with the first inequality of (\[b\_GKG\]) and the last inequality of (\[b\_GKG1\]). In the last inequality of (\[est\]) we used that since $F\le 1$ and $\widetilde K_1\widetilde K_1^*\le c\cdot |\widetilde K_1|$, $$G^{1/2}_*F\widetilde K_1F\widetilde K_1^* FG^{1/2}_*\le G^{1/2}_*F\widetilde K_1\widetilde K_1^* FG^{1/2}_*\le c\cdot G^{1/2}_*F|\widetilde K_1|FG^{1/2}_*.$$ The expression $\|G^{1/2}_*F\widetilde K_2FF_1G^{1/2}_*\|$ can be estimated similarly.
Now we are left to show (\[b\_GKG\]) – (\[b\_GKG1\]). To prove the first inequality of (\[b\_GKG\]), we recall first that for any normal $A$ and $B$ $$\label{*}
|B^*AB\|\le\|B^*|A|B\|$$ Indeed, for any normal $A$ we have $$|(Ax,y)|^2\le (|A|x,x) (|A|y,y).$$ and so putting $Bx$ and $By$ instead of $x$ and $y$ we get (\[\*\]).
Now (\[\*\]), the first inequality in (\[bound\_re\]), and the bound $F\le 1$ yield $$\begin{aligned}
F|\widetilde K_\alpha |F&\le F(1-K_{US})F\le 1-FK_{US}F\\
&\Rightarrow\|G^{1/2}_*F|\widetilde K_\alpha| FG^{1/2}_*\|\le \|G^{1/2}_*(1-FK_{US}F)G^{1/2}_*\|\le C,
$$ since the spectrum of $FK_{US}F$ belongs to $[0,1]$ and $$\label{est_lam}
\max\limits_{0\le \lambda\le 1}\dfrac{1-\lambda}{1+A/n-\lambda}\le 1.$$ Moreover, since $G$ and $G_*$ commute we have $$\begin{aligned}
& \|G^{1/2}(z)G^{-1/2}_*\|^2= \|G(z)G^{-1}_*\|\le\max_{|z|=1+A/n,0\le\lambda\le 1}\frac{1+A/n-\lambda}{|z-\lambda|}\le C,\end{aligned}$$ which gives the second inequality of (\[b\_GKG\]).
To prove the first inequality (\[b\_GKG1\]), take $n$-independent $B>0$ and introduce the projection $$\Pi_n=\mathbf{1}_{|S_{12}|^2\le Bn\log n}.$$ From the definition (\[F\]) it is evident that for sufficiently big $B$ we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{in_F}
&\|(1-\Pi_n)FF_\alpha\|\le C\max_{x>B'\log n} xe^{-x}\le C/n^3,\\
& 0\le \dfrac{c_0\alpha_2|S_{12}|^2}{n}(1-F^2)^{-1}\Pi_n= \max_{0\le x\le B'\log n} x(1-e^{-2x})^{-1}\le C(B)\log n\notag\\ \Rightarrow&
|F_\alpha|\Pi_n\le C/n+C(B)\log n(1-F^2)\le C/n+C(B)\log n(1-FK_{US}F)
\notag\end{aligned}$$ with $B'=c_0\alpha_2B$. Using the first inequality above, the bound $\|G_*\|\le Cn$, and the fact that $FK_{US}F$ commute with $G_*$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
G_*^{1/2}F_\alpha FK_{US}FG_*^{1/2}&=G_*^{1/2}F_\alpha ((1-\Pi_n)+\Pi_n)FK_{US}FG_*^{1/2}
\\&=O(n^{-2})+
G_*^{1/2}F_\alpha \Pi_nG_*^{1/2}FK_{US}F.\end{aligned}$$ In addition the third line of (\[in\_F\]) and (\[est\_lam\]) yield $$\begin{aligned}
&G_*^{1/2}|F_\alpha| \Pi_nG_*^{1/2}\le C+C'\log n\,G_*^{1/2}(1-FK_{US}F)G_*^{1/2}\le C\log n.\end{aligned}$$ The proofs of the other inequalities of (\[b\_GKG1\]) are similar to the proof of the first one.
Thus we obtain (\[b\_G1\]). Since by (\[M\_hat\]) $\hat K=\hat K_0+O(\tilde{\beta}^{-1})$, we have $$\widehat G=\widehat G_1(1+O(\tilde{\beta}^{-1})\widehat G_1)^{-1}=\widehat G_1\big(1+O(\log^2n(n/\tilde{\beta}))\big).$$ Combined with (\[b\_G1\]) the relation finishes the proof of Lemma \[l:bG\]. $\square$
Proof of Proposition \[p:repr\]. {#s:6}
================================
We start with a detailed study of the operator $H$ of (\[H\_op\]). Set $$U= U_1U_2^*,\quad S=S_1S_2^{-1}$$ and use two simple formulas, valid for any diagonal $2\times 2$ matrices $A$ and $B$, $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{Tr}\,}AUBU^*={\mathrm{Tr}\,}AB-|U_{12}|^2(A_{11}-A_{22})(B_{11}-B_{22}),\\
& {\mathrm{Tr}\,}ASBS^{-1}={\mathrm{Tr}\,}AB+|S_{12}|^2(A_{11}-A_{22})(B_{11}-B_{22}).
\notag \end{aligned}$$ Using (\[Q\]) and changing $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ch_beta}
&\hat\rho\to \tilde\beta^{-1/2}\hat\rho,\quad \hat\rho'\to \tilde\beta^{-1/2}\hat\rho'\\ \notag
&\hat\tau\to \tilde\beta^{-1/2}\hat\tau, \quad \hat\tau'\to \tilde\beta^{-1/2}\hat\tau',\end{aligned}$$ in (\[H\_op\]) (note that this gives the Jacobian $\tilde\beta^{2}$), we get $$\begin{aligned}
H=&\tilde\beta^2 \cdot e^{-\tilde\beta \cdot w}(1-n_{1}n_{2}/\tilde\beta^2)(1-n_{1}'n_{2}'/\tilde\beta^2)\\
&\cdot\exp\Big\{(n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{1}'+n_{2}')d
-{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\hat\rho U \hat\tau ' S^{-1}- {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\hat\rho' U^* \hat\tau S-(n_{1}+n_{2})(n_{1}'+n_{2}')w/\tilde\beta\Big\}
\\ d=&1-|U_{12}|^2+|S_{12}|^2,\quad w=|U_{12}|^2+|S_{12}|^2.\end{aligned}$$ Writing $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{Tr}\,}\hat\rho U\hat\tau 'S^{-1}=(\rho,A\tau'),\quad {\mathrm{Tr}\,}\hat\rho'U^*\hat\tau S=(\rho',B\tau)\\
&A_{ij}=U_{ij}S^{-1}_{ji},\quad B_{ij}=U^*_{ij}S_{ji}\end{aligned}$$ and using that $$\begin{aligned}
(\rho,A\tau')^2=-2\det A\,\rho_1\rho_2\tau_1'\tau_2',\quad(\rho',B\tau)^2=-2\det B\,\rho_1'\rho_2'\tau_1\tau_2,\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H_gr}
H\big|_{\mathcal{P}_6}=&\tilde\beta^2 \cdot \exp\Big\{-\tilde{\beta}\cdot w + (n_{1}+n_{2}+n_{1}'+n_{2}')d-(n_{1}+n_{2})(n_{1}'+n_{2}')w/\tilde{\beta}\Big\}\\ \notag
&\times\big(1+(\rho,A\tau')(\rho',B\tau)+{\mathrm{det}}A\cdot {\mathrm{det}}B\, n_1n_2n_1'n_2'\big)\cdot (1-n_{1}n_{2}/\tilde{\beta}^2)(1-n_{1}'n_{2}'/\tilde{\beta}^2).\end{aligned}$$ Introduce the basis $e_1=1,\,e_2=n_1,\,e_3=n_2,\, e_4=n_1n_2,\,e_5=\rho_1\tau_2,\,e_6=\rho_2\tau_1$ of $\mathcal{P}_6$. Denote the space spanned on the first 4 vectors as $\mathcal{P}_4$ and represent $H$ in this basis by the block $6\times 6$ matrix with $H^{(11)}$ corresponding to the projection on $\mathcal{P}_4$. Then using (\[H\_gr\]) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H^ij}
&H= \left(\begin{array}{cc}H^{(11)}&H^{(12)}\\
H^{(21)}&H^{(22)}\end{array}\right),\quad
H^{(22)}=K_{US}\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_{11}B_{22}&A_{12}B_{12}\\
A_{21}B_{21}&A_{22}B_{11}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h_{11}&h_{12}\\
h_{21}&h_{22}\end{array}\right),\\
&H^{(21)}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}2x_d& x&x&0\\
-2\overline x_d&-\overline x&-\overline x&0\end{array}\right),\quad H^{(12)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&0\\ y& -\overline{ y}\\
y& -\overline{ y}\\
2 y_d&-2\overline{ y_d}
\end{array}\right).
\notag\end{aligned}$$ Here and below $h_{ij}, x,y,x_d,y_d$ are “difference” operators whose kernels are defined with the functions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hxy}
h_{ij}=&h_{ijU}h_{ijS},\quad h_{ijU}=U_{ij}^2K_U,\quad h_{ijS}=\bar S_{ij}^2K_S\\
x=&x_Ux_S,\quad x_U=U_{11}U_{12}K_U,\quad x_S=\bar S_{11}\bar S_{12}K_{S},\quad x_d=x\cdot d,\notag\\
y=&y_Uy_S,\quad y_U=U_{11}\bar U_{12}K_U\quad y_S=\bar S_{11}S_{12}K_{S},\quad
y_d=y\cdot d,
\notag\end{aligned}$$ and $\bar x,\bar y,\bar x_d,\bar y_d$ mean the complex conjugate kernels. Now let us study the structure of $H^{(11)}$. Using (\[H\_gr\]) and the relations $$\det A=\det B=d,\quad (A\rho,\tau')(B\rho',\tau)\big|_{\mathcal{P}_4}=-d(n_1n_1'+n_2n_2')+ |U_{12}|^2|S_{12}|^2(n_1+n_2)(n_1'+n_2')$$ we continue to transform $H$ as $$\begin{aligned}
H\big|_{\mathcal{P}_4}=K_{US}&\cdot e^{d(n_1+n_2+n_1'+n_2')} \big(1-w(n_1+n_2)(n_1'+n_2')/\tilde{\beta}+2w^2n_1n_2n_1'n_2'/\tilde{\beta}^2\big)\\
&\times\big(1-(n_1n_2+n_1'n_2')/\tilde{\beta}^2+n_1n_2n_1'n_2'/\tilde{\beta}^4\big)\\
&\times \big(1-d(n_1n_1'+n_2n_2')+|U_{12}|^2|S_{12}|^2(n_1+n_2)(n_1'+n_2')+d^2n_1n_2n_1'n_2'\big)\\
=&K_{US}\cdot e^{d(n_1+n_2+n_1'+n_2')}\Big(1-w(n_1+n_2)(n_1'+n_2')/\tilde{\beta}-(n_1n_2+n_1'n_2')/\tilde{\beta}^2\\
&-d(n_1n_1'+n_2n_2')
+|U_{12}|^2|S_{12}|^2(n_1+n_2)(n_1'+n_2')
\\&+(d^2+2w^2/\tilde{\beta}^2+2dw/\tilde{\beta}+1/\tilde{\beta}^4-4w|U_{12}|^2|S_{12}|^2/\tilde{\beta}) n_1n_2n_1'n_2'\Big).\end{aligned}$$ Represent $H^{(11)}=K_{US}\cdot K$ and observe that to find the coefficients of $K$ we can represent $H$ as a polynomials with respect to $n_1,n_2,n_1',n_2'$ and the coefficients of this polynomials gives the coefficients of $K$. In particular, $$\begin{aligned}
&K_{11}\sim n_1'n_2',\quad K_{21}\sim n_1n_1'n_2',\quad K_{31}\sim n_2n_1'n_2',\quad K_{41}\sim n_1n_2n_1'n_2',\quad\\
&K_{42}\sim n_1n_2n_2',\quad K_{43}\sim n_1n_2n_1',\quad K_{24}\sim n_1,\quad K_{34}\sim n_2,\quad K_{44}\sim n_1n_2,\quad\end{aligned}$$ Evidently these and the other coefficient of $K$ can be found as the respective derivatives, taken at the point $(n_1,n_2,n_1',n_2')=(0,0,0,0)$.
Now we return to the proof of Proposition \[p:repr\]. In order to transform (\[trans1\]) to (\[repr1\]) with an appropriate $\widehat M$ and $\widehat{K}$ satisfying (\[M\_hat\]) – (\[repr2\]) we are going to consider the matrix $K$ after the transformation $$K_T=TKT,\quad T=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0&0&0&\tilde{\beta}\\0&0&1&0\\0&1&0&0\\\tilde{\beta}^{-1}&0&0&0
\end{array}\right)$$ It is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
&K_{T12}=\tilde{\beta} K_{43},\,K_{T13}=\tilde{\beta} K_{42},\,K_{T24}=\tilde{\beta} K_{31},\,K_{T34}=\tilde{\beta} K_{21},\,K_{T14}=\tilde{\beta}^2K_{41}.
$$ All the rest coefficients $K$ change the places or are multiplied by $1$, $\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$ or even $\tilde{\beta}^{-2}$. Thus, to obtain representation (\[repr1\])- (\[repr2\]), we need to control the elements of $\widehat K$ written above. The following lemma allows to understand the order of the operators, which will appear in the coefficients of $K$.
\[l:U,V\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{U,V.1}
&K_{US}|U_{12}|^2=\tilde{\beta}^{-1}+O((1-K_{US})\tilde{\beta}^{-1}),\quad K_{US}|S_{12}|^2=\tilde{\beta}^{-1}+O((1-K_{US})\tilde{\beta}^{-1}),\\
&K_{US}|U_{12}|^4=2\tilde{\beta}^{-2}+O((1-K_{US})\tilde{\beta}^{-2}),\quad K_{US}|S_{12}|^4=2\tilde{\beta}^{-2}+O((1-K_{US})\tilde{\beta}^{-2}),\notag\\
& K_{US}|U_{12}|^2|S_{12}|^2=\tilde{\beta}^{-2}+O((1-K_{US})\tilde{\beta}^{-2}).\notag\end{aligned}$$ We recall that all operators here are self adjoint and commute with each other, hence the relations mean the ones for the corresponding eigenvalues.
The proof or the lemma will be given at the end of the proof of Lemma \[l:R\] (see the argument above (\[mu\^l\])).
Coming back to the coefficients of $K$, compute first $$\begin{aligned}
K_{US}\cdot K_{41}&=K_{US}\cdot\frac{\partial^4K}{\partial n_1\partial n_2\partial n_1'\partial n_2'}\Big|_{(0,0,0,0)}=K_{US}\big(d^4-2d^3+d^2+4d^2|U_{12}|^2|S_{12}|^2\\
&-4d^2w\tilde{\beta}^{-1}-2d^2\tilde{\beta}^{-2}+2dw\tilde{\beta}^{-1}+2w^2\tilde{\beta}^{-2}-4w|U_{12}|^2|S_{12}|^2/\tilde{\beta}+\tilde{\beta}^{-4}\big)\\
&=K_{US}\Big(d^2w^2-2d^2\tilde{\beta}^{-2}-2 dw\tilde{\beta}^{-1}\Big)+O(\tilde{\beta}^{-3})\\
&=\tilde{\beta}^{-2}\widetilde K',\quad \widetilde K'=O(1-K_{US}).\end{aligned}$$ Here we have used the relation (which follows from the definition of $d$ and $w$) $$d^4-2d^3+d^2+4d^2|U_{12}|^2|S_{12}|^2=d^2w^2,\quad 4d^2 w-4dw=4dw (|S_{12}|^2-|U_{12}|^2),$$ and the lemma above.
Similarly $$\begin{aligned}
&K_{US}\cdot K_{21}=K_{US}\cdot K_{31}=K_{US}\cdot K_{42}=K_{US}\cdot K_{43}\\
&=K_{US}(d^3-d^2-2dw/\tilde{\beta}-d/\tilde{\beta}^2+2d|U_{12}|^2|S_{12}|^2)=\tilde{\beta}^{-1}\widetilde K\\ \end{aligned}$$ with $$\widetilde K=O(1-K_{US}).$$ In addition, $$\begin{aligned}
&K_{ii}=1+O(\tilde{\beta}^{-1}),\quad i=1,\dots 4,\\
&K_{ij}=O(\tilde{\beta}^{-1}), \quad ( i,j)=(2,3)\,\,or\,\,(3,2).\end{aligned}$$ Observe now that the operator $\tilde{\mathcal{F}}=\mathcal{F}\big|_{\mathcal{P}_6}$ in (\[trans1\]) after the change (\[ch\_beta\]) in our basis have the block diagonal form, where a $4\times 4$ upper left block has the form $T\widehat FT$, where $\widehat F$ is given by (\[repr2\]), and a $2\times 2$ bottom left block is $I$. In addition, $\tilde f$ and $\tilde g$ are spanned on $e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4$ and after the change (\[ch\_beta\]) their restriction on $\mathcal{P}_4$ have the form $\tilde f=\beta^{-1}T\hat f$, $\tilde g=\beta^{-1}T\hat g$. Thus we are interested in the upper left block $G^{(11)}$ of the resolvent $G=(\tilde {\mathcal F} H\tilde {\mathcal{F}}-z)^{-1}$, and so (\[trans1\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_{n\beta}^{+-}(E,\varepsilon,\xi)=\frac{C_{E,\varepsilon}e^{c_0(\alpha_1-\alpha_2)}}{2\pi i}\oint_{\omega_A}z^{n-1}(T\widehat G^{(11)}(z)T\widehat f,\widehat g)dz.\end{aligned}$$ But by the Schur compliment formula $$TG^{(11)}(z)T=\Big(\widehat FT\big(H^{(11)}- H^{(12)}(H^{(22)}-z)^{-1}H^{(21)}\big)T\widehat F-z\Big)^{-1},$$ and so we are left to prove that $$\label{M_T}
\widehat M= \widehat FT(H^{(11)}- H^{(12)}(H^{(22)}-z)^{-1}H^{(21)})T\widehat F$$ satisfies (\[M\_hat\]) – (\[repr2\]).
According to the consideration above, $TH^{(11)}T$ has the form (\[M\_hat\]) – (\[repr2\]). The estimate on $H^{(12)}(H^{(22)}-z)^{-1}H^{(21)}$ is given in the following lemma
\[l:R\] Set $G^{(2)}(z):=(H^{(22)}-z)^{-1}$. Then for any $z:|z|=1+A/n$ the operator $H^{(12)}G^{(2)}(z)H^{(21)}$ has the form $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&H^{(12)}G^{(2)}H^{(21)}=
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0&0&0&0\\
2R_{1d}&R&R&0\\
2R_{1d}&R&R&0\\
4R_{dd}&2R_{d1}&2R_{d1}&0
\end{array}\right), \end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
R=& yG^{(2)}_{11} x+
{\overline y}G^{(2)}_{22}{\overline x}
-yG^{(2)}_{12}{\overline x}
-{\overline y}G^{(2)}_{21} x,
\label{R}\end{aligned}$$ $R_{1d}$ can be obtained from $R$, if we replace $x$ with $x_d$, to obtain $R_{d1}$, one should replace $y$ with $y_d$, to obtain $R_{dd}$, one should replace $x$, $y$ with $x_d$ $y_d$, and the operators $x, y, x_d, y_d$ are the same as in (\[H\^ij\]).
The operators $R,R_{1d},R_{d1},R_{dd}$ are normal and satisfy the bound $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lR.1}
|R|+|R_{1d}|+|R_{d1}|+|R_{dd}|\le C\tilde{\beta}^{-2}(1-K_{US})+O(\tilde\beta^{-3}),\quad 1-K_{US}\le C(\widetilde\Delta_U+\widetilde\Delta_S)/\tilde\beta\end{aligned}$$
The lemma gives that (\[M\_T\]) indeed satisfies (\[M\_hat\]) – (\[repr2\]), and (\[bound\_re\]), which finishes the proof of Proposition \[p:repr\].
$\square$
*Proof of Lemma \[l:R\].* Let us prove (\[lR.1\]) for $R$ of (\[R\]). For $R_{1d}$, $R_{d1}$, $R_{dd}$ the proof is the same. To simplify notations set $$H^{(22)}=h=\hat h+\tilde h,$$ where $\hat h$ is the diagonal part of $H^{(22)}$, and $\tilde h$ is its off diagonal part, and denote $$G^{(2)}_0:=(\hat h-z)^{-1}.$$ It is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tr_b}
\|h_{12}\|\le\int|U_{12}|^2|S_{12}|^2K_UK_SdUdS\le\tilde{\beta}^{-2},\quad \|x\|\le \tilde{\beta}^{-1},\quad \|y\|\le \tilde{\beta}^{-1},\end{aligned}$$ (recall that by (\[H\^ij\]) $h_{ij}=U_{ij}^2\bar S_{ij}^2K_UK_S$). Hence, writing $$\begin{aligned}
G^{(2)}=G^{(2)}_0-G^{(2)}_0\tilde hG^{(2)}_0+r,\quad r:=G^{(2)}_0\tilde hG^{(2)}_0\tilde hG^{(2)},\end{aligned}$$ and using the bounds above combined with (\[H\^ij\]), we get $$\|r\|\le Cn^{3}\tilde{\beta}^{-4}\quad \Rightarrow\quad \|H^{(12)}rH^{(21)}\|\le n^3\tilde{\beta}^{-6}<\tilde{\beta}^{-3}.$$ Consider $\widehat R$ which has the same form as (\[R\]) but with $G^{(2)}$ replaced by $G^{(2)}_0$ . Then the second two terms become zeros and $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat R=y(h_{11}-z)^{-1}x+\bar y(h_{22}-z)^{-1}\bar x=\widehat R_1+\widehat R_2.\end{aligned}$$ Let us study the operator $$\widehat R_1=\sum_{p=0}^\infty \frac{y(h_{11})^px}{z^p}=\sum_{p=0}^\infty \frac{(y_U(h_{11U})^px_U)\otimes (y_S(h_{11S})^px_S)}{z^p},$$ where $y_U,h_{11U},x_U$ (see (\[hxy\])) are integral operators on $L_2(U)$ with the “difference” kernels of the form $v(U_1U^{-1}_2)$, and $y_S,h_{11S},x_S$ are the “difference” integral operators on $L_2(S)$. Here $L_2(U)$ and $L_2(S)$ denote the subspaces of even functions $\varphi(U)=\varphi(-U)$ (or $\varphi(S)=\varphi(-S)$). Since our operators preserve the evenness, it suffices to study only these subspaces. It is known that $$L_2(U)=\displaystyle\oplus_{l=0}^\infty L^{(l)U}, \quad L^{(l)U}=\mathrm{Lin}\,\{t^{(l)U}_{mk}\}_{m,k=-l}^l$$ where $\{t^{(l)U}_{mk}(U)\}_{m,k=-l}^l$ are the coefficients of the irreducible representation of the shift operator $T_U\widetilde U=U\widetilde U$. It follows from the properties of the unitary representation that $$\begin{aligned}
t^{(l)U}_{mk}(U^{-1})=\overline{t^{(l)U}_{km}(U)},\quad t^{(l)U}_{mk}(U_1U_2)=\sum t^{(l)U}_{mj}(U_1)t^{(l)U}_{jk}(U_2).\end{aligned}$$ According to [@Vil:68], Chapter III, $$t^{(l)U}_{mk}(U)=e^{-i(m\phi+k\psi)/2}P^{(l)}_{mk}(\theta),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\notag
&P^{(l)}_{mk}(\cos\theta)=\frac{c_{mk}}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}d\varphi(\cos(\theta/2)+i\sin(\theta/2)e^{i\varphi})^{l+k}
(\cos(\theta/2)+i\sin(\theta/2)e^{-i\varphi})^{l-k}e^{i(m-k)\varphi},\\
&c_{mk}=\Big(\frac{(l-m)!(l+m)!}{(l-k)!(l+k)!}\Big)^{1/2},\quad U=\left(\begin{array}{rr}\cos(\theta/2)e^{i(\phi+\psi)/2}&i\sin(\theta/2)e^{i(\phi-\psi)/2}\\
i\sin(\theta/2)e^{-i(\phi-\psi)/2}&\cos(\theta/2)e^{-i\phi+\psi)/2}\end{array}\right).
\label{t_mk}\end{aligned}$$ In addition (see [@Vil:68], Chapter III), $$\begin{aligned}
\label{P(1)}
P^{(l)}_{mm}(1-x)=1-x(l+m)(l+m+1)/2+O(x^2).
$$ It is known also that $\{t^{(l)U}_{mk}(U)\}_{m,k=-l}^l$ make an orthonormal basis in $L^{(l)U}$.
For any function $v(U)$ consider the matrix $ v^{(l)U}=\{v^{(l)U}_{mk}\}$ defined as $$v^{(l)U}_{mk}:=\int v(U)\overline{ t^{(l)U}_{mk}(U)}dU.$$ It is easy to see that if we consider an integral operator $\widehat v$ with the kernel $v(U_1U^{-1}_2)$, then for any $\varphi(U)\in L^{(l)U}$ $$\begin{aligned}
(\widehat v\varphi)(U)=\int v(UU_1^{-1})\sum_{mk} \varphi_{mk} t^{(l)U}_{mk}(U_1)dU_1=
\int v(\widetilde U)\sum_{mk} \varphi_{mk} t^{(l)U}_{mk}(\widetilde U^{-1}U)d\widetilde U\\=
\int v(\widetilde U)\sum_{mkj} \varphi_{mk} t^{(l)U}_{mj}(\widetilde U^{-1}) t^{(l)U}_{jk}( U)d\widetilde U
=\sum v^{(l)U}_{jm}\varphi_{mk}t^{(l)U}_{jk}( U).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, denoting $\Pi_l$ the orthogonal projection on $L^{(l)U}$, one can see that $L^{(l)U}$ reduces $\widehat v$ and $\widehat v^{(l)U}=\Pi_l\widehat v \Pi_l$ is uniquely defined by the matrix $v^{(l)U}$. Moreover, for any functions $v_1$ and $v_2$ it is evident that $\widehat v_1\widehat v_2$ is also a “difference” operator, hence it commutes with $\Pi_l$, and if the matrices $v_1^{(l)U}$ and $v_2^{(l)U}$ correspond to $ \widehat v_1$ and $\widehat v_2$, then $$(\widehat v_1\widehat v_2)^{(l)U}= v_1^{(l)U}v_2^{(l)U}.$$ Let us find the matrices, corresponding to $h_{11U},y_U,x_U$ (see (\[hxy\])) in $L^{(l)U}$. Using (\[t\_mk\]) it is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
(x_U^{(l)U})_{km}=&\int U_{11}U_{12}K_U(|U_{12}|^2)\overline{ t^{(l)U}_{mk}(U)}dU
=\tilde\beta\int_0^\pi\sin\theta d\theta \int_0^{2\pi}d\phi d\psi\sin(\theta/2)\cos(\theta/2)\\&\times e^{-\tilde\beta\sin^2(\theta/2))}e^{i\phi}
e^{im\phi+in\psi}\overline{ P^{(l)}_{-1,0}(\cos\theta)}=\delta_{m,-1}\delta_{n,0}\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,0},\end{aligned}$$ where we set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{la_-1,0}
\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,0}=\frac{\tilde\beta}{2}\int_0^\pi e^{-\tilde\beta\sin^2(\theta/2)}
P^{(l)}_{-1,0}(\cos\theta)\sin^2\theta d\theta.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, denoting $E_{ij}$ the matrix which has only $ij$th entry equal to 1, and all other entries equal to 0, we get $$x_U^{(l)U}=E_{-1,0}\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,0}.$$ Introduce also the eigenvalues $\lambda^{(l)U}$ of $K_U$. Repeating the argument above, we have $$\begin{aligned}
K_U^{(l)U}=E_{0,0}\lambda^{(l)U},\end{aligned}$$ where, using (\[P(1)\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lambda_l}
\lambda^{(l)U}=&\tilde\beta\int_0^\pi e^{-\tilde\beta\sin^2(\theta/2)}
P^{(l)}_{0,0}(\cos\theta)\sin\theta d\theta=\tilde{\beta}^{-1}\int_0^1e^{-\tilde{\beta} x}P^{(l)}_{00}(1-2x)dx\\
=&1-{l(l+1)}/{\tilde{\beta}}+O(l^4/\tilde{\beta}^2).
\notag\end{aligned}$$ To find an asymptotic behaviour of $\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,0}$, observe that formulas (\[t\_mk\]) and (\[P(1)\] ) yield $$\begin{aligned}
&2i(1+1/l)^{1/2}\sin(\theta/2)\cos(\theta/2)P^{(l)}_{-1,0}(\cos\theta)\\
=&\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{d\varphi}{2\pi}(\cos(\theta/2)+i\sin(\theta/2)e^{i\varphi})^{l}
\cos(\theta/2)+i\sin(\theta/2)e^{-i\varphi})^{l}2i\cos\varphi\sin(\theta/2)\cos(\theta/2)\\=
&\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{d\varphi}{2\pi}(\cos(\theta/2)+i\sin(\theta/2)e^{i\varphi})^{l}
(\cos(\theta/2)+i\sin(\theta/2)e^{-i\varphi})^{l}\\
&\times\Big((\cos(\theta/2)+i\sin(\theta/2)e^{i\varphi})
(\cos(\theta/2)+i\sin(\theta/2)e^{-i\varphi})-\cos^2(\theta/2)+\sin^2(\theta/2)\Big)\\
=&P^{(l+1)}_{0,0}(\cos\theta)-P^{(l)}_{0,0}(\cos\theta)(1-2\sin^2(\theta/2)).\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
(1+1/l)^{1/2}\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,0}=&(\lambda^{(l+1)U}-\lambda^{(l)U})/2+O(\tilde{\beta}^{-1})=-(l+1)/\tilde{\beta}+O(l^2\tilde{\beta}^{-2})+O(\tilde{\beta}^{-1})\\
\Rightarrow& |\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,0}|^2\le C_0(1-\lambda^{(l)U})/\tilde{\beta}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly $$\begin{aligned}
&y_U^{(l)U}=E_{0,-1}\overline{\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,0}},\quad h_{11U}^{(l)U}=E_{-1,-1}\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,-1},\end{aligned}$$ where we set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{la_-1,-1}
& \lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,-1}=\tilde\beta\int_0^\pi e^{-\tilde\beta\sin^2(\theta/2)}\cos^2(\theta/2)P^l_{-1,-1}(\cos\theta)\sin\theta d\theta=\lambda^{(l)U}+O(\tilde{\beta}^{-1})\end{aligned}$$ and in the last relation we used (\[P(1)\]). Thus, for any $p$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xy_U}
(y_U(h_{11U})^px_U)^{(l)U}=|\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,0}|^2(\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,-1})^pE_{00}.\end{aligned}$$
The analysis of $(y_S(h_{11S})^px_S)$ is very similar, the difference is that for the hyperbolic group the irreducible representations are labelled by the continuous parameter $l'=-\frac{1}{2}+i\rho$, $\rho\in\mathbb{R}$, $$t^{(l')S}_{mk}=e^{i(m\phi+k\psi)}\mathcal{B}^{(l)}_{mk}(\theta),\quad m,k\in\mathbb{Z},$$ and $\mathcal{B}^{(l)}_{mk}(\theta)$ has the form (\[t\_mk\]) with $\cos(\theta/2)$ replaced by $\cosh(\theta/2)$, $i\sin(\theta/2)$ replaced by $\sinh(\theta/2)$ and $c_{mk}$ replaced by 1 (see [@Vil:68], Chapter VI) . Then the same argument yields that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{xy_V}
&(y_S(h_{11V})^px_S)^{(l')}=|\lambda^{(l)S}_{-1,0}|^2(\lambda^{(l')S}_{-1,-1})^pE_{00}\\
&|\lambda^{(l')S}_{-1,0}|^2\le C_0(1-\lambda^{(l')S})/\tilde{\beta},\quad \lambda^{(l')S}_{-1,-1}=\lambda^{(l')S}+O(\tilde{\beta}^{-1}),
\notag\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda^{(l)S}_{-1,0}$, $\lambda^{(l')S}$, and $\lambda^{(l')S}_{-1,-1}$, are defined similarly to (\[la\_-1,0\]), (\[lambda\_l\]), and (\[la\_-1,-1\]). Here the bound for $|O(\tilde{\beta}^{-1})|<C_0\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$ is uniform in $l$.
This relation combined with (\[xy\_U\]) yields that $\widehat R_1:L^{(l)U}\otimes L^{(l')S}\to L^{(l)U}\otimes L^{(l')S}$ and the only non zero eigenvalue of $\widehat R_1$ in this subspace has the form $$\lambda^{(ll')}=|\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,0}|^2|\lambda^{(l')S}_{-1,0}|^2(z- \lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,-1} \lambda^{(l')S}_{-1,-1})^{-1}$$ The bounds (\[xy\_U\]) and (\[xy\_V\]) yield for $|z|>1+2C_0\tilde{\beta}^{-1}$ $$|\lambda^{(ll')}|\le C\tilde{\beta}^{-2}\frac{(1-\lambda^{(l)U})\cdot(1-\lambda^{(l')S})}{|z|-\lambda^{(l)U}\lambda^{(l')S}+O(\tilde{\beta}^{-1})}\le
C\tilde{\beta}^{-2}|1-\lambda^{(l)U}\lambda^{(l')S}|.$$ Here we have used that for any $0<a,b<1$ $$ab\le a^2+b^2-ab<a^2+b^2-a^2b^2,$$ hence, taking $a^2=1-\lambda^{(l)U}$, $b^2=1-\lambda^{(l')S}$, we obtain the last inequality for $|\lambda^{(ll')}|$.
Note that (\[lambda\_l\]) and a similar relation for $\lambda^{(l')S}$ combined with the facts that $$\widetilde\Delta_UL^{(l)U}=l(l+1)L^{(l)U},\quad \widetilde\Delta_SL^{(l')S}=-l'(l'+1)L^{(l')S}$$ prove the second inequality in (\[lR.1\]).
Assertions of Lemma \[l:U,V\] can be obtained from the fact that the operators in the l.h.s. of (\[U,V.1\]) are tensor products of the “difference” operators on $L_2(U)$ and $L_2(S)$. Hence they are reduced by $L^{(l)U}\otimes L^{(l')S}$, and since the kernels depend on $|U_{12}|^2$ and $|S_{12}|^2$, the corresponding matrices have the form $\mu^{(l)}\nu^{(l')}E_{00}\otimes E_{00}$, where $\mu^{(l)}, \nu^{(l')}$ -are corresponding eigenvalues. For example, for the first operator in (\[U,V.1\]) $\nu^{(l')}=\lambda^{(l')S}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mu^l}
\mu^{(l)}=&\tilde\beta\int_0^\pi \sin^2(\theta/2) e^{-\tilde\beta\sin^2(\theta/2)}
P^{(l)}_{0,0}(\cos\theta)\sin\theta d\theta=\tilde{\beta}^{-1}\int_0^1xe^{-\tilde{\beta} x}P^{(l)}_{00}(1-2x)dx\\
=&1/\tilde{\beta}-2{l(l+1)}/\tilde{\beta}^2+O(l^4/\tilde{\beta}^3).
\notag\end{aligned}$$ The first relation of (\[U,V.1\]) follows from the above one combined with the analogue of (\[lambda\_l\]) for $\lambda^{(l')S}$. The other relations of (\[U,V.1\]) can be obtained similarly.
To complete the proof of the lemma we are left to consider the part of $R$ which can be obtained if we replace $G^{(2)}$ with $G^{(2)}_0\tilde hG^{(2)}_0$. For this replacement the first two terms of (\[R\]) are zero. Set $$R_3=y(h_{11}-z)^{-1}h_{12}(h_{22}-z)^{-1}\bar x.$$ Repeating the above argument we obtain that $R_3:L^{(l)U}\otimes L^{(l')S}\to L^{(l)U}\otimes L^{(l')S}$ and the only non zero eigenvalue $\widetilde\lambda^{(ll')}$ of $R_3$ in this subspace has the form $$\widetilde\lambda^{(ll')}=\frac{|\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,0}|^2|\lambda^{(l')S}_{-1,0}|^2\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,1}\lambda^{(l')S}_{-1,1}}{(z- \lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,-1} \lambda^{(l')S}_{-1,-1})^2},$$ where $\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,1}$ and $\lambda^{(l')S}_{-1,1}$ by (\[tr\_b\]) satisfy the trivial bound $$|\lambda^{(l)U}_{-1,1}\lambda^{(l)S}_{-1,1}|\le\|h_{12}\|\le \tilde{\beta}^{-2}.$$ The bound, (\[xy\_U\]) and (\[xy\_V\]) yield $$|\widetilde\lambda^{(ll')}|\le C\tilde{\beta}^{-4}\frac{|1-\lambda^{(l)U}|\cdot|1-\lambda^{(l)V}|}{||z|-\lambda^{(l)U}\lambda^{(l')V}+O(\tilde{\beta}^{-1})|^2}\le Cn/\tilde{\beta}^4<\tilde{\beta}^{-3}.$$ The same bound is valid for $$R_4=\bar y(h_{22}-z)^{-1}h_{21}(h_{11}-z)^{-1}x.$$ These bounds complete the proof of the lemma for $R$. For $R_{1d},R_{d1},R_{dd}$ the proof is the same.
$\square$
Appendix
========
Grassmann integration
---------------------
Let us consider two sets of formal variables $\{\psi_j\}_{j=1}^n,\{\overline{\psi}_j\}_{j=1}^n$, which satisfy the anticommutation conditions $$\label{anticom}
\psi_j\psi_k+\psi_k\psi_j=\overline{\psi}_j\psi_k+\psi_k\overline{\psi}_j=\overline{\psi}_j\overline{\psi}_k+
\overline{\psi}_k\overline{\psi}_j=0,\quad j,k=1,\ldots,n.$$ Note that this definition implies $\psi_j^2=\overline{\psi}_j^2=0$. These two sets of variables $\{\psi_j\}_{j=1}^n$ and $\{\overline{\psi}_j\}_{j=1}^n$ generate the Grassmann algebra $\mathfrak{A}$. Taking into account that $\psi_j^2=0$, we have that all elements of $\mathfrak{A}$ are polynomials of $\{\psi_j\}_{j=1}^n$ and $\{\overline{\psi}_j\}_{j=1}^n$ of degree at most one in each variable. We can also define functions of the Grassmann variables. Let $\chi$ be an element of $\mathfrak{A}$, i.e. $$\label{chi}
\chi=a+\sum\limits_{j=1}^n (a_j\psi_j+ b_j\overline{\psi}_j)+\sum\limits_{j\ne k}
(a_{j,k}\psi_j\psi_k+
b_{j,k}\psi_j\overline{\psi}_k+
c_{j,k}\overline{\psi}_j\overline{\psi}_k)+\ldots.$$ For any sufficiently smooth function $f$ we define by $f(\chi)$ the element of $\mathfrak{A}$ obtained by substituting $\chi-a$ in the Taylor series of $f$ at the point $a$. Since $\chi$ is a polynomial of $\{\psi_j\}_{j=1}^n$, $\{\overline{\psi}_j\}_{j=1}^n$ of the form (\[chi\]), according to (\[anticom\]) there exists such $l$ that $(\chi-a)^l=0$, and hence the series terminates after a finite number of terms and so $f(\chi)\in \mathfrak{A}$.
Following Berezin [@Ber], we define the operation of integration with respect to the anticommuting variables in a formal way: $${\displaystyle\int}d\,\psi_j={\displaystyle\int}d\,\overline{\psi}_j=0,\quad {\displaystyle\int}\psi_jd\,\psi_j={\displaystyle\int}\overline{\psi}_jd\,\overline{\psi}_j=1,$$ and then extend the definition to the general element of $\mathfrak{A}$ by the linearity. A multiple integral is defined to be a repeated integral. Assume also that the “differentials” $d\,\psi_j$ and $d\,\overline{\psi}_k$ anticommute with each other and with the variables $\psi_j$ and $\overline{\psi}_k$. Thus, according to the definition, if $$f(\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_k)=p_0+\sum\limits_{j_1=1}^k
p_{j_1}\psi_{j_1}+\sum\limits_{j_1<j_2}p_{j_1,j_2}\psi_{j_1}\psi_{j_2}+
\ldots+p_{1,2,\ldots,k}\psi_1\ldots\psi_k,$$ then $${\displaystyle\int}f(\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_k)d\,\psi_k\ldots d\,\psi_1=p_{1,2,\ldots,k}.$$
Let $A$ be an ordinary Hermitian matrix with positive real part. The following Gaussian integral is well-known $$\label{G_C}
{\displaystyle\int}\exp\Big\{-\sum\limits_{j,k=1}^nA_{jk}z_j\overline{z}_k\Big\} \prod\limits_{j=1}^n\dfrac{d\,\Re
z_jd\,\Im z_j}{\pi}=\dfrac{1}{{\mathrm{det}}A}.$$ One of the important formulas of the Grassmann variables theory is the analog of this formula for the Grassmann algebra (see [@Ber]): $$\label{G_Gr}
\int \exp\Big\{-\sum\limits_{j,k=1}^nA_{jk}\overline{\psi}_j\psi_k\Big\}
\prod\limits_{j=1}^nd\,\overline{\psi}_jd\,\psi_j={\mathrm{det}}A,$$ where $A$ now is any $n\times n$ matrix.
We will also need the following bosonization formula
([**see [@F:02]** ]{})\[p:supboz\]\
Let $F$ be some function that depends only on combinations $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\phi}\phi:=\Big\{\sum\limits_{\alpha=1}^W \bar{\phi}_{l\alpha}\phi_{s\alpha}\Big\}_{l,s=1}^2,\end{aligned}$$ and set $$d\Phi=\prod\limits_{l=1}^2\prod\limits_{\alpha=1}^W d\Re \phi_{l\alpha} d\Im \phi_{l\alpha}.$$ Assume also that $W\ge 2$. Then $$\int F\left(\bar{\phi}\phi \right)d\Phi=\dfrac{\pi^{2W-1}}{(W-1)!(W-2)!}\int F(B)\cdot {\mathrm{det}}^{W-2} B \,dB,$$ where $B$ is a $2\times 2$ positive Hermitian matrix, and $$\begin{aligned}
dB&=\mathbf{1}_{B>0}dB_{11}dB_{22}d\Re B_{12} d\Im B_{12}.\end{aligned}$$
[99]{} Bao, J., Erdős, L.: Delocalization for a class of random block band matrices. Probab. Theory Rel. (2016).
Berezin, F.A.: Introduction to the algebra and analysis of anticommuting variables. Moscow State University Publ., Moscow (1983) (Russian)
Bogachev, L. V., Molchanov, S. A., and Pastur, L. A.: On the level density of random band matrices. Mat. Zametki, [**50:6**]{}, 31 – 42(1991)
Bourgade, P., Erdős, L., Yau, H.-T., Yin, J. Universality for a class of random band matrices, Advances in Theor and Math Physics **21:3**, 739-800 (2017)
Casati, G., Molinari, L., Israilev, F.: Scaling properties of band random matrices, Phys. Rev. Lett. **64**, 1851–1854, (1990)
Disertori, M., Lager, M.: Density of states for random band matrices in two dimensions, Ann. Henri Poincare, **18:7**, p. 2367– 2413 (2017)
Disertori, M., Pinson, H., and Spencer, T.: Density of states for random band matrices. Comm. Math. Phys., vol. 232, p. 83 – 124 (2002)
Disertori, M., Spencer, T., Zirnbauer, M. R. Supersymmetric 1d sigma model, unpublished
Efetov, K.: Supersymmetry in disorder and chaos. Cambridge university press, New York (1997)
Erd$\ddot{\hbox{o}}$s, L., Knowles, A.: Quantum diffusion and eigenfunction delocalization in a random band matrix model. Comm. Math. Phys. **303**, 509 – 554 (2011).
Erd$\ddot{\hbox{o}}$s, L., Knowles, A., Yau, H.-T., Yin, J.: Delocalization and diffusion profile for random band matrices. arXiv:1205.5669v1
Erd$\ddot{\hbox{o}}$s, L., Yau, H.-T., Yin, J.: Bulk universality for generalized Wigner matrices, Preprint arXiv:1001.3453.
Fyodorov Y. V.: Negative moments of characteristic polynomials of random matrices: Ingham – Siegel integral as an alternative to Hubbard – Stratonovich transformation, Nuclear Phys. B **621**, 643–674 (2002)
Fyodorov, Y.V., Mirlin, A.D.: Scaling properties of localization in random band matrices: a $\sigma$-model approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2405 – 2409 (1991)
Fyodorov, Y.V., Mirlin, A.D.: Statistical properties of eigenfunctions of random quasi 1d one-particle Hamiltonians, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B **8**, 3795 – 3842 (1994)
Molchanov, S. A., Pastur, L. A., Khorunzhii, A. M.: Distribution of the eigenvalues of random band matrices in the limit of their infinite order, Theor. Math. Phys. **90**, 108 – 118 (1992)
Peled, R., Schenker, J. , Shamis, M., Sodin, A.: On the Wegner orbital model, arXiv:1608.02922
Schenker, J.: Eigenvector localization for random band matrices with power law band width, Comm. Math. Phys. [**290**]{}, 1065 – 1097 (2009)
Shcherbina, M., Shcherbina, T.: Transfer matrix approach to 1d random band matrices: density of states, J.Stat.Phys., vol. 164, p. 1233 – 1260 (2016)
Shcherbina, M., Shcherbina, T.: Characteristic polynomials for 1d random band matrices from the localization side, Commun. Math. Phys. [**351**]{}, p. 1009 – 1044 (2017)
Shcherbina, T. : On the second mixed moment of the characteristic polynomials of the 1D band matrices. Commun. Math. Phys., vol. 328, p. 45 – 82 (2014), arXiv:1209.3385
Shcherbina, T.: Universality of the local regime for the block band matrices with a finite number of blocks. J.Stat.Phys., vol. 155(3), p. 466 – 499 (2014), arXiv:1309.2120
Sodin, S.: An estimate for the average spectral measure of random band matrices. J. Stat. Phys., vol. 144, p. 46 – 59 (2011)
Spencer, T.: SUSY statistical mechanics and random band matrices. Quantum many body system, Cetraro, Italy 2010, Lecture notes in mathematics 2051 (CIME Foundation subseries) (2012)
Tao, T., Vu, V.: Random matrices: Universality of the local eigenvalue statistics. Acta Math. [**206**]{}, 127 – 204 (2011).
Vilenkin, N. Ja.: Special Functions and the Theory of Group Representations. Translations of Mathematical Monographs, AMS 1968; 613 pp;
Wegner, F.J.: Disordered system with $n$ orbitals per site: $n \to\infty$ limit, Phys. Rev. B [**19**]{}, 783-792 (1979)
[^1]: Institute for Low Temperature Physics, Kharkiv, Ukraine& Karazin Kharkiv National University, Kharkiv, Ukraine, e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, USA, e-mail: [email protected]. Supported in part by NSF grant DMS-1700009.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Oliver R. Stockdale'
- 'Matthew T. Reeves'
- Xiaoquan Yu
- Guillaume Gauthier
- 'Kwan Goddard-Lee'
- 'Warwick P. Bowen'
- 'Tyler W. Neely'
- 'Matthew J. Davis'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: |
Supplemental Material:\
Universal expansion of vortex clusters in a dissipative two-dimensional superfluid
---
Dissipative Vortex Fluid Theory {#dissipative-vortex-fluid-theory .unnumbered}
===============================
Vortex velocity field {#vortex-velocity-field .unnumbered}
---------------------
In the universal expanding regime, where $\nabla \rho=0$, the vortex velocity fluid $\vb{v}$ is not needed in order to determine the dynamics of the vorticity distribution. However, for our work to be complete and self-contained, here we provide the full set of equations that describe a dissipative chiral vortex fluid.
Dissipation effects due to thermal friction can be taken into account by considering a dissipative point-vortex model of the form $$\dot{\vb{r}}_i = \vb{v}_{i} - \kappa_i \gamma\, (\vu{z}\times \vb{v}_{i}),
\label{eqn:dampedPVM}$$ where the dimensionless mutual friction coefficient $\gamma$ (typically $\ll1 $) characterises the strength of the dissipation. A general dissipative binary vortex fluid theory (containing vortices and anti-vortices) has been formulated in Ref. [@yu2017]. Here we only consider the chiral limit, where $\kappa_i=1$. We define the vortex density $\rho \equiv \sum_{i}\delta(\vb{r}-\vb{r}_i)$. The conservation of vortex number implies the following continuity equation [@yu2017] [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{dissipativeceq}\partial_t \rho+\nabla \cdot \mathbf{J}'_n =0,\end{aligned}$$]{} where the number current $\mathbf{J}'_n=\mathbf{J}_n-\gamma \mathbf{\hat{z}} \times \mathbf{J}_n$ and $\mathbf{J}_n=\sum_i\delta(\vb{r}-\vb{r}_i)\vb{v}_i$. The vortex velocity field $\vb{v}$ is defined according to the hydrodynamic relation $\mathbf{J}_n\equiv\rho \vb{v}$. Re-writing Eq. , we obtain the dissipative Helmholtz equation [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{dampHwvChiral}{\cal D}^{\hat{v}}_t\rho=-\gamma\left(8\pi \eta \rho^2+\eta \nabla^2 \rho-\mathbf{v} \times \nabla \rho\right),\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\hat{\vb{v}}\equiv \mathbf{v}-\gamma\eta \nabla \log \rho$ and $\eta\equiv \Gamma/(8\pi)=h/(8 \pi m)$. Following a similar coarse-graining procedure used in Ref. [@yu2017], we obtain, in Cartesian components, [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{dampeduniversalformchiral}& {\cal D}^{v}_t v_a-\rho^{-1}\partial_b \hat{\Pi}_{ab}+ \partial_a \hat{p}=-8\eta \gamma \pi \rho v_a +\rho^{-1}F_a,\end{aligned}$$]{} that governs the dynamics of the vortex velocity field, where the modified Cauchy stress tensor $\hat{\Pi}_{ab}=\Pi_{ab}+\Pi'_{ab}$ with [$$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{ab}&=-\rho \tau_{ab}-8\eta^2 \pi \rho^2 \delta_{ab}- \eta^2 \rho \partial_b(\rho^{-1}\partial_a \rho), \\
\Pi'_{ab}&=\eta\gamma(2\delta_{ab}-1)\Gamma_{aa'}\Gamma_{bb'} \left[\partial_{a'}(\rho v_{b'})+\partial_{b'}(\rho v_{a'})\right],\\
\tau_{xy}&=\tau_{yx}=\eta(\partial_x v_x-\partial_y v_y),\\
\tau_{xx}&=-\tau_{yy}=-\eta(\partial_x v_y+\partial_y v_x),\end{aligned}$$]{} and [$$\begin{aligned}
F_a&=-\eta \gamma \rho^{-1}\epsilon_{ab} \epsilon_{cd}\partial_b \rho \partial_c (\rho v_d);\\
\hat{p}&=p-2\eta \gamma (g+\bar{g}).\end{aligned}$$]{} Here $\Gamma_{aa}=0$, $\Gamma_{a\neq b}=1$, $\epsilon_{ab}$ is the anti-symmetric tensor ($\epsilon_{xy}=-\epsilon_{yx}=1$), and $g$ is determined by $\partial_{\bar{z}} g=\pi \rho \bar{v}$. The coefficient $\eta \gamma$ might be identified as the viscosity of the vortex fluid. Since $(1/2){\rm tr}( \Pi'_{ab})=\eta \gamma \nabla \cdot (\rho \mathbf{v})$, it may also play the role of [*second viscosity*]{}.
The pressure $\hat{p}$ can be eliminated by taking the curl of Eq.
[$$\begin{aligned}
\label{dampeduniversalform}& \epsilon_{ac}\partial_t \partial_c v_a+ \epsilon_{ac} \partial_c(v_b \partial_b v_a)-\epsilon_{ac} \partial_c(\rho^{-1}\partial_b \hat{\Pi}_{ab})
=-8\eta \gamma \pi \epsilon_{ac} \partial_c(\rho v_a) +\epsilon_{ac} \partial_c(\rho^{-1}F_a).\end{aligned}$$]{} Hence the complete set of equations for dissipative chiral vortex fluids reads [$$\begin{aligned}
\label{dampHwvChiral-2}\partial_t \rho+ \left(\mathbf{v}-\gamma\eta \nabla \log \rho \right) \cdot \nabla \rho&=-\gamma\left(8\pi \eta \rho^2+\eta \nabla^2 \rho-\mathbf{v} \times \nabla \rho\right). \\
\epsilon_{ac}\partial_t \partial_c v_a+ \epsilon_{ac} \partial_c(v_b \partial_b v_a)-\epsilon_{ac} \partial_c(\rho^{-1}\partial_b \hat{\Pi}_{ab})&=-8\eta \eta^{\ast} \pi \epsilon_{ac} \partial_c(\rho v_a) +\epsilon_{ac} \partial_c(\rho^{-1}F_a),\\
\partial_a v_a&=0.\end{aligned}$$]{}
Perturbations in density {#perturbations-in-density .unnumbered}
------------------------
The density perturbation satisfies the following equation (see main text): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{perturbation}
\frac{\partial \delta \rho}{\partial t} +\frac{\gamma \Gamma}{8\pi}\partial^2_r\delta \rho +\gamma\left(2 \Gamma \rho_a \delta \rho+ v_a \partial_r \delta \rho \right) =0.\end{aligned}$$ Solving it numerically with various initial conditions, we find that for all cases the perturbation decays over time and reduces to zero across the fluid. [[Fig. \[fig:perturbations\]]{}]{} shows four different examples where the initial perturbation takes a different form, as given in the figure caption. Here the boundary conditions are : $\delta \rho$ regular at $r=0$ and $\delta \rho (r\rightarrow \infty)\rightarrow 0$.
This result suggests that the top-hat distribution is an attractor of the dissipative vortex fluid dynamics, and hence further supports our conclusion that any initial distribution of vortex density will eventually tend towards a Rankine vortex.
![Time evolution of perturbation $\delta \rho$ for different initial distributions. (a) $\delta \rho (r,0)=0.2 \exp(-r^2)$; (b) $\delta \rho (r,0)=0.2/(1 + r)^2$; (c) $\delta \rho (r,0)=0.2 \exp(-(r - 1)^2)$; (d) $\delta \rho (r,0)=0.1 (\sin 2 r + 1)\exp(-r)$. Here we choose $\Gamma=1$, $\rho_0=1$ and $\gamma=0.01$.[]{data-label="fig:perturbations"}](yuPlotv3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Vortex distributions and crystallization {#vortex-distributions-and-crystallization .unnumbered}
========================================
In [[Fig. \[all\]]{}]{} we display examples of the vortex distributions from simulations of the point vortex model for the three different initial conditions discussed in the main text. Each row represents a time, indicated on the left, and the relative size of the cluster is given on the right. In the bottom row we highlight the crystallization of the cluster by connecting nearest neighbour vortices. Vortices that have either five or seven nearest neighbours are coloured black to identify the dislocations in the crystal. Future work will better characterize the emergence of these dislocations.
![Exemplar vortex distributions at different times during the point vortex model simulation of the cluster expansion. The left column is for the uniform initial distribution, the center column is for the Gaussian initial distribution, and the right column is for the ring initial distribution. The simulation time is indicated on the left, and the relative size of the cluster is indicated on the right. In the final row, at $t=130000\gamma\tau$, we have drawn lines between the nearest neighbour to demonstrate the crystallization of the cluster. Lattice dislocations, where vortices have either five or seven nearest neighbours, are indicated by black dots.[]{data-label="all"}](allDists_v2.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
In [[Fig. \[expt\]]{}]{} we show histograms of the vortex positions in the experiment at a single time, as compared to the main text where we have averaged the vortex distributions over one second. As in the main text, we plot all vortices that have been detected, and show the cut-off‘radius beyond which the vortices are identified as not being part of the cluster for subsequent analysis. However, when running point vortex simulations to calculate the evolution of the lattice disorder $\sigma_g$ in the main text we include these stray vortices. We find the results for $\sigma_g$ presented in the main text are insensitive to small changes in the cut-off radius.
![Vortex position histograms for the cluster expansion experiment for $\sim40$ sets of data at times indicated in the upper left corner. The red dashed line indicates the cut-off radius for the cluster analysis (see text for details).[]{data-label="expt"}](experimentalHists_v3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Point vortex simulations for finite-sized systems {#point-vortex-simulations-for-finite-sized-systems .unnumbered}
=================================================
The vortex cluster expansion experiments are performed in a finite-sized circular trap with only $\sim11$ vortices, whereas the vortex fluid hydrodynamic theory is for a infinite system in which the vortex density is coarse-grained. In this section we compare simulations of point vortex dynamics in the circular trap with the predictions of radius and energy from the vortex fluid theory.
We extend the point vortex model introduced in the main text to a system that is confined by a circular domain. A circular disk of radius $R$ is used in the experiment in the main text, and is an easily realisable system in experiments for both thin-film superfluid helium [@sachkou2019; @ellis1989] and other BEC experiments [@gauthier2016]. The Hamiltonian for $N$ vortices at positions $\mathbf{r}_i$ is given by [@buhler2002] $$\begin{aligned}
H = &- \frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_{i<j}^{N,N}\Gamma_i\Gamma_j\ln\qty(\frac{r_{ij}^2}{R^2}) + \frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_{i = 1}^N\Gamma_i^2\ln\qty(\frac{R^2-r_i^2}{R^2})\nonumber \\ &+ \frac{1}{4\pi}\sum_{i<j}^{N,N}\Gamma_i\Gamma_j\ln\qty(\frac{R^4 - 2R^2\vb{r}_i\cdot\vb{r}_j+r_i^2r_j^2}{R^4}),\label{hamilCirc}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_i = |\vb{r}_i|$ is the magnitude of the radial position of the vortex, and $r_{ij} = |\vb{r}_i - \vb{r}_j$|. The first term of [[Eq. (\[hamilCirc\])]{}]{} describes the energy due to vortex-vortex interactions, whilst the second two terms describe the additional energy associated with a circular boundary.
Hamilton’s equations of motion for this system are $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_i\dv{x_i}{t} &= \frac{\partial H}{\partial y_i}, & \Gamma_i\dv{y_i}{t} &= -\frac{\partial H}{\partial x_i}, \label{HamiltonsEquations}\end{aligned}$$ which yield the equation of motion for vortices in a circular disk $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{v}_{i} = \frac{1}{2\pi}
\sum_{j\neq i }\frac{\Gamma_j}{r_{ij}^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
-y_{ij}\\
x_{ij}\\
\end{pmatrix}
+ \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_j\frac{\bar{\Gamma}_j}{\bar{r}_{ij}^2}
\begin{pmatrix}
-\bar{y}_{ij}\\
\bar{x}_{ij}\\
\end{pmatrix},\label{eqnOfMotionCirc}\end{aligned}$$ where $x_{ij} = x_i-x_j$, $y_{ij} = y_i-y_j$, and $r_{ij}^2 = x_{ij}^2 + y_{ij}^2$. The first term of [[Eq. (\[eqnOfMotionCirc\])]{}]{} represents the velocity induced by real vortices, whilst the second term represents the boundary contribution. The barred terms $\bar{x}_{ij} = x_i-\bar{x}_j$, $\bar{r}^2_{ij} = \bar{x}_{ij}^2+\bar{y}_{ij}^2$, etc., correspond to image vortices with circulation $\bar \Gamma_j = -\Gamma_j$ placed outside the disk at the inverse point $\vb{\bar{r}}_i = {R^2\vb{r}_i}/{|\vb{r}_i|^2}$. These fictitious image vortices enforce the boundary condition $\mathbf{u} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{n}} |_{r=R} = 0$, which ensures the fluid flow normal to the boundary is zero. Using [[Eq. (\[eqnOfMotionCirc\])]{}]{} for the bounded vortex velocities in Eq. (2) of the main text, we solve for the dynamics of bounded vortices in the dissipative regime.
![Comparison of radius and energy of point vortex cluster expansion with the predictions of the vortex fluid hydrodynamics. (a) A system of $N=2$ vortices initially equidistant from origin separated by $\theta=\pi$. The black curves correspond to the left $y$-axis and describe the energy of the vortex pair, whilst the orange curves correspond to the right $y$-axis and indicate the average radius of the vortex cluster. Dashed lines represent the bound state point vortex results (i.e. with image vortices) and the solid line represents the solution to the anomalous hydrodynamic approximation. (b) $N=5$ vortices. (c) $N=10$ vortices. (d) $N=20$ vortices. []{data-label="fig:energy"}](energyRadiusv4.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
When a vortex approaches the boundary and pairs with its image, the energy of the system reduces, whilst the velocity of the vortex increases dramatically. This can be seen in [[Fig. \[fig:energy\]]{}]{}(a), where we plot the energy (left axis) and radius (right axis) of two positive vortices in the bounded point vortex model. Unsurprisingly, the hydrodynamic approximation is a poor description of the radius of the vortex pair (plotted as the solid curve) as the core assumption is that vortices are densely packed so the vorticity can be coarse grained. Comparing this result with [[Fig. \[fig:energy\]]{}]{}(b), where we plot the energy and radius of an expanding cluster of $N=5$ vortices [^1], we see that the boundary has much less of an effect upon the dynamics. As there are more vortices within the center of the disk, the energy is dominated by vortex-vortex interactions, unlike the $N=2$ case where the images strongly influence the dynamics. As image vortices are positioned at the inverse point, their effect upon the system reduces significantly for vortices far from the boundary. As a result, we begin to see signatures of the anomalous hydrodynamics \[i.e. $\langle r\rangle\propto\sqrt{t}$ and $H\propto-\ln(t)$\] despite there only being $N=5$ vortices.
Further increasing the number of vortices to $N=10$ in [[Fig. \[fig:energy\]]{}]{}(c), the discrepancy between the bound simulations and the free-space anomalous hydrodynamics is further reduced. This particular result is close to the experimental system, and we see good agreement between the vortex fluid theory and bound point vortex simulation. For $N=20$, the expansion of the cluster in the point vortex model becomes practically indistinguishable from the vortex fluid prediction. As such, it seems that for a sufficiently large vortex number ($N>20$), an expanding cluster in a bounded circular domain can be closely approximated as a free space expansion until the cluster radius nears the boundary.
However, there is a clear difference between the energy in the point vortex simulation and that of the anomalous hydrodynamic solution. Given the anomalous hydrodynamics assumes $N\gg1$, we find there are finite $N$ effects for small number of vortices. For $N>10$, we find that scaling the point vortex simulation energy (and indeed the experiment, seen in the main text) by $N^2-2N$ gives excellent agreement with the scaled hydrodynamic energy $H/N^2$. It can be seen that the difference vanishes in the $N\rightarrow \infty$ limit.
Additional Experimental Results {#additional-experimental-results .unnumbered}
===============================
In [[Fig. \[fig:extraexpt\]]{}]{} we plot the average number of vortices counted at each time the condensate is imaged. The number of vortices initially increases due to the difficulty in resolving the individual positions when the vortices are tightly clustered at the center of the disk. On the right axis of [[Fig. \[fig:extraexpt\]]{}]{} we plot the error between the top-hat fit and the one-dimensional radial density histograms shown in the main text. The radius of these top-hat fits are calculated from the measured average radius shown in Fig. 3(g) in the main text. The error is calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon=\frac{1}{n}\frac{|\text{Expt}-\text{Top-hat}|}{\text{Expt}},\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ is the number of bins used in the histogram. As one can see, the error decxreases as the cluster expands, suggesting the cluster is evolving into the universal expanding regime.
![Left axis: Average number of vortices counted as a function of time (green points with error bars calculated from standard error). This increases initially due to the difficulty in resolving individual vortex cores at early times as described in the text. Right axis: Percentage error between the top-hat fit and the radial density histograms as shown in Fig. 3 of the main text.[]{data-label="fig:extraexpt"}](extra_expt.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Experimental Setup and Procedure {#experimental-setup-and-procedure .unnumbered}
================================
The experimental system has been previously described elsewhere in Refs. [@gauthier2016; @gauthier2018]. We trap a $N\sim 2.2 \times 10^6$ $^{87}$Rb Bose-Einstein, with a condensate fraction of $\sim80\%$, in a gravity-compensated optical potential. The horizontal confinement of the atoms in the $x$-$y$ plane is provided by a repulsive blue-detuned optical dipole potential that results from the direct imaging of a digital micro-mirror device; here it is configured to produce a disc-shaped trap with a $50~\mu$m radius. This results in the approximately hard-walled confinement of the BEC with a near-uniform density. In the vertical direction a red-detuned optical dipole potential provides harmonic trapping with frequency $\omega_z = 2\pi \times 108$ Hz, leading to a with a vertical Thomas-Fermi radius of $6~\mu$m. The healing length of the BEC is $\xi \sim 500$ nm [@gauthier2018].
Initial state preparation {#initial-state-preparation .unnumbered}
-------------------------
A schematic of the preparation of the initial vortex cluster shown in [[Fig. \[schem\]]{}]{}. We form the BEC in the disc trap, before transferring it to an annular trap by ramping-on an additional repulsive central barrier with a radius of $R_0 = 15~\mu$m over 200 ms. Simultaneously, an elliptical stirring barrier with a major and minor axis of $50~\mu$m and $2~\mu$m respectively that crosses the annulus is introduced, resulting in a split ring. Following previous techniques for stirring persistent currents in ring-trapped BECs [@eckel2014; @wright2013], the stirring barrier is linearly accelerated at $~980~\mu\textrm{m}\,\textrm{s}^{-2}$ for a time of 400 ms around the annulus. While still accelerating at the same rate, the barrier height is then linearly to zero by reducing both the barrier width and length over 100 ms, effectively removing the stirring barrier through to the central barrier. After a 400 ms period of equilibration in the annular trap, the central barrier is removed over 200 ms by linearly reducing its radius to zero. This results in a high-energy cluster of $\sim11$ vortices near the trap center. During the removal of the stirrer, sometimes one or two “stray” vortices of the same sign are produced away from the main cluster, as described in the main text.
{width="17cm"}
BEC imaging and vortex detection {#bec-imaging-and-vortex-detection .unnumbered}
--------------------------------
High-resolution images of the BEC and vortex cores are obtained as in Ref. [@gauthier2018], where a short 3 ms time-of-flight allows the vortex cores to expand and become visible using darkground Faraday imaging [@bradley1997]. The radial distribution of the condensate is essentially unchanged from this expansion. An example image is shown in Fig. \[schem\]. The vortex positions were identified using a Gaussian fitting algorithm [@rakonjac2016; @gauthier2018].
[^1]: the initial condition is drawn from a uniform distribution, and sits within $r=0.1R$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We find a one-parameter family of variables which recast the 3+1 Einstein equations into first-order symmetric-hyperbolic form for any fixed choice of gauge. Hyperbolicity considerations lead us to a redefinition of the lapse in terms of an arbitrary factor times a power of the determinant of the 3-metric; under certain assumptions, the exponent can be chosen arbitrarily, but positive, with no implication of gauge-fixing.'
address:
- ' Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. '
- ' FAMAF, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, 5000 Córdoba, Argentina. '
author:
- 'Simonetta Frittelli[^1]'
- 'Oscar A. Reula[^2] [^3]'
date: 'April 29, 1996'
title: ' First-order symmetric-hyperbolic Einstein equations with arbitrary fixed gauge '
---
The issue of setting up a well-posed initial-value formulation for general relativity has been studied with the help of varied strategies, including special gauges and higher-order formulations [@choquet-york80]. Recently, a renewed interest [@recent] in the problem has arisen, in connection with the numerical evolution of the Einstein equations away from an initial hypersurface. Although the relevance of a manifestly hyperbolic formulation to the numerical integration of the Einstein equations is not yet clear, it is believed that a code tailored in a hyperbolic formulation would share properties of the exact system; namely, it would guarantee uniqueness and stability of solutions evolved from proper initial data. However, technical issues, associated with the discretization of the equations and the precision of the approximation, which may concern numerical stability, are not necessarily ruled out by a pure theoretical hyperbolic development.
In regards to the manifest hyperbolicity of the Einstein equations, the relevance of gauge choices has long been a question open to consideration. The gauge freedom of 3+1 general relativity is embodied by the lapse function and shift vector, which are completely arbitrary since their evolution is not determined by the theory. In general, a theory expressed in terms of equations on fields which admit gauge freedom may not admit a well-posed formulation unless improper gauge choices are ruled out, or the true gauge-invariant variables of the theory are found. A typical example is Maxwell’s theory; on the one hand, it admits a hyperbolic formulation at fixed gauge and in terms of gauge invariant variables as well; on the other hand, anomalous gauges can be found for which the resulting system does not have a well-posed initial-value formulation.
Our intention is to give an explicit argument to rewrite the 3+1 Einstein equations into a manifestly well-posed form, without the need of resorting to a choice of gauge. It has certainly been known that general relativity in special gauges can be set in symmetric hyperbolic form [@earliersym]. Furthermore, it has recently been shown that, for certain special first-order variables, general relativity admits a symmetric hyperbolic formulation for arbitrary fixed gauge [@frittelli-reula94; @hypred]. Here we extend the existing results by showing that, under certain assumptions, there is a one-parameter family of new first-order variables for general relativity which satisfy first-order symmetric hyperbolic evolution for arbitrary but fixed choice of gauge.
Several concepts of hyperbolicity (e.g., strict, strong) can assert the well-posedness of a system of PDE’s. Among all different concepts, symmetric hyperbolicity is especially appealing, for the reason that most interesting physical systems admit a formulation of this type [@geroch95]. Symmetric hyperbolicity is based on the symmetry properties of the differential operator [@courant-hilbert-john]; therefore, multiple eigenvalues, which usually occur due to the presence of symmetries, play no role, as opposed to the case of other types of hyperbolicity. The reason for the well-posedness in the symmetric-hyperbolic case is that the energy norm (an integral expression in terms of the fields) at later times can still be seen to be bounded by the norm at the initial time, because of cancellation of terms under integration by parts. The symmetry of the differential operator in the evolution equations guarantees the cancellation.
In the following, we set up the problem of general relativity in the 3+1 formulation due to Arnowitt, Deser and Misner in a non-canonical (though widely used) choice of variables; i.e., the intrinsic metric and the extrinsic curvature of the spatial hypersurfaces. We then redefine the variables in order to reduce the system to first order; the redefined variables depend on a set of parameters to be fixed by hyperbolicity considerations. Finally, we use the argument of the cancellation of terms under integration by parts in the energy norm to determine the parameters. In the process, we find that the lapse function must be redefined in terms of the determinant of the 3-metric, without any loss of gauge freedom.
In order to fix notation, we summarize some necessary points of the 3+1 formulation. The 3+1 splitting of the fully 4-dimensional formalism consists of a spacelike foliation by the level surfaces of a function $t(x^a)$. The unit normal form is $n_a=-N\nabla_a t$, where $N$ is the lapse function. The unit normal vector is given by $n^a=-\frac{1}{N}(t^a-N^a)$, where $N^a$ is the shift vector. The metric $g^{ab}$ induces a 3-metric on the spatial surfaces, by $h^{ab}= g^{ab} + n^a n^b$. In a coordinate system $\{ x^0,x^i\}$, $i=1,2,3$, adapted to the surfaces (such that $t=x^0$), the induced metric $h^{ab}$ reduces to $h^{ij}$. The extrinsic curvature of the 3-surfaces is defined by $K^{ab}\equiv
\frac12\pounds_{\!n} h^{ab}$, and is also a 3-tensor.
The equations for the evolution of the intrinsic contravariant metric $h^{ij}$ and the extrinsic curvature $K^{ij}$ can be taken as (from [@york79], with the notation of Chapter 10 and Appendix E of [@wald84]) $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{h}^{ij} &
=
&
2 N K^{ij} - D^i N^j
- D^j N^i
\label{hdot} \\
\dot{K}^{ij} &
=
&
N \Big(
R^{ij} -
2 K^{ik}{K^j}_k +
K^{ij} K \nonumber\\
& & -
\kappa \big( S^{ij} -
\frac12 h^{ij} ( S - \rho )
\big)
\Big) -
D^iD^j N \nonumber\\
& & +
N^ k D_k K^{ij} -
K^{ik} D_k N^j -
K^{jk} D_k N^i \label{kdot}
\end{aligned}$$ The notation $(\,\dot{\;}\,)$ stands for $\pounds_{t^a}$ or simply $\partial/\partial t$. Indices $i,j,k,\ldots$ are raised and lowered with the 3-metric $h^{ij}$; the operator $D_i$ is the covariant derivative with respect to the 3-metric $h_{ij}$ [@wald84]. For any 3-tensor $U^{ij}$, the notation $U$ stands for its trace with respect to the 3-metric: $U \equiv {U^k}_k$. The matter tensor $S^{ij}$ is the projection of the 4-dimensional stress-energy tensor $T^{ab}$ into the spatial hypersurfaces, and $\rho$ is the projection of $T^{ab}$ in the direction normal to the surfaces. The results derived in this Letter do not depend strongly on the particular matter source, but hold for any sources that admit a first-order symmetric-hyperbolic formulation on their own.
Equations (\[hdot\]) and (\[kdot\]) for the fields $(h^{ij},K^{ij})$ are supplemented by the constraints $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal C}\;\, & := &\; \frac12(
R + K^2 - K_{ij}K^{ij}
) - \kappa \rho = 0,
\label{scalar}\\
{\cal C}^i & := & \;D_j K^{ij} - D^i K - \kappa J^i = 0,
\label{vector}
\end{aligned}$$ where $ J^i $ is the mixed projection of $T^{ab}$ onto the hypersurface and the normal. If $\cal C$ and ${\cal C}^i$ can be shown to be conserved as a consequence of (\[hdot\]) and (\[kdot\]), then the constraints only need to be imposed on an initial hypersurface. This will be our point of view in the following.
#### Introduction of the parameters. {#introduction-of-the-parameters. .unnumbered}
In order to show that there exists a one-parameter family of variables for which general relativity takes a first-order symmetric-hyperbolic form, we first introduce a set of four parameters, $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ and $\epsilon$; we eventually require the parameters to satisfy a set of three algebraic conditions that guarantee the hyperbolicity.
Two parameters, $\alpha$ and $\beta$, are used to redefine variables as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{M^{ij}}_k & \equiv & \frac12 (
h^{ij}\!,_k + \;
\alpha\; h^{ij}
h_{rs} h^{rs}\!,_k ), \label{mabc}
\\
P^{ij} & \equiv & K^{ij} +\; \beta \; h^{ij} K.
\label{pab}
\end{aligned}$$ The definition (\[mabc\]) reduces the Einstein equations to first order. Note that the variable ${M^{ij}}_k$ represents the spatial derivative of the densitized 3-metric, $ {M^{ij}}_k = \frac12 h^{\alpha}
\big(
h^{-\alpha}
h^{ij}
\big),_k
$, where $h$ is the determinant of $h_{ij}$. Equations (\[mabc\]) and (\[pab\]) can be inverted into $$\begin{aligned}
h^{ij}\!,_k & \equiv & 2 \; (\,
{M^{ij}}_k - \; \frac{\alpha}{3\alpha \!+\! 1}
h^{ij}
M_k \, ), \label{mabc:inv}
\\
K^{ij} & \equiv &
P^{ij} -\; \frac{\beta }{3\beta \!+\! 1}
h^{ij} P,
\label{pab:inv}
\end{aligned}$$ with the notation $
M_k \equiv h_{ij} {M^{ij}}_k $.
A third parameter, $\gamma$, is introduced in the evolution equations to allow for a combination of (\[hdot\]) and (\[kdot\]) with the constraints (\[scalar\]) and (\[vector\]). In this way, the principal part of the evolution equations (\[hdot\]) and (\[kdot\]) can be modified. The constraints (\[scalar\]) and (\[vector\]) will be assumed to be conserved by the resulting equations. Since $\gamma$ plays a crucial role in the hyperbolicity of the system, in the following we point out its exact place in the evolution equations.
The evolution equation for ${M^{ij}}_k$ can be obtained by, first, taking a space derivative $\partial/\partial x^k$ of Eq.(\[hdot\]), and then tracing and combining the resultant equation according to the definition (\[mabc\]). We also add the vector constraint ${\cal C}^i$ with an appropriate –uniquely determined– factor, obtaining the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{M}^{ij}{}_k & = &
\frac12 \Big(
\big(
\dot{h}^{ij}
\big),_k + \alpha
\big(
\dot{h}^{ij}
h_{rs} +
h^{ij}
\dot{h}_{rs}
\big) h^{rs},_k \nonumber\\
& & + \alpha
h^{ij}
h_{rs}
\big(
\dot{h}^{rs}
\big),_k \Big)
-\;
N\delta^{(i}_k{\cal C}^{j)}\;. \label{evolm}
\end{aligned}$$ If Eq.(\[hdot\]) is used in the right-hand side of (\[evolm\]) to eliminate time derivatives in favor of space derivatives of the new fields, the right-hand side becomes a combination of the fields $h^{ij},{M^{ij}}_k,P^{ij}$, lapse, shift and sources; first-space derivatives of ${M^{ij}}_k,P^{ij}$, lapse and shift; and second-space derivatives of the shift. This equation is shown explicitly below \[Eq. (\[pp.evolm\])\], correct to principal terms.
The evolution equation for $P^{ij}$ is obtained directly from Eq.(\[kdot\]), by the appropriate combination with its trace, as prescribed by the definition (\[pab\]). We also add the scalar constraint ${\cal C}$ with a suitable factor: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{P}^{ij} & = &
\dot{K}^{ij} + \beta \Big(
\dot{h}^{ij}
K +
h^{ij}
\dot{h}_{rs}
K^{rs} +
h^{ij}
h_{rs}
\dot{K}^{rs} \Big) \nonumber\\
& & +
2N\gamma h^{ij} {\cal C}. \label{evolp}
\end{aligned}$$ When Eqs. (\[hdot\]) and (\[kdot\]) are substituted appropriately in (\[evolp\]), the right-hand side becomes a combination of the fields $h^{ij},{M^{ij}}_k,P^{ij}$, lapse, shift and sources; first-space derivatives of ${M^{ij}}_k,P^{ij}$, lapse and shift; and second-space derivatives of lapse. This equation is shown explicitly below \[Eq. (\[pp.evolp\])\], correct to principal terms.
The fourth parameter, $\epsilon$, is introduced in order to redefine the lapse $N$ by $$N \equiv h^{-(3\alpha + 1)\epsilon/2} Q\;\;,
\label{lapseQ}$$ for an arbitrary function $Q$. The lapse is thus redefined without loss of generality; the gauge freedom is transferred to $Q$, and the parameter $\epsilon$ remains to be specified. Notice that $$\frac{N,_k}
N \equiv \epsilon M_k +
(\ln Q ),_k \;\;.
\label{lapse}$$ Since second derivatives of the lapse appear in (\[evolp\]), this redefinition allows for a modification of the principal terms in (\[evolp\]).
#### Hyperbolicity imposed on the system. {#hyperbolicity-imposed-on-the-system. .unnumbered}
We define the energy norm of the system at time $t$ as $$E(t) = \frac12
\int_{\Sigma} h^{ij} h_{ij} +
P^{ij} P_{ij} +
{M^{ij}}_k{M_{ij}}^k$$ where the integration is performed on the surface $\Sigma$ defined by $t=const$. The spatial symmetry of the system is guaranteed if the principal terms in the time derivative of the energy [@lax55] can be combined into total divergences, since in this case their contribution to the energy estimates would vanish.
The time-derivative of the energy, correct to principal terms, is $$\dot{E}(t) = \int_{\Sigma} \dot{h}^{ij} h_{ij} +
\dot{P}^{ij} P_{ij} +
\dot{M}^{ij}{}_k{M_{ij}}^k\;\;.
\label{edot}$$ The evolution equations (\[hdot\]), (\[evolm\]) and (\[evolp\]) can be used to trade time derivatives for space derivatives in (\[edot\]). If the principal terms can be eliminated under integration by parts, then the system becomes hyperbolic.
In the following we write the principal terms of the evolution equations and find the conditions that are necessary to symmetrize the system.
The Ricci tensor $R_{ij}$ is needed in terms of the new fields. Recall $$R_{ij} = \Gamma^k_{ij,k} \;-\;
\Gamma^k_{ki,j} \;+\;
\Gamma^k_{ij} \Gamma^l_{kl} \;-\;
\Gamma^k_{lj} \Gamma^l_{ki}\;\;,$$ with $
\Gamma^k_{ij} = -\;\frac12 h_{il} h^{kl}\!,_j
\;-\;\frac12 h_{jl} h^{kl}\!,_i
\;+\;\frac12 h^{kl}
h_{ir}
h_{js} h^{rs}\!,_l.
$ In terms of ${M^{ij}}_k$, the connection $\Gamma^k_{ij}$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^k_{ij} & = & -\; 2 h_{l(i} {M^{kl}}_{j)}
\;+\; h^{kl}
h_{ir}
h_{js} {M^{rs}}_l
\;+\; \frac{2\alpha}{3\alpha \!+\! 1}
\delta^k_{(i} M^{}_{j)} \nonumber\\
& & \;-\; \frac{ \alpha}{3\alpha \!+\! 1}
h_{ij}
h^{kl} M_l.
\end{aligned}$$ The principal part of (\[evolp\]) is then $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{P}^{ij} & = & N^k P^{ij},_k
\;+\;
N \Big(
h^{kl} {M^{ij}}_k,_l
\;-\; 2 h^{l(i} {M^{j)k}}_l,_k \nonumber\\
& & \;+\; \frac{2\alpha \!+\! 1}
{3\alpha \!+\! 1}
h^{ik}
h^{jl} M_k,_l
\;+\; \frac{ 2\beta(\alpha\!+\!1)\!-\!\alpha}
{3\alpha \!+\! 1}
h^{ij}
h^{kl} M_k,_l \nonumber\\
& & \;-\; 2\beta
h^{ij} {M^{kl}}_k,_l
\Big)
\;-\;
h^{ik}
h^{jl} N,_{kl} - \beta
h^{ij}
h^{kl} N,_{kl} \nonumber\\
& & \;+\; 2N\gamma
h^{ij}
\Big(
- {M^{kl}}_k,_l
\;+\;
\frac{ \alpha \!+\! 1}{3\alpha \!+\! 1}
h^{kl} M_k,_l
\Big)\;\;.
\label{pp.evolp}
\end{aligned}$$ The principal terms of (\[evolm\]) are the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{M}^{ij}{}_k & = &
N^l {M^{ij}}_k,_l
\;+\;
N \Big(
P^{ij},_k
\;+\; \frac{\alpha\!-\!\beta}
{3\beta\!+\!1}
h^{ij}
P,_k
\Big) \nonumber\\
& & \;-\;
2 N \delta^{(i}_k
P^{j)l},_l
\;+\;
2 N \frac{\beta\!+\!1}
{3\beta\!+\!1}
\delta^{(i}_k
h^{j)l}
P,_l \;\;. \label{pp.evolm}
\end{aligned}$$
In view of (\[pp.evolp\]) and (\[pp.evolm\]), the cancellation under integration by parts in (\[edot\]) takes place if the following algebraic conditions are imposed on the parameters $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ and $\epsilon$:
\[allequations\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{2\alpha+1}
{3\alpha+1} - \epsilon = 0, \label{equationa} \\
\frac{ \beta +1}
{3\beta +1} + \beta + \gamma = 0, \label{equationb} \\
\frac{2(\beta+\gamma)(\alpha+1)-\alpha}
{3\alpha+1} -
\frac{\alpha-\beta}
{3\beta+1} - \beta \epsilon = 0. \label{equationc}
\end{aligned}$$
Condition (\[equationa\]) has the effect of the cancellation of the fourth and seventh terms in (\[pp.evolp\]), even before their contribution to the energy is considered. This is done in this way, because the fourth term in (\[pp.evolp\]) has no symmetric counterpart in (\[pp.evolm\]) with respect to its contribution to the energy, and, therefore, needs to be eliminated from the system. Condition (\[equationb\]) guarantees the cancellation, under integration by parts, of the sixth and ninth terms in (\[pp.evolp\]), together with their symmetric counterpart, i.e. the fifth term in (\[pp.evolm\]). Lastly, condition (\[equationc\]) guarantees the symmetry of the fifth, eighth and tenth terms in (\[pp.evolp\]) with the third term in (\[pp.evolm\]), which subsequently make no contribution to $\dot{E}$.
With the assumptions that $Q>0$, that $h^{ij}$ is positive definite, that the algebraic conditions (\[allequations\]) are met by the four parameters $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ and $\epsilon$, and that the constraints $\cal C$ and ${\cal C}^i$ are conserved, the fields $(h^{ij}, {M^{ij}}_k,P^{ij})$ satisfy a symmetric hyperbolic system of PDE’s, namely Eqs. (\[hdot\]), (\[evolm\]) and (\[evolp\]), with the initial data constrained by (\[scalar\]), (\[vector\]) and (\[mabc\]).
Notice that the conditions (\[allequations\]) leave free one of the four parameters. Any one of the parameters can be chosen freely, within a real range that allows for real values for the remaining three parameters as solutions of (\[allequations\]). For instance, if $\alpha$ is considered as the free parameter, then $\alpha$ can take values in $ \big(-\infty,-1/2 \big) $, while $\beta$ must be chosen as a root of the following quadratic equation: $$3\beta^2+2\beta+\frac{(3\alpha+1)(\alpha+1) +1}
{(2\alpha + 1 ) } =0$$
A most interesting choice of variables is $P^{ij} = K^{ij} - h^{ij}K$ (proportional to the canonical ADM momentum), or $\beta=-1$. This choice of $\beta$, in turn, fixes $\gamma=1$, $\alpha=-1$ and $\epsilon=1/2$. The redefinition of lapse becomes $N=Q\sqrt{h}$, and the number of terms in the principal parts in Eqs. (\[pp.evolp\]) and (\[pp.evolm\]) reduces considerably. Regarding the propagation of the constraints, for $\gamma=1$ it can be shown that the Bianchi equations imply a homogeneous symmetric hyperbolic evolution system for $\cal C$ and ${\cal C}^i$. It follows that the constraints are conserved. This case was explored earlier by the authors, and has been found suitable for the development of a smooth newtonian limit [@frittelli-reula94] if certain gauge choices are imposed in addition to the well-posed formulation. Most remarkably, for $\gamma\neq 1$ the evolution of the constraints is not symmetric hyperbolic nor strictly hyperbolic, and the validity of the assumption of the conservation of the constraints must be studied carefully. The details will soon appear elsewhere.
Eq. (\[equationa\]) shows that the exponent of $\sqrt h$ in the redefinition of the lapse (\[lapseQ\]) is equal to $-(2\alpha+1)$, being thus any positive real number, but never zero. Thus, it is not possible to have a set of variables of the form (\[mabc\])-(\[pab\]) with symmetric hyperbolic evolution without relating the true lapse $N$ to the 3-metric.
The system (\[hdot\]), (\[evolm\]) and (\[evolp\]) has a non trivial set of characteristics [@charac]. Using the notation $\xi_a\equiv (v,\xi_i)$ where $\xi_i$ has unit norm with respect to $h^{ij}$, it is immediate to see that $\xi_a$ is characteristic if $t^a
\xi_a=0$ (for any $\alpha$). Furthermore, by essentially the same arguments as in [@hypred], it can be shown that covectors $\xi_a$ satisfying either $\xi^a\xi_a=0$ or $n^a\xi_a=0$ are also characteristic (for any $\alpha$). There are no other characteristics if $\alpha$ takes the value $-1$, as in [@frittelli-reula94]. Therefore, if $\alpha=-1$, the characteristics are null (with speeds $N^i\xi_i\pm N$), or timelike and either tangent to $t^a$ (with zero speed) or tangent to the normal direction $n^a$ (with speed $N^i\xi_i$). However, if $\alpha\neq-1$ the system may have other characteristics, [*in addition to these*]{}, with speeds that may depend (non-trivially) on the choice of $\alpha$. The details will also appear elsewhere.
In this work the choice of $N^i$ and $Q$ is [*arbitrary*]{} but [*given*]{}. The gauge must be specified in order to integrate the equations. On the other hand, the hyperbolicity of the system holds independently of the choice of gauge. The fact that gauge-fixing is required is not troublesome; the variables themselves are not gauge-invariant fields.
In order to avoid confusion, we point out that by fixing a gauge we understand a non-dynamical specification of $N^i$ and $Q$ as [*a priori*]{} known functions for all time, independent of the evolution of the new fields. In this way, $N^i$ and $Q$ act as known sources. If the gauge were specified dynamically (explicitly, or implicitly via an equation) as a function of the new fields, then the principal part of the evolution equations would be modified. The results proven here do not guarantee the well-posed evolution of such a choice of gauge; in fact, it is not hard to see that, in general, the well-posedness would be hampered.
The system shown here shares, with other hyperbolic formulations, the property of manifest first-order flux-conservative form, which makes it suitable for the application of general numerical integration techniques [@lax73] (no numerical applications of this formalism have been investigated as of now). Aside from that, we find it very appealing for its remarkable simplicity and clarity.
It is our pleasure to thank H. Friedrich for valuable suggestions and criticisms. O. A. Reula acknowledges support from CONICOR and SECYT (Argentina). S. Frittelli acknowledges partial support from NSF.
[10]{}
Many such works are quoted in the excellent review article by Y. Choquet-Bruhat and J. W. York, in [*General Relativity and Gravitation*]{} (Plenum, New York, 1980) Vol. I, A. Held, ed. The first departures from fixed harmonic gauges or the corresponding maps for the characteristic initial value problem were done by H. Friedrich, Proc. Roy. Soc. [**A 375**]{}, 169 (1981). Later works include Y. Choquet-Bruhat and T. Ruggeri, Commun. Math. Phys. [**89**]{}, 269 (1983); H. Friedrich, Commun. Math. Phys. [**103**]{}, 35 (1986), and Commun. Math. Phys. [**107**]{}, 587 (1986); C. Bona and J. Masso, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 1097 (1992); and [@hypred] below.
A. Abrahams [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 3377 (1995); C. Bona [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 600 (1995).
Symmetric hyperbolic evolution in harmonic coordinates in general relativity was first achieved by A. Fischer and J. Marsden, Commun. Math. Phys. [**28**]{}, 1-38 (1972). Spinorial arguments to obtain symmetric hyperbolic systems have been given by H. Friedrich; see references in [@hypred].
S. Frittelli and O. A. Reula, Commun. Math. Phys. [**166**]{}, 221 (1994).
H. Friedrich [*Hyperbolic reductions for Einstein’s field equations*]{}, Albert-Einstein-Institut preprint AEI-001 (1996); to appear in Class. Quantum Grav.
R. Geroch, [*Partial Differential Equations of Physics*]{}, gr-qc/9602055.
R. Courant and D. Hilbert, [*Methods of Mathematical Physics*]{} (Interscience Publishers, New York-London, 1962), Vol. II; F. John, [*Partial Differential Equations. (Applied Mathematical Sciences;1, 4th Ed.*]{} (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982).
J. W. York, in [*Sources of Gravitational Radiation*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979).
R. M. Wald, [*General Relativity*]{} (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).
P. D. Lax, Commun. P. App. Math. [**VIII**]{}, 615 (1955).
We take the standard definition of characteristics by R. Courant and D. Hilbert in Chapter VI of [@courant-hilbert-john], p. 581.
P. D. Lax, [*Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws and the mathematical theory of shock waves*]{} (SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1973).
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: Member of CONICET
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The authors consider the length, $l_N$, of the length of the longest increasing subsequence of a random permutation of $N$ numbers. The main result in this paper is a proof that the distribution function for $l_N$, suitably centered and scaled, converges to the Tracy-Widom distribution \[TW1\] of the largest eigenvalue of a random GUE matrix. The authors also prove convergence of moments. The proof is based on the steepest decent method for Riemann-Hilbert problems, introduced by Deift and Zhou in 1993 \[DZ1\] in the context of integrable systems. The applicability of the Riemann-Hilbert technique depends, in turn, on the determinantal formula of Gessel \[Ge\] for the Poissonization of the distribution function of $l_N$.'
address:
- 'Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York'
- 'Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York'
- 'Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden'
author:
- Jinho Baik
- Percy Deift
- Kurt Johansson
date: 'July 2, 1998 ; March 25, 1999 (revised)'
title: On the Distribution of the Length of the Longest Increasing Subsequence of Random Permutations
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
[**Introduction**]{} {#s-intro}
====================
Let $S_N$ be the group of permutations of $1,2,\dots,N$. If $\pi\in S_N$, we say that $\pi(i_1),\cdots,\pi(i_k)$ is an increasing subsequence in $\pi$ if $i_1<i_2< \cdots <i_k$ and $\pi(i_1) < \pi(i_2) < \cdots < \pi(i_k)$. Let $l_N(\pi)$ be the length of the longest increasing subsequence. For example, if $N=5$ and $\pi$ is the permutation $5\ \ 1\ \ 3\ \ 2\ \ 4$ (in one-line notation : thus $\pi(1)=5$, $\pi(2)=1$, $\dots$), then the longest increasing subsequences are $1\ \ 2\ \ 4$ and $1\ \ 3\ \ 4$, and $l_N(\pi)=3$. Equip $S_N$ with uniform distribution, $$q_{n,N}=Prob(l_N\le n)=\frac{f_{N,n}}{N!},$$ where $f_{N,n}=\# \text{(permutations $\pi$ in $S_N$ with $l_N\le n$)}$. The goal of this paper is to determine the asymptotics of $q_{n,N}$ as $N\to\infty$. This problem was raised by Ulam in the early 60’s [@Ul], and on the basis of Monte Carlo simulations, he conjectured that the limit $$c\equiv \lim_{N\to\infty} \frac1{\sqrt{N}} {\mathbb E}_N(l_N)$$ exists. (Here ${\mathbb E}_N(\cdot)$ denotes the expectation value with respect to the distribution function $q_{n,N}$.) The problem of proving the existence of this limit and the computation of $c$ has became known as “Ulam’s problem”. An argument of Erdös and Szekeres [@ES] shows that ${\mathbb E}_N(l_N)\geq \frac12\sqrt{N-1}$, so that if the limit exists, then $c\geq\frac12$. Subsequent numerical work by Baer and Brock [@BB] in late 60’s suggested that value of $c$ is 2. The existence of the limit was rigorously established by Hammersley [@Ha] in 1972. In [@LS], Logan and Shepp proved that $c\geq 2$ and simultaneously Vershik and Kerov [@VK] (see also [@VK2]) showed that $c=2$, thus settling Ulam’s problem. Alternative proofs of Ulam’s problem are due to Aldous and Diaconis [@AD], Seppäläinen [@Se] and Johansson [@Johan]. Over the years, various conjectures have been made concerning the variance $Var(l_N)$ of $l_N$, and Monte Carlo simulations of Odlyzko and Rains beginning in 1993, indicated that $$\label{e-c0}
\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac1{N^{1/3}} Var(l_N) = c_0$$ for some numerical constant $c_0 \sim 0.819$. Also Odlyzko and Rains computed ${\mathbb E}(l_N)$ to higher order and found $$\label{e-c1}
\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{{\mathbb E}(l_N)-2\sqrt{N}}{N^{1/6}} =c_1$$ where $c_1 \sim -1.758$. Further historical information on Ulam’s problem, together with some discussions of the methods used by various authors, can be found in [@AD] and [@OR]
Before stating our results, we need to define the Tracy-Widom distribution [@TW] (see below). Let $u(x)$ be the solution of the Painlevé II (PII) equation, $$\label{e-int1}
u_{xx}=2u^3+xu, \quad\text{and}\quad
u\sim -Ai(x)\quad\text{as}\quad x\to\infty,$$ where $Ai$ is the Airy function. The (global) existence and uniqueness of this solution was first established in [@HM] : the asymptotics as $x\to\pm\infty$ are, $$\label{e-asyPII}
\begin{split}
&u(x)=-Ai(x)+O\biggl(\frac{e^{-(4/3)x^{3/2}}}{x^{1/4}}\biggr)
\quad \text{as}\quad x\to\infty,\\
&u(x)= -\sqrt{\frac{-x}2} \biggl(1+O\bigl(\frac1{x^2}\bigr)\biggr)
\qquad \text{as}
\quad x\to -\infty,
\end{split}$$ (see, for example, [@HM], [@IN], [@DZ]). Recall [@AS] that $Ai(x)\sim
\frac{e^{-(2/3)x^{3/2}}}{2\sqrt{\pi}x^{1/4}}$ as $x\to\infty$. Define the Tracy-Widom distribution $$\label{e-F}
F(t) = \exp \biggl(-\int_t^\infty (x-t)u^2(x) dx\biggr).$$ From and , $F'(t)>0$, $F(t)\to 1$ as $t\to +\infty$ and $F(t)\to 0$ as $t\to -\infty$, so that $F$ is indeed a distribution function. Our first result concerns the convergence of $l_N$ in distribution after appropriate centering and scaling.
\[thm1\] Let $S_N$ be the group of all permutations of $N$ numbers with uniform distribution and let $l_N(\pi)$ be the length of the longest increasing subsequence of $\pi\in S_N$. Let $\chi$ be a random variable whose distribution function is $F$. Then, as $N\to\infty$, $$\chi_N\equiv\frac{l_N-2\sqrt{N}}{N^{1/6}}\to\chi
\qquad\text{in distribution,}$$ i.e. $$\lim_{N\to\infty} Prob\biggl(\chi_N\equiv
\frac{l_N-2\sqrt{N}}{N^{1/6}}\le t\biggr)
=F(t) \quad\text{for all $t\in{\mathbb R}$.}$$
In order to show that the moments of $\chi_N$ converge to the corresponding moments of $\chi$ we need estimates for the distribution function $F_N(t)$ of $\chi_N$ for large $|t|$. From the large deviation formulas for $l_N$ (see below), we expect that $F_N(t)$ (resp., $1-F_N(t)$) should go to zero rapidly as $t\to-\infty$ (resp., $t\to+\infty$). In fact, we will prove that, for $M>0$ sufficiently large, there are positive constants $c$ and $C(M)$ such that $$\label{e-J1.6a'}
F_N(t)\le C(M)e^{ct^3} $$ if $-2N^{1/3}\le t\le -M$, and $$\label{e-J1.6b'}
1-F_N(t)\le C(M)e^{-ct^{3/5}} $$ if $M\le t\le N^{5/6}-2N^{1/3}$. Together with Theorem \[thm1\] these estimates yield
\[thm2\] For any $m=1,2,3,\cdots$, we have $$\lim_{N\to\infty} {\mathbb E}_N(\chi_N^m)= {\mathbb E}(\chi^m),$$ where ${\mathbb E}(\cdot)$ denotes expectation with respect to the distribution function $F$. In particular, $$\label{e-Jcor1}
\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{Var(l_N)}{N^{1/3}} =
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} t^2dF(t) -
\biggl( \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} tdF(t) \biggr)^2.$$ and $$\label{e-Jcor2}
\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{{\mathbb E}_N(l_N)-2\sqrt{N}}{N^{1/6}} =
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} tdF(t).$$
If one solves the Painlevé II equation numerically (see, [@TW]), and then computes the integrals on the RHS of the formulae of and , one obtains the values 0.8132 and -1.7711 which agree with $c_0$ and $c_1$ in and respectively, up to two decimal places.
The distribution function $F(t)$ in Theorems \[thm1\] and \[thm2\] first arose in the work of Tracy and Widom on the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble (GUE) of random matrix theory. In this theory (see, e.g., [@Me]), one considers $N\times N$ hermitian matrix $M=(M_{ij})$ with probability density $$Z_N^{-1}e^{-tr(M^2)}dM
=Z_N^{-1}e^{-tr(M^2)} \biggl(\prod_{i=1}^{N} dM_{ii}\biggr)
\prod_{i=1}^{N} d(ReM_{ij}) d(ImM_{ij}),$$ where $Z_N$ is the normalization constant. In [@TW], Tracy and Widom showed that as the size of the hermitian matrices increases, the distribution of the (properly centered and scaled) largest eigenvalue of a random GUE matrix converges precisely to $F(t)$ ! In other words, properly centered and scaled, the length of the longest increasing subsequence for a permutation $\pi\in S_N$, behaves statistically for large $N$ like the largest eigenvalue of a random GUE matrix (see the Appendix for an intuitive argument). In [@TW], the authors also computed the distribution functions of the second, third, $\cdots$ largest eigenvalues of such random matrices, and the question arises whether such distribution functions describe the statistics of quantities identifiable in the random permutation context.
Recall the Robinson-Schensted correspondence (see, e.g., [@Sa], and also Section 5.1.4 in [@Kn]) which establishes a bijection $\pi\mapsto (P(\pi),Q(\pi))$ from $S_N$ to pairs of Young tableaux with shape$(P(\pi))$ $=$shape$(Q(\pi))$. Under this correspondence, the number of boxes in the first row of $P(\pi)$ (equivalently $Q(\pi)$) is precisely $l_N(\pi)$, (see, [@Sa], [@Kn]). In other words, the results on $l_N$ can be rephrased as results on the statistics of the number of boxes in the first row of Young tableaux. Monte Carlo simulations of Odlyzko and Rains [@OR] indicate that ${\widetilde}{l}_N$, the number of boxes in the second row of $P(\pi)$ (equivalently $Q(\pi)$) behaves statistically for large $N$, like the second largest eigenvalue of a random GUE matrix. More precisely, their simulations indicate that $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{{\mathbb E}_N({\widetilde}{l}_N)-2\sqrt{N}}{N^{1/6}}
=-3.618,$$ and $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac{Var({\widetilde}{l}_N)}{N^{1/3}} = 0.545.$$ These values agree, once again, to two decimal places with the mean and variance of the suitably centered and scaled second largest eigenvalue of a GUE matrix, as computed in [@TW]. Presumably, the number of boxes in the third row of $P(\pi)$ should behave statistically like the third largest eigenvalue of a GUE matrix as $N\to\infty$, etc. In recent work [@BDJ], the authors have shown that this conjecture is indeed true for the second row. Also, beautiful results of Okounkov [@Ok], using arguments from combinatorial topology, have now provided an elegant basis for understanding the relationship between the statistics of Young tableaux and the eigenvalues of random matrices. Over the last year, many other intriguing results have been obtained on a variety of problems arising in mathematics and mathematical physics, which are closely related to, or motivated by, the longest increasing subsequence problem. We refer the reader to [@TW2], [@Bo], [@Jo2; @Jo3] and [@BR].
As in [@Johan], we consider the Poissonization $\phi_n(\lambda)$ of $q_{n,N}$, $$\label{e-int4}
\phi_n(\lambda) \equiv \sum_{N=0}^{\infty}
\frac{e^{-\lambda}\lambda^N}{N!} q_{n,N}.$$ The function $\phi_n(\lambda)$ is a distribution function (in $n$) of a random variable $L(\lambda)$ coming from a superadditive process introduced by Hammersley in [@Ha], and used by him to show that the limit (1.1) exists. The random variable $L(\lambda)$ is defined as follows. Consider a homogeneous rate one Poisson process in the plane and let $L(\lambda)$ denote the maximum number of points in an up-right (increasing) path through the points starting at $(0,0)$ and ending at $(\sqrt{\lambda},\sqrt{\lambda})$. For more details see [@AD] and [@Se2], and for a generalization to the non-homogeneous case see [@DeZe]. Theorem \[thm1\] and \[thm2\] hold for the random variable $L(\lambda)$ as $\lambda\to\infty$. Referring to the “de-Poissonization” Lemmas \[lem-dep2\] and \[lem-dep3\] below, we see that it is easy to recover the asymptotics of $q_{n,N}$ as $N\to\infty$ from the knowledge of $\phi_n(\lambda)$ for $\lambda\sim N$. In other words, in order to compute the asymptotics of $l_N$, we must investigate the double scaling limit of $\phi_n(\lambda)$ when $\lambda\to\infty$ and $1\le n\le N\sim\lambda$, and this is the technical thrust of the paper.
To this end we use the following representation for $\phi_n(\lambda)$, $$\label{e-phi}
\phi_n(\lambda)
= e^{-\lambda} D_{n-1}(\exp(2\sqrt{\lambda}\cos{\theta})),$$ where $D_{n-1}$ denotes the $n\times n$ Toeplitz determinant with weight function $f(e^{i\theta})=\exp(2\sqrt{\lambda}\cos{\theta})$ on the unit circle, (see, e.g.,[@Sz]). The above formula follows from work of Gessel in [@Ge] using well known results about Toeplitz determinants. As noted in [@Johan], the formula can also be proved using the following representation for $q_{n,N}$, $1\le n\le N$, discovered by [@OPWW], $$\label{e-rains}
q_{n,N}=\frac{2^{2N}N!}{(2N)!}
\int_{[-\pi,\pi]^n} \bigl( \sum_{j=1}^{n} \cos\theta_j \bigr)^{2N}
\prod_{1\le j<k\le n} |e^{i\theta_j}-e^{i\theta_k}|^2
\frac{d^n\theta}{(2\pi)^nn!}.$$ In addition, an earlier result of Diaconis and Shahshahani ([@DS]) shows that the above formula is true also in the case $n>N$ when $q_{n,N}\equiv 1$. Inserting into , we obtain $$\label{e-DiS}
\phi_n(\lambda) = e^{-\lambda} \frac{1}{(2\pi)^nn!}
\int_{[-\pi,\pi]^n}\exp(2\sqrt{\lambda}\sum_{j=1}^{n} \cos{\theta_j})
\prod_{1\leq j<k \leq n} |e^{i\theta_j}-e^{i\theta_k}|^2 d^n\!\theta,$$ which is precisely by standard methods in the theory of Toeplitz determinants (see, [@Sz]). An additional proof of can be found in [@GWW], and also an alternative derivation of formula is given in [@Rains]. For the convenience of the reader we provide (yet another) proof of in the Appendix to this paper.
Using the integral representation , Johansson ([@Johan]) proved the following bound for $\phi(\lambda)$ : for any given $\epsilon >0$, there exist $C$ and $\delta>0$ such that $$\label{e-J1.11}
\begin{split}
&0\le\phi_n(\lambda)\le Ce^{-\delta\lambda}
\quad\text{if}\quad (1+\epsilon)n< 2\sqrt{\lambda},\\
&0\le 1- \phi_n(\lambda) \le \frac{C}{n}
\quad\text{if}\quad (1-\epsilon)n> 2\sqrt{\lambda}.
\end{split}$$ This information and the de-Poissonization Lemma \[lem-dep2\] are enough to give a new proof ([@Johan]) that $$\label{e-J1.11'}
\lim_{N\to\infty} L_N/2\sqrt{N} =1.$$ The first estimate in is a consequence of the following lower tail large deviation formula for $\phi_n(\lambda)$, $$\label{e-J1.12'}
\lim_{\lambda\to\infty}\frac
1{\lambda}\phi_{[x\sqrt{\lambda}]}(\lambda)= -1+2x-\frac 34x^2-\frac{x^2}2\log\frac 2x\equiv -U(x),$$ if $x<2$. For the upper tail Seppäläinen in [@Se2] used the interacting particle system implicitly introduced by Hammersley in [@Ha] to show that $$\label{e-J1.13}
\lim_{\lambda\to\infty} \frac1{\sqrt{\lambda}}
\log\bigl(1-\phi_{[x\sqrt{\lambda}]}(\lambda)\bigr) = -2x\cosh^{-1}(x/2)
+2\sqrt{x^2-4}\equiv -I(x)$$ if $x>2$. We note that Hammersley’s interacting particle system was also used earlier by Aldous and Diaconis in [@AD]. The super-additivity of the process described above implies that we actually have, see [@Se2] and also [@Ki], $$\label{e-J1.13'}
1-\phi_{[xM]}(M^2)\le e^{-MI(x)}, $$ if $M$ is a positive integer and $x\ge 2$. This estimate can be used to show , but in this paper we will give an independent proof of . The large deviation formula implies, via a de-Poissonization argument, that for $x>2$, $$\label{e-J1.14}
\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac1{\sqrt{N}} \log Prob\bigl( l_N>x\sqrt{N}\bigr)
=-I(x).$$ For the lower tail the large deviation formula for $l_N$ is not the same as for $L(\lambda)$, the Poissonized case. Deuschel and Zeitouni in [@DeZe2] use combinatorial and variational ideas from Logan and Shepp [@LS] to prove that $$\label{e-z50}
\lim_{N\to\infty} \frac1{N} \log Prob\bigl( l_N<x\sqrt{N}\bigr)
=-H(x),$$ if $0<x<2$, where $$\label{e-J15}
H(x)=-\frac12 +\frac{x^2}8+\log\frac{x}2
-\bigl(1+\frac{x^2}4\bigr)\log\bigl(\frac{2x^2}{4+x^2}\bigr).$$ For the lower tail we have no analogue of . The rate functions $U$ and $H$ are related via a Legendre transform, see [@Se2]. The above results show clearly that the distribution function for $l_N$ is sharply concentrated in the region $\{ (2-\epsilon)\sqrt{N} < l_N < (2+\epsilon)\sqrt{N} \}$ for any $\epsilon >0$, and they can be used to see heuristically that the variance for $l_N$ should be of order $N^{1/3}$, see [@Ki].
As is well known (see, [@Sz]) the Toeplitz determinant $D_{n-1}$ in is intimately connected with the polynomials $p_n(z;\lambda)=\kappa_n(\lambda)z^n+\cdots$, which are orthonormal with respect to the weight $f(e^{i\theta})\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}=
\exp(\sqrt{\lambda}(z+z^{-1})) \frac{dz}{2\pi iz}$ on the unit circle, $$\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} p_n(e^{i\theta})\overline{p_m(e^{i\theta})}
f(e^{i\theta})\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}
=\delta_{n,m} \quad\text{for $n,m\geq 0$}.$$ The leading coefficient $\kappa^2_n(\lambda)$ can be expressed in terms of Toeplitz determinants, $$\kappa_n^2(\lambda)=\frac{D_{n-1}(\lambda)}{D_n(\lambda)}$$ where $D_n(\lambda)=D_n(\exp(2\sqrt{\lambda}\cos\theta))$. But by Szegö’s strong limit theorem ([@Sz2]) for Toeplitz determinants, $\lim_{n\to\infty}D_{n}(\lambda)=e^{\lambda}$, and hence $$\log\phi_n(\lambda) = \sum_{k=n}^{\infty} \log{\kappa^2_{k}(\lambda)}.$$ Therefore, if one can control the large $k,\lambda$ behavior of $\kappa^2_{k}(\lambda)$ for all $k\geq n$, one will control the large $n,\lambda$ behavior of $\phi_n(\lambda)$.
The key point in our analysis is that $\kappa^2_{k}(\lambda)$ can be expressed in terms of the following Riemann-Hilbert Problem (RHP) : Let $\Sigma$ be the unit circle oriented counterclockwise. Let $Y(z;k+1,\lambda)$ be the $2\times 2$ matrix-valued function satisfying $$\label{e-Y}
\begin{cases}
Y(z;k+1,\lambda) \quad\text{is analytic in}\quad {\mathbb C}-\Sigma,\\
Y_+(z;k+1,\lambda)=Y_-(z;k+1,\lambda) \begin{pmatrix}
1&\frac{1}{z^{k+1}}e^{\sqrt{\lambda}(z+z^{-1})}\\0&1 \end{pmatrix}
\quad\text{on}\quad \Sigma,\\
Y(z;k+1,\lambda) z^{-(k+1)\sigma_3}
=I+O(\frac1{z}) \quad\text{as}\quad z\to\infty,
\end{cases}$$ where $Y_+$ and $Y_-$ denote the limit from inside and outside of the circle respectively, and $\sigma_3=
\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\0&-1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$, so that $z^{-(k+1)\sigma_3}=
\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} z^{-(k+1)}&0\\
0&z^{k+1} \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)$. Here $I$ is the $2\times 2$ identity matrix. This RHP has a unique solution (see below), and the fact of the matter is that $$\label{e-Y21}
\kappa^2_{k}(\lambda)=-Y_{21}(0;k+1,\lambda)$$ where $Y_{21}(0;k,\lambda)$ is the $(21)$-entry of the solution $Y$ at $z=0$. In [@DZ1] and [@DZ], Deift and Zhou introduced a steepest descent type method to compute the asymptotic behavior of RHP’s containing large oscillatory and/or exponentially growing/decaying factors as in . This method was further extended in [@DVZ2] and eventually placed in a very general form by Deift, Zhou and Venakides in [@DVZ], making possible the analysis of the limiting behavior of a large variety of asymptotic problems in pure and applied mathematics (see, e.g., [@DIZ]). As we will see, the application of this method to makes it possible to control the large $k,\lambda$ behavior of $\kappa_k^2(\lambda)$. The calculation in this paper have many similarities to the computations in \[DKMVZ\], where the authors use the steepest descent method to obtain Plancherel-Rotach type asymptotics for polynomials orthogonal with respect of varying weights, $e^{-NV(x)}dx$ on the real line, and hence to prove universality for a class of random matrix models. The Riemann-Hilbert formulation of the theory of orthogonal polynomials on the line is due to Fokas, Its and Kitaev ([@FIK]) : the RHP is an adaptation of the construction in [@FIK] to the case of orthogonal polynomial with respect to a weight on the unit circle.
This paper is arranged as follows. In Section \[s-PII\], we discuss of some of the basic theory of RHP’s and also provide some information on the RHP associated with the PII equation. This information will be used in the construction of an approximate solution, i.e. a *parametrix*, for the RHP in subsequent sections. The appearance of the PII equation in the limiting distribution $F(t)$ for $\chi_N$ originates in this construction of the parametrix. A connection of $\phi_n(\lambda)$ to Toda lattice and the Painlevé III equation is presented in Section \[s-TL\]. Section \[s- Begin\] is the starting point for the analysis of the RHP . In this section, is transformed into an equivalent RHP via a so-called $g$-function. The role of $g$-function, first introduced in [@DZ], and then analyzed in full generality in [@DVZ], is to replace exponentially growing terms in a RHP by oscillatory or exponentially decreasing terms. It turns out that in the case of , as in [@DKMVZ], the $g$-function can be constructed in terms of an associated equilibrium measure $d\mu(s)$ as follows, $$g(z)\equiv\int_{\Sigma} \log(z-s) d\mu(s).$$ The measure $d\mu$ is the unique minimizer of the following variational problem : $$\label{e-variational}
E^{V}=\inf \{I^{V}({\widetilde}{\mu}) : \text{${\widetilde}{\mu}$ is a probability measure on the
unit circle $\Sigma$}\}$$ where $$I^{V}({\widetilde}{\mu})= \iint_{\Sigma\times\Sigma} \log|s-w|^{-1}
d{\widetilde}{\mu}(s) d{\widetilde}{\mu}(w) +\int_{\Sigma} V(s) d{\widetilde}{\mu}(s)$$ and $V(s)=-\sqrt{\lambda}(s+s^{-1})$. The variational problem describes the equilibrium configuration of electrons, say, confined to the unit circle with Coulomb interactions, and acted on by an external field $V$. It turns out that the support of the equilibrium measure depends critically on the quantity $$\gamma=\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1}.$$ We need to distinguish these two cases, $\gamma\le 1$ and $\gamma>1$. As noted by Gross and Witten ([@GW]), and also by Johansson ([@Johan]), the point $\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1}=1$ corresponds to a (third order) phase transition for a statistical system with partition function . The first case, when $\gamma=\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1}\le 1$, is discussed in Section \[s-K1\], and the second case, when $\gamma=\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1}>1$, is discussed in Section \[s-K2\]. The principal results of the above two sections are summarized in Lemmas \[lem-K1\] and \[lem-K2\]. We obtain full asymptotics of $\kappa^2_{n}(\lambda)$ for $n, \lambda >0$ when $n, \lambda \to\infty$. In Section \[s-phi\], by summing up $\kappa^2_{k}(\lambda)$ for all $k\geq n$, we obtain the asymptotics of $\phi_n(\lambda)$ in Lemma \[lem-phi\]. The relation between $\phi_n(N)$ and $q_{n,N}$ (de-Poissonization) is discussed in Section \[s- dep\]. Finally, the proofs of Theorem \[thm1\] and \[thm2\] are given in Section \[s-pf\].
**Notational remarks** : The primary variables in this paper are $n,N$, and $\lambda$. The letters $C$, $c$ denote general positive constants. Rather than introducing many such constants $C_1,C_2,\cdots,c_1,c_2,\cdots,$ we always interpret $C,c$ in a general way. For example, we write $|f(x)|\le 2C|g(x)|+e^c|h(x)|\le C(|g(x)|+|h(x)|)$, etc. We will also use certain auxiliary positive parameters $M,M_1 ,M_2 ,\cdots,M_7$. If a constant depends on some of these parameters, we indicate this explicitly, for example, $C(M_2 ,M_4)$. In addition to the standard big $O$ notation, we also use a notation $O_M$. Thus $f=O(\frac1{n^{1/3}})$ means $|f|\le \frac{C}{n^{1/3}}$, where $C$ is independent of $M,M_1,\cdots$. On the other hand, $f=O_M(\frac1{n^{1/3}})$ means $|f|\le \frac{C(M,M_1,\cdots)}{n^{1/3}}$, where $C(M,M_1,\cdots)$ depends on at least one of the parameters $M,M_1,\cdots$.
In the estimates that follow we will often claim that an inequality is true “as $n\to\infty$”. For example, in below, we say that $$|\log{\phi_n(\lambda)}| \le C\exp\biggl(-c(n+1)
\bigl(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}\bigr)^{3/2}\biggr),$$ as $n\to\infty$. This mean that there exists a number $n_0$, say, which may depend on *all* the other relevant constants in the problem, such that the inequality is true for $n\geq n_0$, etc. (For this particular inequality the only other parameter is $M_5$, but it turns out that the constants $C$, $c$ can be chosen independent of $M_5$ (see below).)
[**Riemann-Hilbert Theory**]{} {#s-PII}
==============================
In this section, we first summarize some basic facts about RHP’s in general, and then discuss the RHP for the PII equation in some detail. Basic references for RHP’s are [@CG], [@GK], and the material on PII is taken from [@DZ].
Let $\Sigma$ be an oriented curve in the plane (see, for example, Figure \[fig-rh1\]).
By convention, the $(+)$-side (resp., $(-)$-side) of an arc in $\Sigma$ lies to the left (resp., right) as one traverses the arc in the direction of the orientation. Thus, corresponding to Figure \[fig-rh1\], we have Figure \[fig-rh2\].
Let $\Sigma_0=\Sigma-\{\text{points of self-intersection}\}$ and $v$ be a smooth map from $\Sigma_0\to Gl(n,{\mathbb C})$, for some $n$. If $\Sigma$ is unbounded, we require that $v(z)\to I$ as $z\to\infty$ along $\Sigma$. The RHP $(\Sigma,v)$ consists of the following (see, e.g., [@CG]) : establish the existence and uniqueness of an $n\times n$ matrix valued function $Y(z)$ (the *solution* of the RHP $(\Sigma,v)$) such that $$\label{e-tec1}
\begin{cases}
Y(z) \qquad\text{is analytic ${\mathbb C}-\Sigma$,}\\
Y_+(z)=Y_-(z)v(z) \quad z\in\Sigma_0,\\
Y(z)\to I \qquad\text{as $z\to\infty$.}
\end{cases}$$ Here $Y_{\pm}(z)=\lim_{z'\to z}Y(z')$ where $z'\in (\pm)-\text{side of $\Sigma$}$. The precise sense in which these boundary values are attained, and also the precise sense in which $Y(z)\to I$ as $z\to\infty$, are technical matters that should be specified for any given RHP $(\Sigma,v)$. In *this* paper, by a solution $Y$ of a RHP $(\Sigma,v)$, we always mean that $$\label{e-tec2}
\begin{split}
&\text{$Y(z)$ is analytic in ${\mathbb C}-\Sigma$ and continuous up to the
boundary}\\
&\text{(including the points in $\Sigma-\Sigma_0$) in each component.}\\
&\text{The jump relation $Y_+(z)=Y_-(z)v(z)$ is taken in the sense of}\\
&\text{continuous boundary values, and $Y(z)\to I$ as $z\to\infty$ means}\\
&\text{$Y(z)=I+O\bigl( \frac1{|z|} \bigr)$ uniformly as
$z\to\infty$ in ${\mathbb C}-\Sigma$.}
\end{split}$$ Given $(\Sigma,v)$, the existence of $Y$ under appropriate technical assumptions on $\Sigma$ and $v$, is in general a subtle and difficult question. However, for the RHP , and hence for all RHP’s obtained by deforming (see, e.g., ), we will prove the existence of $Y$ directly by construction (see, Lemma \[lem-exi\]) : uniqueness, as we will see, is a simple matter.
The solution of a RHP $(\Sigma, v)$ can be expressed in terms of the solution of an associated singular integral equation on $\Sigma$ (see, , below) as follows. Let $C_\pm$ be the Cauchy operators $$\label{e-sam3}
(C_\pm f)(z)=\lim_{z'\to z_\pm} \int_{\Sigma}
\frac{f(s)}{s-z'} \frac{ds}{2\pi i}, \quad z\in\Sigma,$$ where $z'\to z_\pm$ denotes the non-tangential limit from the $\pm$ side of $\Sigma$ respectively. A useful reference for Cauchy operators on curves which may have points of self-intersection is [@GK]. Under mild assumptions on $\Sigma$, which will always be satisfied for the curves that arise in this paper, the non-tangential limits in will exist pointwise a.e. on $\Sigma$. Furthermore, if $f\in L^p(\Sigma,|dz|)$, $1<p<\infty$, then the boundary values (appropriately interpreted at the points $\Sigma-\Sigma_0$ of self-intersection) of $\int_{\Sigma} \frac{f(s)}{s-z} \frac{ds}{2\pi i}$ are also taken in the sense of $L^p$ and $\|C_\pm f\|_{L^p(\Sigma,|dz|)} \le c_p\|f\|_{L^p(\Sigma,|dz|)}$. A simple calculation shows that $$\label{e-tec5}
C_+-C_-=1.$$
Let $$\label{e-sam2}
v=b^{-1}_-b_+ \equiv (I-w_-)^{-1}(I+w_+)$$ be any factorization of $v$. We assume $b_\pm$, and hence $w_\pm$, are smooth on $\Sigma_0$, and if $\Sigma$ is unbounded, we assume $b_\pm(z)\to I$ as $z\to\infty$ along $\Sigma$. Define the operator $$\label{e-tec3}
C_w(f)\equiv C_+(fw_-)+C_-(fw_+).$$ By the above discussion, if $w_\pm\in L^{\infty}(\Sigma,|dz|)$, then $C_w$ is bounded from $L^2(\Sigma,|dz|)\to L^2(\Sigma,|dz|)$. Suppose that the equation $$\label{e-sam4}
(1-C_w)\mu=I \quad\text{on $\Sigma$}$$ has a solution $\mu\in I+L^2(\Sigma)$, Or more precisely, suppose $\mu-I\in L^2(\Sigma)$ solves $$\label{e-tec4}
(1-C_w)(\mu-I)=C_wI=C_+(w_-)+C_-(w_+),$$ which is a well-defined equation in $L^2(\Sigma)$ provided that $w_\pm\in L^\infty\cap L^2(\Sigma,|dz|)$. Then the solution of the RHP is given by (see, [@CG],[@BC]) $$\label{e-sam5}
Y(z)=I+\int_{\Sigma} \frac{\mu(s)(w_+(s)+w_-(s))}{s-z}
\frac{ds}{2\pi i}, \quad z\notin\Sigma.$$ Indeed for a.e. $z\in\Sigma$, from and , $$\begin{split}
Y_+(z)&=I+C_+(\mu(s)(w_+(s)+w_-(s)))\\
&=I+C_w(\mu) + (C_+-C_-)(\mu w_+)\\
&=\mu+\mu w_+\\
&=\mu(z)b_+(z),
\end{split}$$ and similarly $Y_-(z)=\mu(z)b_-(z)$, so that $Y_+(z)=Y_-(z)b_-^{-1}(z)b_+(z)
=Y_-(z)v(z)$ a.e. on $\Sigma$. Under the appropriate regularity assumptions on $\Sigma$ and $v$, one then shows that $Y(z)$ solves the RHP $(\Sigma, v)$ in the sense of .
As indicated, the above approach to the RHP goes through for any factorization $v=(I-w_-)^{-1}(I+w_+)$. Different factorization may be used at different points in the analysis of any given problem (see e.g. [@DZ1]). However, in this paper we will *always* take $w_-=0$, so that $v=(I+w_+)$. Thus $C_w$ always denotes the operator $C_-\bigl(\cdot(v-I) \bigr)$.
In this paper we will not develop the general theory for the solution of RHP’s, giving conditions under which has a (unique) solution, etc. Rather, for the convenience of the reader who may not be familiar with Riemann-Hilbert theory, we will use the above calculations and computations as a guide, and verify all the steps directly as they arise.
We now consider the RHP for the PII equation ([@FN], [@JMU] : see also [@IN], [@FZ], [@DZ]). We will consider two equivalent versions of the RHP for PII. These two RHP’s will be used in the later sections for the construction of parametrices for the solution of .
Let $\Sigma^{PII}$ denote the oriented contour consisting of 6 rays in Figure \[fig-PII\]. Thus $\Sigma^{PII}=\cup_{k=1}^{6}\{ \Sigma^{PII}_{k}=e^{i(k-1)\pi/3} {\mathbb R}_+ \}$, with associated jump matrix $v^{PII} : \Sigma^{PII} \to M_2({\mathbb C})$, where the monodromy data $p,q$ and $r$ are complex numbers satisfying the relation $$\label{e-mon}
p+q+r+pqr=0.$$
For $x\in{\mathbb R}$ and $z\in\Sigma^{PII}-\{0\}$, set $$\begin{split}
v_x^{PII}(z)&=e^{-i\theta_{PII}\sigma_3}v^{PII}
e^{i\theta_{PII}\sigma_3}\\
&\equiv e^{-i\theta_{PII}ad\sigma_3}v^{PII},
\end{split}$$ where $$\theta_{PII}\equiv \frac{4z^3}3+xz.$$ The contour $\Sigma^{PII}$ consists precisely of the set $Re(i4z^3/3)=0$. This implies, in particular, that $v_x^{PII}(z)-I \notin L^2(\Sigma^{PII})$. For example, as $z\to +\infty$ along the real axis, $v_x^{PII}(z)-I$ is oscillatory (on the other rays, $\Sigma^{PII}_{k}$, $k=1,2,4,5$, $v_x^{PII}(z)-I$ could grow), and so we cannot expect that the RHP $(\Sigma^{PII},v_x^{PII})$ has a solution in the sense of . However, if we rotate $\Sigma^{PII}$ in the clockwise direction by any angle $\theta_0$, $0<\theta_0<\pi/3$, $\Sigma^{PII}\to
\Sigma^{PII}_{\theta_0}\equiv e^{-i\theta_0}\Sigma^{PII}$, then it is easy to see that $v_x^{PII}(z)-I\in
L^2\cap L^{\infty}(\Sigma^{PII}_{\theta_0})$, and we may expect that the RHP $(\Sigma^{PII}_{\theta_0},v_x^{PII})$ has a solution in the sense of . Moreover, as $v_x^{PII}(z)$ is analytic, it is clear that if one can solve $(\Sigma^{PII}_{\theta_0},v_x^{PII})$ for some $0<\theta_0<\pi/3$, then one can solve $(\Sigma^{PII}_{{\widetilde}{\theta}_0},v_x^{PII})$ for any other $0<{\widetilde}{\theta}_0<\pi/3$, and the solution of the ${\widetilde}{\theta}_0$-problem can be obtained from the $\theta_0$-problem by an analytic continuation, and vice versa. So suppose that for some fixed $0<\theta_0<\pi/3$, and for $x\in{\mathbb R}$, $m_{\theta_0}^{PII}(z;x)$ is a ($2\times 2$ matrix) solution of the RHP $(\Sigma_{\theta_0}^{PII}, v_x^{PII})$, $$\label{e-mPII}
\begin{cases}
m^{PII}_{\theta_0}(z) \qquad
\text{analytic in} \qquad {\mathbb C}-\Sigma_{\theta_0}^{PII},\\
\bigl(m_{\theta_0}^{PII}\bigr)_+(z)=
\bigl(m_{\theta_0}^{PII}\bigr)_-(z) v_x^{PII}(z) ,
\qquad 0\neq z\in \Sigma_{\theta_0}^{PII},\\
m^{PII}_{\theta_0}(z)\to I \qquad \text{as} \qquad z\to\infty,
\end{cases}$$ in the sense of . Let $m_1^{PII}(x)$ denote the residue at $\infty$ of $m_{\theta_0}^{PII}(z)$, given by $$m_{\theta_0}^{PII}(z;x)=I+\frac{m_1^{PII}(x)}{z}+O(\frac1{z^2})$$ as $z\to\infty$. Then $$\label{e-z4}
u(x)\equiv 2im_{1,12}^{PII}(x)=-2im_{1,21}^{PII}(x)$$ solves PII (see [@FN], [@JMU]), $$u_{xx}=2u^3+xu,\qquad x\in{\mathbb R},$$ where $m_{1,12}^{PII}(x)$ (resp., $m_{1,21}^{PII}(x)$) denotes the $(12)$-entry (resp, $(21)$-entry) of $m_1^{PII}(x)$. It is easy to see that $m_1^{PII}(x)$, and hence $u(x)$ in , is independent of the choice of $\theta_0\in (0,\pi/3)$
A solution of the RHP $(\Sigma_{\theta_0}^{PII}, v_x^{PII})$ for some $\theta_0$, hence for all $\theta_0\in (0,\pi/3)$, may not exist for all $p,q,r$ satisfying and $x\in{\mathbb R}$. A sufficient condition (see [@FZ]) for the RHP to have a unique solution (in the sense of ) for all $x\in{\mathbb R}$, is that $$|q-\bar{p}|<2 \qquad \text{and} \qquad r\in{\mathbb R}.$$ In this paper, we need the singular case $$p=-q=1 \qquad \text{and} \qquad r=0.$$
The latter condition $r=0$ implies that there is no jump across the rays $\pm e^{i(2\pi/3-\theta_0)}$, and we may replace $\Sigma^{PII}_{\theta_0}$ by $\Sigma^{PII,1}_{\theta_0}$ as in Figure \[fig-PII1\] (note that the orientations across the rays $e^{-i\theta_0}, e^{i(2\pi/3-\theta_0)}$ have been reversed). As noted in [@DZ], a unique solution in the sense of still exists in this singular case for all $x\in{\mathbb R}$ : a proof of this fact is not given in [@DZ], but can be found in \[DKMVZ3 ; nonregular case, Case II\]. In addition, the solution has the property that $$\label{e-unif}
\begin{split}
&m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}(z;x) \ \ \text{and its inverse are uniformly bounded}\\
&\text{for}\ \ (z,x)\in({\mathbb C}-\Sigma_{\theta_0}^{PII,1})\times[-M,M],
\end{split}$$ for any fixed $M>0$. As $m^{PII,1}_{\theta_0}(z;x)$ solves in the sense of , we see in particular that holds up to the boundary in each sector.
The asymptotics of $u(x)=2im_{1,12}^{PII,1}(x)$ given in , is computed in [@DZ] via the above RHP and from the proof in [@DZ], one learns that $$\label{e-aympm_1}
\begin{split}
&m^{PII,1}_{1,22}(x)=O\biggl(\frac{e^{-(4/3)x^{3/2}}}{x^{1/4}}\biggr)
\quad \text{as} \quad x\to\infty,\\
&m^{PII,1}_{1,22}(x)\sim \frac{i}8 x^2 \quad \text{as} \quad x\to -\infty,
\end{split}$$ where $m^{PII,1}_{1,22}$ denotes the $(22)$-entry of $m^{PII}_{1}$. Also, using the methods in [@DZ], for example, one obtains the relation $$\label{e-um1PII}
\frac{d}{dx} 2im^{PII,1}_{1,22}(x) = u^2(x).$$ and verifies directly that $2im^{PII,1}_{1,22}(x)$ is real-valued.
For the first of the two equivalent RHP’s advertised above, we consider Figure \[fig-PII2\], which consists of the real axis (the dotted line), $\Sigma^{PII,1}_{\theta_0}$ for some fixed, small $\theta_0>0$ (the dashed lines), and a contour $\Sigma^{PII,2}$ consisting of a pair of curved solid lines. The contour $\Sigma^{PII,2}$ is of the general shape indicated in the Figure, with one component in ${\mathbb C}_+$ and one component in ${\mathbb C}_-$, and we require that $\Sigma^{PII,2}$ is asymptotic to straight lines lying *strictly* within the region $\{ |arg z|<\pi/3 \}\cup\{ 2\pi/3 <arg z< 4\pi/3 \}$. Together with the line $\{xe^{-i\theta_0} : x\in{\mathbb R}\}$, these contours divide the complex plane into 4 open regions, $\Omega^{PII,2}_k$, $k=1,2,3,4$, as shown in Figure \[fig-PII2\]. Let $v^{PII,2}$ be the jump matrix on $\Sigma^{PII,2}$ which is given by $\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\1&1 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ in ${\mathbb C}_+$ and by $\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&-1\\0&1 \end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ in ${\mathbb C}_-$. We define $$\begin{cases}
m^{PII,2}=m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}e^{-i(\theta_{PII})ad\sigma_3}
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\1&1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)^{-1}
\quad\text{in}\quad{\Omega^{PII,2}_1\cap\Omega^{PII,1}_2},\\
m^{PII,2}=m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}e^{-i(\theta_{PII})ad\sigma_3}
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\1&1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)
\qquad\text{in}\quad{\Omega^{PII,2}_2\cap\Omega^{PII,1}_1},\\
m^{PII,2}=m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}e^{-i(\theta_{PII})ad\sigma_3}
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&-1\\0&1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)^{-1}
\quad\text{in}\quad{\Omega^{PII,2}_3\cap\Omega^{PII,1}_4},\\
m^{PII,2}=m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}e^{-i(\theta_{PII})ad\sigma_3}
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&-1\\0&1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)
\qquad\text{in}\quad{\Omega^{PII,2}_4\cap\Omega^{PII,1}_3},\\
m^{PII,2}=m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}\quad\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ where the regions $\Omega^{PII,1}_{k}$,$k=1,2,3,4$ are defined in Figure \[fig-PII1\]. A straightforward calculation with the jump relations for $m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}$, shows that $m^{PII,2}$ solves the new RHP $$\label{e-RHPm2}
\begin{cases}
m^{PII,2}\quad\text{is analytic in}\quad{\mathbb C}-\Sigma^{PII,2},\\
m^{PII,2}_+=m^{PII,2}_-v^{PII,2}_x\quad\text{on}
\quad\Sigma^{PII,2},\\
m^{PII,2}\to I\quad\text{as}\quad z\to\infty,
\end{cases}$$ where $v^{PII,2}_{x}=e^{-i(\theta_{PII})ad\sigma_3}v^{PII,2}$ and $v^{PII,2}$ is given in Figure \[fig-PII2\]. This deformed RHP is clearly equivalent to the original RHP for $m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}$ in the sense that a solution of the one RHP yields a solution of the other RHP, and vice versa. Also we have $$\label{e-RHPm2'}
(m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1})_1=m_1^{PII,2},$$ for the residues of $m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}$ (resp, $m^{PII,2}$) at $\infty$. From , we see that for any fixed $M>0$, $$\label{e-unif2}
\begin{split}
&m^{PII,2}(z;x) \quad\text{and its inverse are uniformly bounded}\\
&\text{for}\quad (z,x)\in({\mathbb C}-\Sigma^{PII,2})\times[-M,M].
\end{split}$$ A particular choice of contour $\Sigma^{PII}$ will be made in Section \[s-K1\] (see below).
The second of the equivalent RHP’s is restricted to the case $x<0$, and we consider Figure \[fig-PII3\], which consists of the real axis (the dotted line), $\Sigma^{PII,1}_{\theta_0}$ for some fixed small $\theta_0>0$ (the dashed lines) and a contour $\Sigma^{PII,3}=
\cup_{k=1}^{5}\Sigma^{PII,3}_{k}$ consisting of 5 straight lines, one finite and four infinite. The regions $\Omega^{PII,3}_k$, $1\le k\le 4$, are the components of ${\mathbb C}-\Sigma^{PII,3}$.
The infinite lines make an angle strictly between $0$ and $\pi/3$ with the real axis. Set $$\label{e-z5}
g^{PII}(z)=\frac43 \bigl(z^2+\frac{x}2 \bigr)^{3/2}$$ which is defined to be analytic in ${\mathbb C}-[-\sqrt{\frac{-x}2},
\sqrt{\frac{-x}2}]$, and behaves like $\frac43 z^3+xz+\frac{x^2}{8z}+O(\frac1{z^3}) = \theta_{PII}(z)+O(\frac1{z})$ as $z\to\infty$. Therefore for any $M>0$, $$\label{e-z6}
e^{i(g^{PII}(z)-\theta_{PII}(z))} \quad \text{is bounded for}
\quad (z,x)\in ({\mathbb C}-[-\sqrt{\frac{-x}2},\sqrt{\frac{-x}2}]) \times [-M,0]$$ and $$\label{e-z7}
e^{i(g^{PII}(z)-\theta_{PII}(z))} \to 1 \quad \text{as $z\to\infty$
uniformly for $-M\le x\le 0.$}$$ We define $m^{PII,3}$ by $$\begin{cases}
m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}[e^{-i(\theta_{PII})ad\sigma_3}
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\1&1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)^{-1}]
e^{i(g^{PII}(z)-\theta_{PII}(z))\sigma_3}
\quad\text{in}\quad
\Omega^{PII,3}_1\cap(\Omega^{PII,1}_2\cup\Omega^{PII,1}_3),\\
m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}[e^{-i(\theta_{PII})ad\sigma_3}
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\1&1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)]
e^{i(g^{PII}(z)-\theta_{PII}(z))\sigma_3}
\qquad\text{in}\quad{\Omega^{PII,3}_3\cap\Omega^{PII,1}_1},\\
m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}[e^{-i(\theta_{PII})ad\sigma_3}
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&-1\\0&1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)^{-1}]
e^{i(g^{PII}(z)-\theta_{PII}(z))\sigma_3}
\quad\text{in}\quad{\Omega^{PII,3}_2\cap\Omega^{PII,1}_4},\\
m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}[e^{-i(\theta_{PII})ad\sigma_3}
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 1&-1\\0&1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)]
e^{i(g^{PII}(z)-\theta_{PII}(z))\sigma_3}
\qquad\text{in}\quad
\Omega^{PII,3}_4\cap(\Omega^{PII,1}_2\cup\Omega^{PII,1}_3),\\
m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}\quad\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ Then from the jump relations for $m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}$, we see that $m^{PII,3}$ solves the new RHP $(\Sigma^{PII,3}, v_{x}^{PII,3})$ in the sense of , $$\label{e-z17}
\begin{cases}
m^{PII,3}\quad\text{is analytic in}\quad{\mathbb C}-\Sigma^{PII,3},\\
m^{PII,3}_+=m^{PII,3}_-v^{PII,3}_x\quad\text{on}
\quad\Sigma^{PII,3},\\
m^{PII,3}\to I\quad\text{as}\quad z\to\infty,
\end{cases}$$ where $v^{PII,3}_{x}$ is given by $$\label{e-vPII4}
\begin{cases}
\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\e^{2ig^{PII}}&1 \end{pmatrix}
\qquad\text{on}\quad \Sigma_1^{PII,3},\Sigma_2^{PII,3}\\
\begin{pmatrix}1&-e^{-2ig^{PII}}\\0&1 \end{pmatrix}
\quad\text{on}\quad \Sigma_3^{PII,3},\Sigma_4^{PII,3}\\
\begin{pmatrix}e^{-2ig_{-}^{PII}}&-1\\1&0 \end{pmatrix}
\quad\text{on}\quad \Sigma_5^{PII,3}.\\
\end{cases}$$ Also we have $$\label{e-mPmP4}
m_1^{PII}=m_1^{PII,3}-\bigl( \frac{ix^2}{8} \bigr)\sigma_3,$$ for the respective residues of $m_{\theta_0}^{PII,1}$ and $m^{PII,3}$ at $\infty$. Finally, from and , we see that, for any fixed $M\in{\mathbb R}$ $$\label{e-unif4}
\begin{split}
&m^{PII,3}(z;x) \quad\text{and its inverse are uniformly bounded}\\
&\text{for}\quad (z,x)\in({\mathbb C}-\Sigma^{PII,3})\times[-M,0].
\end{split}$$
[**Connection to the Toda Lattice and the Painlevé III Equation**]{} {#s-TL}
====================================================================
In this Section, we discuss the connection of the RHP for $\kappa^2_k$ and the RHP for the Toda lattice and the Painlevé III equation. In the RH context, the connection results from the specific form of the weight, $e^{\sqrt{\lambda}(z+z^{-1})}$. Connections can also be seen from the Toeplitz determinant/orthogonal polynomial point of view as in [@PS], [@Hi] and [@Wi]. The purpose of this short Section is purely to establish the various connection, but we do not use the results in the sequel.
Write $q=k+1$ in . We define $$\label{e-sTL1}
m^{TL}(z;q)=
\begin{cases}
\biggl( \begin{smallmatrix} 0&-1\\1&0 \end{smallmatrix} \biggr) Y(z;q)
\biggl( \begin{smallmatrix} z^{-q}e^{\sqrt{\lambda}z^{-1}}&0\\
0&z^{q}e^{-\sqrt{\lambda}z^{-1}} \end{smallmatrix} \biggr)
\biggl( \begin{smallmatrix} 0&1\\-1&0 \end{smallmatrix} \biggr) \quad |z|>1,\\
\biggl( \begin{smallmatrix} 0&-1\\1&0 \end{smallmatrix} \biggr)Y(z;q)
\biggl( \begin{smallmatrix} e^{\sqrt{\lambda}z}&0\\
0&e^{-\sqrt{\lambda}z} \end{smallmatrix} \biggr) \quad |z|<1.
\end{cases}$$ A simple calculation shows that $m^{TL}$ solves the following RHP, $$\label{e-TL3}
\begin{cases}
&m^{TL}(z) \quad\text{is analytic in} \quad {\mathbb C}-\Sigma,\\
&m^{TL}_+(z)=m^{TL}_-(z)\begin{pmatrix}
0&-z^{-q}e^{-\sqrt{\lambda}(z-z^{-1})}\\
z^{q}e^{\sqrt{\lambda}(z-z^{-1})}&1 \end{pmatrix}\\
&m^{TL}(z)\to I \quad\text{as} \quad z\to\infty.
\end{cases}$$ Once again, the RHP for $Y$ is equivalent to the RHP for $m^{TL}$ in the sense that a solution of one problem yields a solution of the other problem.
Recall that the RHP related to the Toda Lattice problem, for $-\infty<m<\infty$, $$\begin{split}
\frac{da_m}{dt}=2(b^2_{m}-b^2_{m-1})\\
\frac{db_m}{dt}=b_{m}(a_{m+1}-a_{m}),
\end{split}$$ under initial data decaying at infinity is the following (see,e.g.,[@Ka]). Suppose that there are no solitons and denote the reflection coefficient by $r(z)$, $z\in\Sigma$. Then we find $Q(z)$ such that $$\begin{cases}
Q(z) \qquad\text{is analytic in ${\mathbb C}-\Sigma$}\\
Q_+(z)=Q_-(z)\begin{pmatrix} 1-|r(z)|^2&-\bar{r}(z)z^{2m}e^{-t(z-z^{-1})}\\
r(z)z^{-2m}e^{t(z-z^{-1})}&1 \end{pmatrix}\\
Q(z)\to I \qquad\text{as $z\to\infty$}.
\end{cases}$$ When $q$ is even, if we set $\sqrt{\lambda}=t$ and $q=-2m$ in , then the RHP is identical with the above RHP with $r(z)\equiv 1$.
For the connection to the Painlevé III equation, define $$m^{PIII}(z)=
\begin{cases}
(-1)^qm^{TL}(z) &\quad |z|<1,\\
m^{TL}(z) &\quad |z|>1.
\end{cases}$$ Note in , $$(-1)^q\negthickspace\begin{pmatrix}
0\negthickspace&\negthickspace-z^{-q}e^{-\sqrt{\lambda}(z-z^{-1})}\\
z^{q}e^{\sqrt{\lambda}(z-z^{-1})}&1 \end{pmatrix}\negthickspace
= \negthickspace(-1)^qe^{-\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}2(z-z^{-1})ad\sigma_3}z^{-\frac{q}2ad\sigma_3}
\negthickspace\begin{pmatrix} 1&1\\-1&0 \end{pmatrix} ^{-1}$$ where $z^{\frac{q}2}$ is analytic in ${\mathbb C}-(-\infty,0]$ and real-valued for real $z$. If we set $\sqrt{\lambda}=-ix$, then this is the same RHP for the particular Painlevé III equation (see [@FMZ] for results and notations) $$u_{xx}=\frac{u_x^2}{u}-\frac1{x}u_x
+\frac1{x}\bigl( -4qu^2+4(1-q)\bigr) +4u^3+\frac{-4}{u}$$ with monodromy data $$\begin{split}
&\theta_{\infty}=-\theta_0=q,\\
&a_0=b_0=a_{\infty}=b_{\infty}=0,\\
&E=\bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 1&1\\-1&0 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr).
\end{split}$$
In the RHP , we are interested directly in the quantity $-Y_{21}(0;k+1,\lambda)$, or by , $m^{TL}_{11}(0;q)$. On the other hand, for the Toda lattice and the PIII equation, one is interested in quantities other than $m^{TL}_{11}(0;q)$ which are related to the respective RHP’s. For example, the solution $u(x)$ of PIII equation is given by $u(x)=-ix(m^{PIII}_1)_{12}$ where $m^{PIII}=I+\frac{m^{PIII}_1}{z}
+O(\frac1{z})$, which is clearly different from $(-1)^qm^{PIII}_{11}(0;q)$. However, the importance of the connection of to the RHP’s for Toda lattice and the PIII equation lies precisely in the fact that $(a_m,b_m)$ (resp., $u(x)$) solve differential-difference (resp., differential) equations which in turn imply that the coefficients of the generating function $\phi_n(\lambda)$, $2\sqrt{\lambda}=-ix$, must satisfy a certain class of identities. We plan to investigate these relations in a later publication.
Finally, note that for PIII, the interesting asymptotic question is to evaluate the limit $x=i\sqrt{\lambda}\to\infty$, with $q$ fixed. In this paper, as in the Toda lattice, we are interested in the double limit when $\lambda\to\infty$ and $q$ is allowed to vary (note that in [@Ka], the singular case $r(z)\equiv 1$ is not considered). When $\lambda\to\infty$, $\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{q}\sim 1$, we are in a region where the solution of PIII equation degenerates to a solution of PII equation, and this explains the appearance of PII in the parametrix for the solution of $Y$ of the RHP .
[**Equilibrium Measure and $g$-function**]{} {#s- Begin}
============================================
In this Section, the equilibrium measure is explicitly calculated for each $\gamma>0$ (Lemma \[lem-ourg\]) and, using this equilibrium measure, the $g$-function is introduced in order to convert the RHP into a RHP which is normalized to be $I$ at $\infty$.
Let $\Sigma$ denote the unit circle oriented counterclockwise and $f(e^{i\theta})=f(z)$ be a non-negative, periodic, smooth function on $\Sigma$. Let $p_q(z)=\kappa_qz^q+\cdots$ be the $q$-th normalized orthogonal polynomial with respect to the weight $f(e^{i\theta})\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}$ on the unit circle. Define the polynomial $p_q^{*}(z)\equiv z^q\bar{p}_q(1/z)
=z^q\overline{p_q(1/\bar{z})}$ (see [@Sz]). We consider the following RHP : Let $Y(z)$ be the $2\times 2$ matrix-valued function satisfying $$\label{e-beg1}
\begin{cases}
Y(z) \qquad \text{is analytic in} \quad {\mathbb C}-\Sigma,\\
Y_+(z)=Y_-(z)\begin{pmatrix}1&\frac{1}{z^{k+1}}f(z)\\0&1
\end{pmatrix} \quad\text{on} \quad \Sigma,\\
Y(z)z^{-(k+1)\sigma_3}=I+O(\frac1z) \quad\text{as} \quad z\rightarrow \infty.
\end{cases}$$ The following Lemma is the starting point of our calculations.
\[lem-exi\] (cf. [@FIK], [@DKMVZ]) The RHP has a unique solution $$Y(z)=\begin{pmatrix}
\frac1{\kappa_{k+1}}p_{k+1}(z)& \frac1{\kappa_{k+1}}
\int_{\Sigma}\frac{p_{k+1}(s)}{s-z}\frac{f(s)ds}{2\pi i s^{k+1}}\\
-\kappa_{k}p^{*}_{k}(z)& -\kappa_{k}
\int_{\Sigma}\frac{p^{*}_{k}(s)}{s-z}\frac{f(s)ds}{2\pi i s^{k+1}}
\end{pmatrix}.$$
Existence : Using the property of Cauchy operator $C_+-C_-=I$, where $Ch(z)\equiv\int_{\Sigma} \frac{h(s)}{s-z} ds$, it is a straightforward calculation to show that the above expression for $Y$ satisfies the jump condition. The asymptotics at $\infty$ codes in precisely the fact that the $p_k's$ are the normalized orthogonal polynomials for the weight $f(e^{i\theta})d\theta$.
Uniqueness : Suppose that there is another solution $\tilde{Y}$ of RHP. Noting
$det \biggl( \begin{smallmatrix} 1&\frac{1}{z^{k+1}}f(z)\\0&1
\end{smallmatrix} \biggr) =1$, we have that $\det \tilde{Y}$ is entire, and $\to 1$ as $z\to\infty$. Therefore by Liouville’s theorem, $\det \tilde{Y}\equiv 1$. In particular, $\tilde{Y}$ is invertible. Now set $Z=Y\tilde{Y}^{-1}$. Then it has no jump on $\Sigma$ hence is entire. Also, $Z\to I$ as $z\to\infty$, and therefore $Z\equiv I$.
From this Lemma, we have $$\kappa^2_{k}=-Y_{21}(0)$$ Therefore the RHP has a unique solution and is verified.
Again set $q=k+1$ and $$\gamma=\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{q}.$$ We are interested in the case when $q$ and $2\sqrt{\lambda}$ are of the same order , or more precisely, $\gamma\to 1$. In this Section, and also in Sections \[s-K1\] and \[s-K2\], we consider the RHP with parameter $\gamma$ and $q$, $$\label{RHP-Y}
\begin{cases}
Y(z;q) \quad \text{analytic in} \quad {\mathbb C}-\Sigma,\\
Y_+(z;q)=Y_-(z;q)
\begin{pmatrix}1&\frac{1}{z^q}e^{\frac{q\gamma}{2}(z+z^{-1})}\\0&1
\end{pmatrix} \quad\text{on}\quad \Sigma,\\
Y(z;q)=\bigl( I+O(\frac1z) \bigr)z^{q\sigma_3}
\quad\text{as}\quad z\rightarrow \infty,
\end{cases}$$ rather than $\lambda$ and $q$. With $\gamma$ fixed, the RHP is of the Plancherel-Rotach type with *varying* exponential weight $e^{\frac{q\gamma}{2}(z+z^{-1})}$ on the unit circle (see [@Sz], [@DKMVZ]). Similar problem on the real line is analyzed in [@DKMVZ] without double scaling limit ($\gamma$ is kept fixed). Our goal is to find the large $q$ behavior of $Y_{21}(0;q)$ for all $\gamma > 0$.
Let $d\mu(s)$ be a probability measure on the unit circle. Define $$g(z) \equiv \int_{\Sigma}\log (z-s) d\mu(s)$$ where for each $\theta$, the branch is chosen such that $\log(z-e^{i\theta})$ is analytic in ${\mathbb C}-(-\infty,-1]\cup \{ e^{it}:-\pi\le t\le\theta \}$ (see Figure \[fig-branch\]) and $\log(z-e^{i\theta}) \sim \log{z}$ for real $z\to\infty$. The following Lemma is based on related calculations in [@DKM].
\[lem-gfun\] Suppose $d\mu(z)=u(\theta) d\theta$ is an absolutely continuous probability measure on the unit circle and $u(\theta)=u(-\theta)$. Then $g(z)$ has the following properties :
1. $g$ is analytic in ${\mathbb C}-\Sigma\cup (-\infty ,-1).$
2. On $(-\infty ,-1), g_+(z)-g_-(z)=2\pi i.$
3. $g(z)=\log z+O(\frac1z)$ as $z\rightarrow \infty.$
4. $e^{qg(z)}$ is analytic in ${\mathbb C}-\Sigma.$
5. $e^{qg(z)}=z^q( 1+O(\frac1z))$ as $z\rightarrow \infty.$
6. $g(0)= \pi i.$
7. $g_+(z)+g_-(z)=2\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\log |z-s| d\mu(s)
+ i(\phi +\pi)$ on $z\in\Sigma$ where $\phi=arg(z).$
8. $g_+(z)-g_-(z)=2\pi i\int_{\phi}^{\pi} d\mu(s)$ on z$\in\Sigma.$
(i)-(v) are trivial. For (vi), $$g(0)=\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} \log{(0-e^{i\theta})} u(\theta)d\theta
=\int_{-\pi}^{\pi} i(\theta+\pi) u(\theta)d\theta = \pi i$$ using the evenness of $u(\theta)$.
For (vii), fix $z=e^{i\phi}\in\Sigma$. Then $arg(z-e^{i\theta})$ is analytic if $-\pi<\theta<\phi$ and $$\begin{split}
g_+(z)&=\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\log |z-e^{i\theta}| d\mu(z)
+i\int_{-\pi}^{\phi} arg(z-e^{i\theta}) d\mu(z)
+i\int_{\phi}^{\pi} arg_+(z-e^{i\theta}) d\mu(z),\\
g_-(z)&=\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\log |z-e^{i\theta}| d\mu(z)
+i\int_{-\pi}^{\phi} arg(z-e^{i\theta}) d\mu(z)
+i\int_{\phi}^{\pi} arg_-(z-e^{i\theta}) d\mu(z).
\end{split}$$ Note that for $\phi <\theta <\pi$, $$arg_+(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\theta}) - arg_-(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\theta}) = 2\pi.$$ This yields $$g_+(z)+g_-(z)=2\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\log |z-e^{i\theta}| d\mu(z)
+2i\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}arg_+(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\theta}) d\mu(z)
-i\int_{\phi}^{\pi} 2\pi d\mu(z).$$ Set $$F(\phi)=2\int_{-\pi}^{\phi} arg(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\theta}) d\mu(z)
+2\int_{\phi}^{\pi} arg_+(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\theta}) d\mu(z)
-2\pi\int_{\phi}^{\pi} d\mu(z) -\phi$$ If we show $F(\phi)\equiv\pi$, then (vii) is proved. Note that (a) $arg(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\phi_-})=\phi+\frac{\pi}2$, (b) $arg_+(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\phi_+})=\phi+\frac{3\pi}2$ and (c) $\frac{d}{d\phi} arg(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\theta}) \equiv \frac12$. This gives us $F'(\phi)=2arg(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\phi_-})u(\phi)-2arg_+(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\phi_+})u(\phi)+2\pi u(\phi) \equiv 0$. But $F(\pi)=\pi$. Therefore $F(\phi)\equiv\pi$
For (viii), $$\begin{split}
g_+(z)-g_-(z)&=i\int_{\phi}^{\pi}
[arg_+(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\theta}) - arg_-(e^{i\phi}-e^{i\theta})] d\mu(z)\\
&=i\int_{\phi}^{\pi} 2\pi d\mu(z).
\end{split}$$
Let $M$ be the set of probability measures on $\Sigma$. The equilibrium measure $d\mu_V(z)$ for potential $V(z)=-\frac{\gamma}2(z+z^{-1})$ on the unit circle is defined by the following minimization problem, $$\inf_{\mu\in M} \iint_{\Sigma\times\Sigma} \log|z-w|^{-1} d\mu(z) d\mu(w)
+ \int_{\Sigma} V(z) d\mu(z).$$ The infimum is achieved uniquely (see, e.g. [@ST]) at the equilibrium measure. Let $J$ denote the support of $d\mu_V$. The equilibrium measure and its support are uniquely determined by the following Euler-Lagrange variational conditions : $$\label{e-varicon}
\begin{split}
&\text{there exits a real constant $l$ such that},\\
&\quad 2\int_{\Sigma} \log{|z-s|}d\mu_V(s) - V(z)+l=0 \ \ \text{for $z\in \bar{J}$},\\
&\quad 2\int_{\Sigma} \log{|z-s|}d\mu_V(s) - V(z)+l \le 0 \ \
\text{for $z\in\Sigma -\bar{J}$}.
\end{split}$$ In Lemma \[lem-ourg\] below, we find $d\mu_V$, its support and $l$ explicitly from this variational condition with the aid of Lemma \[lem-gfun\]. Let $$\label{4.8}
g(z)=g_V(z) \equiv \int_{\Sigma}\log (z-s) d\mu_V(s)$$ where $d\mu_V$ is the equilibrium measure. Following [@DKMVZ], we define $${m^{(1)}(z)} \equiv
e^{\frac{ql}{2}\sigma_3}Y(z)e^{-qg(z)\sigma_3} e^{-\frac{ql}{2}\sigma_3}.$$ Then $m^{(1)}$ solves the following new RHP, $$\label{e-m1orig}
\begin{cases}
{m^{(1)}(z)} \qquad\text{is analytic in}\quad {\mathbb C}-\Sigma,\\
{m_+^{(1)}(z)} = {m_-^{(1)}(z)} v^{(1)} \quad\text{on}\quad\Sigma,\\
{m^{(1)}(z)}=I+O(\frac1z) \quad\text{as}\quad z\rightarrow \infty
\end{cases}$$ where $v^{(1)}=\begin{pmatrix} e^{q(g_--g_+)}&
\frac{1}{z^q}e^{q(g_++g_--V+l)}\\
0& e^{q(g_+-g_-)} \end{pmatrix}$, and $$\label{e-Korig}
\kappa^2_{q-1}=-Y_{21}(0;q)=-m_{21}^{(1)}(0)e^{ql}e^{qg(0)}
=-(-1)^qm^{(1)}_{21}(0)e^{ql},$$ from Lemma \[lem-gfun\] (vi).
Once again we note that this RHP for $m^{(1)}$ is equivalent to the RHP for $Y$ in the sense that a solution of one RHP yields a solution of the other RHP, and vice versa. Using Lemma \[lem-gfun\], the jump matrix $v^{(1)}$ is given by $$\label{e-Omega}
\begin{cases}
\text{inside the support of $d\mu_V$},\\
\qquad\begin{pmatrix} e^{-2q\pi i\int_{\phi}^{\pi} d\mu_V(\theta)}& (-1)^q\\
0& e^{2q\pi i\int_{\phi}^{\pi} d\mu_V(\theta)} \end{pmatrix}.\\
\text{outside the support of $d\mu_V$}, \\
\qquad\begin{pmatrix} e^{-2q\pi i\int_{\phi}^{\pi} d\mu_V(\theta)}&
(-1)^qe^{q\bigl[ 2\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\log |z-e^{i\theta}| d\mu_V(\theta)
-V(z)+l\bigr] }\\
0&e^{2q\pi i\int_{\phi}^{\pi} d\mu_V(\theta)} \end{pmatrix}.
\end{cases}$$ As indicated in the Introduction, the purpose of the $g$-function is to turn exponentially growing terms in the jump matrix for the RHP, into oscillatory or exponentially decaying terms : this can be seen explicitly in , using .
We have explicit formulae for the equilibrium measure and $l$. For $0<\gamma\leq 1$, the equilibrium measure has the whole circle as its support but for $\gamma > 1$, a gap opens up. See, also [@GW] and [@Johan].
Notation : $\chi_B(\theta)$ denotes the indicator function of the set $B\subset\Sigma$.
\[lem-ourg\] For the weight $V(z)=-\frac{\gamma}{2}(z+z^{-1})$, the equilibrium measure and $l$ are given as follows :
1. If $0\leq \gamma \leq 1$, then $$\label{e-lem4.3.1}
d\mu_V(\theta)=\frac{1}{2\pi}(1+\gamma \cos{\theta}) d\theta$$ and $l=0$.
2. If $\gamma > 1$, then $$\label{e-lem4.3.2}
d\mu_V(\theta)=\frac{\gamma}{\pi} \cos(\frac{\theta}{2})
\sqrt{\frac{1}{\gamma} - \sin^2(\frac{\theta}{2})}
\chi_{[-\theta_c, \theta_c]}(\theta) d\theta$$ and $$\label{e-lem4.3.3}
l=-\gamma +\log\gamma +1,$$ where $\sin^2\frac{\theta_c}{2}=\frac{1}{\gamma}, 0< \theta_c<\pi$. In this case, the inequality in the variational condition is strict.
\(i) First, it is easy to check that $d\mu_V(\theta)$ defined above in is a positive probability measure. We set $$g(z)=\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\log (z-e^{i\theta})\frac{1}{2\pi}(1+\gamma \cos{\theta}) d\theta.$$ Then $$g'(z)=\frac1{2\pi i} \int_{\Sigma} \frac1{z-s}(1+\frac{\gamma}2(s+s^{-1}))\frac{ds}{s}.$$ Using a residue calculation with $g(z)=\log{z}+O(\frac1{z})$ as $z\to\infty$ and $g(0)=\frac1{2\pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi}
\log{e^{i(\theta+\pi)}}(1+\gamma\cos{\theta})d\theta=\pi i$, we have $$\label{e-g1} g(z)=
\begin{cases}
\log{z}-\frac{\gamma}{2z}& |z|>1, z\notin (-\infty,-1),\\
-\frac{\gamma}2 z+\pi i& |z|<1.
\end{cases}$$ Therefore we have $$g_+(z)+g_-(z)=\log{z}-\frac{\gamma}2(z+z^{-1})+\pi i.$$ From Lemma \[lem-gfun\] (vii), we have $$2\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\log |z-e^{i\theta}| \frac1{2\pi}
(1+\gamma\cos{\theta}) d\theta +\frac{\gamma}2(z+z^{-1}) = 0$$ for any $z=e^{i\phi}$ with $l=0$ as $\log{z}=i\phi$.
\(ii) It is straightforward to check that the above measure is a positive probability measure. For $g(z)$ defined in as before, we have $$\begin{split}
g'(z)&= \int_{-\theta_c}^{\theta_c} \frac1{z-e^{i\theta}}
\frac{\gamma}{\pi} \cos(\frac{\theta}{2})
\sqrt{\frac1{\gamma}-\sin^2\frac{\theta}{2}} d\theta \\
&= \frac{\gamma}{4\pi i} \int_{-\theta_c}^{\theta_c}
\frac1{z-s}
\frac{s+1}{s^2} \sqrt{(s-\xi)(s-\bar{\xi})} ds
\end{split}$$ where $\xi=e^{i\theta_c}$, and the branch is chosen to be analytic in ${\mathbb C}-\{ e^{i\theta} : \theta_c\le |\theta| \le \pi \}$ and $\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s-\bar{\xi})}>0$ for real $s>>0$. From a residue calculation, we obtain $$g'(z)= \frac1{2z}-\frac{\gamma}4(1-z^{-2}) +\frac{\gamma}4\frac{z+1}{z^2}\sqrt{(z-\xi)(z-\bar{\xi})}.$$ Integrating, we have for $|z|>1$, $z\notin (-\infty,-1)$, $$g(z)=\frac12\log{z} -\frac{\gamma}{4} (z+z^{-1}) +\frac{\gamma}2
+\frac{\gamma i}4 \int_{1_{+0}}^{z} \frac{s+1}{s}\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s-\bar{\xi})}
\frac{ds}{si} +g_-(1)$$ and for $|z|<1$, $z\notin (-1,0]$, $$g(z)=\frac12\log{z} -\frac{\gamma}{4} (z+z^{-1}) +\frac{\gamma}2
+\frac{\gamma i}4 \int_{1_{-0}}^{z} \frac{s+1}{s}\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s-\bar{\xi})}
\frac{ds}{si} +g_+(1)$$ where $g_+$, $g_-$ denote the limit from inside and outside each and $1_{+0}$, $1_{-0}$ denote the outside and inside limits.
\(a) For $|\phi| \le \theta_c$, $$g_+(z)+g_-(z)=\log{z} -\frac{\gamma}2(z+z^{-1}) +\gamma +g_+(1)+g_-(1)$$ From Lemma \[lem-gfun\] (vii), we obtain $$\begin{split}
g_+(1)+g_-(1)&= 2\int_{-\theta_c}^{\theta_c} \log|1-e^{i\theta}|
\frac{\gamma}{\pi} \cos{\frac{\theta}2} \sqrt{\frac1{\gamma}
-\sin^2 \frac{\theta}2} d\theta +i(0+\pi)\\
&= \frac{4\gamma}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\theta_c} \log(2|\sin{\frac{\theta}2}|)
\cos{\frac{\theta}2} \sqrt{\frac1{\gamma} -\sin^2 \frac{\theta}2} d\theta +\pi i\\
&= 2\log{2} -\log{\gamma} +\frac8{\pi} \int_{0}^{\frac{\pi}2}
\log(\sin{\theta}) \cos^2 \theta d\theta +\pi i\\
&= 2\log{2} -\log{\gamma} -1 +\frac4{\pi} \int_{0}^{\frac{\pi}2}
\log(\sin{\theta}) d\theta +\pi i,
\end{split}$$ after simple change of variables and integration by parts. But we have $\int_{0}^{\frac{\pi}2} \log(\sin{\theta}) d\theta
= -\frac{\pi}2 \log{2}$ from $$\begin{split}
2\int_{0}^{\frac{\pi}2} \log(\sin{\theta}) d\theta
&= \int_{0}^{\frac{\pi}2} \log(\sin{\theta}) d\theta
+ \int_{0}^{\frac{\pi}2} \log(\cos{\theta}) d\theta \\
&= \int_{0}^{\frac{\pi}2} \log(\frac12 \sin{2\theta}) d\theta \\
&=-\frac{\pi}2 \log{2}
+ \int_{0}^{\frac{\pi}4} \log(\sin{2\theta}) d\theta
+ \int_{\frac{\pi}4}^{\frac{\pi}2} \log(\sin{2\theta}) d\theta \\
&=-\frac{\pi}2 \log{2} +\int_{0}^{\frac{\pi}2} \log(\sin{\theta}) d\theta.
\end{split}$$ Therefore $$g_+(z)+g_-(z)=\log{z} -\frac{\gamma}2(z+z^{-1})+\gamma-\log{\gamma}-1+\pi i.$$ From Lemma \[lem-gfun\] (vii), we obtain the desired result for $|\phi| \le \theta_c$, $z=e^{i\phi}$, $$2\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\log |z-e^{i\theta}| d\mu_V(\theta)
+ \frac{\gamma}2(z+z^{-1}) -\gamma +\log\gamma +1 =0.$$
\(b) for $\theta_c <\phi <\pi$ ($-\pi <\phi <-\theta_c$ case is similar), $$\begin{split}
g_+(z)+g_-(z)&= \log{z} -\frac{\gamma}2(z+z^{-1}) +g_+(1)+g_-(1)\\
&\qquad +\frac{\gamma}2 \int_{\theta_c}^{\phi} \frac{s+1}{s^2}\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s-\bar{\xi})} ds.
\end{split}$$ But $$\frac{\gamma}2 \int_{\theta_c}^{\phi} \frac{s+1}{s^2}\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s-\bar{\xi})} ds = -\frac{\gamma}2 \int_{\theta_c}^{\phi} \cos{\frac{\theta}2} \sqrt{\sin^2 \frac{\theta}2 -\frac1{\gamma}} d\theta < 0.$$ Therefore, using Lemma \[lem-gfun\] (vii) and calculations in (a), we obtain for $|\phi|>\theta_c$, $$2\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\log |z-e^{i\theta}| d\mu_V(\theta)
+ \frac{\gamma}2(z+z^{-1}) -\gamma +\log\gamma +1 <0.$$
In the following Sections, we distinguish the two cases, $\gamma\le1$ and $\gamma>1$, due to the difference of the supports of their equilibrium measures.
$\mathbf{ 0\leq \gamma \le 1}$ {#s-K1}
==============================
From , we have the explicit formula for the $g$-function : $$g(z)=
\begin{cases}
\log{z}-\frac{\gamma}{2z}& |z|>1, z\notin (-\infty,-1)\\
-\frac{\gamma}2 z+\pi i& |z|<1.
\end{cases}$$ With this $g$, $l=0$ from Lemma \[lem-ourg\] (i), and our RHP , or equivalently , becomes $$\begin{cases}
m^{(1)} \ \ \text{analytic in} \ \ {\mathbb C}-\Sigma,\\
m_+^{(1)}= m_-^{(1)} \begin{pmatrix} (-1)^qz^qe^{\frac{q\gamma}{2}(z-z^{-1})}& (-1)^q\\
0& (-1)^qz^{-q}e^{\frac{-q\gamma}{2}(z-z^{-1})}
\end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on} \ \ \Sigma,\\
m^{(1)}=I+O(\frac1z) \ \ \text{as} \ \ z\rightarrow \infty\\
\end{cases}$$ and $\kappa^2_{q-1}=-(-1)^qm_{21}^{(1)}(0)$ from .\
We define $m^{(2)}$ in terms of $m^{(1)}$ as follows : $$\label{e-conju}
\begin{split}
&\text{for even $q$,} \\
&\quad \begin{cases}
m^{(2)} \equiv m^{(1)}& \quad |z|>1,\\
m^{(2)} \equiv m^{(1)} \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 0& -1\\ 1&0
\end{smallmatrix} \bigr)& \quad |z|<1. \end{cases}\\
&\text{for odd $q$,}\\
&\quad\begin{cases}
m^{(2)} \equiv \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\0&-1
\end{smallmatrix} \bigr) m^{(1)} \bigl(
\begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\0&-1 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)& \quad |z|>1,\\
m^{(2)} \equiv \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix} 1&0\\0&-1
\end{smallmatrix} \bigr) m^{(1)} \bigl(
\begin{smallmatrix} 0&-1\\-1&0 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)&
\quad |z|<1. \end{cases}
\end{split}$$ Then we have a new equivalent RHP $$\begin{cases}
m^{(2)}_+=m^{(2)}_- v^{(2)}\quad\text{on} \quad\Sigma,\\
m^{(2)}=I+O(\frac1z) \ \ \text{as}\ \ z\rightarrow \infty\\
\end{cases}$$ where $v^{(2)}= \begin{pmatrix}
1& -(-1)^qz^qe^{\frac{q\gamma}{2}(z-z^{-1})} \\
(-1)^qz^{-q}e^{\frac{-q\gamma}{2}(z-z^{-1})}&0 \end{pmatrix}$ and $\kappa^2_{q-1}=m_{22}^{(2)}(0)$.\
Introduce $\Sigma^{(3)}=\Sigma^{(3)}(\gamma)=\Sigma^{(3)}_{in}\cup\Sigma^
{(3)}_{out}$ (see Figure \[fig-ga<1\]) as follows. For fixed $\pi/2 <|\theta|\le\pi$, $$\label{e-z8}
F(\rho)\equiv F(\rho,\theta)=
Re\bigl( \frac{\gamma}2(z-z^{-1})+\log{z} \bigr)
=\frac{\gamma}2 (\rho-\rho^{-1})\cos{\theta}+\log{\rho},$$ where $z=\rho e^{i\theta}$, $0<\rho\le 1$, has the minimum at $$\label{e-z9}
\rho=\rho_{\theta}\equiv \frac{1-\sqrt{1-\gamma^2\cos^2 \theta}}
{-\gamma\cos{\theta}}$$ and $F(\rho_{\theta})<0$. ( Note that $\rho_{\theta}<0$ for $|\theta|<\pi/2$. ) For $\frac12\le\gamma\le1$, we take $$\label{e-Sig}
\begin{split}
&\Sigma^{(3)}_{in}=\{\rho_{\theta}e^{i\theta} :
3\pi/4 \le |\theta|\le\pi \} \cup\{\rho_{3\pi/4}e^{i\theta} :
|\theta|\le 3\pi/4 \},\\
&\Sigma^{(3)}_{out}=\{\rho_{\theta}^{-1}e^{i\theta} :
3\pi/4 \le |\theta|\le\pi \} \cup\{\rho_{3\pi/4}^{-1}e^{i\theta} :
|\theta|\le 3\pi/4 \}.
\end{split}$$ Orient $\Sigma^{(3)}$ as in Figure \[fig-ga<1\]. And finally, for $0\le\gamma\le\frac12$, set $\Sigma^{(3)}(\gamma)=\Sigma^{(3)}(\frac12)$.
Of course, $\Sigma^{(3)}$ varies with $\gamma\in [0,1]$. However, using estimates from [@GK], it is not difficult to show that the Cauchy operators $C_\pm$ on $L^2(\Sigma^{(3)})$ are uniformly bounded, $$\label{e-Cau}
\|C_\pm \|_{L^2(\Sigma^{(3)})\to L^2(\Sigma^{(3)})} \le C <\infty$$ for all $0\le\gamma\le 1$. Observe also that in the limit $\gamma\to 1$, $\Sigma^{(3)}$ takes the form of the cross $$\label{e-z10}
y=\pm |x+1| \quad \text{for $z=x+iy$ near $-1$}.$$
Apart from the neighborhood of $z=-1$, there is considerable freedom in the choice of $\Sigma^{(3)}$. For example, $3\pi/4$ could be replaced by any angle between $\pi/2$ and $\pi$. Also the form of the contour for $|\theta|<3\pi/4$ is not critical, as long as it has the general shape drawn in Figure \[fig-ga<1\] : all that we really need is that the jump matrix $v^{(3)}$ below has the property $\sup_{\{z\in\Sigma^{(3)} : |\arg(z)|<3\pi/4\}}
|v^{(3)}-I|\to 0$ exponentially as $q\to\infty$.
Using the factorization $$v^{(2)}= \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\
(-1)^qz^{-q}e^{\frac{-q\gamma}{2}(z-z^{-1})}&1\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} 1&-(-1)^qz^qe^{\frac{q\gamma}{2}(z-z^{-1})}\\0&1\end{pmatrix}
\equiv (b_-^{(2)})^{-1}b_+^{(2)},$$ we define $$\begin{cases}
m^{(3)}=m^{(2)} (b_+^{(2)})^{-1}
\qquad\text{in}\quad \Omega^{(3)}_2,\\
m^{(3)}=m^{(2)} (b_-^{(2)})^{-1}
\qquad\text{in}\quad \Omega^{(3)}_3,\\
m^{(3)}=m^{(2)}
\qquad\text{in}\quad \Omega^{(3)}_1, \Omega^{(3)}_4.
\end{cases}$$ Then $m^{(3)}$ solves the RHP $(\Sigma^{(3)},v^{(3)})$ where $$\label{e-sec2.5}
\begin{cases}
v^{(3)} = \begin{pmatrix} 1&-(-1)^qz^qe^{\frac{q\gamma}{2}(z-z^{-1})}\\0&1
\end{pmatrix} \quad\text{on}\quad\Sigma_{in}^{(3)},\\
v^{(3)} = \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\(-1)^qz^{-q}e^{\frac{-q\gamma}{2}(z-z^{-1})}&1
\end{pmatrix} \quad\text{on}\quad\Sigma_{out}^{(3)},
\end{cases}$$\
and $$\label{e-z1}
\kappa^2_{q-1}= m_{22}^{(3)}(0).$$
As $q\to\infty$, $v^{(3)}(z)\to I$. Set $\Sigma^{\infty}=\Sigma^{(3)}$. The RHP $$\begin{cases}
m^{\infty}_+=m^{\infty}_-\text{I} \quad\text{on}\quad \Sigma^{\infty}, \\
m^{\infty}=I+O(\frac1z) \quad\text{as}\quad z\rightarrow \infty\\
\end{cases}$$ has, of course, the unique solution, $m^{\infty}(z)\equiv I$.
Let $0\le\gamma\le 1-\delta_1$ for some $0< \delta_1< 1$. From the choice of $\Sigma^{(3)}$, $$\label{e-sec2.13}
\begin{split}
\|v^{(3)}-I\|_{L^\infty(\Sigma^{(3)})}
&=\sup_{3\pi/4 \le\theta\le 5\pi/4} |e^{F(\rho_\theta,\theta)}|
\le \sup_{3\pi/4 \le\theta\le 5\pi/4} |e^{F(\rho_{\pi},\theta)}|\\
&\le e^{F(\rho_{\pi},\pi)}
=e^{q(\sqrt{1-\gamma^2} +\log \frac{1-\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}}{\gamma})}.
\end{split}$$ But, for $0<\gamma \le 1$, a straightforward estimate shows that $$\label{e-sec2.14}
\sqrt{1-\gamma^2} +\log (1-\sqrt{1-\gamma^2}) -\log\gamma
\le -\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3} (1-\gamma)^{3/2}$$ so that $$\label{e-sec2.15}
\|w^{(3)}\|_\infty =\|v^{(3)}-I\|_\infty
\le e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\delta_1^{3/2}q} \to 0
\quad\text{as}\quad q\to\infty.$$ Since $\|C_{w^{(3)}}\|_{L^2\to L^2} \le C\|w^{(3)}\|_\infty$, for some constant $C$ independent of $\gamma$ (see ), $(I-C_{w^{(3)}})^{-1}$ is invertible for large $q$ and the solution for the RHP $(\Sigma^{(3)},v^{(3)})$ is given by (see ) $$\label{e-z2}
m^{(3)}(z)=I+\int_{\Sigma^{(3)}}
\frac{((I-C_{w^{(3)}})^{-1}I)(s)(v^{(3)}(s)-I)}{s-z}
\frac{ds}{2\pi i}, \quad z\notin\Sigma^{(3)},$$ and (see ) $$\kappa_{q-1}^2=m^{(3)}_{22}(0)
=1+\biggl( \int_{\Sigma^{(3)}}
\frac{((I-C_{w^{(3)}})^{-1})I)(s)(v^{(3)}(s)-I)}{s}
\frac{ds}{2\pi i} \biggr)_{22}.$$ Now from the fact that the length of $\Sigma^{(3)}$ is uniformly bounded and $dist(0, \Sigma) \geq c>0$ for all $\gamma\in [0,1]$, we obtain, $$\label{e-sec2.18}
| \kappa_{q-1}^2 -1 |
\le C\|v^{(3)}-I\|_\infty
\le Ce^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}\delta_1^{3/2}q}.$$
The above calculation also applies to the case when $\gamma\to 1$ slowly. Indeed, suppose $\frac12 \le \gamma \le 1-\frac{M_1}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}$, where $M_1>0$ is a fixed, sufficiently large number. (The lower bound $\frac12$ is chosen for convenience. Any fixed number between 0 and 1 would work.) From , , for some constant $C$ which is independent of $\gamma$, $$\label{e-sec3.6}
\|C_{w^{(3)}}\|_{L^2\to L^2}
\le Ce^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}3q(1-\gamma)^{3/2}}
\le Ce^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}3M_1^{3/2}} \le \frac12 <1,$$ if $M_1$ is sufficiently large. For convenience, we only consider $M_1\geq 1$. From , $$\begin{split}
m^{(3)}&=I+\frac1{2\pi i} \int_{\Sigma^{(3)}} \frac{[(I-C_{w^{(3)}})^{-1
}I](s)w^{(3)}(s)}{s-z}\,ds\\
&=I+\frac1{2\pi i} \int_{\Sigma^{(3)}} \frac{w^{(3)}(s)+[(I-C_{w^{(3)}})^
{-1}C_{w^{(3)}}I](s)w^{(3)}(s)}{s-z} \,ds
\end{split}$$ and, as $diag(w^{(3)})=0$, $$\kappa^2_{q-1}=m^{(3)}_{22}(0)
=1+\bigl( \frac1{2\pi i} \int_{\Sigma^{(3)}}
[(I-C_{w^{(3)}})^{-1}C_{w^{(3)}}I](s)w^{(3)}(s)
\frac{ds}{s} \bigr)_{22}.$$ Hence, we have $$\begin{split}
|\kappa^2_{q-1}-1|&\le
\|(I-C_{w^{(3)}})^{-1}C_{w^{(3)}}I\|_{L^2}
\|\frac{w^{(3)}(s)}{2\pi is}\|_{L^2}\\
&\le \|(I-C_{w^{(3)}})^{-1}\|_{L^2\rightarrow L^2}
\|C_{w^{(3)}}I\|_{L^2} \|\frac{w^{(3)}(s)}{2\pi is}\|_{L^2}\\
&\le C\|w^{(3)}\|_{L^2}^2\\
&\le C\|w^{(3)}\|_{L^\infty} \|w^{(3)}\|_{L^1}\\
&\le Ce^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}3q(1-\gamma)^{3/2}} \|w^{(3)}\|_{L^1},
\end{split}$$ where the (final) constant $C$ is independent of $\gamma,q$ and $M_1$ (sufficiently large), provided that $0\le\gamma\le 1-\frac{M_1}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}$.
Since the length of $\Sigma^{(3)}$ is bounded, we have $\|w^{(3)}\|_{L^1}
\le Ce^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}3q(1-\gamma)^{3/2}}$, which is the same estimation as in the case $\gamma<1-\delta_1$. But for future calculations (see below), we need a sharper result. We estimate $\|w^{(3)}\|_{L^1}$ as follows : Focus on $\Sigma^{(3)}_{in}$. For $\Sigma^{(3)}_{out}$, similar computations apply. Only the $12$-component of $w^{(3)}$ is non-zero. Set ${\widetilde}{\theta}=\frac1{q^{1/3}}\log{q}$. $$\int_{\Sigma^{(3)}_{in}}|z^qe^{\frac{q\gamma}{2}(z-z^{-1})}||dz|= (1)+(2
)$$ where $(1)$ is an integration over $|\theta|\le \pi-{\widetilde}{\theta}$ and $(2)$ covers the remainder. Note from that $|dz|\le Cd\theta$. Substituting $\rho_\theta$ into $F(\rho,\theta)$ , we obtain on $\Sigma^{(3)}_{in}$, $$\label{e-z11}
|z^qe^{\frac{q\gamma}2(z-z^{-1})}|\le e^{
q\bigl(\sqrt{1-\gamma^2\cos^2\theta}+\log(1-\sqrt{1-\gamma^2\cos^2\theta})
-\log(-\gamma\cos\theta)\bigr)}.$$ Setting, $\gamma\to -\gamma\cos\theta$ in , we obtain for $z\in\Sigma^{(3)}_{in}$, $$\label{e-z12}
|z^qe^{\frac{q\gamma}2(z-z^{-1})}|\le
e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}q}{3}(1+\gamma\cos\theta)^{3/2}}
\le e^{-Cq(\pi-|\theta|)^3}$$ Hence, adjusting the constants $C$ if necessary, we have $$(1)\le Ce^{-Cq{\widetilde}{\theta}^3} \le \frac{C}{q^{1/3}}$$ and $$(2)\le C\int_0^{{\widetilde}{\theta}} e^{-Cq\theta^3} d\theta
\le C\int_0^{\log{q}} e^{-Ct^3} \frac{dt}{q^{1/3}} \le \frac{C}{q^{1/3}}.$$ Therefore, $$\label{6.9}
\|w^{(3)}\|_{L^1}\le \frac{C}{q^{1/3}}$$ and we obtain $$\label{e-sec3f}
|\kappa^2_{q-1}-1|\le
\frac{C}{q^{1/3}}e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}3q(1-\gamma)^{3/2}}.$$
Let $M_2>0$ be a fixed number and consider $1-\frac{M_2}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}} \le \gamma \le 1$. For this case, as $q\to\infty$, $\gamma\to 1$ and $\rho_{\theta=\pi} \to 1$. We need to devote special attention to the neighborhood of $z=-1$, where we will introduce a parametrix for the RHP, which is related to the special solution of the Painlevé II (PII) equation given in Section \[s-PII\]. For a discussion of parametrices in RHP’s, see e.g. [@DZ], [@DKMVZ]. Set $\gamma=1-\frac{t}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}$. The region above corresponds to $0\le t\leq M_2$. Let $\mathcal{O}$ be a small neighborhood of size $\epsilon$ around $z=-1$, where $\epsilon>0$ is a fixed number which is small enough so that first, $$\label{e-z18}
\text{the map $u$ defined below is a bijection from $\mathcal{O}$,}$$ and second, $$\label{e-z19}
\text{the inequality~\eqref{e-z20} below is satisfied.}$$ The goal is to solve the RHP for $m^{(3)}$ explicitly in this small region.
Let $u=\frac12(z-z^{-1})$ in $\mathcal{O}$.
As noted above, we choose and fix $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small (in fact, any number $0<\epsilon<1$ would do.) so that $z\to u(z)$ is a bijection from $\mathcal{O}$ onto some open neighborhood of $0$ in the $u$-plane : under the bijection, $\Sigma\cap\mathcal{O}$ becomes a part of the imaginary axis. Set $$\lambda(z)=\frac{q^{1/3}u(z)}{i2^{4/3}}=
\frac{q^{1/3}}{i2^{4/3}}\frac12(z-z^{-1}).$$ Note that with $\epsilon$ fixed, there are constants $c_1,c_2>0$ such that $$\label{e-z13}
c_1 q^{1/3}\le |\lambda(z)| \le c_2 q^{1/3},$$ for all $z\in\partial\mathcal{O}$. Under the map $z\to\lambda(z)$, $\Sigma\cap\mathcal{O}$ now becomes part of the real axis and $$\lambda(\Sigma^{(3)}\cap\mathcal{O}) = \{ x+iy :
y^2=\frac{\frac{q^{2/3}}{2^{8/3}}(1-\gamma^2)+x^2}
{1+\frac{2^{8/3}\gamma^2 x^2}{q^{2/3}}}, |x|\le cq^{1/3} \},$$ where $c$ is a fixed small number. As $\frac{q^{2/3}}{2^{8/3}}(1-\gamma^2)=\frac{t}4\bigl(
1-\frac{t}{2^{4/3}q^{2/3}} \bigr)$, $0\le t\le M_2$, we see that the contour $\lambda(\Sigma^{(3)}\cap\mathcal{O})$ makes an angle $\le \pi/4$ and uniformly bounded away from zero as $q\to\infty$, hence has the general shape of the contour in Figure \[fig-PII2\], Section \[s-PII\], within the ball $\lambda(\mathcal{O})$. We *define* $$\Sigma^{PII,2}\cap\lambda(\mathcal{O}) \equiv
\lambda(\Sigma^{(3)}\cap\mathcal{O})$$ and extend $\Sigma^{PII,2}$ smoothly outside $\lambda(\mathcal{O})$ in such a way that it is asymptotic to straight lines making angles between 0 and $\pi/3$ with the real axis. It is clear from the estimation in Section \[s-PII\], and the preceding calculations, that for such a contour $\Sigma^{PII,2}$, the bound for the solution $m^{PII,2}(z,t)$ of $(\Sigma^{PII,2},v_t^{PII,2})$ $$\label{e-z15}
\text{is uniform for $\gamma, q$ satisfying the relation
$1-\frac{M_2}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}\le \gamma\le 1$.}$$
Introduce the parametrix around $z=-1$ as follows. Define $$\begin{cases}
m_p(z)=m^{PII,2}(\lambda(z),t) \quad
\text{in}\quad\mathcal{O}-\Sigma^{(3)}, \\
m_p(z)=I \quad\text{in}\quad\mathcal{\bar{O}}^c-\Sigma^{(3)}.
\end{cases}$$ As $q\to\infty$, $|\lambda(z)|\to\infty$ for $z\in\partial\mathcal{O}$, and we have for $v_p(z)\equiv v_t^{PII,2}(\lambda(z))$, $$\begin{cases}
m_p(z) \ \ \text{is analytic in} \ \
{\mathbb C}-(\Sigma^{(3)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O})\\
m_{p+}(z)=m_{p-}(z)v_p(z) \ \
\text{on} \ \ \mathcal{O}\cap\Sigma^{(3)}\\
m_{p+}(z)=m_{p-}(z)I \ \ \text{on} \ \ \mathcal{O}^c\cap\Sigma^{(3)}\\
m_{p+}(z)=I+\frac{m^{PII,2}_{1}(t)}{\lambda(z)}+O(\frac{1}{\lambda(z)^2})
\ \ \text{on} \ \ \partial\mathcal{O} \ \
\text{as} \ \ q\rightarrow\infty.
\end{cases}$$
The key fact is that $v_p$ is an approximation to $v^{(3)}$ with error of order $\frac{1}{q^{2/3}}$. We compare, for example, the 12-components of $v^{(3)}$ and $v_p$ on $\Sigma^{(3)}$. We focus on $\mathcal{O}\cap\Sigma_{in}^{(3)}$. Using the $u$ variable, the $12$-entries of $v^{(3)}$ and $v_p$ are $$-\exp(q[\gamma u+\log(\sqrt{1+u^2}-u)])$$ and $$-\exp(q[\gamma u-u+\frac16u^3])$$ respectively. By and , we have for $z\in\mathcal{O}\cap\Sigma_{in}^{(3)}$, $$|e^{q[\gamma u+\log(\sqrt{1+u^2}-u)]}|
=|z^qe^{\frac{q\gamma}2(z-z^{-1})}|\le
e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}q}{3}(1+\gamma\cos\theta)^{3/2}}.$$ From the Taylor expansion of the odd function $\log(\sqrt{1+u^2}-u)$, $$\log(\sqrt{1+u^2}-u)=-u+\frac16u^3+u^5r(u),$$ where $r(0)=-\frac3{40}$ and $r(u)$ is bounded for small $u$, say $|u|\le\frac12$. Set $\hat{c}=\sup_{|u|\le\frac12} |r(u)|$. Note that for $z=\rho_{\theta}e^{i\theta}
\in\mathcal{O}\cap\Sigma^{(3)}_{in}$ (see ), as $q\to\infty$, we have $|u|\leq {\widetilde}{c}(1+\gamma \cos \theta)^{1/2}\le {\widetilde}{c}(c'\epsilon)^{1/2}$. Therefore, if we have chosen $\epsilon>0$ small enough so that $$\label{e-z20}
-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}3+\hat{c}({\widetilde}{c})^5c'\epsilon\le -\frac12,$$ we obtain, as $q\to\infty$, $$\label{e-z14}
\begin{split}
&|e^{q[\gamma u+\log(\sqrt{1+u^2}-u)]}-e^{q[\gamma u-u+\frac16u^3]}| \\
&\qquad = |e^{q[\gamma u+\log(\sqrt{1+u^2}-u)]}||1-e^{-qu^5r(u)}| \\
&\qquad \leq e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}q}3(1+\gamma \cos \theta)^{3/2}}\times
q|u|^5\|r\|_{L^\infty(\{|u|\le\frac12\})}
e^{q\hat{c}({\widetilde}{c})^5(1+\gamma \cos \theta)^{5/2}} \\
&\qquad \leq Cq(1+\gamma \cos \theta)^{5/2}
e^{q(-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}3+\hat{c}({\widetilde}{c})^5c'\epsilon)(1+\gamma \cos \theta)^{3/2}} \\
&\qquad \leq Cq(1+\gamma \cos \theta)^{5/2}
e^{-\frac{q}2(1+\gamma \cos \theta)^{3/2}} \\
&\qquad \leq \frac{C}{q^{2/3}},
\end{split}$$ where we have used the basic inequality $|1-e^z|\le |z|e^{|z|}$ and the fact that $\|x^{5/3}e^{-x^{3/2}}\|_{L^{\infty}_{(0,\infty)}} \le C$. Since $$v^{(3)}v_p^{-1}=
\begin{pmatrix} 1& -e^{q[\gamma u+\log(\sqrt{1+u^2}-u)]}+
e^{q[\gamma u-u+\frac16u^3]}\\ 0&1
\end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on} \ \ \mathcal{O}\cap\Sigma_{in}^{(3)},$$ we have $$\|v^{(3)}v_p^{-1}-I\|_{L^{\infty}
(\mathcal{O}\cap\Sigma^{(3)}_{in})}=O(\frac1{q^{2/3}}).$$ For $\mathcal{O}\cap\Sigma_{out}^{(3)}$, we have a similar estimation. On the other hand, for $\mathcal{O}^c$, the error is exponentially small ; $\|v^{(3)}v_p^{-1}-I\|_{L^\infty(\mathcal{O}^c\cap\Sigma^{(3)})}
=\|v^{(3)}-I\|_{L^\infty(\mathcal{O}^c\cap\Sigma^{(3)})}=O(e^{-cq})$.
Now define $R(z)=m^{(3)}m_p^{-1}$. The ratio is analytic in ${\mathbb C}-(\Sigma^{(3)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O})$ and the above calculations show that the jump matrix $v_R=m_{p-}v^{(3)}v_p^{-1}m_{p-}^{-1}$ satisfies $$\label{e-z16}
\begin{cases}
\|v_R-I\|_\infty\le\frac{C(M_2)}{q^{2/3}}
&\text{on $\mathcal{O} \cap \Sigma^{(3)}$},\\
\|v_R-I\|_\infty\le Ce^{-cq}
&\text{on $\mathcal{O}^c \cap \Sigma^{(3)}$},\\
v_R=v_{p}^{-1}=m_{p+}^{-1}=I-\frac{m^{PII,2}_1(t)}{\lambda(z)}+
O_{M_2}(\frac{1}{\lambda(z)^2})
&\text{on $\partial \mathcal{O}$, as $q\to\infty$.}
\end{cases}$$ In , we have used the fact that $m^{PII,2}(z,t)$, and hence $m_{p}$, is invertible and bounded for $(z,t)\in{\mathbb C}\times [0,M_2]$. (see, ).
From and , we see that $\|v_R-I\|_\infty=\|w_R\|_\infty\le\frac{C(M_2)}{q^{1/3}}$. In particular, $(I-C_{w_R})$ is invertible for large $q$ and by , $R$ is given by $$R(z)=I+\frac1{2\pi i} \int_{\Sigma^{(3)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O}}
\frac{\mu(s)(v_R-I)}{s-z} \,ds$$ where $\mu$ solves $(I-C_{w_R})\mu=I.$ As $\|v_R-I\|_\infty\le\frac{C(M_2)}{q^{1/3}}$, we have $\|\mu-I\|_{L^2}=O_{M_2}(\frac1{q^{1/3}})$, and also $$R_{22}(0)=1+\frac1{2\pi i} \int_{\Sigma^{(3)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O}}
(v_R-1)_{22}(s) \frac{ds}{s}
+O_{M_2}(\frac1{q^{2/3}}).$$ Thus, using $\|v_R-I\|_\infty\le\frac{C(M_2)}{q^{2/3}}$ in for the second equality, and $m^{PII,2}_1=m^{PII,1}_1$ (see ) for the last equality, we obtain $$\label{e-R22K1}
\begin{split}
\kappa^2_{q-1}&=R_{22}(0)\\
&= 1+\frac1{2\pi i} \int_{\partial\mathcal{O}} (v_R-1)_{22}(z) \frac{dz}{z}
+O_{M_2}(\frac1{q^{2/3}})\\
&=1-\frac1{2\pi i} \int_{\partial\mathcal{O}}
\frac{m^{PII,2}_{1,22}(t)}{\lambda(z)} \frac{dz}{z} +
O_{M_2}(\frac1{q^{2/3}})\\
&=1-\frac{m^{PII,2}_{1,22}(t)}{2\pi i} \int_{u(\partial\mathcal{O})}
\frac{1}{-i\frac{q^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}}u} \,\frac{du}
{(-\sqrt{u^2+1})} +O_{M_2}(\frac1{q^{2/3}})\\
&=1+\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}m^{PII,2}_{1,22}(t)+O_{M_2}(\frac1{q^{2/3}})\\
&=1+\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}m^{PII,1}_{1,22}(t)+O_{M_2}(\frac1{q^{2/3}}).
\end{split}$$ Note that error in is uniform for $0\le t\le M_2.$
We summarize as follows.
\[lem-K1\] Let $M_1>0$ be a fixed number which is sufficiently large so that is satisfied. Also let $M_2>0$ and $0<\delta_1 <1$ be fixed numbers. As $q\to \infty$, we have the following results.
1. If $0\le \gamma \le 1-\delta_1$, then, for some constants $C,c$ which may depend on $\delta_1$, $$|\kappa^2_{q-1}- 1 |\le Ce^{-cq}.$$
2. If $\frac12 \le \gamma \le 1-\frac{M_1}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}$, then, for some constant $C$ which is independent of $M_1$ satisfying , $$|\kappa^2_{q-1}-1| \le \frac{C}{q^{1/3}}
e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}3q(1-\gamma)^{3/2}}.$$
3. If $1-\frac{M_2}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}} \le \gamma \le 1$, $$\bigl|\kappa^2_{q-1}-1-\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}m^{PII}_{1,22}(t)\bigr|
\le \frac{C(M_2)}{q^{2/3}},$$ where $t$ is defined by $\gamma=1-\frac{t}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}$.
$\mathbf{\gamma > 1}$ {#s-K2}
=====================
Let $\theta_c$ be given in Lemma \[lem-ourg\], $\sin^2\frac{\theta_c}{2}=\frac{1}{\gamma}, 0< \theta_c<\pi$. Decompose $\Sigma=\overline{C_1}\cup C_2$ where $C_1=\{ e^{i\theta} : \theta_c < |\theta | \le \pi \}$ and $C_2=\Sigma-\overline{C_1}$. Note that on the support of the measure $d\mu_V$ in , $d\mu_V(\theta)=\frac{\gamma}{\pi} \cos(\frac{\theta }{2})
\sqrt{\frac{1}{\gamma} - \sin^2(\frac{\theta}{2})}
\chi_{[-\theta_c, \theta_c]}(\theta) d\theta
=\frac\gamma{4\pi i} \frac{s+1}{s^2}\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s - \xi^{-1})}ds$ for $s=e^{i\theta}$.
\[lem-alpha\] Define $\alpha(z) = -\frac{\gamma}4 \int^z_\xi
\frac{s+1}{s^2}\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s - \xi^{-1})}ds$ where $\xi=e^{i\theta_c}$ and the branch is chosen to be analytic in ${\mathbb C}-\overline{C_1}$ and $\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s - \xi^{-1})}>0$ for real $s>0$. Then
1. $e^{2\alpha}$ is independent of the path in ${\mathbb C}-(\bar{C_1}\cup\{0\})$,.
2. $\exp\bigl( -2\pi i
\int_{\theta_c}^\phi d\mu_V(\theta)\bigr)
= \exp\bigl( 2\alpha(z)\bigr) \quad \text{for} \quad z=e^{i\phi},
|\phi|<\theta_c$.
3. $\exp\bigl( 2\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\log |z-e^{i\theta}| d\mu_V(\theta)
-V(z)+l\bigr) = \exp\bigl( -2\alpha_-(z)\bigr) \quad \text{for}
\quad z=e^{i\phi}, |\phi|>\theta_c$.
Property (i) follows from a standard reside calculation : the change in $\alpha(z)$ around the point at $0$ is $-\pi i$, and the change in $\alpha(z)$ around $C_1$ is $0$. Property (ii) follows from the definition of $\alpha(z)$. For (iii), set $$F(\phi)=2\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\log |e^{i\phi}-e^{i\theta}| d\mu_V(\theta)
+\gamma\cos{\phi} +l +2\alpha_-(e^{i\phi})$$ for $z=e^{i\phi}$, $|\phi|>\theta_c$. From the variational condition , we have $F(\theta_c)=0$. Differentiating, $$\begin{split}
F'(\phi)&=\int_{-\theta_c}^{\theta_c} i\bigl[
\frac{2e^{i\phi}}{e^{i\phi}-e^{i\theta}}-1 \bigr] d\mu_V(\theta)
-\frac{\gamma}{2i} \bigl( e^{i\phi}-e^{-i\phi} \bigr)\\
&\qquad -\frac{i\gamma}2\frac{e^{i\phi}+1}{e^{i\phi}}
\sqrt{(e^{i\phi}-\xi)(e^{i\phi} - \xi^{-1})}_-\\
&= \frac{\gamma}{2\pi} \int_{C_2} \frac{z}{z-s} \frac{s+1}{s^2}
\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s - \xi^{-1})} ds\\
&\qquad -i-\frac{\gamma}{2i}(z-z^{-1}) -\frac{i\gamma}2\frac{z+1}{z}
\sqrt{(z-\xi)(z - \xi^{-1})}_-.
\end{split}$$ A residue calculation similar to that in (i), now shows that $F'(\phi)=0$. Therefore we have $F(\phi)\equiv 0$.
Note that $e^{2q\pi i\int_{\phi}^{\pi} d\mu_V(\theta)}=1$ for $\phi$ outside the support of $d\mu_V$ , i.e. for $|\phi|>\theta_c$. By and above Lemma, our RHP becomes $$\begin{cases}
m^{(1)}(z) \ \ \text{is analytic in} \ \ {\mathbb C}-\Sigma, \\
m^{(1)}_+=m^{(1)}_- \begin{pmatrix} e^{-2q\alpha}& (-1)^q\\ 0& e^{2q\alpha} \end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on} \ \ C_2,\\
m^{(1)}_+=m^{(1)}_- \begin{pmatrix} 1& (-1)^qe^{-2q\alpha_-}\\ 0&1 \end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on} \ \ C_1,\\
m^{(1)}=I+O(\frac1z) \ \ \text{as}\ \ z\rightarrow \infty
\end{cases}$$ and $\kappa^2_{q-1}=-(-1)^qm^{(1)}_{21}(0)e^{ql}=
-(-1)^qe^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)}m^{(1)}_{21}(0)$ by and .
We use the same conjugation for $m^{(1)}$ as in the case $\gamma\le 1$. Then our new jump matrices for $m^{(2)}$ are $$\label{e-m2tilde}
\begin{cases}
v^{(2)}= \begin{pmatrix} 1& -e^{-2q\alpha}\\ e^{2q\alpha}&0 \end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on} \ \ C_2\\
v^{(2)}= \begin{pmatrix} e^{-2q\alpha_-}& -1\\ 1&0 \end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on} \ \ C_1
\end{cases}$$ and $\kappa^2_{q-1}=e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)}m^{(2)}_{22}(0)$.
Set $\Sigma^{(3)}=\overline{C_1}\cup {\widetilde}{C}_{inside} \cup {\widetilde}{C}_{outside}$ where ${\widetilde}{C}_{inside}$ and ${\widetilde}{C}_{outside}$ are open arcs as chosen below. Note the factorization $v^{(2)}=
\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\e^{2q\alpha}&1 \end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix} 1& -e^{-2q\alpha}\\0&1 \end{pmatrix}$on $C_2$. Set $Re \alpha =R$, $Im \alpha =I$ so that $\alpha =R+iI$. Recall the Cauchy-Riemann equations in polar coordinates $(r,\theta)$, $$r\frac{\partial R}{\partial r} =\frac{\partial I}{\partial\theta},
\quad r\frac{\partial I}{\partial r} =-\frac{\partial R}{\partial\theta}.$$ For $z=e^{i\theta}\in C_2$, $\alpha(z)=-\pi i \int_{\theta_c}^{\theta} d\mu_V(\theta')$ is pure imaginary and $$\frac{\partial I}{\partial\theta}
=\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta} (-i\alpha)=-\pi\frac{\gamma}{\pi}
\cos(\frac{\theta }{2})
\sqrt{\frac{1}{\gamma} - \sin^2(\frac{\theta}{2})} <0.$$ Hence $$R=0 \quad\text{and}\quad
\frac{\partial R}{\partial r} =\frac{\partial I}{\partial\theta} <0
\quad\text{on}\quad C_2.$$ Therefore for fixed $\theta$, $e^{i\theta}\in C_2$, there is $\epsilon_1=\epsilon_1(\theta) >0$ such that $R=Re \alpha >0$ (resp. $<0$) for $z=re^{i\theta}$ with $1-\epsilon_1 < r< 1$ (resp. $1<r<1+\epsilon_1$). We take ${\widetilde}{C}_{inside}$ (resp, ${\widetilde}{C}_{outside}$) such that $|e^{-2\alpha}|<1$ (resp, $|e^{2\alpha}|<1$) on ${\widetilde}{C}_{inside}$ (resp, ${\widetilde}{C}_{outside}$). Clearly there exist $0<\rho_1, \rho_2 <1$ such that $|e^{-2\alpha}|<\rho_1$ (resp, $|e^{2\alpha}|<\rho_2$), for all $z\in{\widetilde}{C}_{inside}$ (resp, $z\in{\widetilde}{C}_{outside}$), apart from a small neighborhood of the endpoints. Introduce the regions $\Omega^{(3)}_{k}$, $k=1,2,3,4$ as in Figure \[fig-Cinout\]. Define $m^{(3)}$ as follows, $$\begin{cases}
&m^{(3)}=m^{(2)} \begin{pmatrix} 1&-e^{-2q\alpha}\\0&1 \end{pmatrix}^{-1}
\quad\text{in}\quad \Omega^{(3)}_2,\\
&m^{(3)}=m^{(2)} \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\e^{2q\alpha}&1 \end{pmatrix}
\qquad\text{in}\quad \Omega^{(3)}_3,\\
&m^{(3)}=m^{(2)} \qquad\qquad\text{in}\quad \Omega^{(3)}_1,\Omega^{(3)}_4.
\end{cases}$$ Then $v^{(3)}$ is given by $$\begin{cases}
&\begin{pmatrix} 1&-e^{-2q\alpha}\\0&1 \end{pmatrix}
\quad\text{on}\quad {\widetilde}{C}_{inside},\\
&\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\e^{2q\alpha}&1 \end{pmatrix}
\qquad\text{on}\quad {\widetilde}{C}_{outside},\\
&\begin{pmatrix} e^{-2q\alpha_-}&-1\\1&0 \end{pmatrix}
\quad\text{on}\quad C_1,
\end{cases}$$ and $$\label{e-Km3K2}
\kappa^2_{q-1}=e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)}m^{(3)}_{22}(0).$$
From Lemma \[lem-alpha\] (iii) and the second variational condition in , we have, for any $z\in C_1$, $$e^{-2q\alpha_-}\to 0 \quad\text{as} \quad q\to\infty.$$ (Recall that the inequality in is strict from Lemma \[lem-ourg\] (ii)). Also from the choice of ${\widetilde}{C}_{inside}$ and ${\widetilde}{C}_{outside}$, $$e^{-2q\alpha}\to 0, \quad e^{2q\alpha}\to 0
\quad\text{as} \quad q\to\infty$$ on ${\widetilde}{C}_{inside}$, ${\widetilde}{C}_{outside}$, respectively. Therefore $v^{(3)} \rightarrow v^\infty$ as $q\rightarrow \infty$, $$\begin{cases}
v^\infty =
\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\0&1 \end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on} \ \
{\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cup{\widetilde}{C}_{outside},\\
v^\infty =
\begin{pmatrix} 0&-1\\1&0 \end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on} \ \
C_1.
\end{cases}$$
The following result can be verified by direct calculation.
\[lem-minfty\] RHP $(C_1, v^\infty)$ can be solved explicitly. $$m^\infty = \begin{pmatrix} \frac12(\beta+\beta^{-1})& \frac1{2i}(\beta-\beta^{-1})\\
-\frac1{2i}(\beta-\beta^{-1})& \frac12(\beta+\beta^{-1}) \end{pmatrix}$$ where $\beta(z)\equiv (\frac{z-\xi}{z-\xi^{-1}})^{1/4}, \ \
\text{is analytic in} \ \ {\mathbb C}-\bar{C}_1 \ \ \text{such that} \ \
\beta\sim +1 \ \ \text{as} \ \ z\rightarrow \infty$
Hence we expect from , $\kappa^2_{q-1}\sim e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)}\frac1{\sqrt{\gamma}},$ because $m^\infty_{22}(0)=\frac1{\sqrt{\gamma}}$.
Our goal now is to show that indeed $m^{(3)}\to m^{\infty}$ as $q\to\infty$. As in Section \[s-K1\], we must control the behavior of the solution of the RHP for $m^{(3)}$ near the endpoints, where the rate of exponential convergence $v^{(3)}\to v^{\infty}$, becomes smaller and smaller.
Let $\delta_3, M_4>0$ be fixed numbers, let $0< \delta_4<1$ be a fixed, sufficiently small number satisfying below, and let $M_3 >0$ be a fixed, sufficiently large number satisfying and below. We consider 3 cases for $\gamma$ :
1. $1+\delta_3 \le \gamma$
2. $1+\frac{M_3}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}} \le \gamma \le 1+\delta_4$
3. $1\le \gamma \le 1+\frac{M_4}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}$
Calculations similar to those that are needed for the asymptotics of the orthogonal polynomial on the real line (see, [@DKMVZ]), show that for $\gamma>1+\delta_3$, $$\label{8.1}
\kappa^2_{q-1}= e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)}\frac1{\sqrt{\gamma}}(1+O(\frac1{q})).$$ The error is uniform for $1+\delta_3 \le \gamma \le L$ for any fixed $L<\infty$. However, we will not use this result, utilizing instead (stronger) estimates from [@Johan] (see next section).
We consider case (iii). Set $\gamma =1+\frac{t}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}$ with $0\le t \le M_4$ and $u_0=\sin{\theta_c}=\frac2{\gamma} \sqrt{\gamma-1}$. In defining $\Sigma^{(3)}$ above, there is some freedom in the choice of ${\widetilde}{C}_{inside}$ and ${\widetilde}{C}_{outside}$. We make the following choice (see below). Set $x=-\frac{q^{2/3}u_0^2}{2^{5/3}}=
-t(1+\frac{t}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}})^{-2} \sim -t<0$ as $q\to\infty$, and let $\Sigma^{PII,3}$ be the contour defined in Figure \[fig-PII3\] for this specific $x$. Let $\Sigma'=\{ u=\frac{2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}\lambda : \lambda\in\Sigma^{PII,3} \}
=\cup_{k=1}^5 \Sigma'_k$, and let $\epsilon' >0$ be small and fixed (see , below). For definiteness, we can, and do assume that the rays $\Sigma'_1,\dots,\Sigma'_4$ make an angle of $\pi/6$ with the real axis. Consider $\mathcal{O}'=\{ u : |u|<\epsilon' \}$. If $q$ is large enough, then $u_0\in\mathcal{O}'$. Set $u=u(z)=\frac1{2i}(z-z^{-1})$. We choose $\epsilon'$ such that (cf. ) $$\label{e-z21}
\text{$u$ is a bijection from an open neighborhood of $z=-1$ onto $\mathcal{O}'$.}$$ Clearly there are constants $c_1,c_2>0$ such that $c_1\le |z(u)|\le c_2$ for all $u\in\partial\mathcal{O}'$.
Under $u^{-1}$, the points $u_0, -u_0$ are mapped into $\xi, \bar{\xi}$ respectively, and $u^{-1}(\Sigma'_5)=C_1$. Consider a point $z\in u^{-1}(\Sigma'_4 \cap\mathcal{O}')$, the inverse image of a point $u\in\Sigma'_4 \cap\mathcal{O}$. Changing variables twice, $v=\frac1{2i}(s-s^{-1})$ and $w=v^2$, $$\label{8.2}
\begin{split}
-2\alpha(z)
&= \frac{i\gamma}{2} \int^z_\xi \bigl(\sqrt{s}+\sqrt{s}^{-1}\bigr)
\sqrt{(s+s^{-1})-(\xi+\xi^{-1})} \frac{ds}{is}\\
&= -i\gamma \int_{u_0}^u \biggl( \sqrt{1-u_0^2}-\sqrt{1-v^2}\biggr)^{1/2}
\frac{\sqrt{1-\sqrt{1-v^2}}}{\sqrt{1-v^2}} dv\\
&= \frac{-i\gamma}2 \int_{u_0}^u \biggl( \frac{v^2-u_0^2}
{1+k(u_0^2)+k(v^2)}\biggr)^{1/2} v\bigl( 1+h(v^2)\bigr) dv\\
&= -\frac{i\gamma}4 \int_{u_0^2}^{u^2} (w-u_0^2)^{1/2}
\bigl[ 1+(h(w)-h(u_0^2))+h(u_0^2)\bigr] dw\\
&\qquad -\frac{i\gamma}4 \int_{u_0^2}^{u^2} (w-u_0^2)^{1/2}
\frac{\bigl[ (k(u_0^2)-k(w))-2k(u_0^2)\bigr] (1+h(w))dw}
{(1+k(u_0^2)+k(w))^{1/2}
\bigl[ 1+(1+k(u_0^2)+k(w))^{1/2}\bigr]}\\
&= \frac{-i\gamma}{6} (u^2-u_0^2)^{3/2}
+O\biggl( |u^2-u_0^2|^{5/2}\biggr)
+O\biggl( |u^2-u_0^2|^{3/2}u_0^2\biggr),
\end{split}$$ where $\sqrt{u^2-u_0^2}$ is defined to be analytic in ${\mathbb C}-[-u_0,u_0]$ and positive for real $u>u_0$ ; $h(w)=\frac{\sqrt{2}\sqrt{1-\sqrt{1-w}}}{\sqrt{w}\sqrt{1-w}}-1$, which is analytic in $|w|\le\epsilon'$ and $h(0)=0$ ; $k(w)=\frac12(\sqrt{1-w}-1)$, which is also analytic in $|w|\le\epsilon'$ and $k(0)=0$. Since $\Sigma'_4$ is a straight ray of angle $\frac{-\pi}{6}$ at $u_0$, $Re(-i(u^2-u_0^2)^{3/2}) \le -\frac12|u^2-u_0^2|^{3/2}$, which yields $$\label{e-z31}
|\exp(-2\alpha(z))|\le
\exp\bigl(-\frac1{24}|u^2-u_0^2|^{3/2}\bigr) < 1,$$ provided $\epsilon'$ is sufficiently small so that $$\label{e-z22}
O(|u^2-u_0^2|^{5/2})+O(|u^2-u_0^2|^{3/2}u_0^2)
\le c|u^2-u_0^2|^{3/2}(|u^2-u_0^2|+u_0^2) \le\frac1{24} |u^2-u_0^2|^{3/2}$$ for $u\in\Sigma'_4\cap\mathcal{O}'$, where the terms on the LHS are given in . The same choice of $\epsilon'$ gives rise the same result for $z\in u^{-1}(\Sigma'_3 \cap\mathcal{O}')$, and also $|\exp(2\alpha(z))|\le \exp(-\frac1{24}|u^2-u_0^2|^{3/2}) < 1$ for $z\in u^{-1}((\Sigma'_1\cup\Sigma'_2)\cap\mathcal{O}')$. We thus fix $\Sigma^{(3)}$ by choosing $$\label{e-z23}
\Sigma^{(3)}\equiv u^{-1}(\Sigma'\cap\mathcal{O}')
\quad\text{inside $\mathcal{O}'$},$$ and extending it to a contour of the general shape $\bar{C}_1\cup{\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cup{\widetilde}{C}_{outside}$ as in Figure \[fig-Cinout\].
Define $$\begin{cases}
m_p(z)=m^{PII,3}\bigl(\frac{q^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}}u(z),x\bigr)&
\quad\text{in} \quad\mathcal{O}-\Sigma^{(3)},\\
m_p(z)= I& \quad\text{in}\quad\bar{\mathcal{O}}^c-\Sigma^{(3)},
\end{cases}$$ where $m^{PII,3}(z,x)$ solves the RHP of Painlevé II equation given by and . Then $m_p$ solves the RHP on $\Sigma^{(3)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O}$ in which the jump matrix $v_p(z)$ is given by $$\begin{cases}
v^{PII,3}(\frac{q^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}}u(z))&\quad
z\in\Sigma^{(3)}\cap\mathcal{O},\\
I& \quad z\in\Sigma^{(3)}\cap\mathcal{O}^c,\\
m_{p+}(z)& \quad z\in\partial\mathcal{O},
\end{cases}$$ where $v^{PII,3}$ is given in .
We compare $v^{(3)}$ and $v_p$. First, let $z\in \Sigma^{(3)}\cap\mathcal{O}$ such that $u(z)\in\Sigma'_4\cap\mathcal{O}'$. The $12$-entries of $v^{(3)}$ and $v_p$ are $-\exp(-2q\alpha(z))$ and $-\exp(-2ig^{PII}(\frac{q^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}}u(z)))
=-\exp(-\frac{iq}6(u^2-u_0^2)^{3/2})$, respectively. With $\epsilon'$ chosen small as above, using $$\begin{aligned}
&Re(-i(u^2-u_0^2)^{3/2})\le -\frac12|u^2-u_0^2|^{3/2},\\
&u_0^2\le \frac{4M_4}{q^{2/3}},\\
&\|x^{5/2}e^{-x^{3/2}}\|_{L^{\infty}[0,\infty)} \le C,\\
&\gamma-1 \le \frac{M_4}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}},\end{aligned}$$ we obtain from , $$\begin{split}
&|e^{-2q\alpha(z)} - e^{-2ig^{PII}(\frac{q^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}}u(z))}|\\
&\qquad \le e^{Re(-\frac{iq}6(u^2-u_0^2)^{3/2})}
|e^{-2q\alpha(z)+2ig^{PII}(\frac{q^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}}u(z))} -1|\\
&\qquad \le Ce^{-\frac{q}{24}|u^2-u_0^2|^{3/2}}
\bigl[ q|u^2-u_0^2|^{3/2}(|u^2-u_0^2|+u_0^2+(\gamma-1)) \bigr]\\
&\qquad \le \frac{C(M_4)}{q^{2/3}}.
\end{split}$$ In a similar manner, for $z$ such that $u(z)\in\Sigma'_3\cap\mathcal{O}'$, same result holds and for $z\in{\widetilde}{C}_{outside}\cap\mathcal{O}$, the difference of the $21$-entries of $v^{(3)}$ and $v_p$ satisfies $|e^{2q\alpha(z)} - e^{2ig^{PII}(\frac{q^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}}u(z))}|
\le\frac{C(M_4)}{q^{2/3}}$. For $z\in C_1$, $Re(-i(u^2-u_0^2)_-^{3/2})=-|u^2-u_0^2|^{3/2}$. Again by , the difference of the $11$-entries of $v^{(3)}$ and $v_p$ satisfies $|e^{-2q\alpha_-(z)} - e^{-2ig_-^{PII}(\frac{q^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}}u(z))}|
\le\frac{C(M_4)}{q^{2/3}}$. Therefore, we have $$\label{8.7}
\|v^{(3)}v_p^{-1} -I\|_{L^{\infty}(\Sigma^{(3)}\cap\mathcal{O})}
\le\frac{C(M_4)}{q^{2/3}}.$$
Secondly, for $z\in\Sigma^{(3)}\cap\mathcal{O}^c$, $|z-\xi|,|z-\xi^{-1}|\geq c>0$ implies exponential decay for $e^{-2q\alpha(z)}$ and $e^{2q\alpha(z)}$ for $z\in{\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cap\mathcal{O}^c$ and $z\in{\widetilde}{C}_{outside}\cap\mathcal{O}^c$, respectively. Therefore we have $$\label{8.8}
\|v^{(3)}v_p^{-1} -I\|_{L^{\infty}(\Sigma^{(3)}\cap\mathcal{O}^c)}
\le Ce^{-cq}.$$
Finally, for $z\in\partial\mathcal{O}$, $|u(z)|=\epsilon'$ and $$\label{8.9}
m_{p+}(z)=m^{PII,3}\bigl(\frac{q^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}}u(z),x\bigr)
=I+\frac{m^{PII,3}_1(x)}{\frac{q^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}}u(z)}+
O_{M_4}(\frac1{q^{2/3}}),$$ by . Here the error is uniformly for $0\le x\le 2M_4$.
Now as in the case $\gamma\le 1$, define $R(z)=m^{(3)}m_p^{-1}$. Then the jump matrix for $R$ is given by $v_R=m_{p-}v^{(3)}v_p^{-1}m_{p-}^{-1}$. From , and , and also , we have $$\begin{cases}
\|v_R-I\|_{L^{\infty}(\Sigma^{(3)}\cap\mathcal{O})}
\le\frac{C(M_4)}{q^{2/3}}& \text{on $\mathcal{O} \cap \Sigma^{(3)}$},\\
\|v_R-I\|_{L^{\infty}(\Sigma^{(3)}\cap\mathcal{O}^c)}
\le Ce^{-cq}& \text{on $\mathcal{O}^c \cap \Sigma^{(3)}$},\\
v_R=m_{p+}^{-1}=I-\frac{2^{4/3}m^{PII,3}_1(x)}{q^{1/3}u(z)}
+O_{M_4}(\frac{1}{q^{2/3}})&
\text{on $\partial \mathcal{O}$}.
\end{cases}$$
As in for the case $\gamma \le 1$, using $m_{1,22}^{PII}=m_{1,22}^{PII,3}+(ix^2/8)$ from , $$\label{e-z34}
\begin{split}
m_{22}^{(3)}(0)&= R_{22}(0)\\
&= 1+\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}m^{PII,3}_{1,22}(x)+O_{M_4}(\frac1{q^{2/3}})\\
&= 1+\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}} \biggl[m^{PII}_{1,22}(x)
-\frac{it^2}{8}\bigl( 1+\frac{t}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}\bigr)^{-4}\biggr]
+O_{M_4}(\frac1{q^{2/3}})\\
&= 1+\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}m^{PII}_{1,22}(x) +
\frac{t^2}{2^{5/3}q^{1/3}} +O_{M_4}(\frac1{q^{2/3}}).
\end{split}$$ Therefore, from using $x=-t(1+\frac{t}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}})^{-2}=-t+O_{M_4}(\frac1{q^{2/3}})$ and the fact that $\frac{d}{dt}m^{PII}_{1,22}(t)$ is bounded for $0\le t\le M_4$, (this follows, for example from and the boundedness of $u(x)=2im_{1,12}^{PII}$ ; alternatively statements like are true also for all the $x$-derivatives of $m^{PII,3}(z;x)$, etc.), $$\begin{split}
\kappa^2_{q-1}&=e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)}m^{(3)}_{22}(0)\\
& =e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)} \biggl( 1 +\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}m^{PII}_{1,22}(x) +\frac{t^2}{2^{5/3}q^{1/3}} +O_{M_4}(\frac1{q^{2/3}}) \biggr)\\
& = \biggl( 1-\frac{t^2}{2^{5/3}q^{1/3}} +O_{M_4}(\frac1{q}) \biggr)
\biggl( 1 +\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}m^{PII}_{1,22}(x)
+\frac{t^2}{2^{5/3}q^{1/3}} +O_{M_4}(\frac1{q^{2/3}}) \biggr) \\
& =1 +\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}m^{PII}_{1,22}(x) +O_{M_4}(\frac1{q^{2/3}})\\
& =1 +\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}m^{PII}_{1,22}(-t) +O_{M_4}(\frac1{q^{2/3}}).
\end{split}$$
Finally we consider the case (ii), $1+\frac{M_3}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}\le
\gamma\le 1+\delta_4$. We conjugate $m^{(2)}$ with jump matrix $v^{(2)}$ given by , as follows.\
$$\begin{cases}
m^{(4)} \equiv m^{(2)} \qquad |z|>1,\\
m^{(4)} \equiv m^{(2)} \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 0& 1\\-1&0 \end{smallmatrix} \bigr)
\quad |z|<1.
\end{cases}$$ Define ${\widetilde}{\alpha}(z)= -\pi i \int^z_\xi \frac\gamma{4\pi i}
\frac{s+1}{s^2}\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s - \xi^{-1})}ds$, where ${\widetilde}{\alpha}(z)$ is the same as $\alpha(z)$ in Lemma \[lem-alpha\], but now we choose the branch so that $\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s - \xi^{-1})}$ is analytic in ${\mathbb C}-\bar{C}_2$, and $\sqrt{(s-\xi)(s - \xi^{-1})} \sim +s$ as $s\to\infty$. Then the jump matrix $v^{(4)}$ for $m^{(4)}$ is given by $$\begin{cases}
v^{(4)}= \begin{pmatrix} e^{2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}_+} &1\\ 0&e^{2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}_-}
\end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on} \ \ C_2,\\
v^{(4)}= \begin{pmatrix} 1&e^{-2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}}\\ 0&1 \end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on}
\ \ C_1
\end{cases}$$ and $\kappa^2_{q-1}=-e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)}m^{(4)}_{21}(0)$.
Noting the factorization $v^{(4)}=\begin{pmatrix}
1&0\\ e^{2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}_-}&1 \end{pmatrix}$ $\begin{pmatrix} 0&1\\-1&0 \end{pmatrix}$ $\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\e^{2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}_+}&1 \end{pmatrix}$ on $C_2$, we define (see Figure \[fig-Ctilde\]) $$\begin{cases}
m^{(5)}=m^{(4)} \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\ e^{2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}}&1 \end{pmatrix}^{-1}
\quad\text{in}\quad \Omega^{(5)}_2,\\
m^{(5)}=m^{(4)} \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\ e^{2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}}&1 \end{pmatrix}
\qquad\text{in}\quad \Omega^{(5)}_3,\\
m^{(5)}=m^{(4)}
\qquad\text{in}\quad \Omega^{(5)}_1\cup\Omega^{(5)}_4,
\end{cases}$$ so that $$\begin{cases}
v^{(5)}=\begin{pmatrix} 0&1\\-1&0 \end{pmatrix} \quad\text{on}\quad C_2,\\
v^{(5)}=\begin{pmatrix} 1&e^{-2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}}\\ 0&1 \end{pmatrix} \quad\text{on}\quad C_1,\\
v^{(5)}=\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\ e^{2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}}&1 \end{pmatrix}
\quad\text{on}\quad {\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cup {\widetilde}{C}_{outside}.
\end{cases}$$
As in the case of $\alpha$, we have $|e^{-{\widetilde}{\alpha}(z)}|<1$ for $z\in C_1$ and $|e^{{\widetilde}{\alpha}(z)}|<1$ for $z\in {\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cup {\widetilde}{C}_{outside}$. Therefore taking $q\to\infty$, we have $$\begin{cases}
v^{(5,\infty)} =
\begin{pmatrix} 0&1\\-1&0 \end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on} \ \ C_2,\\
v^{(5,\infty)} =
\begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\0&1 \end{pmatrix} \ \ \text{on} \ \ C_1.
\end{cases}$$ This RHP can be solved explicitly as in Lemma \[lem-minfty\], and we find $$\label{e-z24}
m^{(5,\infty)} = \begin{pmatrix} \frac12({\widetilde}{\beta}+{\widetilde}{\beta}^{-1})&
\frac1{2i}({\widetilde}{\beta}-{\widetilde}{\beta}^{-1})\\
-\frac1{2i}({\widetilde}{\beta}-{\widetilde}{\beta}^{-1})&
\frac12({\widetilde}{\beta}+{\widetilde}{\beta}^{-1}) \end{pmatrix}$$ where ${\widetilde}{\beta}(z)\equiv (\frac{z-\xi}{z-\xi^{-1}})^{1/4}$ is now analytic in ${\mathbb C}-\bar{C}_2$ and ${\widetilde}{\beta}\sim +1$ as $z\to\infty$. From , we have $m^{(5,\infty)}_{21}(0)=-\frac1{\sqrt{\gamma}}$ and $\kappa^2_{q-1}\sim e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)}\frac1{\sqrt{\gamma}}$ as $q\to\infty$. Again, we need to construct parametrices around $\xi$ and $\xi^{-1}$ in order to prove that indeed $m^{(5)}\to m^{(5,\infty)}$. Note that $\det m^{(5,\infty)}=1$ : this follows either by direct calculation or by a general argument as $\det v^{(5,\infty)}=1$.
Let $\Sigma''$ be the contour $\Sigma''={\mathbb R}\cup{\mathbb R}_+e^{2\pi i/3}\cup{\mathbb R}_+e^{4\pi i/3}$ shown in Figure \[fig-Sigma2\].
Let $\omega=e^{2\pi i/3}$ and set (see [@DZ]) $$\begin{cases}
\Psi(s)=\begin{pmatrix}Ai(s)&Ai(\omega^2s)\\
Ai'(s)&\omega^2Ai'(\omega^2s) \end{pmatrix}
e^{-\frac{i\pi}{6}}\sigma_3, &\quad 0< arg s < \frac{2\pi}{3},\\
\Psi(s)=\begin{pmatrix}Ai(s)&Ai(\omega^2s)\\
Ai'(s)&\omega^2Ai'(\omega^2s) \end{pmatrix}
e^{-\frac{i\pi}{6}\sigma_3}\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\-1&1\end{pmatrix},
&\quad \frac{2\pi}{3}< arg s <\pi, \\
\Psi(s)=\begin{pmatrix}Ai(s)&-\omega^2Ai(\omega s)\\
Ai'(s)&-Ai'(\omega s) \end{pmatrix}
e^{-\frac{i\pi}{6}\sigma_3}\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\1&1\end{pmatrix},
&\quad \pi < arg s < \frac{4\pi}{3}, \\
\Psi(s)=\begin{pmatrix}Ai(s)&-\omega^2Ai(\omega s)\\
Ai'(s)&\omega Ai'(\omega s) \end{pmatrix}
e^{-\frac{i\pi}{6}}\sigma_3, &\quad \frac{4\pi}{3}<arg s <2\pi,\\
\end{cases}$$ where $Ai(s)$ is the Airy function. Then $\Psi$ satisfies the jump conditions $$\begin{cases}
\Psi_+=\Psi_-\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&1\end{pmatrix}& \quad z\in {\mathbb R}_+,\\
\Psi_+=\Psi_-\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\-1&0\end{pmatrix}& \quad z\in {\mathbb R}_-,\\
\Psi_+=\Psi_-\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\1&1\end{pmatrix}&
\quad z\in {\mathbb R}_+e^{2\pi i/3}, {\mathbb R}_+e^{4\pi i/3}.\\
\end{cases}$$
Let $\mathcal{O}_{\xi}$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{\xi}}$ be neighborhoods around $\xi$ and $\bar{\xi}$ of size $\epsilon''\sqrt{\gamma-1}$, respectively, where $\epsilon''>0$ is a small, fixed number chosen to satisfy , below. Since $\frac12 |\xi-\bar{\xi}|=\frac2{\gamma}\sqrt{\gamma-1} >
\epsilon''\sqrt{\gamma-1}$, $\mathcal{O}_{\xi}$ and ${\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{\xi}}$ have no intersection, provided $$\label{e-z25}
0<\epsilon''<1.$$ For definiteness we assume that $\partial\mathcal{O}_{\xi}$ and $\partial{\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{\xi}}$ are oriented counterclockwise. In $\mathcal{O}_{\xi}$, a simple substitution shows that ${\widetilde}{\alpha}(z)=\frac23(z-\xi)^{3/2}G(z)$, where $G$ is analytic and $G(\xi)=(\gamma-1)^{3/4}
e^{-i(\frac32\theta_c+\frac34\pi)}$. Here $(z-\xi)^{3/2}=|z-\xi|^{3/2}e^{\frac32 i arg(z-\xi)}$ and $\theta_c-\pi/2 < arg(z-\xi) <\theta_c+ 3\pi /2$. Define $$\lambda(z)\equiv (z-\xi)(G(z))^{2/3},$$ where $(G(z))^{2/3}$ is analytic in $\mathcal{O}_{\xi}$ and $(G(z))^{2/3}\to (\gamma-1)^{1/2}e^{-i(\theta_c+\pi /2)}$ as $z\to\xi$. Of course, $\lambda^{3/2}=\frac32 {\widetilde}{\alpha}$.
It is a simple calculus question to verify that we may choose $\epsilon''$ sufficiently small so that $$\label{e-z26}
\begin{split}
&\text{$z\to\lambda(z)$ is a bijection from $\mathcal{O}_{\xi}$
onto an open neighborhood}\\
&\text{of $0$ in the $\lambda$-plane,
of radius $\sim (\gamma-1)$.}
\end{split}$$
Define $\Sigma^{(5)}\cap\mathcal{O}_{\xi}\equiv
\{ z\in\mathcal{O}_{\xi} : \lambda(z)\in\Sigma''\}$. As in the construction in [@DZ], set (cf. (4.34) in [@DZ]) $$\label{8.20}
E(z) =\begin{pmatrix}1&-1\\-1&-1\end{pmatrix}
\sqrt\pi e^{i\pi/6}q^{\frac{\sigma_3}{6}}
\biggl((z-\bar\xi)(G(z))^{2/3}\biggr)^{\frac{\sigma_3}{4}},$$ and for $z\in\mathcal{O}_{\xi}-\Sigma^{(5)}$, define the parametrix for $m^{(5)}$ by $$m_p(z)=E(z)\Psi(q^{2/3}\lambda(z))e^{q{\widetilde}{\alpha}(z)\sigma_3}.$$ Then $m_p$ satisfies the same jump conditions on $\Sigma^{(5)}\cap\mathcal{O}_{\xi}$ as $m^{(5)}$ ; $m_{p+}=m_{p-}v^{(5)}$. And if $q$ becomes large, then for $z\in\partial\mathcal{O}_{\xi}$, $|q^{2/3}\lambda(z)|\geq cq^{2/3}(\gamma-1)
\geq cM_3/2^{1/3}$. Therefore, $$\label{e-z29}
\begin{split}
&\text{if $M_3$ is sufficiently large so that the leading terms dominate}\\
&\text{in the asymptotics for the Airy functions in $\Psi(q^{2/3}\lambda(z))$
(see e.g.\cite{AS}),}
\end{split}$$ then by the explicit choice of $E(z)$ in , we find for $z\in\partial\mathcal{O}_{\xi}$, $$\label{e-z27}
m_{p+}=m^{(5,\infty)}(z)\biggl(I+O\bigl(\frac1{q\lambda^{3/2}(z)}\bigr)\biggr)
=m^{(5,\infty)}(z)\biggl(I+O\bigl(\frac1{q(\gamma-1)^{3/2}}\bigr)\biggr).$$
Noting the symmetry $m^{(5)}=\overline{m^{(5)}(\bar{z})}$, define $\Sigma^{(5)}\cap\mathcal{O}_{\bar{\xi}}\equiv
\overline{\Sigma^{(5)}\cap\mathcal{O}_{\xi}}$, and for $z\in\mathcal{O}_{\bar{\xi}}-\Sigma^{(5)}$ set $m_p(z)=\overline{m_p(\bar{z})}$. We now extend $\Sigma^{(5)}\cap(\mathcal{O}_{\xi}\cup\mathcal{O}_{\bar{\xi}})$ to $\Sigma^{(5)}$ to have the same general shape as in Figure \[fig-Ctilde\]. Finally, for $z\in{\mathbb C}-({\mathcal{O}}_\xi
\cup {\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{\xi}} \cup\Sigma^{(5)})$, define $m_p(z)=m^{(5,\infty)}$.
Set $\mathcal{O}= {\mathcal{O}}_\xi\cup {\mathcal{O}}_{\bar{\xi}}$. Then ${\widetilde}{R}\equiv m^{(5)}m_p^{-1}$ solves a RHP on $\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O}$ with the jump matrix $v_{{\widetilde}{R}}=m_{p-}v^{(5)}v_p^{-1}m_{p-}^{-1}$, $$\begin{cases}
v_{{\widetilde}{R}}= I& \text{on} \quad (\Sigma^{(5)}\cap\mathcal{O})\cup C_2,\\
v_{{\widetilde}{R}}= m^{(5,\infty)} \begin{pmatrix} 1&e^{-2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}}\\ 0&1
\end{pmatrix} (m^{(5,\infty)})^{-1}&
\text{on} \quad C_1 \cap\bar{\mathcal{O}}^c, \\
v_{{\widetilde}{R}}= m^{(5,\infty)} \begin{pmatrix} 1&0\\
e^{2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}}&1 \end{pmatrix}
(m^{(5,\infty)})^{-1}& \text{on} \quad
({\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cup{\widetilde}{C}_{outside})\cap\bar{\mathcal{O}}^c ,\\
v_{{\widetilde}{R}}=I+O(\frac1{q(\gamma-1)^{3/2}})& \text{on}
\quad \partial\mathcal{O}.\\
\end{cases}$$
Let $\epsilon_1>0$ be a fixed, small number : for example, we may take $\epsilon_1=\epsilon'$ satisfying , above. Choose $\delta_4$ sufficiently small so that $$\label{e-z30}
\xi,\bar{\xi} \in \{z : |z+1|\le\epsilon_1\}$$ for $1\le\gamma\le 1+\delta_4$. By calculations similar to and , $Re(2\tilde\alpha(z))\leq -c(\gamma-1)^{3/2}$ for $z\in ({\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cup{\widetilde}{C}_{outside})\cap \{|z+1|\le\epsilon_1\}
\cap \bar{\mathcal{O}}^c$ (in fact the estimate is true on the full set $({\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cup{\widetilde}{C}_{outside})\cap \{|z+1|\le\epsilon_1\}$) and also $|e^{2q\tilde\alpha(z)}|\leq e^{-cq}$ for $z\in ({\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cup{\widetilde}{C}_{outside})\cap \{|z+1|>\epsilon_1\}$. Thus, $|e^{2q\tilde\alpha(z)}|\leq e^{-cq(\gamma-1)^{3/2}}$ for $z\in ({\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cup{\widetilde}{C}_{outside})\cap \mathcal{O}^c$. Also, by calculations similar to and again, $Re(-2\tilde\alpha(z))\leq -c(\gamma-1)^{3/2}$ for $z\in C_1\cap \mathcal{O}^c$. Therefore we have $L^{\infty}$ estimation $$\label{e-z32}
\|v_{{\widetilde}{R}} -I \|_{L^\infty(\Sigma^{(5)}\cap\mathcal{O}^c)}
\leq Ce^{-cq(\gamma-1)^{3/2}}.$$
Furthermore, from calculations similar to , on ${\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cap\mathcal{O}^c\cap \{Im(z)\geq0\}$, using $|u+u_0|\geq |u-u_0|$ on the integration contour for the second inequality, $$\begin{split}
\int |e^{-2q{\widetilde}{\alpha}(z)}||dz|
&\le \int_{\{u=u_0+xe^{-i\pi/3} : x\geq c\sqrt{\gamma-1}\}}
Ce^{-qc|u^2-u^2_0|^{3/2}}du + Ce^{-cq}\\
&\le \int_{c\sqrt{\gamma-1}}^{\infty}
Ce^{-qcx^{3}} dx + Ce^{-cq}\\
&\le \frac{C}{q(\gamma-1)}.
\end{split}$$ The same calculations apply to the other part of ${\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cap\mathcal{O}^c$ and also to ${\widetilde}{C}_{outside}\cap\mathcal{O}^c$, so that $\|v_{{\widetilde}{R}}-I\|_{L^1(({\widetilde}{C}_{inside}\cup{\widetilde}{C}_{outside})\cap\mathcal{O}^c)}
\le \frac{C}{q(\gamma-1)}$. On the other hand, $length(\partial\mathcal{O})\le C\sqrt{\gamma-1}$ and $length(C_1\cap\mathcal{O}^c)\le C\sqrt{\gamma-1}$, and hence, by the above $L^\infty$ estimates, $\|v_{{\widetilde}{R}}-I\|_{L^1(\partial\mathcal{O})}\le C/(q(\gamma-1))$ and $\|v_{{\widetilde}{R}}-I\|_{L^1(C_1\cap\mathcal{O}^c)}\le C/(q(\gamma-1))$. Thus $$\label{e-z33}
\|v_{{\widetilde}{R}}-I\|_{L^1(\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O})}\le
\frac{C}{q(\gamma-1)}.$$
Using the choice of $\mathcal{O}_{\xi}$ and $\mathcal{O}_{\bar{\xi}}$, direct calculation shows that $m^{(5,\infty)}$, hence $(m^{(5,\infty)})^{-1}$ (as $\det m^{(5,\infty)}=1$), are uniformly bounded for $\gamma$ in the region $1+\frac{M_3}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}\le \gamma \le 1+\delta_4$, for $z\in\mathcal{O}^c - \Sigma^{(5)}$. On the other hand, even though the contour $\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O}$ varies with $\gamma$ and $q$, the length of $\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O}$ is uniformly bounded for $1+\frac{M_3}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}\le \gamma \le 1+\delta_4$. Also a simple scaling argument shows that the Cauchy operators $C_\pm$ on $L^2(\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O})$ are uniformly bounded for $1+\frac{M_3}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}\le \gamma \le 1+\delta_4$. Therefore, $$\label{e-z28}
\begin{split}
\|C_{w_{{\widetilde}{R}}}\|_{L^2(\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O})
\to L^2(\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O})}
&\le C\|w_{{\widetilde}{R}}\|_{L^\infty(\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O})}\\
&\le \frac{C}{q(\gamma-1)^{3/2}}+Ce^{-Cq(\gamma-1)^{3/2}}\\
&\le \frac{C}{M_3^{2/3}}+Ce^{-CM_3^{3/2}}\\
&\le \frac12 <1
\end{split}$$ provided that $M_3$ is sufficiently large.
From and , we have $$\begin{split}
|{\widetilde}{R}_{22}(0) -1| &= \biggl| \frac1{2\pi i}
\int_{\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O}} \biggl(
\frac{w_{{\widetilde}{R}}-[(I-C_{w_{{\widetilde}{R}}})^{-1}C_{w_{{\widetilde}{R}}}I](z)
w_{{\widetilde}{R}}(z)}{z}\,ds
\biggr)_{22} \biggr|\\
&\le C(\|w_{{\widetilde}{R}}\|_{L^1(\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O})}+
\|w_{{\widetilde}{R}}\|^2_{L^2(\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O})}) \\
&\le C\|w_{{\widetilde}{R}}\|_{L^1(\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O})}
\qquad\text{, as $\|w_{{\widetilde}{R}}\|
_{L^\infty(\Sigma^{(5)}\cup\partial\mathcal{O})}$ is bounded,}\\
&\le\frac{C}{q(\gamma-1)},
\end{split}$$ and $$|{\widetilde}{R}_{21}(0)| \le \frac{C}{q(\gamma-1)}.$$ Therefore, from $m^{(5)}_{21}(0)={\widetilde}{R}_{22}(0)m^{(5,\infty)}_{21}(0)+
{\widetilde}{R}_{21}(0)m^{(5,\infty)}_{11}(0)$, we obtain $$\kappa^2_{q-1}
=-e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)}m^{(5)}_{21}(0)
=e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)} \frac1{\sqrt{\gamma}}
\biggl(1+O\bigl( \frac1{q(\gamma-1)} \bigr)\biggr).$$ Note that this is consistent with the result for case (i) where $\gamma-1\geq \delta_3$.
Summarizing, we have proven the following results.
\[lem-K2\] Let $\delta_3, M_4>0$ be fixed numbers. Let $\delta_4>0$ be a fixed sufficiently small number satisfying , and $M_3>0$ be a fixed, sufficiently large number satisfying and . As $q \to \infty$, we have the following asymptotics.
1. If $1+\delta_3 \le \gamma$, $$\kappa^2_{q-1}
= e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)}\frac1{\sqrt{\gamma}}
\biggl(1+O\bigl(\frac1{q}\bigr)\biggr),$$ where the error is uniform for $1+\delta_4 \le \gamma\le L$ for any fixed $L< \infty$.
2. If $1+\frac{M_3}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}} \le \gamma \le 1+\delta_4$, $$\kappa^2_{q-1}=e^{q(-\gamma+\log \gamma+1)} \frac1{\sqrt{\gamma}}
\biggl(1+O\bigl(\frac1{q(\gamma-1)}\bigr) \biggr),$$ where the error is uniform in the region.
3. If $1< \gamma \le 1+\frac{M_4}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}$, $$\bigl|\kappa^2_{q-1}
- 1 -\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}m^{PII}_{1,22}(-t)\bigr|\le \frac{C(M_4)}{q^{2/3}},$$ where $t$ is defined by $\gamma=1+\frac{t}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}$, $0\le t\le M_4$.
Note that, comparing Lemma \[lem-K2\] (iii) with Lemma \[lem-K1\] (iii), we have same result everywhere in the region $1-\frac{M}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}} \le
\gamma \le 1+\frac{M}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}$, $$\label{e-z36}
\bigl|\kappa^2_{q-1}
- 1 -\frac{i2^{4/3}}{q^{1/3}}m^{PII}_{1,22}(t)\bigr|\le \frac{C(M)}{q^{2/3}},$$ where $t$ is defined by $\gamma=1-\frac{t}{2^{1/3}q^{2/3}}$, and $M$ is any fixed positive number.
Also note from Lemma \[lem-K2\] (ii), that as $q\to\infty$, $$\label{e-z37}
\log\kappa^2_{q-1}\le q(-\gamma+\log\gamma +1) + \frac{C^{\#}}{q(\gamma-1)},$$ where $C^{\#}$ is independent of $M_3$ and is fixed once $\delta_4$ satisfying is determined.
**[Asymptotics of $\mathbf{\phi_n(\lambda)}$ as $\mathbf{ n\to\infty}$ ]{}** {#s-phi}
============================================================================
In this Section, using Lemmas \[lem-K1\] and \[lem-K2\], we obtain the large $n$ behavior of $\phi_n(\lambda)$. In the following $\delta_5,\delta_6,\delta_7$ are fixed numbers between $0$ and $1$, and $M_5,M_6,M_7$ are fixed and positive. These numbers are free apart from the following requirements : $$\begin{aligned}
&\text{(a) $\delta_6$ satisfies~\eqref{e-z30},}\\
&\text{(b) $M_5\geq 1$ satisfies~\eqref{e-sec3.6},}\\
&\text{(c) $\frac12 M_6\geq 1$ satisfies~\eqref{e-sec3.6}, and}\\
&\text{(d) $M_7\geq 1$ satisfies~\eqref{e-z29}, ~\eqref{e-z28}
and condition~\eqref{e-z39} below.}\end{aligned}$$ We consider the following five cases for $\lambda>0$ and $n$ :
1. $0\le \frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}\le 1-\delta_5$
2. $\frac12 \le \frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}
\le 1-\frac{M_5}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}}$
3. $1-\frac{M_6}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}} \le \frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}
\le 1+\frac{M_6}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}}$
4. $1+\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}} \le \frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}
\le 1+\delta_6$
5. $1+\delta_7 \le \frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}$
Consider case (i). For any $k\geq n$, $\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1}\le 1-\delta_5$. From Lemma \[lem-K1\] (i), we have as $n\to\infty$, $$|\log{\phi_n(\lambda)}|
=\bigl|\sum_{k=n}^{\infty} \log{\kappa^2_k}(\lambda)\bigr|
\le \sum_{k=n}^{\infty} Ce^{-ck} \le Ce^{-cn}.$$
Consider case (ii). We split the sum into two pieces. $$\begin{split}
\log{\phi_n(\lambda)}
&=\sum_{k=n}^{\infty} \log{\kappa^2_k}(\lambda)\\
&=\sum_{(1)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}}(\lambda)
+ \sum_{(2)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}}(\lambda)
\end{split}$$ where $(1)$ and $(2)$ represent the regions $$\begin{aligned}
(1)\ \ &n+1\le k+1 \le 4\sqrt{\lambda},\\
(2)\ \ &4\sqrt{\lambda} <k+1. \end{aligned}$$ For $(1)$, $\frac12 \le \frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1}\le
1-\frac{M_5}{2^{1/3}(k+1)^{2/3}}$. From Lemma \[lem-K1\] (ii), for some constant $C$, independent of $M_5$ satisfying , $$\bigl| \log \kappa^2_k(\lambda) \bigr|
\le C\frac{ {e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}(k+1)
{(1-\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{k+1})}^{3/2}}}}{{(k+1)}^{1/3}}.$$ Using the fact that $f(x)=\frac1{x^{1/3}}e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}x(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{x})^{3/2}}$ is monotone decreasing in the second inequality below, we have, as $n\to\infty$, $$\label{e-z3}
\begin{split}
\bigl|\sum_{(1)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}}(\lambda) \bigr|
&\le C\sum_{(1)} \frac{e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}(k+1)
(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1})^{3/2}}}
{{(k+1)}^{1/3}}\\
&\le C\int_{n+1}^{4\sqrt{\lambda}}
e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}x(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{x})^{3/2}}
\frac{dx}{x^{1/3}}
+C\frac{e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}(n+1)
(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1})^{3/2}}}{{(n+1)}^{1/3}}\\
&\le C(2\sqrt{\lambda})^{2/3}\int_{\frac{(n+1)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}}-1}^{1}
e^{-\frac{4\sqrt{2\lambda}y^{3/2}}{3(1+y)^{1/2}}}
\frac{dy}{(1+y)^{1/3}}
+Ce^{-\frac12(n+1)(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1})^{3/2}}\\
&\le C(2\sqrt{\lambda})^{2/3}\int_{\frac{(n+1)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}}-1}^{1}
e^{-\sqrt{\lambda}y^{3/2}} dy
+Ce^{-\frac12(n+1)(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1})^{3/2}}\\
&\le C\int_{\sqrt{\lambda}(\frac{(n+1)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}}-1)^{3/2}}^{\infty}
e^{-s}\frac{ds}{s^{1/3}}
+Ce^{-\frac12(n+1)(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1})^{3/2}}\\
&\le Ce^{-\sqrt{\lambda}(\frac{(n+1)}{2\sqrt{\lambda}}-1)^{3/2}}
+Ce^{-\frac12(n+1)(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1})^{3/2}}\\
&\le C\exp\biggl(-\frac12(n+1)
\bigl(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}\bigr)^{3/2}\biggr).
\end{split}$$ We use the change of variable $y=\frac{x}{2\sqrt{\lambda}}-1$ for the integral in the third line. The fifth inequality is obtained from the substitution $s=\sqrt{\lambda}y^{3/2}$, and at the end, we have used $\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1} \le 1$.
For $(2)$, $\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1}\le \frac12$. Therefore, from Lemma \[lem-K1\] (i), we have $$\bigl|\sum_{(2)} \log{\kappa^2_k}(\lambda)\bigr|
\le \sum_{k+1=[4\sqrt{\lambda}]}^{\infty} Ce^{-ck} \le Ce^{-cn}.$$
Summing up the above two calculations, we have, for case (ii), $$\label{e-z35}
|\log{\phi_n(\lambda)}| \le C\exp\biggl(-c(n+1)
\bigl(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}\bigr)^{3/2}\biggr),$$ as $n\to\infty$. Note again that the constants C,c can be taken independent of $M_5$.
Consider case (iii). Set $$\label{e-z38}
\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}=1-\frac{t}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}}$$ so that $-M_6\le t\le M_6$. We divide the sum into three pieces, $$\begin{split}
\log{\phi_n(\lambda)}
&=\sum_{k=n}^{\infty} \log{\kappa^2_k}(\lambda)\\
&=\sum_{(1)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}}(\lambda)
+ \sum_{(2)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}}(\lambda)
+ \sum_{(3)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}}(\lambda)
\end{split}$$ where $(1),(2)$ and $(3)$ indicate the following regions : $$\begin{aligned}
(1)\ \ &n+1\le k+1 \le (n+1)+\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}{(n+1)}^{1/3}\\
(2)\ \ &(n+1)+\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}{(n+1)}^{1/3} <k+1
< \frac32(n+1)-\frac{t}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3}\\
(3)\ \ &\frac32(n+1)-\frac{t}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3} \le k+1.\end{aligned}$$
For $(1)$, as $n\to\infty$, $$1-\frac{6M_6}{2^{1/3}{(k+1)}^{2/3}} \le
\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1} \le 1+\frac{2M_6}{2^{1/3}{(k+1)}^{2/3}}.$$ Hence from , we have as $k\geq n\to\infty$, $$\log \kappa^2_k(\lambda)
= \frac{i2^{4/3}}{{(k+1)}^{1/3}} m^{PII}_{1,22}
\biggl(2^{\frac13}{(k+1)}^{\frac23}(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1})\biggr)
+O_{M_6}\bigl(\frac1{k^{2/3}}\bigr).$$ This leads to $$\begin{split}
&\sum_{(1)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}}(\lambda)\\
&= \sum_{k+1=n+1}^{[(n+1)+\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}{(n+1)}^{1/3}]}
\biggl[ \frac{i2^{4/3}}{{(k+1)}^{1/3}}
m^{PII}_{1,22}(2^{\frac13}{(k+1)}^{\frac23}(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1}))
+ O_{M_6}\bigl(\frac1{k^{2/3}}\bigr) \biggr]\\
&= \int_{(n+1)}^{(n+1)+\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}{(n+1)}^{1/3}}
\frac{i2^{4/3}}{x^{1/3}}
m^{PII}_{1,22}(2^{1/3}x^{2/3}(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{x})) dx +
O_{M_6}\bigl(\frac1{n^{1/3}}\bigr)\\
&= \int_{0}^{\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}} i2^{4/3}
m^{PII}_{1,22}\biggl(2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}
(1+\frac{2s}{3{(n+1)}^{2/3}} +\cdots)\\
&\qquad \bigl(1-\frac{(n+1)-\frac{t}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3}}
{(n+1)+s{(n+1)}^{1/3}}\bigr)\biggr)
\frac{ds}
{(1+\frac{s}{3{(n+1)}^{2/3}}+\cdots)} +
O_{M_6}\bigl(\frac1{n^{1/3}}\bigr)\\
&=\int_0^{\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}} i2^{4/3}
m^{PII}_{1,22}\biggl((t+2^{1/3}s)(1-\frac{s}{3{(n+1)}^{2/3}} +\cdots)\biggr)(1-\frac{s}{3{(n+1)}^{2/3}} +\cdots)ds \\
&\qquad + O_{M_6}\bigl(\frac1{n^{1/3}}\bigr)\\
&= \int_0^{\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}} i2^{4/3}
m^{PII}_{1,22}(t+2^{1/3}s) ds
+O_{M_6}\bigl(\frac1{n^{1/3}}\bigr)\\
&= \int_{t}^{M_6} 2im^{PII}_{1,22}(y) dy
+O_{M_6}\bigl(\frac1{n^{1/3}}\bigr).
\end{split}$$ The fourth equation is obtained using the change of variable $x=(n+1)+s{(n+1)}^{1/3}$, and for the sixth equation, we use the fact that $\frac{d}{dt}m^{PII}_{1,22}(t)$ is uniformly bounded for $-M_6\le t\le M_6$ (see the remark below ). To pass from the second to the third line, note that for integers $b>a$, $$\label{e-z40}
\begin{split}
|\sum_{n=a}^{b-1} f(x) - \int_a^b f(x)| &\le
\sum_{n=a}^{b-1} sup\{ |f(\alpha)-f(\beta)| : n\le \alpha,\beta\le n+1\}\\
& \le \|f'\|_{L^{\infty}(a,b)}(b-a).
\end{split}$$ For the case at hand, a simple calculation shows that $$\|f'\|_{L^\infty\bigl(n+1,[(n+1)+\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}{(n+1)}^{1/3}]\bigr)}
\le C(M_6)/n^{2/3}.$$ Also, the contribution to the integral from the interval $\bigl((n+1)+\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}{(n+1)}^{1/3},
[(n+1)+\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}{(n+1)}^{1/3}]+1\bigr)$ is $O_{M_6}(1/n^{1/3})$.
For $(2)$, $$\frac12 \le \frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{k+1} \le
1-\frac{\frac12M_6}{2^{1/3}(k+1)^{2/3}}\quad
\text{as}\quad k\geq n\rightarrow \infty.$$ As $n\to\infty$, by a calculation similar to the case (ii), again using the monotonicity of $f(x)=\frac1{x^{1/3}}
e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}x(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{x})^{3/2}}$ for the second inequality, we have $$\begin{split}
\bigl|\sum_{(2)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}}(\lambda) \bigr|
&\le C\sum_{(2)} \frac{e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}(k+1)
(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1})^{3/2}}}
{{(k+1)}^{1/3}}\\
&\le C\int_{(n+1)+\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}{(n+1)}^{1/3}}
^{\frac32(n+1)-\frac{t}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3}}
e^{-\frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}x(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{x})^{3/2}}
\frac{dx}{x^{1/3}}
+Ce^{-(\frac{M_6}2)^{3/2}}\\
&\le C(2\sqrt{\lambda})^{2/3}
\int_{\frac{M_6(n+1)^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}\sqrt{\lambda}}}
^{\frac{(n+1)}{4\sqrt{\lambda}}}
e^{-\frac{4\sqrt{2\lambda}}{3}(\frac{y^3}{1+y})^{1/2}}
\frac{dy}{(1+y)^{1/3}}
+Ce^{-(\frac{M_6}2)^{3/2}}\\
&\le C(2\sqrt{\lambda})^{2/3}
\int_{\frac{M_6(n+1)^{1/3}}{2^{4/3}\sqrt{\lambda}}}
^{\frac{(n+1)}{4\sqrt{\lambda}}}
e^{-\sqrt{\lambda}y^{3/2}} dy
+Ce^{-(\frac{M_6}2)^{3/2}}\\
&\le C \int_{(\frac{n+1}{2\sqrt{\lambda}})^{\frac12}
(\frac{M_6}{2})^{\frac32}}^{\infty}
e^{-s} \frac{ds}{s^{1/3}}
+Ce^{-(\frac{M_6}2)^{3/2}}\\
&\le C\int_{\frac14M_6^{3/2}}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-s}}{s^{1/3}} ds
+Ce^{-(\frac{M_6}2)^{3/2}}\\
&\le Ce^{-\frac14M_6^{3/2}}
+Ce^{-(\frac{M_6}2)^{3/2}}
\le Ce^{-\frac14M_6^{3/2}}.
\end{split}$$ The first inequality follows from Lemma \[lem-K1\] (ii) (note that, by assumption, $\frac12 M_6$ satisfies ). For the second line, in order to control the contribution to the integral from the interval $[[(n+1)+\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}{(n+1)}^{1/3}],
(n+1)+\frac{(M_6-t)}{2^{1/3}}{(n+1)}^{1/3}]$, we use the inequality $1+\frac{M_6-t}{2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}} \le 1+\frac{2^{2/3}M_6}{(n+1)^{2/3}}
\le \frac{32}{9}$ for large enough $n$. For the third line, we use the change of variable $y=\frac{x}{2\sqrt{\lambda}}-1$, and for the fourth line, we use the inequality $\frac{4\sqrt{\lambda}}{(n+1)\delta} \geq 1-\frac{M_6}{2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}}
\geq \frac9{23}$ for sufficiently large $n$. The fifth equation is obtained from the substitution $s=\sqrt{\lambda}y^{3/2}$, and for the sixth line, we have used the inequality $\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1} \le 1+\frac{M_6}{2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}}
\le 2$ for sufficiently large $n$.
For $(3)$, as $n\to\infty$, $0\le \frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{k+1} \le \frac34$, which yields, from Lemma \[lem-K1\] (i), $$\bigl| \sum_{(3)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}(\lambda)} \bigr| \le Ce^{-cn}.$$
Summing up all these calculations, for $\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1} = 1- \frac{t}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}}$ with $-M_6\le t\le M_6$, we have, as $n\to\infty$, $$\bigl| \log{\phi_n(\lambda)} - \int_{t}^{M_6} 2im^{PII}_{1,22}(y) dy \bigr|
\le \frac{C(M_6)}{n^{1/3}}+Ce^{-\frac14M_6^{3/2}},$$ for a constant $C(M_6)$ which depends on $M_6$, and for a constant $C$ which is independent of $M_6$. Using the asymptotics of $m^{PII}_{1,22}(x)$ as $x\rightarrow +\infty$ (see ), we have (recall $\frac12 M_6\geq 1$) $$\bigl| \log{\phi_n(\lambda)} - \int_{t}^{\infty} 2im^{PII}_{1,22}(y) dy \bigr|
\le \frac{C(M_6)}{n^{1/3}}+Ce^{-\frac14M_6^{3/2}}.$$
Now we consider case (iv), $1+\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}} \le
\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1} \le 1+\delta_6$. We write $$\log{\phi_n(\lambda)}
=\sum_{(1)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}} + \sum_{(2)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}},$$ where $(1),(2)$ indicate the following regions : $$\begin{aligned}
(1)\quad &n+1\le k+1 \le 2\sqrt\lambda - \frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3}\\
(2)\quad &2\sqrt\lambda - \frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3}\leq k+1.\end{aligned}$$
For $(1)$, we have for $n$ sufficiently large, $1+\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}(k+1)^{2/3}} \leq \frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{k+1} \leq 1+\delta_6$. Therefore, using , we obtain $$\label{e-z41}
\begin{split}
&\sum_{(1)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}(\lambda)}\\
&\le \sum_{k+1=n+1}^{[2\sqrt\lambda -\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3}]}
(k+1) \biggl( -\frac14(\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{k+1}-1)^2\biggr)
+\frac{C^{\#}}{2\sqrt{\lambda}-(k+1)}\\
&\leq -\frac14\int_{n+1}^{2\sqrt\lambda -\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3}}
x\bigl(\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{x}-1\bigr)^2 dx
+ \int_{n+1}^{2\sqrt\lambda -\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3}}
\frac{C^{\#}}{2\sqrt{\lambda}-x}dx +C(M_7)\\
&\leq -\frac14\int_{\frac{n+1}{2\sqrt\lambda}}
^{1-\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}}\frac{n+1}{2\sqrt\lambda}}
(2\sqrt\lambda)^2 \frac{(1-y)^2}{y} dy
+ C^{\#}\log\biggl(\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}-(n+1)}{(n+1)^{1/3}} \biggr)
+C(M_7)\\
&\leq -\frac14\int_{\frac{n+1}{2\sqrt\lambda}}
^{1-\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}}\frac{n+1}{2\sqrt\lambda}}
(2\sqrt\lambda)^2 (1-y)^2 dy
+ C^{\#}\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}-(n+1)}{(n+1)^{1/3}}
+C(M_7)\\
&\leq \frac14\int_{1-\frac{n+1}{2\sqrt\lambda}}
^{\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}}\frac{n+1}{2\sqrt\lambda}}
(2\sqrt\lambda)^2 z^2 dz
+ C^{\#}(n+1)^{2/3}(\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{n+1}-1)
+C(M_7)\\
&\leq \frac1{12}(2\sqrt\lambda)^2
\biggl[( \frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}}\frac{n+1}{2\sqrt\lambda})^3
- (1-\frac{n+1}{2\sqrt\lambda})^3 \biggr]\\
& \qquad + C^{\#}(n+1)^{2/3}(\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{n+1}-1)
+C(M_7)\\
&\leq \frac{M_7^3}{24}(\frac{n+1}{2\sqrt\lambda})
-\frac{n+1}{24\sqrt\lambda}(n+1)^2(\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{n+1}-1)^3
+ C^{\#}(n+1)^{2/3}(\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{n+1}-1)
+C(M_7)\\
&\leq - \frac1{48}\biggl[2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}
(\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{n+1}-1)\biggr]^3
+ C^{\#}(n+1)^{2/3}(\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{n+1}-1)
+C(M_7)\\
&\le - \frac1{96}\biggl[2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}
(\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{n+1}-1)\biggr]^3 +C(M_7).
\end{split}$$ The first line follows from the inequality $ -\gamma + \log \gamma +1 \leq -\frac{(\gamma-1)^2}{4}$ for $1\le \gamma \le 2$ ( note from that $C^{\#}$ is independent of $M_7$). In the second line, we use the monotonicity of $x(\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{x}-1)^2$ and of $(2\sqrt{\lambda}-x)^{-1}$ in the region $n+1\le x\le 2\sqrt{\lambda}-\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3}$. In the succeeding lines, we have used the changes of variables $x=2\sqrt{\lambda} y$, $1-y=z$ and $2\sqrt{\lambda} z^{3/2}=s$. For the last line, note that $2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}(\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{n+1}-1)
\geq M_7$, and we require $$\label{e-z39}
M_7\geq \sqrt{96C^{\#}}.$$
**Remark** : In estimating the sum in the second line of by an integral, the monotonicity of the integrand plays a crucial role : we cannot, for example, use an estimate of the form , as the derivative is not sufficiently small.
For $(2)$, we have $\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{k+1} \le 1+\frac{2M_7}{2^{1/3}{(k+1)}^{2/3}}$. Calculations similar to the previous cases (i), (ii) and (iii) show that $$\sum_{(2)} \log{\kappa^2_{k}(\lambda)}
\le \bigl| \int_{-2M_7}^{\infty} 2im^{PII}_{1,22}(y) dy \bigr|
+ \frac{C(M_7)}{n^{1/3}}+Ce^{-M_7} \le C(M_7).$$ The result follows by splitting the sum $\sum_{(2)}$ into the following regions $2\sqrt{\lambda}-\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3}\le k+1 \le
2\sqrt{\lambda}+\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3}$, $2\sqrt{\lambda}+\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}}(n+1)^{1/3} < k+1 <3\sqrt{\lambda}$ and $3\sqrt{\lambda} \le k+1$ : we leave the detail to the reader.
Therefore, for $1+\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}} \le
\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}
\le 1+\delta_6$, we have $$\log \phi_n(\lambda) \le - \frac1{96}\biggl[2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}
(\frac{2\sqrt\lambda}{n+1}-1)\biggr]^3 + C(M_7)$$
For case (v), we use the estimation of [@Johan] given in the Lemma \[lem-phi\] (v) below.
Summarizing, we have
\[lem-phi\] Let $0<\delta_5,\delta_6,\delta_7<1$ and $M_5,M_6,M_7>0$ be fixed number. Suppose that $\delta_6, M_5, M_6$ and $M_7$ satisfy conditions (a),(b),(c) and (d) given at the beginning of this Section, respectively. Set $$\label{e-z42}
t=2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}\bigl(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}\bigr)
\quad\text{so that}\quad
\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}=1-\frac{t}{2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}}.$$ We have the following estimates for the large $n$ behavior of $\phi_n(\lambda)$ :
1. If $0\le \frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1} \le 1-\delta_5$, $$\bigl| \log{\phi_n(\lambda)} \bigr| \le C\exp(-cn),$$ for some constants $C,c$ which may depend on $\delta_5$.
2. If $\frac12 \le \frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}
\le 1-\frac{M_5}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}}$ , $$\bigl| \log{\phi_n(\lambda)} \bigr| \le C\exp(-ct^{3/2}),$$ for constants C,c independent of $M_5$.
3. If $1-\frac{M_6}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}} \le
\frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1} \le 1+\frac{M_6}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}}$, so that $-M_6\le t\le M_6$, there is a constant $C(M_6)$ which depends on $M_6$, and a constant $C$ which is independent of $M_6$, such that $$\bigl| \log{\phi_n(\lambda)} - \int_{t}^{\infty} 2im^{PII}_{1,22}(y) dy \bigr|
\le \frac{C(M_6)}{n^{1/3}}+Ce^{-\frac14M_6^{3/2}}.$$
4. If $1+\frac{M_7}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}} \le \frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}
\le 1+\delta_6$, $$\log \phi_n(\lambda) \le \frac1{96}t^3 + C(M_7),$$ for a constant $C(M_7)$.
5. [@Johan] If $1+\delta_7 \le \frac{2\sqrt{\lambda}}{n+1}$, $$\phi_n(\lambda)\le Ce^{-C\lambda} \le Ce^{-cn^2}.$$
The really new results in this Lemma are (iii) and (iv). Indeed, (i) and (ii) can also be obtained from , and as indicated, (v) is given in [@Johan].
[**De-Poissonization Lemmas**]{} {#s- dep}
================================
In this section, we present two Lemmas which show that $\phi_n(N)$ is a good approximation of $q_{n,N}=f_{N,n}/N!$.
We need a Lemma showing the monotonicity of $q_{n,N}$ in $N$. The statement and proof can be found in [@Johan].
\[lem-dep1\] For all $n,N\geq 1$, $$q_{n,N+1} \le q_{n,N}.$$
Using this monotonicity result, the following Tauberian-like “de-Poissonization” Lemma can be proved. This is a modification of Lemma 2.5 in [@Johan] and the proof is the same.
\[lem-dep2\] Let $m>0$ be a fixed real number. Set $\mu_N^{(m)}=N+(2\sqrt{m+1}+1)\sqrt{N\log N}$ and $\nu_N^{(m)}=N-(2\sqrt{m+1}+1)\sqrt{N\log N}$. Then there are constants $C=C(m)$ and $N_0=N_0(m)$ such that $$\phi_n(\mu_N^{(m)})-\frac{C}{N^m} \le q_{n,N}
\le \phi_n(\nu_N^{(m)})+\frac{C}{N^m}$$ for $N\geq N_0$, $0\le n\le N$.
The reader will observe that the above Lemma is actually enough for all of our future calculations. Nevertheless, for convenience and the purpose of illustration, we use the following Lemma for the convergence of moments.
\[lem-dep3\] There exists $C>0$ such that $$q_{n,N} \le C\phi_n(N-\sqrt{N}),\quad
1-q_{n,N} \le C\bigl(1-\phi_n(N+\sqrt{N})\bigr)$$ for all sufficient large $N$, $0\le n\le N$.
Note that $q_{n,N} \geq 0$. Using Lemma \[lem-dep1\] and Stirling’s formula for sufficiently large $N$, we have from , $$\begin{split}
&\phi_n(N-\sqrt{N})
= \sum_{N'=0}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-(N-\sqrt{N})}(N-\sqrt{N})^{N'}}{(N')!} q_{n,N'}\\
&\qquad \geq \sum_{N'\geq N-\sqrt{N}}^{N}
\frac{e^{-(N-\sqrt{N})}(N-\sqrt{N})^{N'}}{(N')!} q_{n,N'}\\
&\qquad \geq q_{n,N}\sum_{N'\geq N-\sqrt{N}}^{N}
\frac{e^{-(N-\sqrt{N})}(N-\sqrt{N})^{N'}}{(N')!}\\
&\qquad \geq C q_{n,N} \sum_{N'\geq N-\sqrt{N}}^{N}
\frac{e^{-(N-\sqrt{N})}(N-\sqrt{N})^{N'}}{(N')^{N'+1/2}e^{-N'}}
= C q_{n,N} \sum_{N'\geq N-\sqrt{N}}^{N} e^{f(N')},
\end{split}$$ where $f(x)=-(N-\sqrt{N})+x\log (N-\sqrt{N}) +x-(x+\frac12)\log x$. One can easily check that $f(x)$ is a decreasing function for $x\geq (N-\sqrt{N})$. Thus $$\phi_n(N-\sqrt{N})\geq Cq_{n,N} \sqrt{N} e^{f(N)}
=Cq_{n,N} e^{\sqrt{N}+N\log (1-1/\sqrt{N})} \geq Cq_{n,N},$$ for sufficiently large $N$, $0\le n\le N$.
For the second inequality, note that $q_{n,N} \le 1$ by definition. Again, using Lemma \[lem-dep1\] and Stirling’s formula for sufficiently large $N$, $$\begin{split}
&1-\phi_n(N+\sqrt{N})
= \sum_{N'=0}^{\infty} \frac{e^{-(N+\sqrt{N})}(N+\sqrt{N})^{N'}}{(N')!}
(1-q_{n,N'})\\
&\qquad \geq C (1-q_{n,N}) \sum_{N'=N}^{N+\sqrt{N}} e^{g(N')}
\end{split}$$ where $g(x)=-(N+\sqrt{N})+x\log (N+\sqrt{N}) +x-(x+\frac12)\log x$. One can check that for $N\le x\le N+\sqrt{N}$, $g''(x)<0$ so that $\min g(x)=\min \bigl(g(N), g(N+\sqrt{N})\bigr)$. If $N$ is sufficiently large, $\min \bigl(g(N), g(N+\sqrt{N})\bigr)
=g(N+\sqrt{N})=-\frac12 \log(N+\sqrt{N})$. Therefore $$1-\phi_n(N+\sqrt{N})\geq C(1-q_{n,N}) \sqrt{N} e^{g(N)}
\geq C(1-q_{n,N}),$$ for sufficiently large $N$, $0\le n\le N$.
[**Proofs of main Theorems**]{} {#s-pf}
===============================
In this Section, we prove the main Theorems.\
[***Proof of Theorem 1.1***]{} Assume for definiteness that $t<0$. For $t\geq 0$, the calculation is similar. From the definition of $q_{n,N}\equiv \frac{f_{N,n}}{N!}$, $$\label{e-ind2}
\begin{split}
F_N(t)=Prob (\frac{l_N-2\sqrt{N}}{N^{1/6}}\le t)
=q_{[2\sqrt{N}+tN^{1/6}],N}.
\end{split}$$ Set $$n=[2\sqrt{N}+tN^{1/6}].$$ As $t$ is fixed, observe that $0\le n\le N$, as $N\to\infty$. Using Lemma \[lem-dep2\] with any fixed value of $m>0$, we have $$\phi_n(\mu_N^{(m)})-\frac{C}{N^m} \le F_N(t)
\le \phi_n(\nu_N^{(m)})+\frac{C}{N^m}.$$ Set $$t_N=2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}\bigl(1-\frac{2\sqrt{\mu_N^{(m)}}}{n+1}\bigr).$$ (cf. the definition of $t$ in .) Then, for all large $N$, $$2t\le t_N \le\frac12 t, \quad\text{and}\quad \lim_{N\to\infty}t_N=t.$$ Let $M_6\geq 2|t|$ be any sufficiently large, fixed number satisfying condition $(c)$ in Lemma \[lem-phi\]. Using Lemma \[lem-phi\] (iii), we have, for some constant $C(M_6)$ which depends on $M_6$, and a constant $C$ which is independent of $M_6$, $$\phi_n(\mu_N^{(m)})=\exp\biggl(\int_{t_N}^{\infty}
2im^{PII}_{1,22}(y) dy\biggr)
\bigl(1+O_{M_6}(\frac{1}{n^{1/3}})+O(e^{-\frac14M_6^{3/2}})\bigr)$$ Taking $N\to\infty$, and then taking $M_6\to\infty$, we obtain, $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \phi_n(\mu_N^{(m)})=
\exp\biggl(\int_{t}^{\infty} 2im^{PII}_{1,22}(y) dy\biggr).$$ For $\phi_n(\nu_N^{(m)})$, we obtain the same limit by a similar calculation, $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \phi_n(\nu_N^{(m)})=
\exp\biggl(\int_{t}^{\infty} 2im^{PII}_{1,22}(y) dy\biggr).$$ Thus, recalling $\frac{d}{dx} 2i(m_1^{PII})_{22}(x) = u^2(x)$ in , integration by parts yields $$\lim_{N\to\infty} Prob\biggl(\frac{l_N-2\sqrt{n}}{N^{1/6}}\le t\biggr)
=\exp\biggl(\int_{t}^{\infty} 2im^{PII}_{1,22}(y) dy\biggr)
=F(t).$$
$\square$
[***Proof of Theorem 1.2***]{} Integrating by parts, $$\label{e-mon2}
{\mathbb E}_N(\chi_N^m)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
t^mdF_N(t)
=-\int_{-\infty}^{0} mt^{m-1}F_N(t) dt
+\int_{0}^{\infty} mt^{m-1} (1-F_N(t)) dt$$ where $F_N(t)\equiv Prob\biggl(\frac{l_N-2\sqrt{N}}{N^{1/6}}\le t\biggr)$ as in Theorem \[thm1\]. From Theorem \[thm1\], we have pointwise convergence of $F_N(t)$ to $F(t)$. We need uniform control of $F_N$ for large $N$. Let $M>0$ be a sufficiently large, fixed number and $0< \delta <\frac14$ be a fixed, sufficiently small number.
Set $n=[2\sqrt{N}+tN^{1/6}]$. First consider the case when $t\le -M$. If $t<-2N^{1/3}$, then $F_N(t)=Prob (l_N\le 2\sqrt{N}+tN^{1/6})\le Prob (l_N<0)=
0$. For $-2N^{1/3}\le t\le -M$, and Lemma \[lem-dep3\] yield $$\label{e-mon3}
F_N(t)=q_{n,N}\le C\phi_n(N-\sqrt{N}).$$ If $-2N^{1/3}\le t\le -2\delta N^{1/3}$, when $N$ is sufficiently large, $$\frac{2\sqrt{N-\sqrt{N}}}{n+1} \geq
\frac{2\sqrt{N}(1-\frac1{\sqrt{N}})^{1/2}}{2\sqrt{N}+tN^{1/6}+1}
\geq \frac{2\sqrt{N}(1-\frac{\delta}4)}{2(1-\delta)\sqrt{N}+1}
\geq 1+\frac{\delta}2.$$ Thus, using Lemma \[lem-phi\] (v), for large $N$, $$\label{e-z43}
\phi_n(N-\sqrt{N})\le Ce^{-cN}\le Ce^{ct^3}.$$ If $-2\delta N^{1/3}\le t\le -M$, $$\label{e-mon4}
\frac{2\sqrt{N-\sqrt{N}}}{n+1} \le
\frac{2\sqrt{N}}{2\sqrt{N}-2\delta\sqrt{N}}\le 1+2\delta$$ and, using the monotonicity of $(2\sqrt{\lambda}-x)/x^{1/3}$ as a function of $x\le 2\sqrt{\lambda}$, $$\label{e-mon5}
\begin{split}
& 2^{1/3}\biggl(\frac{2\sqrt{N-\sqrt{N}}-(n+1)}{(n+1)^{1/3}}\biggr)\\
&\qquad\geq 2^{1/3}\biggl(\frac{2\sqrt{N}
(1-\frac1{\sqrt{N}})^{1/2}-(2\sqrt{N}-MN^{1/6}+1)}
{(2\sqrt{N}-MN^{1/6}+1)^{1/3}}\biggr) \geq \frac{M}2
\end{split}$$ as $N\to\infty$. Thus, we have for $-2\delta N^{1/3}\le t\le -M$, $$\label{e-mon6}
1+\frac{\frac12M}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}} \le \frac{2\sqrt{N-\sqrt{N}}}{n+1}
\le 1+2\delta$$ Therefore, from Lemma \[lem-phi\] (iv), provided $\frac{M}2$ satisfies condition $(d)$ and $2\delta$ satisfies condition $(a)$, $$\label{e-mon7}
\phi_n(N-\sqrt{N})\le C_M
\exp\biggl(-\frac1{96}\bigl(2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}
(\frac{2\sqrt{N-\sqrt{N}}}{n+1}-1)\bigr)^3 \biggr).$$ On the other hand, using the monotonicity of $(2\sqrt{\lambda}-x)/x^{1/3}$ as a function of $x\le 2\sqrt{\lambda}$, $$\label{e-mon8}
\begin{split}
&2^{1/3}\biggl(\frac{2\sqrt{N-\sqrt{N}}-(n+1)}{(n+1)^{1/3}}\biggr)\\
&\qquad \geq 2^{1/3}\biggl(
\frac{2\sqrt{N}(1-\frac1{\sqrt{N}})^{1/2}-(2\sqrt{N}+tN^{1/6}+1)}
{(2\sqrt{N}+tN^{1/6}+1)^{1/3}}\biggr)
\geq -\frac{t}2
\end{split}$$ for all $-2\delta N^{1/3}\le t\le -M$, as $N\to\infty$. Therefore gives us $$\label{e-z44}
\phi_n(N-\sqrt{N})\le C(M) \exp(\frac1{768}t^3)$$ for $-2\delta N^{1/3}\le t\le -M$.
Inserting the above estimates and into , we obtain $$\label{e-z45}
F_N(t)\le C(M)e^{ct^3}\qquad\text{for $-2N^{1/3}\le t\le -M$},$$ and as $F_N(t)=0$ for $t< -2N^{1/3}$, it follows by the dominated convergence theorem that $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{0} mt^{m-1}F_N(t) dt
=\int_{-\infty}^{0} mt^{m-1}F(t) dt.$$
Now consider the case when $t\geq M$. If $t> N^{5/6}-2N^{1/3}$, then $1-F_N(t)=
1-Prob (l_N\le 2\sqrt{N}+tN^{1/6}) \le 1-Prob(l_N> N)=0$. For $M\le t\le N^{5/6}-2N^{1/3}$, again, and Lemma \[lem-dep3\] yield $$\label{e-z51}
1-F_N(t)=1-q_{n,N}\le C(1-\phi_n(N+\sqrt{N})).$$ If $2\delta N^{1/3}\le t\le N^{5/6}-2N^{1/3}$, when $N$ is sufficiently large, $$\frac{2\sqrt{N+\sqrt{N}}}{n+1} \le
\frac{2\sqrt{N}(1+\frac{\delta}4)}{2\sqrt{N}+2\delta\sqrt{N}}
\le 1-\frac{\delta}2.$$ Thus, using Lemma \[lem-phi\] (i), $$\label{e-z46}
1-\phi_n(N+\sqrt{N})\le Ce^{-cn}\le Ce^{-c\sqrt{N}}\le Ce^{-ct^{3/5}}.$$ If $M\le t\le 2\delta N^{1/3}$, similar calculations to the case $-2\delta N^{1/3}\le t\le -M$ yield $$\frac12\le 1-2\delta \le \frac{2\sqrt{N+\sqrt{N}}}{n+1} \le
1-\frac{\frac12M}{2^{1/3}{(n+1)}^{2/3}}.$$ Therefore, from Lemma \[lem-phi\] (ii), as $N\to\infty$, $$\label{e-mon15}
1-\phi_n(N-\sqrt{N})\le
\exp\biggl(-c\bigl(2^{1/3}(n+1)^{2/3}
(1-\frac{2\sqrt{N+\sqrt{N}}}{n+1})\bigr)^{3/2} \biggr),$$ provided $\frac12 M$ satisfies condition $(d)$. However, as in the case $-2\delta N^{1/3}\le t\le -M$, we have $$2^{1/3}\biggl(\frac{(n+1)-2\sqrt{N+\sqrt{N}}}{(n+1)^{1/3}}\biggr)
\geq 2^{1/3}\biggl(
\frac{(2\sqrt{N}+tN^{1/6})-2\sqrt{N}(1+\frac1{\sqrt{N}})^{1/2}}
{(2\sqrt{N}+tN^{1/6})^{1/3}}\biggr)
\geq \frac{t}2.$$ for all $M\le t\le 2\delta N^{1/3}$, as $N\to\infty$. Therefore gives us $$\label{e-z47}
1-\phi_n(N-\sqrt{N})\le C\exp(-ct^{3/2})$$ for $M\le t\le 2\delta N^{1/3}$.
Inserting the above estimates and into , we obtain for $M\le t\le N^{5/6}-2N^{1/3}$ $$\label{e-z48}
1-F_N(t)\le Ce^{-ct^{3/5}}$$ as $N\to\infty$. Once again, as $1-F_N(t)=0$ for $t>N^{5/6}-2N^{1/3}$, it follows by the dominated convergence theorem that $$\lim_{N\to\infty} \int_{0}^{\infty} mt^{m-1} (1-F_N(t)) dt
=\int_{0}^{\infty} mt^{m-1} (1-F(t)) dt.$$
$\square$
As advertised in the Introduction, in this Appendix we give a new derivation of the formula $$\label{a1}
\sum_{N=0}^\infty\frac{\lambda^NF_N(n)}{N!}=
\det(d_{j-k})_{0\le j,k\le n-1},$$ where $d_j=(2\pi)^{-1}\int_0^{2\pi}\exp(2\sqrt{\lambda}\cos\theta-ij\theta)
d\theta$, and $F_N(n)$ is the distribution function for the length, $\ell_N(\pi)$, of the longest increasing subsequence in the random permutation $\pi$ from $S_N$. We set $F_0(0)=1$.
Let $\mu=(\mu_1,\mu_2,\dots,\mu_r,0,0,\dots)$, $\mu_1\ge\mu_2\ge\dots$, be a partition of $N$, i.e. $\mu_j$, $1\le j\le r$, are positive integers and $N=\mu_1+\dots+\mu_r$; we write $\mu\vdash N$. With $\mu$ we can associate a Young diagram, also denoted by $\mu$, in the standard way, see for example \[Sa\]. In the Young diagram there are $\mu_j$ boxes in the $j:th$ row. If we insert the numbers $1,\dots, N$ in the boxes in such a way that the numbers in every row and column are increasing we get a (standard) Young tableau $t\,$; $t$ has shape $\mu$, $s(t)=\mu$. Let $r(\mu)$ denote the number of rows in $\mu$.
Schensted, \[Sc\], has constructed a certain bijection, the Schensted correspondence, between the permutation group $S_N$ and pairs of Young tableaux $(t,t')$ with the same shape $s(t)=s(t')=\mu$, where $\mu\vdash N$. This correspondence has the property that if $S_N\owns
\pi\to (t,t')$, $\mu=s(t)$, then $\ell_N(\pi)$ equals the length, $\mu_1$, of the first row in $\mu$, and the length, $\ell'_N(\pi)$, of the longest [*decreasing*]{} subsequence in $\pi$ equals $r(\mu)$, the number of rows in $\mu$. For details see \[Sa\].
If we put the uniform probability distribution on $S_N$ then clearly the random variables $\ell_N$ and $\ell'_N$ have the same distribution (just reverse the permutation). Let $f(\mu)$ denote the number of Young tableaux with shape $\mu$. Then, by the Schensted correspondence, $$\label{a2}
F_N(n)=\frac 1{N!}\sum_{\substack{\mu\vdash N \\ r(\mu)\le n}} f(\mu)^2.$$ If we set $h_j=\mu_j+r-j$, $r=r(\mu)$, we have the following formula, due to Frobenius and Young, $$\label{a3}
f(\mu)=N!\prod_{1\le i<j\le r} (h_i-h_j)\prod_{i=1}^r\frac 1{h_i!},$$ see for example \[Si\]. Note that $N=\sum_{j=1}^r\mu_j=\sum_{j=1}^rh_j-r(r-1)/2$ and $h_{j-1}-h_j=\mu_{j-1}-\mu_j+1\ge 1$. Combining the formulas and we get $$\label{a4}
F_N(n)=N!\sum_{r=1}^n\frac 1{r!}
\sum_{(\ast)}\Delta(h)^2\prod_{j=1}^r\frac 1{(h_j!)^2},$$ where the $(\ast)$ means that we sum over all different integers $h_i\ge 1$ such that $\sum h_j=N+r(r-1)/2$, and $\Delta(h)=\prod_{i<j}(h_j-h_i)$ is the Vandermonde determinant. That we can remove the ordering of the $h_j\,$’s in follows from symmetry under permutation of $h_1,\dots,h_r$. The constraint $\sum h_j=N+r(r-1)/2$ is removed by the Poissonization $$\label{a5}
\phi_n(\lambda)=e^{-\lambda}\sum_{N=0}^\infty\frac{\lambda^N}{N!}F_N(n)=
e^{-\lambda}[1+\sum_{r=1}^n\lambda^{-r(r-1)/2}H_r(\lambda)],$$ where $$H_r(\lambda)=\frac 1{r!}\sum_{h\in \mathbb Z_+^r}\Delta(h)^2\prod_{j=1}^r
\frac{\lambda^{h_j}}{(h_j!)^2}.$$ We have used the fact that $\sum h_j\ge 1+\dots +r=r(r-1)/2+r$ and $N\ge r$, since the $h_j\,$’s are different integers. The condition that the $h_j\,$’s are different can then be removed since otherwise $\Delta(h)=0$. Observe that $H_r(\lambda)$ is a Hankel determinant with respect to the discrete measure $$\nu(\{m\})=\frac{\lambda^m}{(m!)^2},\quad m\in\mathbb Z_+,$$ see \[Sz1\], i.e. $$H_r(\lambda)=\det(\sum_{m=1}^\infty m^{j+k}\frac{\lambda^m}{(m!)^2})_
{0\le j,k\le r-1}.$$ If $q_j$, $j\ge 0$, are any polynomials with $\deg q_j=j$ and leading coefficient $1$, row and column operations on the determinant gives $$\label{a6}
H_r(\lambda)=\det(\sum_{m=1}^\infty q_j(m)q_k(m)\frac{\lambda^m}{(m!)^2})_
{0\le j,k\le r-1}.$$ We now make a particular choice of $q_j$, $q_j(x)=x(x-1)\dots (x-(j-1))$, if $j\ge 1$ and $q_0(x)=1$, so that $$\label{a7}
a^j\frac {d^j}{da^j} a^m=q_j(m)a^m,\quad m,j\ge 0.$$ The elements in the Hankel determinants can then be written $$\label{a8}
\left.\sum_{m=1}^\infty q_j(m)q_k(m)\frac{\lambda^m}{(m!)^2}=
a^jb^k\frac{d^j}{da^j}\frac{d^k}{db^k}\sum_{m=0}^\infty
\frac{a^mb^m}{(m!)^2}\right|_{a=b=\sqrt{\lambda}}-\delta_{j0}\delta_{k0}.$$ Now, $$\sum_{m=0}^\infty\frac{a^mb^m}{(m!)^2}=\frac 1{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}
e^{ae^{i\theta}+be^{-i\theta}}d\theta$$ and hence we can perform the differentiations in and get $$\sum_{m=1}^\infty q_j(m)q_k(m)\frac{\lambda^m}{(m!)^2}=\lambda^{(j+k)/2}
d_{j-k}-\delta_{j0}\delta_{k0},$$ where $d_{j-k}=(2\pi)^{-1}\int_0^{2\pi}\exp(2\sqrt{\lambda}\cos\theta-
i(j-k)\theta)d\theta$. Inserting this identity into the formula yields $$\label{a9}
H_r(\lambda)=\lambda^{r(r-1)/2}(D_r-D_{r-1}), \quad r\ge 1,$$ where $D_r$ is the Toeplitz determinant $\det(d_{j-k})_{0\le j,k\le r-1}$ and $D_0=1$. Hence, using the formula , we get $\phi_n(\lambda)=
e^{-\lambda}D_n$, which is what we wanted to prove.
In the remaining part of this appendix we will give a heuristic argument showing why we can expect the random variable $\ell_N(\pi)$ to behave like the largest eigenvalue of a random hermitian matrix. From our considerations above we see that $$F_N(n)=\frac 1{N!}\sum_{\substack{\mu\vdash N \\ \mu_1\le n}} f(\mu)^2.$$ By the same computations as above this leads to $$\label{a10}
\phi_n(\lambda)=e^{-\lambda}[1+\sum_{r=1}^\infty\lambda^{-r(r-1)/2}
H_r(\lambda;n)],$$ where $$H_r(\lambda;n)=\frac 1{r!}\sum_{h\in\{1,\dots,n+r-1\}^r}\Delta(h)^2\prod_{j=1}^r
\frac{\lambda^{h_j}}{(h_j!)^2}.$$ Note that $H_r(\lambda;n)\nearrow H_r(\lambda)$ as $n\to\infty$. We can think of $$\label{a11}
\frac 1{r!H_r(\lambda)}\Delta(h)^2\prod_{j=1}^r
\frac{\lambda^{h_j}}{(h_j!)^2}=
\frac 1{r!H_r(\lambda)}e^{-2\sum_{i<j}\log|h_i-h_j|^{-1}+\sum_j
[(\log\lambda)h_j+2\log(h_j!)]}$$ as the probability of the configuration $h\in\mathbb Z_+^r$. This probability has the form of a [*discrete*]{} Coulomb gas on $\mathbb Z_+$ at inverse temperature $\beta=2$ confined by an external potential. An $N\times N$ random hermitian matrix with a probability density of the form $Z_N^{-1}\exp(-\text{Tr\,}V(M))$ has an eigenvalue density $$\frac 1{Z_N}e^{-2\sum_{i<j}\log|x_i-x_j|^{-1}+\sum_j V(x_j)},$$ with $x\in\mathbb R^N$; $x_1,\dots ,x_N$ are the eigenvalues of $M$. Thus we can think of the $h_j\,$;s as some kind of “eigenvalues”.
Let $$P_r(\lambda;n)=H_r(\lambda;n)/H_r(\lambda),$$ i.e. $P_r(\lambda;n)$ is the probability that the largest “eigenvalue” is $\le n+r-1$. Then, by and , $$\label{a12}
\phi_n(\lambda)=e^{-\lambda}[1+\sum_{r=1}^\infty P_r(\lambda;n)
(D_r-D_{r-1})]=e^{-\lambda}+\sum_{r=1}^\infty P_r(\lambda;n)
(\phi_r(\lambda)-\phi_{r-1}(\lambda)).$$ Now, the essential contribution to the right-hand side of comes from $r$ around $2\sqrt{\lambda}$ since otherwise $\phi_r(\lambda)-\phi_{r-1}(\lambda)$ is very small. Thus $$\phi_n(\lambda)\approx P_{2\sqrt{\lambda}}(\lambda;n),$$ i.e. $\phi_n(\lambda)$ is like the probability that the largest “eigenvalue” in the discrete Coulomb gas is $\le n+2\sqrt{\lambda}$.
[10]{}
M.Abramowitz and I.A.Stegun, *Handbook of Mathematical Functions*, Dover Publications, New York, (1965).
D.Aldous and P.Diaconis, *Hammersley’s Interacting Particle Process and Longest Increasing Subsequences*, Prob. Th. and Rel. Fields, **103**, 199-213, (1995).
A.Borodin, *Longest increasing subsequences of random colored permutations*, Electron. J. Combin., **6 (1)**, R13, (1999).
R.M.Baer and P.Brock, *Natural sorting over permutation spaces*, Math. Comp., **22**, 385-410, (1968).
R.Beals and R.Coifman, *Scattering and inverse scattering for first order systems*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., **37**, 39-90, (1984).
J.Baik, P.Deift and K.Johansson, *On the distribution of the length of the second row of a Young diagram under Plancherel measure*, preprint, LANL E-print math.CO/9901118.
J.Baik and E.Rains, *Symmetrized increasing subsequence problems*, in preparation. K.Clancey and I.Gohberg, *Factorization of Matrix Functions and Singular Integral Operators*, Birkhäuser, (1981).
P.A.Deift, *Integrable Hamiltonian systems. Dynamical systems and probabilistic methods in partial differential equations*, 103-138, in *Lectures in Applied Mathematics, 31*, edited by P.A.Deift, C.D.Levermore and C.E.Wayne, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1996.
J.-D.Deuschel and O.Zeitouni, *Limiting curves for i.i.d. records*, Ann. Probab., **23**, 852-878, (1995).
J.-D.Deuschel and O.Zeitouni, *On increasing subsequences of i.i.d. samples*, preprint, (1997).
P.A.Deift, A.R.Its and X.Zhou, *Long-time Asymptotics for Integrable Nonlinear Wave Equations*, in *Important Development in Soliton Theory*, **2nd Edition**, edited by A.S.Fokas and V.E.Zakharov, Springer-Verlag, to be published.
P.A.Deift, T.Kriecherbauer and K.T-R McLaughlin, *New Results on the Equilibrium Measure for Logarithmic potentials in the Presence of an External Field*, J. Approx. Theory, **95**, no.3, 388-475, (1998).
P.A.Deift, T.Kriecherbauer, K.T-R McLaughlin, S.Venakides and X.Zhou, *Asymptotics for Polynomials Orthogonal with respect to Varying Exponential Weights*, Internat. Math. Res. Notices, no. **16**, 759-782, (1997).
P.A.Deift, T.Kriecherbauer, K.T-R McLaughlin, S.Venakides and X.Zhou, *Strong Asymptotics for Orthogonal Polynomials with respect to Varying Exponential Weights via Riemann-Hilbert Techniques*, To appear in Comm. Pure. Appl. Math.
P.A.Deift, T.Kriecherbauer, K.T-R McLaughlin, S.Venakides and X.Zhou, *Uniform Asymptotics for Polynomials Orthogonal with respect to Varying Exponential Weights and Applications to Universality Questions in Random Matrix Theory*, To appear in Comm. Pure. Appl. Math.
P.Diaconis and M.Shahshahani, *On the Eigenvalues of Random matrices*, J. Appl. Prob. **31**, 49-61, (1994).
P.A.Deift, S.Venakides and X.Zhou, *The collisionless shock region for the long-time behavior of solutions of the KdV equation*, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., **47** no. 2, 199–206, (1994).
P.A.Deift, S.Venakides and X.Zhou, *New Results in Small Dispersion KdV by an Extension of the Steepest Descent Method for Riemann-Hilbert Problems*, Internat. Math. Res. Notices, no. **6**, 285-299, (1997).
P.A.Deift and X.Zhou, *A Steepest Descent Method for Oscillatory Riemman-Hilbert Problems; Asymptotics for the MKdV Equation*, Ann. Math., **137**, 295-368, (1993).
P.A.Deift and X.Zhou, *Asymptotics for the Painlevé II Equation*, Comm. Pure. Appl. Math., **48**, 277-337, (1995).
P.Erdös and G.Szekeres, *A combinatorial theorem in geometry*, Compositio Math., **2**, 463-470, (1935).
A.S.Fokas, A.R.Its and V.E.Kitaev, *Discrete Painlevé equations and their appearance in quantum gravity*, Comm. Math. Phy., **142**, 313-344, (1991).
A.S.Fokas, U.Mugan and X.Zhou, *On the Solvability of Painlevé I, III and V*, Inverse Problems, **8**, 757-785, (1992).
H.Flaschka and A.Newell, *Monodromy and spectrum preserving deformations, I*, Comm. Math. Phy., **76**, no.1, 67-116, (1980).
A.S.Fokas and X.Zhou, *On the Solvability of Painlevé II and IV*, Comm. Math. Phy., **144**, 601-622, (1992).
I.M.Gessel, *Symmetric functions and P-recursiveness*, J. Combin. Theory. Ser. A, [**53**]{}, 257 - 285, (1990).
I.Gohberg and N.Krupnik, *One-Dimensional Linear Singular Integral Equations vol.I and II*, Operator theory, advances and applications ; v. 53-54, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 1992
D.J.Gross and E.Witten, *Possible third-order phase transition in the large N lattice gauge theory*, Phys. Rew. D, **21**, 446-453, (1980).
I.M.Gessel, J.Weinstein and H.S.Wilf, *Lattice walks in $\mathbb Z^d$ and permutations with no long ascending subsequences*, Electr. J. Combin., [**5(1)**]{}, (1998).
J.M.Hammersley, *A few seedlings of research*, Proc. Sixth Berkeley Symp. Math. Statist. and Probability, Vol. 1, 345-394, University of California Press, 1972.
M.Hisakado, *Unitary matrix models and Painlevé III*, Modern Phys. Lett. A, **11**, no.38, 3001-3010, (1996).
S.P.Hastings and J.B.McLeod, *A boundary value problem associated with the second Painlevé transcendent and the Korteweg de Vries equation*, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. **73**, 31-51, (1980).
S.Kamvissis, *On the Long Time Behavior of the Doubly Infinite Toda Lattice under Initial Data Decaying at Infinity*, Comm. Math. Phy., **153**, 479-519, (1993).
D.E.Knuth, *The art of computer programming*, vol. 3 : *sorting and searching*, 2nd ed., Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1973.
A.R.Its and V.Yu.Novokshenov, *The Isomonodromic Deformation Method in the Theory of Painlevé Equations*, Lecture Notes in Math.**1191**, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1986.
K.Johansson, *The Longest Increasing Subsequence in a Random Permutation and a Unitary Random Matrix Model*, Math. Res. Lett., **5**, no.1-2, 63-82, (1998).
K.Johansson, *Shape fluctuations and random matrices*, LANL E-print math.CO/9903134.
K.Johansson, *Transversal fluctuations for increasing subsequences on the plane*, preprint, 1999.
M.Jimbo, T.Miwa and K.Ueno, *Monodromy preserving deformations of linear ordinary differential equations with rational coefficients, I. General theory and $\tau$-function*, Physica D, **2**, no.2, 306-352, (1981).
J.-H. Kim, *On the longest increasing subsequence of random permutations - a concentration result*, J. Comb. Th. A, vol. **76**, 148-155, (1996).
B.F.Logan and L.A.Shepp, *A variational problem for random Young tableaux*, Advances in Math., **26**, 206-222, (1977).
M.L.Mehta, *Random Matrices*, Second Edition, Academic Press, San Diago, 1991.
A.Okounkov, *Random matrices and random permutations*, preprint, 1999.
A.M.Odlyzko, B.Poonen, H.Widom and H.S.Wilf, *On the distribution of longest increasing subsequences in random permutations*, unpublished manuscript.
A.M.Odlyzko and E.M.Rains, *On longest increasing subsequences in random permutations*, in preparation.
V.Periwal and D.Shevitz, *Unitary-Matrix Models as Exactly Solvable String Theories*, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**64**]{}, 1326-1329, (1990).
E.M.Rains, *Increasing subsequences and the classical groups*, Electron. J. of Combinatorics, [**5(1)**]{}, R12, (1998).
B.Sagan, *The Symmetric Group : Representations, Combinatorial Algorithms, and Symmetric Functions*, Wadsworth$\&$Books/Cole, Pacific Grove, Calif., 1991.
C.Schensted, *Longest increasing and decreasing subsequences*, Canad. J. Math., [**13**]{}, 179 - 191, (1961).
T.Seppäläinen, *A microscopic model for the Burgers equation and longest increasing subsequences*, Electron. J. Prob., **1**, no.5, (1996)
T.Seppäläinen, *Large deviations for increasing sequences on the plane*, Probab. Theory Related Fields, **112**, no.2, 221-244, (1998).
B.Simon, *Representations of Finite and Compact Groups*, Graduate Studies in Mathematics vol. 10, American Mathematical Society, 1996.
E.B.Saff and V.Totik, *Logarithmic Potentials with External Fields*, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997.
G.Szegö, *Orthogonal Polynomials*, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol 23, 4th Ed, New York, 1975.
G.Szegö, *On Certain Hermitian Forms Associated with the Fourier Series of a Positive Function*, Comm. Seminaire Math de l’Univ. de Lund, tome supplementaire, dedie a Marcel Riesz, 228-237, (1952) (or *Gabor Szego : Collected Papers - Vol 3 (1945-1972)*, 270-280, Birkhäuser, 1982).
C.A.Tracy and H.Widom, *Level-Spacing distributions and the Airy kernel*, Comm. Math. Phys., **159**, 151-174, (1994).
C.A.Tracy and H.Widom, *Random unitary matrices, permutations and Painlevé*, preprint, LANL E-print math.CO/9811154.
S.M.Ulam, *Monte Carlo calculations in problems of mathematical physics*, in *Modern Mathematics for the Engineers*, E.F.Beckenbach, ed., McGraw-Hill, 261-281, 1961.
A.M.Vershik and S.V.Kerov, *Asymptotics of the Plancherel measure of the symmetric group and the limiting form of Young tables*, Soviet Math. Dokl., **18**, 527-531, (1977).
A.M.Vershik and S.V.Kerov, *Asymptotic behavior of the maximum and generic dimensions of irreducible representations of the symmetric group*, Functional Anal. Appl., **19**, no.1, 21-31, (1985).
H.Widom, personal communication.
[^1]: The authors would like to acknowledge many extremely useful and enlightening conversations with Persi Diaconis and Andrew Odlyzko. Special thanks are due to Andrew Odlyzko and Eric Rains for providing us with the results of their Monte Carlo simulations.
[^2]: The work of the second author was supported in part by NSF grant \#DMS-9500867.
[^3]: The work of the third author was supported in part by the Swedish Natural Research Council (NFR)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Techniques for simulating molecules whose conformations satisfy constraints are presented. A method for selecting appropriate moves in Monte Carlo simulations is given. The resulting moves not only obey the constraints but also maintain detailed balance so that correct equilibrium averages are computed. In addition, techniques for optimizing the evaluation of implicit solvent terms are given.'
author:
- '[Charles F. F. Karney](http://charles.karney.info)'
- 'Charles F. F. Karney'
- 'Jason E. Ferrara'
bibliography:
- 'free.bib'
nocite:
- '[@qiu97]'
- '[@hawkins95]'
- '[@hawkins96]'
- '[@tsui00]'
- '[@tsui01]'
- '[@onufriev04]'
- '[@go70]'
- '[@dodd93]'
---
=2005=8=17
Introduction
============
When attempting to compute thermodynamic quantities with a molecular simulation, we are frequently confronted with the problem of sampling in a high-dimensional configuration space. The dimensionality of this space is given by the number of degrees of freedom for the molecular system. Techniques which lower the number of degrees of freedom will increase the efficiency of the thermodynamic sampling—provided, of course, that these techniques are physically justified. Thus, an implicit solvent model may be used to eliminate the degrees of freedom associated with the solvent molecules; the standard chemical force fields replace the electron charges with atom-centered partial charges thereby removing the electrons’ degrees of freedom. Further reductions in dimensionality are possible by imposing constraints on the relative positions of the atoms in a molecule. Thus we might specify that the bond lengths and bond angles in a molecule are fixed and only the torsion angles are allowed to vary. It is such a scenario that we examine in this paper. We address two aspects of this problem: how to move a molecule subject to constraints in order to allow equilibrium averages to be computed using the canonical-ensemble Monte Carlo method [@metropolis53] and how to evaluate the energy efficiently.
The imposition of constraints in molecular modeling has been extensively studied [@frenkel02 §3.3.2, §15.1]. Let us start by elucidating the difference in the treatment of hard constraints in molecular dynamics and Monte Carlo simulations. We treat hard constraints by taking the limit where the “spring constant” for the hard degrees of freedom is infinite. Molecular dynamics simulations then consider the evolution of the resulting system over a finite time. On the other hand, if we wish to determine the equilibrium properties of a system using the Monte Carlo method, then we need to consider averaging over sufficiently long times to allow equipartition of energy among all the degrees of freedom of a system. This is, of course, an example of nonuniform limits. We are interested in taking both $\tau_\mathrm{sim}
\rightarrow \infty$ and $\tau_\mathrm{equ} \rightarrow \infty$, where $\tau_\mathrm{sim}$ is the representative simulation time and $\tau_\mathrm{equ}$ is the equipartition time (which is proportional to the “stiffness” of the constraints). In constrained molecular dynamics, we take the limit $\tau_\mathrm{equ} \rightarrow \infty$ first, which prevents equipartition from occurring; whereas in equilibrium statistical mechanics, we take $\tau_\mathrm{sim}
\rightarrow \infty$ first and this allows energy equipartition. If we are attempting to compute an equilibrium quantity, such as the free energy of binding, it is essential to allow energy equipartition. Understanding this distinction explains the apparently contradictory results for constrained and unconstrained averages for a flexible trimer [@frenkel02 §15.1].
One way of understanding the constrained equilibrium system is to consider how the equilibrium distribution varies as the constraint is imposed. In the limit, the distribution collapses to a lower-dimensional sub-manifold of configuration space. However, this sub-manifold has a “thickness” that depends on the details of the constraint term and, consequently, Monte Carlo moves for the constrained system need to reflect this thickness in order to sample the distribution correctly. As a consequence, we will need to specify the functional form of the constraint energy and the constraint is no longer a purely geometrical object. At first glance, this would appear to complicate further the already complex algebra of constrained motions [@fixman74]. However, we will propose an algorithm for making moves which is simple to implement and which automatically ensures that the correct equilibrium averages are computed.
The second half of the paper considers a mundane—but nevertheless important—problem, namely how to evaluate the energy of a molecule made up of rigid subcomponents. We propose a consistent framework for avoiding the computation of constant terms and for imposing energy cutoffs. We extend this to the computation of the generalized Born solvation term and we describe a simple method for computing the solvent accessible surface area which has a bounded error.
Generalized Monte Carlo moves
=============================
We begin by assembling some techniques for combining Monte Carlo moves. We define an “$E$ move” as an ergodic move which preserves $\exp(-\beta E)$ as the invariant distribution, where $\beta = 1/(kT)$ and $k$ is the Boltzmann constant. (Here, “ergodic” implies that the move allows all relevant portions to configuration space to be explored.) Note that a zero move has a uniform invariant distribution. A typical zero move samples a new configuration from a distribution which satisfies the symmetry requirement $p(\Gamma';\Gamma) =
p(\Gamma;\Gamma')$, where $p(\Gamma';\Gamma)$ is the probability density of picking a new configuration of $\Gamma'$ given a starting configuration of $\Gamma$. Clearly a sequence of $n$ $E$ moves is itself an $E$ move. From the central limit theorem, a sequence of $n$ zero moves is equivalent, in the limit of large $n$, to selecting the new configuration from a multi-dimensional Gaussian.
Instead of carrying out the $n$ moves with a given energy $E(\Gamma)$, we can consider the case where the energy is given by $E_\lambda(\Gamma)$ which depends continuously on the parameter $\lambda$. A sequence of $n$ $E_\lambda$ moves where $\lambda$ is varied [*adiabatically*]{} in such a way that its initial and final values are $\lambda_0$ is an $E_{\lambda_0}$ move. This follows because adiabatically varied systems are always in equilibrium with the instantaneous value of $\lambda$ [@landau69 §11]. Each $E_\lambda$ move is carried out at a [*fixed*]{} $\lambda$ and $\lambda$ is varied between the moves. In order to satisfy the adiabatic condition, we will need to take $n$ large.
A move from $\Gamma$ to $\Gamma'$ may be subjected to “Boltzmann acceptance with energy $E$”. This involves accepting the move ($\Gamma'$ is the new state) with probability $M(x)$ and otherwise rejecting the move ($\Gamma$ is the new state). Here $M(x)$ is a function satisfying $0 < M(x) \le 1$ and $M(x)/M(-x) = \exp(-x)$ with $x
= \beta(E(\Gamma') - E(\Gamma))$. Usually we take $M(x) =
\min(1,\exp(-x))$; however other choices, e.g., the Fermi function, $M(x) = 1/(1+\exp(x))$, are possible [@bennett76].
Consider an $E_1$ move from $\Gamma$ to $\Gamma'$ followed by an Boltzmann acceptance using $E_2$. This compound move is an $(E_1 +
E_2)$ move. The proof follows as a special case of the “multiple time-step” (MTS) method [@hetenyi02 §II] or, alternatively, as a special case of early rejection [@frenkel02 §14.3.2]. If the $E_1$ move was already a “rejected” move, i.e., $\Gamma'=\Gamma$, then the Boltzmann test involving $E_2$ automatically “succeeds” ($M(0) =
1$). Thus $E_2$ does not need to be evaluated in this case.
These results allow us to generalize the MTS method by splitting the energy into $m$ terms (instead of just two), $$E(\Gamma) = \sum_{l=1}^m E_l(\Gamma).$$ The method is defined recursively as follows: a level-$0$ move is defined to be a zero move; a level-$l$ move, with $l>0$, is defined to be $n_{l-1}$ level-$(l-1)$ moves the result of which is subjected to Boltzmann acceptance using $E_l$. By induction, we see that a level-$l$ move is an $\mathcal E_l$ move, where $$\mathcal E_l(\Gamma) = \sum_{l'=1}^l E_{l'}(\Gamma).$$ It follows that a level-$m$ move is an $\mathcal E_m$ move, i.e., an $E$ move. Typically we sample the zero moves from a Gaussian and we take $n_0 = 1$. Standard Monte Carlo [@metropolis53] is given by $m=1$ and $n_1=1$. Standard MTS [@hetenyi02] is recovered with $m=2$. The early rejection method [@frenkel02 §14.3.2] is recovered with $n_l=1$ (for all $l$). Note that a level-$m$ move entails $\prod_{l'=l}^{m-1} n_{l'}$ level-$l$ moves. At any stage in the recursion, we have the freedom to vary some of the components of $E(\Gamma)$ adiabatically.
In the following sections, we apply these techniques to constrained molecules. In simple cases, we can apply the MTS method semi-analytically to derive a correct constrained move. In more complicated cases, we apply the adiabatic technique to lift and to reapply the constraint.
Stiff molecules
===============
A constrained molecule is a mathematical idealization of a real system in which some degrees of freedom are stiff, i.e., the associated energies are large. Thus we can split the energy into “hard” ($\mathrm h$) and “soft” ($\mathrm s$) components, $$E(\Gamma) = E_\mathrm h(\Gamma) + E_\mathrm s(\Gamma),$$ where $\Gamma$ is the configuration of the system. For example, let us assume that an all-atom force field, such as Amber [@cornell95], provides an accurate description of the system. (We recognize, of course, that present-day force fields are only approximate. However, our purpose here is to make the connection between an all-atom representation and a simpler rigid representation and, in this context, the details of the all-atom model are of secondary importance.) Then $E_\mathrm h$ might represent the bond stretching and bond bending terms, while $E_\mathrm s$ is given by the other terms (bond torsion and the non-bonded energies).
The constrained limit is now given by $E_\mathrm h \rightarrow \infty$. Before we consider this limit, it is useful to examine how the stiff system may be treated. Conventional Monte Carlo is inefficient because, in order to have an reasonably large acceptance rate, the step-size needs to be set to a small value (determined by $E_\mathrm h$) so that diffusion in the soft directions is very slow. However, we can apply MTS Monte Carlo in this case with $E_1 = E_\mathrm h$ and $E_2 =
E_\mathrm s$.
Let us apply this method to a system of “rigid” molecules, e.g., water molecules, taking $E_\mathrm h$ to include the intra-molecular energies (responsible for maintaining the rigidity) and $E_\mathrm s$ to include the inter-molecular energies. Suppose the level-$0$ moves consist of symmetrically displacing the atoms in each molecule. The result of the $n_1$ level-1 Monte Carlo steps will clearly be a symmetric, independent, and nearly rigid displacement (translation and orientation) of each molecule. This configuration is then subjected to Boltzmann acceptance with the inter-molecular energies. In this case, we can easily pass to the constrained limit (with exact rigidity), merely by ensuring that the trial (level-1) moves of the molecules are rigid. In this case, we have just rederived the “standard” move for a system of rigid molecules.
In order to illustrate the application to flexible molecules, we shall treat the molecules as being made up of several rigid subunits or “fragments” connected by flexible bonds. However we are interested in the limit where the inter-fragment bonds constrain the relative motions of fragments in certain ways, either by fixing the bond lengths (allowing the bond angles and bond dihedrals to vary) or by fixing the bond lengths and bond angles (allowing the bond dihedrals to vary). Such a model is adequate to describe a wide range of interesting organic molecules including proteins and drug-like ligands. We assume that the rigidity of the fragments is imposed only by intra-fragment energy. If other terms (e.g., an improper torsion term involving atoms from two fragments) contribute to the rigidity of a fragment, then we shall treat such terms as additional inter-fragment energies.
We apply the generalized MTS method to this system with $m=3$, the intra-fragment energy given by $E_1$, the inter-fragment bond constraints given by $E_2$, and with $E_3$ accounting for all the other energies. The argument given above allows us to pass to the limit of strictly rigid fragments. The method is then equivalent to a standard MTS method where the “elementary” moves consist of rigid displacements of each fragment which are Boltzmann accepted with energy $E_\mathrm h =
E_2$. A sequence of $n = n_2$ such moves are made with the result Boltzmann accepted with energy $E_\mathrm s = E_3$. A possible prescription [@karney05b §VII] for the rigid displacements of the fragments is to translate the fragment by a vector sampled from an isotropic 3-dimensional Gaussian and to rotate the fragment by $\abs{\v
s}$ about an axis $\hat{\v s}$ where $\v s$ is a “rotation vector” also sampled from an isotropic 3-dimensional Gaussian. The variances for the two Gaussians should be adjusted so that the translational and rotational components result in comparable displacements of the atoms of the fragment.
Provided that the inter-fragment constraint terms $E_\mathrm h$ are sufficiently stiff, it is not important to include a detailed model of these terms; because the motion will take place near the bottom of the constraint potential well, a harmonic (i.e., quadratic) approximation to the constraint potential will suffice. On the other hand, if the stiffness of the constraint energy depends on any of the soft degrees of freedom, it is important that this effect be included.
It is frequently the case that $E_\mathrm h$ may be computed much more rapidly than $E_\mathrm s$. For example, when imposing bond constraints on a molecule, $E_\mathrm h$ requires $O(N)$ computations, where $N$ is the number of atoms, while $E_\mathrm s$ requires $O(N^2)$ computations for the electrostatic and implicit solvation energies. Thus we might be able to take $n$ reasonably large and still have the computational cost dominated by the evaluation of $E_\mathrm s(\Gamma)$.
In order to realize the full benefits of imposing constraints we need to pass to the constrained limit ($E_\mathrm h \rightarrow \infty$). In this limit, the motion collapses onto a lower-dimensional sub-manifold in configuration space. Unfortunately, in contrast to the case of rigid molecules, we cannot appeal to symmetry to enable us to take this limit analytically. Instead, we use the adiabatic technique.
Adiabatically varying the stiffness
===================================
Let us rewrite the energy of the system, multiplying the $E_\mathrm
h(\Gamma)$ by $T/T^*$, where $T$ is the temperature of the system, and $T^*$ is a “constraint” temperature. The Boltzmann factor $\exp(-\beta E)$, will then have the form $$\exp(-\beta E) = \exp(-\beta E_\mathrm s - \beta^* E_\mathrm h)$$ where $\beta^* = 1/(kT^*)$.
In our application, where we are interested in the constrained limit $T^*\rightarrow 0$, a direct application of the MTS method leaves us with two bad choices. If we take $T^*$ to be sufficiently small that we can consider the constraints to be satisfied, we will have to chose the step size for the $E_\mathrm h$ moves to be so small that the change in configuration after $n$ $E_\mathrm h$ moves will be small. On the other hand, letting $T^*$ be sufficiently large to allow moves will result in configurations where the constraints are poorly satisfied.
We overcome this difficulty by regarding $T^*$ as a parameter (taking the place of $\lambda$) and by adiabatically varying $T^*$ from zero (where the constraints are satisfied but MTS is ineffective at making moves) to a finite value (where the constraints are relaxed and MTS becomes effective) and back to zero again (to reimpose the constraints). During the course of changing $T^*$, we make $n$ $E_\mathrm h$ moves (each with the instantaneous value of $T^*$). The effect of these $n$ moves will be an $E_\mathrm h$ move with $T^* = 0$, i.e., a move which satisfies the $E_\mathrm h$ constraint.
It remains to give a recipe for varying $T^*$. As we vary $T^*$, we would naturally adjust the step size for the moves in such a way that the number of steps needed to equilibrate the system is a constant, suggesting that we vary $T^*$ exponentially. We therefore pick $$T^*_i = \left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{1em}}l}
T^*_A \exp(\alpha (i - 1)), & \mbox{for $0 < i \le m$},\\
T^*_A \exp(\alpha (n - i)), & \mbox{for $m < i \le n$},
\end{array}\right.$$ where we have taken $n = 2m + 1$ and where $T^*_i$ is the constraint temperature used for the $i$th $E_\mathrm h$ move, $T^*_{0} = T^*_A$ is some temperature sufficiently small that we can consider the constraints to be exactly satisfied, and $\alpha$ is the rate of increase of the temperature which should be sufficiently small that the adiabatic condition is satisfied. Even though $T^*_A$ and $\alpha$ are small, we can pick $n$ sufficiently large that $T^*_{m+1} = T^*_B = T^*_A
\exp(\alpha m)$ is finite.
In addition, we choose the step size for the $i$th $E_\mathrm h$ move to be $d_i = k \sqrt{T^*_i}$ where $k$ is a constant. In traditional Monte Carlo, we normally pick $k$ to maximize the diffusion rate which at the $i$th step is roughly $$D_i = \frac{\langle (\Gamma_i - \Gamma_{i-1})^2\rangle}2
\sim \frac12 A d_i^2,$$ where $A$ is the mean acceptance rate and $\langle\ldots\rangle$ denotes an ensemble average. Maximizing the diffusion rate usually results in a rather small acceptance rate $A \sim 0.1$ because rare large steps can lead to faster diffusion than frequent small steps. However, in our application, where we want the system to remain in equilibrium as we vary the temperature, rare large steps are [*bad*]{}. So we pick $k$ to maximize $A D_i$ and this will usually result in $A \sim 0.5$. Note that for a given $k$, we have $$D_i \sim C T^*_i,$$ where $C$ is constant provided that the step size is not too large. The overall diffusion can be estimated by summing over the $n$ steps, $$D = \frac{\langle (\Gamma_n - \Gamma_0)^2\rangle}2 =
\sum_{i=1}^n D_i \sim 2 C T^*_B/\alpha,$$ where we have assumed that successive steps are uncorrelated and we have taken $\alpha\ll 1$ and $T^*_B \gg T^*_A$. We should select parameters, $\alpha$ and $T^*_B$, in order to adjust $D$ so that the $E_\mathrm s$ acceptance rate is $O(1)$.
This method includes internal diagnostics to verify that $\alpha$ is small enough. We define $\overline{\vphantom{A}\ldots}\mathord{\uparrow}$ (resp. $\overline{\vphantom{A}\ldots}\mathord{\downarrow}$) as the average of a quantity over the steps where $T^*_i$ is increasing, i.e., $i \le m+1$ (resp. decreasing, i.e., $i> m+1$). We monitor $\overline{E_\mathrm h(\Gamma_i)/T^*_i}\mathord{\uparrow}$ and $\overline{E_\mathrm h(\Gamma_i)/T^*_i}\mathord{\downarrow}$ and demand that both should be close to the equilibrium value of $N/2$ (where $N$ is the number of hard degrees of freedom). If $\alpha$ is too large, then we would find $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{ E_\mathrm h(\Gamma_i)/T^*_i }\mathord{\uparrow} &\ll& N/2, \\
\overline{ E_\mathrm h(\Gamma_i)/T^*_i }\mathord{\downarrow} &\gg& N/2.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, if the final $E_\mathrm h(\Gamma_n)$ is many times $T^*_A$, then the configuration is “hung up” and does not obey the constraints. If this happens frequently, the simulation needs to be rerun with a smaller setting for $\alpha$; if, on the other hand, it happens only rarely, we would merely reject the step. We can also monitor the mean acceptance rates $ \overline A \mathord{\uparrow}$ and $\overline A \mathord{\downarrow}$. These should be about the same; however, if $\alpha$ is too large, we will find $ \overline A
\mathord{\uparrow} \gg \overline A \mathord{\downarrow}$.
A useful guideline for picking $T^*_A$ is that once the $n$ $E_\mathrm
h$ moves are completed and the system is presumably equilibrated to $T^*_A$, we should be able to enforce the constraints by setting $T^* =
0$ (using any convenient energy minimization technique) with a negligible change in the configuration, e.g., with a negligible change in $E_\mathrm s(\Gamma)$.
Pairwise terms in energy
========================
Having made an adiabatic move using $E_\mathrm h$, the final step is to accept the move depending on the change in $E_\mathrm s$. We wish to compute this energy as efficiently as possible by using the rigidity of the fragments. Force fields such as Amber [@cornell95] include two types of energies: interactions between atoms (the electrostatic and Lennard-Jones terms) and bond energies (stretch, bend, and torsion). Since the number of terms in non-bonded energies typically scales as $O(N^2)$ where $N$ is the total number of atoms in the system, while the number of bond terms scales as $O(N)$, we concentrate on optimizing the evaluation of the non-bonded terms. In our case where the molecules consist of rigid fragments connected by flexible bonds we need only include the bond terms contributed by the much smaller number of inter-fragment bonds. Furthermore, we need only include the energy contributed by the “free” components of such bonds. Thus, if the lengths and angles of such bonds are constrained, then we need only include the torsion energy in $E_\mathrm s(\Gamma)$.
We start by assuming that the non-bonded energy terms can be expressed as a sum over atom pairs. This applies to the electrostatic and Lennard-Jones terms in Amber [@cornell95]. However, implicit solvent models have a more complex structure and we consider these in the next section.
Suppose our molecular system consists of $N$ atoms. These atoms are grouped into $M$ molecules and we denote $M_l$ as the set of atoms making up the $l$th molecule. Similarly, the atoms are divided into $F$ rigid fragments and we denote $F_a$ as the set of atoms making up the $a$th fragment. A typical pairwise energy term can then be written as $$E_g(\Gamma) = \sum_{0< i<j \le N} C_{g,ij} f_g(r_{ij}),$$ where $g$ denotes the type of energy term (electrostatic or Lennard-Jones), $i$ and $j$ are atom indices, $r_{ij}$ is the distance between atoms $i$ and $j$, $f_g$ is some function of distance, and $C_{g,ij}$ is a coefficient which depends on the atoms but not on their positions. Thus for electrostatic interactions, $C_{g,ij}$ depends on the partial charges on the two atoms (assumed to be constant in Amber) and on the bonding relation between the atoms. Physical energy functions satisfy $\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}f_g(r) = 0$. When the fragments are separated sufficiently, we have $$E_g \rightarrow E_{g0} =
\sum_{0< a \le F} \sum_{\stack{i<j}{i,j \in F_a}} C_{g,ij} f_g(r_{ij}),$$ which is independent of $\Gamma$. It is convenient to choose $E_{g0}$ as the “origin” for the $E_g$, i.e., we compute only $$E_{g1} = E_g - E_{g0} = \sum_{0< a<b \le F}
\sum_{\stack{i \in F_a}{j \in F_b}}
C_{g,ij} f_g(r_{ij}).$$ We note that only energy differences enter into the computation of observable quantities, and so we are free to select the arbitrary origin for energies.
Let us consider the application of a small molecule ($N_l$ atoms) interacting with a protein ($N_p \gg N_l$ atoms) where only some of the protein side chains near the binding site are allowed to move. By avoiding computing the interaction energy between atoms in the immobile portion of the protein, the above prescription reduces the computational cost from $O(N_p^2)$ to $O(N_l N_p)$.
This cost may still be too large and we can substantially reduce the cost by implementing energy cutoffs for the interactions. This is easily accomplished by multiplying $f_g(r_{ij})$ by a cutoff function, $c_g(r_{ij})$. A possible form for this cutoff function is $$c_g(r) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{1em}}l}
1, & \mbox{for $r < r_{g1}$},\\
0, & \mbox{for $r \ge r_{g2}$},\\
\displaystyle
c_g(r_{g1}) \frac{r_{g2} - r}{r_{g2} - r_{g1}} & \mbox{otherwise},\\
\end{array}\right.$$ with $r_{g1} \le r_{g2}$, which linearly tapers the energy to zero over $[r_{g1},r_{g2})$. Other tapering functions can be employed, or, by choosing $r_{g2} = r_{g1}$, we can implement a sharp cutoff. This type of cutoff function implements a per-atom cutoff and is appropriate for energy terms which are additive at large distances, such as the Lennard-Jones potential. The electrostatic potential, however, involves substantial cancellation at large distances—two neutral molecules interact via a dipole-dipole term which varies as $1/r^3$, while the individual atom-atom terms decay as $1/r_{ij}$. In this case, we need to identify groups of atoms which should interact together. The residues of a protein provide a convenient grouping and we would typically assign all the atoms in a small-molecule ligand to a single group. Compatible with the usage for a protein, we refer to these groups as residues. For each residue, $s$, we define a center position, $\v b_s$, most conveniently defined as the center of mass, and a radius, defined as the radius $h_s$ of the sphere centered at $\v b_s$ which includes the van-der-Waals spheres of radius $\rho_i$ of all the constituent atoms. We then apply a “per-residue” cutoff function multiplying the contribution from the residue pair $(s,t)$ by $c_g(\abs{\v b_s - \v b_t} - (h_s + h_t))$.
The values used for the cutoff radii, $r_{g1}$ and $r_{g2}$, need to evaluated based on the accuracy desired for the simulation. This can be determined by numerically determining the difference in the results (either for the energies directly or for some derived quantity such as binding affinity) between the finite- and infinite-cutoff energies. In applications to Monte Carlo codes, it is possible to carry out the sampling at an energy approximating the actual energy and to compensate for this when performing the canonical averages (which might be carried out on a subset of the Markov chain). In this case, the sampling energy might entail using shorter cutoffs than would be warranted on the basis of accuracy. Having determined suitable cutoffs, it is a simple matter to evaluate the energy avoiding treating atom pairs beyond the respective cutoffs. In the following, we treat electrostatic ($e$) interactions, with a per-residue cutoff, and Lennard-Jones ($l$) interactions, with a per-atom cutoff; furthermore we assume that $r_{e2}\ge r_{l2}$, i.e., the electrostatic interactions are longer range than the Lennard-Jones.
We first loop over all the atoms in each residue computing $\v b_s$ and $h_s$ for all residues $s$. We then loop over all pairs of residues, $s
\le t$, skipping any pair whose atoms all belong to the same fragment or those for which $\abs{\v b_s - \v b_t} \ge r_{e2} + h_s + h_t$. If the residue pair survives these tests, then all atom pairs $(i,j)$ from different fragments are considered; if $s=t$, we restrict the pairs to $i<j$. All such pairs contribute to the electrostatic energy while those which satisfy $r_{ij} < r_{l2}$ contribute to the Lennard-Jones energy. There obviously is scope for additional optimization here. For example, the inner atom loop can be skipped if the second residue belongs to a single fragment which matches the fragment of a particular atom in the first residue.
Because of the way in which the cutoffs are applied, the result for the energy is independent of the assignment of atoms to residues for energy terms which use a per-atom cutoff. In addition, [*differences*]{} in the non-bonded energies are independent of the assignment of atoms to fragments. The energies for assemblies of 3 or more molecules can be expressed in terms of the energies of 1 or 2 molecules. These provide useful checks on the implementation.
In some contexts it is useful also to define a “steric” energy term which is infinite if any atoms overlap (with some definition of a “hard” atom radius) and is zero otherwise. This provides a rapid check of new configurations—particularly when trying to “insert” a molecule during a grand canonical simulation [@adams75] or when switching systems using the wormhole method [@karney05a]. A conservative definition of the hard atom radius is $0.55 \rho_i$ for non-bonded atom pairs and $0.45 \rho_i$ for 1-4 atom pairs. We skip the check for 1-2 and 1-3 pairs and for those atoms with $\rho_i = 0$. This energy term can be implemented in essentially the same way as described above but with scope for additional speedups. The cutoff radius in the residue-residue distance check can be replaced by 0. An additional atom-residue distance check can be be used to avoid executing the inner atom loop if the outer atom is outside the sphere for the second residue. Finally, as soon as an overlap of hard spheres is detected the routine can immediately return an infinite result.
Implicit solvent models
=======================
We now turn to the computation of the energy term for implicit solvent models. We focus here on the generalized Born solvent models [@still90] and we have considered various implementations [@qiu97; @hawkins95; @hawkins96; @tsui00; @tsui01; @onufriev04]. Evaluating the solvation energy for a system of molecules with such models is typically orders of magnitude slower than computing the energy of the molecules in vacuum. The computation time is frequently compared to the time to compute the energy with an explicit solvent model (including $O(10^3)$ solvent molecules). However, such comparisons are misleading because implicit solvent models do not attempt to compute the energy of a particular configuration of solvent molecules but to compute the [*free energy*]{} of solvation, i.e., to average over all possible solvent configurations for a given configurations of solute molecules. Thus the chief benefit of an implicit solvent model is to reduce dramatically the number of degrees of freedom in the problem. In the generalized Born solvent models, the energy is written as the sum of two terms: a polar term which is usually called the “GB” term and a cavity term which is proportional to the solvent accessible surface area, the “SA” term.
The GB term involves long-range interactions and is the most costly to compute. We address the calculation of this term first. The basic expression is [@still90] $$\label{gpol}
G_\mathrm{pol} = -\frac12\frac1{4\pi\epsilon_0}
\biggl(1-\frac{\epsilon_0}{\epsilon_s}\biggr)
\sum_{i,j}q_iq_jf(r_{ij},\alpha_i,\alpha_j),$$ where $\epsilon_s$ is the permittivity of the solvent, $f(r_{ij},\alpha_i,\alpha_j)= [r_{ij}^2 +
\alpha_i\alpha_j\exp(-r_{ij}^2/(4\alpha_i\alpha_j))]^{-1/2}$, and the double sum runs over [*all*]{} pairs of atoms (including $i=j$ and $i\lessgtr j$). In eq. (\[gpol\]), $\alpha_i$ is the “generalized” Born radius of the $i$th atom, which is larger that the “bare” Born radius to account for the fact that atoms close to $i$ partially shield it from the solvent. $G_\mathrm{pol}$ represents the electrostatic energy required to solvate a pre-assembled group of molecules and thus this term is added to the vacuum electrostatic energy. The various implementations for the GB term differ in how $\alpha_i$ is computed.
For illustrative purposes, let us consider the model of Hawkins [*et al.*]{} [@hawkins95; @hawkins96; @tsui00; @tsui01]. (With minor modifications, the technique is applicable to other GB models.) We express $\alpha_i$ as [@hawkins95 eq. (10)] $$\label{alpha}
\frac1{\alpha_i} = \frac1{\rho_i} -
\sum_{j\ne i} \Delta_{ij},$$ where $\rho_i$ is the radius of atom $i$, $$\label{deltaij}
\Delta_{ij}
= \int_{\rho_i}^\infty \frac{dr}{r^2} H_{ij}(r; r_{ij}, \rho_j)$$ is the reduction in the effective inverse Born radius of atom $i$ due to atom $j$. Here $H_{ij}$ is the fraction of the area of a sphere of radius $r$ centered on the $i$th atom eclipsed by a $j$th atom and is given by [@hawkins95 eq. (12)] $$H_{ij}=\left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{1em}}l}
\displaystyle
\frac{\rho_j^2-(r_{ij}-r)^2}{4r_{ij}r}, &
\mbox{for $\abs{r_{ij}-\rho_j} \le r \le r_{ij}+\rho_j$},\\
1, & \mbox{for $r < \rho_j - r_{ij}$},\\
0, & \mbox{otherwise ($r \gtrless r_{ij} \pm \rho_j$)}.\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Evaluating the integral in eq. (\[deltaij\]) then gives $$\Delta_{ij} =
\left\{
\begin{array}{l@{\hspace{1em}}l}
0, & \mbox{for $ \rho_i > \rho_j + r_{ij}$},\\[1ex]
\displaystyle
\frac{l_{ij} - u_{ij}}2
-\frac{(r_{ij}^2-\rho_j^2)(l_{ij}^2-u_{ij}^2)}{8r_{ij}}\hspace{-10em}\\
\displaystyle
\hspace{3em}{}-\frac{\ln(l_{ij}/u_{ij})}{4r_{ij}} + l'_{ij},
& \mbox{otherwise},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $u_{ij} = 1/(r_{ij}+\rho_j)$, $l_{ij} =
1/\max(\rho_i,\abs{r_{ij}-\rho_j})$, and $l'_{ij} =
1/\rho_i-1/\max(\rho_i,\rho_j-r_{ij})$. The term $l'_{ij}$ is only non-zero for $\rho_j > \rho_i + r_{ij}$, which is a possibility not considered in [@hawkins95].
Clearly $G_\mathrm{pol}$ is no longer the sum of pairwise atom-atom contributions because the interaction of two atoms is affected by the modification of the dielectric environment by a third atom. However $G_\mathrm{pol}$ may be evaluated by two pair-wise operations carried out in sequence. The first evaluates the generalized Born radii $\alpha_i$ and the second computes the resulting electrostatic energy.
As with the treatment of the electrostatic and Lennard-Jones terms, we can seek to limit the computational cost of evaluating $G_\mathrm{pol}$ by the use of cutoff functions. Because eq. (\[gpol\]) provides the dielectric screening for the vacuum electrostatic term, it is important that the cutoff function multiplying $f(r_{ij},\alpha_i,\alpha_j)$ exactly match that used for the electrostatic term.
We also introduce a cutoff in eq. (\[alpha\]) by multiplying $\Delta_{ij}$ by $c_b(r_{ij})$. A per-atom cutoff is justified since all the $\Delta_{ij}$ are positive. Because $\Delta_{ij}$ scales as $r_{ij}^{-4}$ for large $r_{ij}$, the error introduced by $c_b(r_{ij})$ scales relatively slowly as $r_{b1}^{-1}$. In practice, this means we need to make $r_{b1}$ reasonably large which in turn means that the cost of evaluating $G_\mathrm{pol}$ in the case of a small ligand interacting with a protein is much larger than the cost for the electrostatic potential. In particular, the screening of the ligand may modify the Born radii of a large number of protein atoms and this unavoidably leads to a large number of pair contributions to eq. (\[gpol\]).
The procedure for computing the energy outlined in the previous section can now be modified to deal with the evaluation of $G_\mathrm{pol}$. As before our “zero” energy is given by separating all the fragments of all the molecules infinitely far apart. We set up the calculation of a system of molecules by pre-computing $\alpha_{i0}$ which is given by eq. (\[alpha\]) with the sum restricting to include only the intra-fragment contributions (i.e., index $j$ ranges only over atoms within the same fragment as atom $i$). We compute $\Delta_{ij}$ and $\Delta_{ji}$ together because they involve many of the same terms, allowing the loops to be restricted to $i < j$, and we apply the Born cutoff to the calculation of $\alpha_{i0}$.
When computing the energy of a molecular system, we compute all the updates to the Born radii due to atoms in different fragments within the Born cutoff, applying the same techniques of lumping the atoms into residues described above (which allows the cutoff criteria to be applied to groups of atoms) and of restricting the loops to $s \le t$ and, for $s = t$, to $i < j$. During this phase we mark all the residues which contain atoms with $\alpha_i \ne \alpha_{i0}$. We then make a second pass over the atoms to evaluate the terms in eq. (\[gpol\]). We use the $i\rightleftharpoons j$ symmetry of the summand to make the restrictions $s \le t$ and, for $s = t$, $i \le j$. In the innermost loop, we accumulate $q_iq_j f(r_{ij},\alpha_i,\alpha_j)$ if $i$ and $j$ belong to different fragments. Otherwise, we add $q_iq_j
[f(r_{ij},\alpha_i,\alpha_j) - f(r_{ij},\alpha_{i0},\alpha_{j0})]$ and we can skip this evaluation if both $\alpha_i = \alpha_{i0}$ and $\alpha_j = \alpha_{j0}$. In addition, we can skip pairs of residues if all the atoms in each residue belong to the same fragment and if neither residue is marked as having modified Born radii.
Salt effects [@srinivasan99] are easy to include within this framework. A minor complication occurs in the GB model of Qiu [*et al.*]{} [@qiu97] because $\alpha_{i0}$ depends on the “volume” of the atoms and in this model the volume depends on the 1-2 bonded atoms which may belong to a different fragment. We account for this by assuming the presence of such bonded atoms with an ideal bond length. This is, therefore, only exact if the inter-fragment bonds are at their ideal lengths. Our treatment here may be considered as a generalization of the frozen atom approximation for GB/SA [@guvench02]. However, in our application we make all the approximations in the energy function and the resulting energy is then a “state variable” and simulations based on this are well behaved. In contrast the implementation of frozen atom approximation defines the energy so that it depends on the history of the system which may cause the simulation to exhibit unphysical properties.
Solvent accessible surface area
===============================
The other important contribution to the solvation free energy is the cavity term. This is obtained by placing spheres centered at each atom with radius $a_i = \rho_i + r_w$ where $r_w$ is a nominal water radius (typically $r_w = 0.14\,\mathrm{nm}$). The cavity term is given by $$G_\mathrm{cav} = \sum_i \sigma_i A_i,$$ where $A_i$ is the “solvent accessible surface area” for the $i$th atom, i.e., the exposed surface area of the spheres around $i$ which is not occluded by any other spheres and $\sigma_i$ is the surface tension for the $i$th atom. (Typically $\sigma_i$ is taken to be a constant independent of atom, $\sigma_i \approx 3\,
\mathrm{kJ\,mol^{-1}\,nm^{-2}}$; however the method we describe does not require this assumption.) As before, the zero energy state is obtained by separating the fragments infinitely. The energy is then given by the additional occlusion of the surface that occurs as the fragments are assembled into molecules and the molecules brought into contact with one another.
The exact evaluation of this term is quite complex and for this reason a simple pairwise approximation has been developed [@weiser99]. However, the errors in this method are poorly quantified. This together with the fact that this term is typically small compared to the electrostatic terms in the energy lead us to develop a simple zeroth-order quadrature method. We select an accuracy level for the cavity calculation $\delta$, e.g., $\delta = 0.1\,\mathrm{kJ/mol}$. We prepare for the calculation of the cavity term by placing each fragment in a “template” position and we arrange a set of points on a sphere of radius $a_i$ around each atom $i$. The number of points is chosen to be $N_i = \lceil 4\pi a_i^2 \sigma_i/\delta \rceil$. The points are distributed approximately uniformly around each sphere and the entire surface energy of the sphere, $4\pi a_i^2 \sigma_i$ is divided among the $N_i$ points. (We will discuss the details of how to select the points and assign the energy later.) We next perform the intra-fragment occlusion by deleting all the points of atom $i$ which are within $a_j$ of some atom $j\ne i$. In this way each fragment is surrounded by a cloud of surface points each representing about $\delta$ of cavity energy.
In order to compute the cavity term for a particular molecular configuration we transform the surface points for each fragment from their template positions to their actual positions and make a copy of the cavity energies for each point. We consider all pairs of atoms $(i,j)$ such that $i$ and $j$ are in different fragments and $r_{ij} <
a_i + a_j$. We subtract from $G_\mathrm{cav}$ the energies of all the points on atom $i$ that are within $a_j$ of atom $i$ and we set the energies of these points to zero (to avoid their being counted multiple times). The optimizations described above can be used: the application of a residue-residue cutoff (excluding residue pairs $(s,t)$ with $\abs{\v b_s - \v b_t} \ge 2 r_w + h_s + h_t$), an atom-residue cutoff, and the treatment of the $(i,j)$ and $(j,i)$ terms together.
In practice, the cost of evaluating this term is small for $\delta
\approx 0.1\,\mathrm{kJ/mol}$. The error is proportional to $\delta$ and it is easy to benchmark a particular calculation by repeating it with smaller $\delta$. The resulting $G_\mathrm{cav}$ is obviously a discontinuous function of configuration, jumping by $\pm \delta$ as points move in and out of the water spheres of other atoms. Thus it’s an inappropriate model for a molecular dynamics simulation. However, it yields satisfactory results for Monte Carlo simulations.
Let us return to the question of how to position the points on the atom sphere and how to divide the energy between these points. Ideally, we would divide the energy of the sphere based on the area of Voronoi polygons around each point. The error will then be proportional to the maximum radius of the Voronoi polygons and the ideal distribution of points is the one which minimizes this maximum radius. This is the so-called “covering problem” for the sphere, i.e., how to cover a sphere with identical discs [@fejestoth64]. Unfortunately, there are no general solutions to this problem. So instead we divide the sphere into equal intervals of latitude and we divide each latitudinal interval longitudinally into approximately square regions. A point is placed at the center of each region and the area of the region is assigned to that point. Within each fragment, we alter the position of the pole from one atom to the next, in order to avoid the occlusion of many points simultaneously as fragments move relative to one another.
Discussion
==========
We have shown how to make Monte Carlo moves for a molecular system with constraints. Constraints are imposed in a realistic way ensuring that we obtain the right distribution corresponding to a thermodynamic equilibrium. We will still need to know this constrained distribution if we wish to make wormhole moves [@karney05a], because, in order to satisfy detailed balance, we require knowledge of the wormhole volumes and these include a factor proportional to the “thickness” of the constraint manifold. The adiabatic move involves, naturally, many evaluations of the constraint energy raising a concern that the implementation will be slow. In reality, the cost of evaluating the constraint energy is minuscule, particularly in comparison with the solvation energy, so it is possible to evaluate the constraint energy many thousands of times in the course of an adiabatic move with minimal impact on the overall running time. The method avoids much of the algebra associated with other ways of imposing constraints [@go70] and thus is more flexible and is easier to implement.
In the simple case of a molecule in which only a number of dihedral angles are allowed to vary, the movement of all the atoms in the molecule is bounded and thus the soft-energy acceptance probability is reasonably large. In contrast, the method where the dihedral angles are perturbed may lead, due to a lever effect, to large motions if the molecule itself is large.
This method can easily be generalized to do localized movements. Thus, we can tailor the random displacements of a protein to explore the movement of a single loop. Detailed balance is ensured if the random displacement is a function of the atom but not of its position. (The general case can be accommodated by a suitable factor in the acceptance probability.) This method of localized movements is more widely applicable than techniques such as “concerted rotations” [@go70; @dodd93; @mezei03]. Artificially fixing the positions of some atoms would, of course, mean that the moves would not be ergodic. This would be justified if we were interested in examining the restricted system and we would then require ergodicity over the restricted configuration space.
We have also considered how to optimize the evaluation of the energy in a system of molecules made up of rigid fragments bonded together. This allows the use of implicit solvent at an acceptable cost. If the system is further constrained to allow only the variation of the torsion angle of the inter-fragment bonds (fixing the bond lengths and bond angles), then we should also consider modifying the force field to “loosen” the torsion energies to counteract the effect of the hard constraints on the other bond terms. Gō and Scheraga [@go69] show the importance of considering such an effect and Katrich [*et al.*]{} [@katritch03] have offered a prescription for converting a general force field to include this effect. Alternatively, we might consider re-parameterizing the torsion terms by carrying out constrained geometry optimizations of model molecules where the energy of the molecule is minimized with the dihedral angles fixed [@schmidt93].
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported by the under Contract No. DAMD17-03-C-0082. The views, opinions, and findings contained in this report are those of the author and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision. No animal testing was conducted and no recombinant DNA was used.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Building on the success of recent discriminative mid-level elements, we propose a surprisingly simple approach for object detection which performs comparable to the current state-of-the-art approaches on PASCAL VOC comp-3 detection challenge (no external data). Through extensive experiments and ablation analysis, we show how our approach effectively improves upon the HOG-based pipelines by adding an intermediate mid-level representation for the task of object detection. This representation is easily interpretable and allows us to visualize what our object detector “sees”. We also discuss the insights our approach shares with CNN-based methods, such as sharing representation between categories helps.'
author:
- Aayush Bansal
- Abhinav Shrivastava
- Carl Doersch
- Abhinav Gupta
- |
Carnegie Mellon University\
[{aayushb,ashrivas,cdoersch,abhinavg}@cs.cmu.edu]{}
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: 'Mid-level Elements for Object Detection'
---
Related Work
============
Object Detection Pipeline
=========================
\[pipeline\]
Experiments
===========
\[exp\] We now discuss our experimental results on the standard PASCAL VOC-2007 and VOC-2010 [@Everingham10] dataset for object detection. We also perform an extensive ablative analysis to understand how various design choices impact the performance.
Performance on VOC-2007
-----------------------
Performance on PASCAL VOC-2010
------------------------------
Discussion
==========
Conclusion
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Dust plays an essential role in the unification theory of active galactic nuclei (AGNs). This review summarizes our current understanding of the extinction and infrared emission properties of the circumnuclear dust in AGNs as well as the inferred dust composition and size distribution.'
author:
- Aigen Li
title: Dust in Active Galactic Nuclei
---
Introduction: Are All AGNs Born Equal? — The Role of Dust in the Unified Schemes of AGNs
========================================================================================
Dust is the cornerstone of the unification theory of active galactic nuclei (AGNs). This theory proposes that all AGNs are essentially “born equal”: all types of AGNs are surrounded by an optically thick dust torus and are basically the same object but viewed from different lines of sight (see e.g. Antonucci 1993; Urry & Padovani 1995). The large diversity in the observational properties of AGNs (e.g. optical emission-line widths and X-ray spectral slopes) is simply caused by the viewing-angle-dependent obscuration of the nucleus: those viewed face-on are unobscured (allowing for a direct view of their nuclei) and recognized as “type 1” AGNs, while those viewed edge-on are “type 2” AGNs with most of their central engine and broad line regions being hidden by the obscuring dust.
Apparently, key factors in understanding the structure and nature of AGNs are determining the geometry of the nuclear obscuring torus around the central engine and the obscuration (i.e. extinction, a combination of absorption and scattering) properties of the circumnuclear dust. An accurate knowledge of the dust extinction properties is also required to correct for the dust obscuration in order to recover the intrinsic optical/ultraviolet (UV) spectrum of the nucleus from the observed spectrum and to probe the physical conditions of the dust-enshrouded gas close to the nucleus.
The presence of an obscuring dust torus around the central engine was first indirectly indicated by the spectropolarimetric detection of broad permitted emission lines (characteristic of type 1 AGNs) scattered into our line of sight by free electrons located above or below the dust torus in a number of type 2 AGNs (e.g. see Heisler et al. 1997, Tran 2003). Direct evidence for the presence of a dust torus is provided by infrared (IR) observations. The circumnuclear dust absorbs the AGN illumination and reradiates the absorbed energy in the IR. The IR emission at wavelengths longward of $\lambda$$>$1$\mum$ accounts for at least 50% of the bolometric luminosity of type 2 AGNs. For type 1 AGNs, $\simali$10% of the bolometric luminosity is emitted in the IR (e.g. see Fig.13.7 of Osterbrock & Ferland 2006). A near-IR “bump” (excess emission above the $\simali$2–10$\mum$ continuum), generally attributed to hot dust with temperatures around $\simali$1200–1500$\K$ (near the sublimation temperatures of silicate and graphite grains), is seen in a few type 1 AGNs (Barvainis 1987; Rodríguez-Ardila & Mazzalay 2006). Direct imaging at near- and mid-IR wavelengths has been performed for several AGNs and provides constraints on the size and structure of the circumnuclear dust torus (e.g. see Jaffe et al. 2004, Elitzur 2006). Spectroscopically, the 10$\mum$ silicate [*absorption*]{} feature (see §3.3) and the 3.4$\mum$ aliphatic hydrocarbon [*absorption*]{} feature (see §3.2) are widely seen in heavily obscured type 2 AGNs; in contrast, the 10$\mum$ silicate [*emission*]{} feature has recently been detected in a number of type 1 AGNs (see §3.3).
To properly interpret the observed IR continuum emission and spectroscopy as well as the IR images of AGNs, it requires a good understanding of the absorption and emission properties of the circumnuclear dust. To this end, one needs to know the composition, size, and morphology of the dust – with this knowledge, one can use Mie theory (for spherical dust) to calculate the absorption and scattering cross sections of the dust from X-ray to far-IR wavelengths, and then calculate its UV/optical/near-IR obscuration as a function of wavelength, and derive the dust thermal equilibrium temperature (based on the energy balance between absorption and emission) as well as its IR emission spectrum. This will allow us to correct for dust obscuration and constrain the circumnuclear structure through modeling the observed IR emission and images. The former is essential for interpreting the obscured UV/optical emission lines and probing the physical conditions of the central regions; the latter is critical to our understanding of the growth of the central supermassive black hole. However, little is known about the dust in the circumnuclear torus of AGNs. Even our knowledge of the best-studied dust – the Milky Way interstellar dust – is very limited. In this review, I will take a comparative study of the extinction and IR emission as well as the UV/IR spectroscopic properties and the inferred composition, size and morphology of the dust in AGNs and the dust in the interstellar medium (ISM) of the Milky Way and other galaxies.
Extinction — A Powerful Discriminator of Dust Size
==================================================
Extinction is a combined effect of absorption and scattering. Since a grain absorbs and scatters light most effectively at wavelengths comparable to its size $\lambda$$\approx$$2\pi a$, the wavelength dependence of extinction (“extinction curve”) constrains the dust size distribution.
Interstellar Extinction: Milky Way, SMC, and LMC
------------------------------------------------
Interstellar extinction is most commonly obtained through the “pair-method” by comparing the spectra of two stars of the same spectral type, one of which is reddened and the other unreddened. Interstellar extinction curves rise from the near-IR to the near-[UV]{}, with a broad absorption feature at about $\lambda^{-1}$$\approx$4.6$\mum^{-1}$ ($\lambda$$\approx$2175$\Angstrom$), followed by a steep rise into the far-[UV]{} $\lambda^{-1}$$\approx$10$\mum^{-1}$ (see Fig.1). This wavelength dependence indicates that there must exist in the ISM a population of large grains with $a$$\simgt$$\lambda/2\pi$$\approx$$0.1\mum$ to account for the extinction at visible/near-IR wavelengths, and a population of ultrasmall grains with $a$$\simlt$$\lambda/2\pi$$\approx$\
$0.016\mum$ to account for the far-[UV]{} extinction at $\lambda$=$0.1\mum$. In the wavelength range of 0.125$\le$$\lambda$$\le$3.5$\mum$, the Galactic extinction curves can be approximated by an analytical formula involving only one free parameter: [$R_V$$\equiv$$A_V/E(B-V)$]{}, the total-to-selective extinction ratio (Cardelli et al. 1989), with $R_V$$\approx$3.1 for the Galactic average (see Fig.1). The optical/[UV]{} extinction curves and $R_V$ show considerable regional variations and depend on the environment: lower-density regions have a smaller [$R_V$]{}, a stronger [2175$\Angstrom$]{} bump and a steeper far-[UV]{} rise ($\lambda^{-1}$$>$4$\mum^{-1}$), implying smaller dust in these regions; denser regions have a larger [$R_V$]{}, a weaker [2175$\Angstrom$]{} bump and a flatter far-[UV]{} rise, implying larger dust.
In the Small Magellanic Cloud ([SMC]{}), the extinction curves of most sightlines display a nearly linear steep rise with $\lambda^{-1}$ and an extremely weak or absent 2175$\Angstrom$ bump (Lequeux et al. 1982; Prévot et al. 1984; see Fig.2), suggesting that the dust in the SMC is smaller than that in the Galactic diffuse ISM as a result of either more efficient dust destruction in the [SMC]{} due to its harsh environment of the copious star formation associated with the [SMC]{} Bar or lack of growth due to the low-metallicity of the [SMC]{}, or both. The Large Magellanic Cloud ([LMC]{}) extinction curve is characterized by a weaker 2175$\Angstrom$ bump and a stronger far-[UV]{} rise than the Galactic curve (Nandy et al. 1981; Koornneef & Code 1981), intermediate between that of the [SMC]{} and that of the Galaxy (see Fig.2). Regional variations also exist in the SMC and LMC extinction curves.
AGN Extinction — “Gray” or SMC-like Extinction?
-----------------------------------------------
Little is known about the wavelength dependence of the extinction caused by the circumnuclear dust of AGNs. In literature, the AGN extinction curves are mainly inferred from (1) composite quasar spectra, and (2) individual reddened AGNs. The former often reveals a “gray” extinction, implying that the size distribution of the dust in the AGN circumnuclear environments is skewed towards substantially large grains. The latter often suggests a steep-rising SMC-like extinction, indicating a preponderance of small grains near the nucleus. There is also indirect information, including the dust reddening- and extinction-to-gas ratios and the IR emission modeling of AGNs (see §4).
### Composite Reddened Quasar Spectra — “Gray” Extinction?
Czerny et al. (2004) constructed a quasar extinction curve based on the blue and red composite quasar spectra of Richards et al. (2003) obtained from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Six composite quasar spectra were generated by Richards et al. (2003) from 4576 SDSS quasars based on the relative g$^{\ast}$–i$^{\ast}$ color with “Composite 1” (made from 770 objects) being the bluest. Czerny et al. (2004) created a mean “quasar extinction curve” by averaging 3 extinction curves obtained through comparing the spectra of Composites 3, 4, and 5 (consisting of 770, 770, and 211 objects, respectively) with that of Composite 1, assuming that Composite 1 is essentially unaffected by dust while Composites 3, 4, and 5 are subject to dust reddening. The resulting extinction curve is nearly monotonic with wavelength, without any trace of the 2175$\Angstrom$ bump (see Fig.3).
Gaskell et al. (2004) derived extinction curves for radio-loud quasars based on the composite spectra of 72 radio quasars created by Baker & Hunstead (1995), and for radio-quiet AGNs based on the composite spectrum of 1018 radio-quiet AGNs generated by Francis et al. (1991). The extinction curve for these radio-loud quasars, grouped by Baker & Hunstead (1995) into 4 subsamples according to the 5GHz radio core-to-lobe flux ratios $R$, was determined by comparing the composite spectrum of the more-reddened lobe-dominant ($R$$<$0.1) sample with that of less-reddened core-dominant ($R$$>$1) sample. Similarly, Gaskell et al. (2004) obtained an extinction curve for radio-quiet AGNs by comparing the composite spectrum of Francis et al. (1991) created for 1018 radio-quiet AGNs with that for the relatively unreddened core-dominant composite of Baker & Hunstead (1995). Most prominently, the derived extinction curves for both radio-loud quasars and radio-quiet quasarssy lack the 2175$\Angstrom$ bump and are essentially “gray”, i.e., significantly flatter in the UV than that of the Milky Way diffuse ISM, although it appears that for the latter the reddening curve is slightly steeper in the UV (see Fig.3).
However, Willott (2005) questioned the validity of the approach based on the ratios of reddened and unreddened composite quasars (Czerny et al. 2004; Gaskell et al. 2004) since composite spectra combine quasars at different redshifts, while the quasars going into a composite spectrum have a negative correlation between reddening and redshift, and quasar surveys in practice contain more highly reddened quasars at lower redshifts. He argued that since the quasars contributing to the composite in the UV have typically lower reddening than those contributing in the optical, the gray UV extinction laws derived using composite quasars (Czerny et al. 2004; Gaskell et al. 2004) might be artificial, and the actual AGN extinction curve may be SMC-like.
### Individual Reddened AGNs — SMC-like Extinction?
In contrast to the “composite quasar spectrum” method which may be biased by the fact that the highest redshift quasars (which contribute to the UV part of a composite spectrum) are less extincted (leading to shallower extinction in the UV), AGN extinction curves have also been derived for individual reddened objects.
Crenshaw et al. (2001) determined a reddening curve for the nucleus of the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC3227 by comparing its HST/STIS UV and optical spectra with that of the unreddened Seyfert galaxy NGC4151. They found that the derived extinction curve in the UV is even steeper than that of the SMC and lacks the 2175$\Angstrom$ bump. Similar studies were performed for Ark564, a Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 galaxy (Crenshaw et al. 2002). By comparing the HST/STIS UV and optical spectra of Ark564 with that of Mrk493, an unreddened Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 galaxy, Crenshaw et al. (2002) found that the extinction curve for Ark564, with no evidence for the 2175$\Angstrom$ bump, rises to the UV more steeply than the Galactic extinction curve (but not as steeply as the SMC curve) with a longer turning-up wavelength of $\simali$4000$\Angstrom$ (compared to $\simali$2500$\Angstrom$ for the standard Galactic, LMC, and SMC curves).
In an analysis of the optical/UV color distribution of 4576 SDSS quasars, Richards et al. (2003) showed that 273 (6.0%) of the quasars in their sample appear to be redder because of SMC-like dust extinction and reddening. Hopkins et al. (2004) investigated the reddening law toward 9566 SDSS quasars, including a subset of 1886 quasars matched to 2MASS (Two Micron All Sky Survey) by exploring the shapes of their spectral energy distributions obtained from broadband photometry (at five SDSS bands $ugriz$ and three 2MASS bands $JHK$). They found that the reddening toward quasars is dominated by SMC-like dust at the quasar redshift.
More recently, Gaskell & Benker (2007) determined the extinction curves for 14 individual AGNs based on the FUSE and HST spectrophotometry of Shang et al. (2005). Unlike Crenshaw et al. (2001, 2002) who used a single unreddened AGN as a reference, Gaskell & Benker (2007) took the average of 3 AGNs which have the highest 4–8$\mum^{-1}$ fluxes relative to their optical fluxes in the sample of Shang et al. (2005). They found that the majority of the derived extinction curves in the UV are much flatter than that of the SMC, although not as flat as the “gray” curve derived by Gaskell et al. (2004) based on composite quasar spectra (see Fig.3 for the average extinction curve for the 5 AGNs with the greatest reddening in their sample).
### Reduced Reddening- and Extinction-to-Gas Ratios — Flat Extinction?
Assuming a Galactic standard extinction curve ($R_V$=3.1) and a foreground screen, Maiolino et al. (2001a) determined for 19 AGNs the amount of reddening $E(B-V)$ affecting the broad line region by comparing the observed optical/IR H broad line ratios with the intrinsic values. For these AGNs, they also determined the X-ray absorbing column densities $\NH$ from the photoelectric cutoff in their X-ray spectra. They found that for most (16 of 19) objects $E(B-V)/\NH$ is significantly lower than the Galactic standard value ($\approx$$1.7\times 10^{-22}$magcm$^{-2}$) by a factor ranging from a few to $\simali$100 (except for 3 Low Luminosity AGNs whose physics may be intrinsically different \[see Ho 1999\]). Similarly, Maiolino et al. (2001a) also found that the extinction-to-gas ratios $A_V/\NH$ of various classes of AGNs are significantly lower than the Galactic standard value ($\approx$$5.3\times 10^{-22}$magcm$^{-2}$). Maiolino et al. (2001b) ascribed the reduced $E(B-V)/\NH$ and $A_V/\NH$ ratios of AGNs (often with a solar or higher metallicity) to grain growth through coagulation in the dense circumnuclear region which results in a dust size distribution biased in favour of large grains and therefore a flat extinction curve.
However, Weingartner & Murray (2002) argued that the X-ray absorption and optical extinction may occur in distinct media (e.g. the X-ray absorption occurs in material located off the torus and/or accretion disk, while the optical extinction occurs in material located beyond the torus); therefore, the reduced $E(B-V)/\NH$ and $A_V/\NH$ ratios may not necessarily imply that the grains in AGNs are systematically larger than those in the Galactic ISM.
Dust Spectroscopy — Diagnosis of Dust Composition
=================================================
Dust spectroscopy provides the most diagnostic information on the dust composition. Our knowledge about the composition of the dust in the Galactic diffuse ISM is mainly derived from the absorption and emission spectral lines: the 2175$\Angstrom$ extinction bump (small graphitic dust), the 3.4$\mum$ absorption feature (aliphatic hydrocarbon dust), the 9.7$\mum$ and 18$\mum$ absorption features (amorphous silicate dust), and the 3.3, 6.2, 7.7, 8.6, and 11.3$\mum$ emission features (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon \[PAH\] molecules). The ice absorption features at 3.1 and 6.0$\mum$ (H$_2$O), 4.67$\mum$ (CO), 4.27 and 15.2$\mum$ (CO$_2$), 3.54 and 9.75$\mum$ (CH$_3$OH), 2.97$\mum$ (NH$_3$), 7.68$\mum$ (CH$_4$), 5.81$\mum$ (H$_2$CO), and 4.62$\mum$ (XCN$^{-}$) are seen in dark molecular clouds with visual extinction $A_V$$>$3mag. In this section I will present a comparative overview of the dust absorption and emission features in AGNs and the inferred dust composition.
The 2175$\Angstrom$ Extinction Bump
-----------------------------------
The 2175$\Angstrom$ extinction bump, first detected over 40 years ago (Stecher 1965), is an ubiquitous feature of the Milky Way ISM. With a stable central wavelength and variable feature strength for lines of sight in our Galaxy, the 2175$\Angstrom$ bump is relatively weaker in the LMC and absent in the SMC (see Fig.2). This bump is largely absent in AGNs (see §2) except Gaskell & Benker (2007) recently claimed that it might be detected in Mrk304, one of the seven AGNs with the highest quality extinction curves in their 14-AGN sample. Fig.4 compares the UV spectra of 5 slightly reddened type 1 AGNs with the template of type 1 AGNs reddened with the standard Galactic extinction. It is seen that the Galactic extinction predicts too strong a 2175$\Angstrom$ dip (Maiolino et al. 2001b).
The exact nature of the 2175$\Angstrom$ bump, the strongest spectroscopic extinction feature in the Galactic ISM, remains uncertain. It is generally believed to be caused by aromatic carbonaceous (graphitic) materials, very likely a cosmic mixture of PAH molecules (Joblin et al. 1992; Li & Draine 2001b). The fact that the 2175$\Angstrom$ bump is not (or at least rarely) seen in AGNs suggests that its carrier (e.g. PAHs) may have been photodestroyed by energetic photons (e.g. X-ray irradiation) from the central engine.
The 3.4$\mum$ Aliphatic Hydrocarbon Absorption Feature
------------------------------------------------------
The 3.4$\mum$ absorption feature, attributed to the C–H stretching mode in saturated aliphatic hydrocarbon dust, is widely seen in the Galactic diffuse ISM (but never seen in molecular clouds; see Pendleton & Allamandola 2002). This feature is also seen in AGNs (Wright et al. 1996, Imanishi et al. 1997, Mason et al. 2004), closely resembling that of our Galaxy in both peak wavelengths and relative feature strengths of the 3.42$\um$, 3.48$\um$, and 3.51$\um$ subfeatures (corresponding to symmetric and asymmetric stretches of C–H bonds in CH$_2$ and CH$_3$ groups in aliphatic hydrocarbon chains). Mason et al. (2004) argued that the 3.4$\mum$ absorption feature at least in face-on Seyfert 2 galaxies arises in dust local to the active nucleus rather than in the diffuse ISM of the galaxy.
The exact carrier of this feature remains uncertain. So far, among the $>$20 candidate materials proposed over the years since its first detection in the Galactic center sightlines 28 years ago, the experimental spectra of hydrogenated amorphous carbon (Mennella et al. 1999) and the organic refractory residue, synthesized from UV photoprocessing of interstellar ice mixtures (Greenberg et al. 1995), provide the best fit to the observed spectra.
So far, no polarization has been detected for this feature (Adamson et al. 1999, Chiar et al. 2006, Mason et al. 2006), suggesting that the carrier of this feature is either spherical or unaligned or both. Spectropolarimetric measurements for both the 9.7$\mum$ silicate and the 3.4$\mum$ hydrocarbon features for the same sightline (e.g. Chiar et al. 2006) would allow for a direct test of the silicate core-hydrocarbon mantle interstellar dust model (Li & Greenberg 1997, Jones et al. 1990), since this model predicts that the 3.4$\mum$ feature would be polarized if the 9.7$\mum$ feature (for the same sightline) is polarized (Li & Greenberg 2002).
The 9.7$\mum$ and 18$\mum$ Silicate Absorption and Emission Features
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The strongest IR absorption features in the Galactic ISM are the 9.7$\mum$ and 18$\mum$ bands, which are almost certainly due to silicate minerals: they are respectively ascribed to the Si–O stretching and O–Si–O bending modes in some form of silicate material (e.g. olivine Mg$_{2x}$Fe$_{2-2x}$SiO$_4$). The observed interstellar silicate bands are broad and relatively featureless, indicating that interstellar silicates are largely amorphous rather than crystalline (Li & Draine \[2001a\] estimated that the amount of $a$$<$1$\mum$ crystalline silicate grains in the Galactic diffuse ISM is $<$5% of the solar Si abundance).
The first detection of the silicate [*absorption*]{} feature in AGNs was made at 9.7$\mum$ for the prototypical Seyfert 2 galaxy NGC1068 (Rieke & Low 1975; Kleinmann et al. 1976), indicating the presence of a large column of silicate dust in the line-of-sight to the nucleus. It is known now that most of the type 2 AGNs display silicate [*absorption*]{} bands (e.g. see Roche et al. 1991, Siebenmorgen et al. 2004) as expected – for a centrally heated optically thick torus viewed edge-on, the silicate features should be in absorption. Spatially resolved mid-IR spectra obtained for NGC1068 (Mason et al. 2006, Rhee & Larkin 2006) and Circinus (Roche et al. 2006) have revealed striking variations in continuum slope, silicate feature profile and depth.
However, it appears that the 9.7$\mum$ silicate absorption profile of AGNs differs from that of the Milky Way. Jaffe et al. (2004) found that the 9.7$\mum$ silicate absorption spectrum of NGC1068 shows a relatively flat profile from 8 to 9$\mum$ and then a sharp drop between 9 and 10$\mum$; in comparison, the Galactic silicate absorption profiles begin to drop already at $\simali$8$\mum$. They obtained a much better fit to the 9.7$\mum$ absorption feature of NGC1068 by using the profile of calcium aluminium silicate Ca$_2$Al$_2$SiO$_7$, a high-temperature dust species found in some supergiant stars (Speck et al. 2000). It would be interesting to know if the amount of calcium required to account for the observed absorption is consistent with abundance constraints. Very recently, Roche et al. (2007) reported the detection of a spectral structure near 11.2$\mum$ in NGC3094, indicative of the possible presence of crystalline silicates in AGNs.
For type 1 AGNs viewed face-on, one would expect to see the silicate features in [*emission*]{} since the silicate dust in the surface of the inner torus wall will be heated to temperatures of several hundred kelvin by the radiation from the central engine, allowing for a direct detection of the 9.7$\mum$ and 18$\mum$ silicate bands emitted from this hot dust. However, their detection (using [*Spitzer*]{}) has only very recently been reported in a number of type 1 AGNs (Hao et al. 2005, Siebenmorgen et al. 2005, Sturm et al. 2005, Weedman et al. 2005, Shi et al. 2006). Siebenmorgen et al. (2005) postulated that the AGN luminosity determines whether the silicate emission bands are prominent or not (i.e., they may be present only in the most luminous AGNs), but this idea was challenged by their detection in the low-luminosity AGN NGC3998, a type 1 LINER galaxy (Sturm et al. 2005).
The 9.7$\mum$ silicate emission profiles of both quasars (high luminosity counterparts of Seyfert 1 galaxies; Hao et al. 2005, Siebenmorgen et al. 2005) and the low-luminosity AGN NGC3998 (Sturm et al. 2005) peak at a much longer wavelength ($\simali$11$\mum$), inconsistent with “standard” silicate ISM dust (which peaks at $\simali$9.7$\mum$). The 9.7$\mum$ feature of NGC3998 is also much broader than that of the Galactic ISM (Sturm et al. 2005). The deviations of the silicate emission profiles of type 1 AGNs from that of the Galactic ISM dust may indicate differences in the dust composition, grain size distribution, or radiative transfer effects (Sturm et al. 2005, Levenson et al. 2007). The red tail of the 18$\mum$ silicate feature of NGC3998 is significantly weaker than that of the bright quasars (Sturm et al. 2005), suggesting that there may exist significant environmental variations. Finally, it is worth noting that the 9.7$\mum$ silicate feature of Mkn 231, a peculiar type 1 Seyfert galaxy, is also seen in [*absorption*]{} peaking at $\simali$10.5$\mum$ (Roche et al. 1983).
The 3.3, 6.2, 7.7, 8.6 and 11.3$\mum$ PAH Emission Features
-----------------------------------------------------------
The distinctive set of “Unidentified Infrared” (UIR) emission features at 3.3, 6.2, 7.7, 8.6, and 11.3$\mum$, now generally identified as the vibrational modes of PAH molecules (Léger & Puget 1984; Allamandola et al. 1985), are seen in a wide variety of Galactic and extragalactic regions (see Draine & Li 2007). In the Milky Way diffuse interstellar medium (ISM), PAHs, containing $\simali$45$\ppm$ (parts per million, relative to H) C, account for $\simali$20% of the total power emitted by interstellar dust (Li & Draine 2001b). The [*ISO*]{} (Infrared Space Observatories) and [*Spitzer*]{} imaging and spectroscopy have revealed that PAHs are also a ubiquitous feature of external galaxies. Recent discoveries include the detection of PAH emission in a wide range of systems: distant Luminous Infrared Galaxies (LIRGs) with redshift $z$ ranging from 0.1 to 1.2 (Elbaz et al. 2005), distant Ultraluminous Infrared Galaxies (ULIRGs) with redshift $z\sim$2 (Yan et al. 2005), distant luminous submillimeter galaxies at redshift $z\sim$2.8 (Lutz et al. 2005), elliptical galaxies with a hostile environment (containing hot gas of temperature $\sim$10$^7\K$) where PAHs can be easily destroyed through sputtering by plasma ions (Kaneda et al. 2005), faint tidal dwarf galaxies with metallicity $\sim Z_\odot/3$ (Higdon et al. 2006), and galaxy halos (Irwin & Madden 2006, Engelbracht et al. 2006).
However, the PAH features are absent in AGNs, as first noticed by Roche et al. (1991). This is commonly interpreted as the destruction of PAHs by extreme UV and soft X-ray photons in AGNs (Roche et al. 1991; Voit 1991, 1992; Siebenmorgen et al. 2004). Genzel et al. (1998) proposed to use the line-to-continuum ratio of the 7.7$\mum$ PAH feature as a discriminator between starburst and AGN activity in ULIRGs (i.e. whether the dominant luminosity source of ULIRGs is an AGN or a starburst). We should note that the PAH emission features are detected in some Seyfert 2 galaxies, but they are from the circumnuclear star-forming regions, not from the AGNs (e.g. see Le Floc’h et al. 2001, Siebenmorgen et al. 2004).
The Ice Absorption Features
---------------------------
Grains in dark molecular clouds (usually with $A_V$$>$3$\magni$) obtain ice mantles consisting of H$_2$O, NH$_3$, CO, CH$_3$OH, CO$_2$, CH$_4$, H$_2$CO and other molecules (with H$_2$O as the dominant species), as revealed by the detection of various ice absorption features (e.g., H$_2$O: 3.1, 6.0$\um$; CO: 4.67$\um$; CO$_2$: 4.27, 15.2$\um$; CH$_3$OH: 3.54, 9.75$\um$; NH$_3$: 2.97$\um$; CH$_4$: 7.68$\um$; H$_2$CO: 5.81$\um$; XCN$^{-}$: 4.62$\um$). The ice absorption features are also seen in most ULIRGs (e.g. see Spoon et al. 2002), indicating the presence of a large quantity of molecular material in ULIRGs. However, the ice absorption features are not expected in AGNs due to the high dust temperatures (because of the immense bolometric luminosity emitted from the AGN) – the dust in the torus, even at a distance of $\simali$100pc, is too warm ($>$100K) for ice mantles to survive.
IR Emission Modeling–Inferring Dust Size and Torus Geometry?
============================================================
To constrain the dust size distribution and the size and geometry of the dust torus, various models have been proposed to explain the observed IR emission spectral energy distribution (SED) of AGNs, radiated by the circumnuclear dust heated by the AGN illumination. These models assume a wide range of torus geometries: uniform density annular (cylindrical) rings of a few pc with an extremely large optical depth $\tau_{\rm UV}$$>$1000 (Pier & Krolik 1992, 1993), optically thick plane parallel slabs of a few thousand pc (Laor & Draine 1993), extended tori of hundreds of pc (Granato & Danese 1994, Granato et al. 1997), geometrically thin, optically thick spherical shells (Rowan-Robinson 1995), tapered disks (Efstathiou & Rowan-Robinson 1995, Stenholm 1995), optically thick, flared disks (Manske et al. 1998), clumpy tori (Nenkova et al. 2002), and other more complicated torus geometries (van Bemmel & Dullemond 2003, Schartmann et al. 2005). In order to suppress the 9.7$\mum$ silicate emission feature (which was not detected until very recently by [*Spitzer*]{}; see §3.3), some models hypothesized that the dust in AGNs must be large ($a$$<$10$\mum$) or small silicate grains must be depleted (e.g. see Laor & Draine 1993, Granato & Danese 1994). Some models ascribed the suppression of the 9.7$\mum$ silicate emission feature to clumpiness (Nenkova et al. 2002) or the strong anisotropy of the source radiation (Manske et al. 1998). Apparently, more modeling efforts are required to account for the very recent detection of the 9.7$\mum$ and 18$\mum$ silicate emission features in type 1 AGNs and the recent high resolution IR imaging observations which seem to show that the torus size is no more than a few parsecs (see Elitzur 2006 and references therein). It is well known that the SED modeling alone does not uniquely determine the dust size distribution and the dust spatial distribution.
I thank L.C. Ho and J.M. Wang for inviting me to attend this stimulating conference. I also thank B. Cznery, C.M. Gaskell, S.L. Liang, R. Maiolino, and C. Willott for their comments and/or help in preparing for this article. Partial support by NASA/Spitzer theory programs and the University of Missouri Research Board is gratefully acknowledged.
=
Adamson, A.J., et al. 1999, ApJ, 512, 224 Allamandola, L.J., Tielens, A.G.G.M., & Barker, J.R. 1985, , 290, L25 Antonucci, R.R.J. 1993, ARA&A, 31, 473 Baker, J.C., & Hunstead, R.W. 1995, ApJ, 452, L95 Barvainis, R. 1987, , 320, 537 Buchanan, C.L., et al., 2006, AJ, 132, 401 Chiar, J.E., et al. 2006, ApJ, 651, 268 Cardelli, J.A., Clayton, G.C., & Mathis, J.S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245 Crenshaw, D.M., Kraemer, S.B., Bruhweiler, F.C., & Ruiz, J.R. 2001, ApJ, 555, 633 Crenshaw, D.M., et al. 2002, ApJ, 566, 187 Czerny, B., Li, J., Loska, Z., & Szczerba, R. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 54 Draine, B.T., & Li, A. 2001, ApJ, 551, 807 Draine, B.T., & Li, A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 810 Efstathiou, A., & Rowan-Robinson, M. 1995, MNRAS, 273, 649 Elbaz, D., Le Floc’h, E., Dole, H., & Marcillac, D. 2005, A&A, 434, L1 Elitzur, M. 2006, New Astronomy Review, 50, 728 Engelbracht, C.W., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, L127 Francis, P.J., et al. 1991, ApJ, 373, 465 Gaskell, C.M., et al. 2004, ApJ, 616, 147 Gaskell, C.M., & Benker, A.J. 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0711.1013) Genzel, R., et al. 1998, ApJ, 498, 579 Granato, G.L., & Danese, L. 1994, , 268, 235 Granato, G.L., Danese, L., & Franceschini, A. 1997, , 486, 147 Greenberg, J.M., Li, A., et al. 1995, ApJ, 455, L177 Hao, L., et al. 2005, , 625, L75 Heisler, C.A., Lumsden, S.L., & Bailey, J.A. 1997, Nature, 385, 700 Higdon, S.J., Higdon, J.L., & Marshall, J. 2006, ApJ, 640, 768 Ho, L.C. 1999, Adv. Space Res., 23, 813 Hopkins, P.F., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 1112 Imanishi, M., et al. 1997, PASJ, 49, 69 Irwin, J.A., & Madden, S.C. 2006, A&A, 445, 123 Joblin, C., Léger, A., & Martin, P. 1992, ApJ, 393, L79 Jones, A.P., Duley, W.W., & Williams, D.A. 1990, QJRAS, 31, 567 Kaneda, H., Onaka, T., & Sakon, I. 2005, ApJ, 632, L83 Kleinmann, D.E., Gillett, F.C., & Wright, E.L. 1976, , 208, 42 Koornneef, J., & Code, A.D. 1981, ApJ, 247, 860 Laor, A., & Draine, B.T. 1993, , 402, 441 Le Floc’h, E., et al. 2001, , 367, 487 Léger, A., & Puget, J. L. 1984, , 137, L5 Lequeux, J., et al. 1982, A&A, 113, L15 Levenson, N.A., et al. 2007, , 654, L45 Li, A., & Draine, B.T. 2001a, ApJ, 550, L213 Li, A., & Draine, B.T. 2001b, ApJ, 554, 778 Li, A., & Greenberg, J.M. 1997, A&A, 323, 566 Li, A., & Greenberg, J.M. 2002, ApJ, 577, 789 Lutz, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 625, L83 Maiolino, R., Marconi, A., & Oliva, E. 2001a, A&A, 365, 37 Maiolino, R., et al. 2001b, A&A, 365, 28 Manske, V., Henning, Th., & Men’shchikov, A.B. 1998, , 331, 52 Mason, R.E., Wright, G.S., Pendleton, Y.J., & Adamson, A. 2004, ApJ, 613, 770 Mason, R.E., et al. 2006, , 640, 612 Mason, R.E., Wright, G.S., Adamson, A., & Pendleton, Y.J. 2007, ApJ, 656, 798 Mennella, V., Brucato, J.R., Colangeli, L., & Palumbo, P. 1999, ApJ, 524, L71 Nandy, K., et al. 1981, MNRAS, 196, 955 Nenkova, M., Ivezic, Z., & Elitzur, M. 2002, , 570, L9 Osterbrock, D.E., & Ferland, G.J. 2006, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active Galactic Nuclei, 2nd ed, University Science Books Pendleton, Y.J., & Allamandola, L.J. 2002, ApJS, 138, 75 Pier, E.A., & Krolik, J.H. 1992, , 401, 99; 1993, , 418, 673 Prévot, M.L., et al. 1984, A&A, 132, 389 Rhee, J.H., & Larkin, J.E. 2006, ApJ, 640, 625 Richards, G.T., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 1131 Rieke, G.H., & Low, F.J. 1975, , 199, L13 Roche, P.F., Aitken, D.K., & Whitmore, B. 1983, MNRAS, 205, P21 Roche, P.F., Aitken, D.K., & Smith, C.H. 1991, MNRAS, 252, 282 Roche, P.F., et al. 2006, , 367, 1689 Roche, P.F., Packham, C., Aitken, D.K., & Mason, R.E. 2007, , 375, 99 Rodr[í]{}guez-Ardila, A., & Mazzalay, X. 2006, , 367, L57 Rowan-Robinson, M. 1995, MNRAS, 272, 737 Schartmann, M., et al. 2005, A&A, 437, 861 Shi, Y., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 127 Siebenmorgen, R., Krügel, E., & Spoon, H.W.W. 2004, , 414, 123 Siebenmorgen, R., Haas, M., Kr[ü]{}gel, E., & Schulz, B. 2005, , 436, L5 Shang, Z., et al. 2005, , 619, 41 Speck, A.K., Barlow, M.J., Sylvester, R.J., & Hofmeister, A.M. 2000, , 146, 437 Spoon, H.W.W., et al. 2002, A&A, 385, 1022 Stecher, T.P. 1965, ApJ, 142, 1683 Stenholm, L. 1995, A&A, 290, 393 Sturm, E., et al. 2005, , 629, L21 Tran, H.D. 2003, , 583, 632 Urry, C.M., & Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803 van Bemmel, I.M., & Dullemond, C.P. 2003, , 404, 1 Voit, G.M. 1991, , 379, 122; 1992, , 258, 841 Weedman, D.W., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 706 Weingartner, J.C., & Murray, N. 2002, , 580, 88 Willott, C.J. 2005, ApJ, 627, L101 Wright, G.S., Bridger, A., Geballe, T.R., & Pendleton, Y. 1996, in New Extragalactic Perspectives in the New South Africa, 143 Yan, L., et al. 2005, , 628, 604
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Eduard P. Kontar'
title: Dynamics of electron beams in the solar corona plasma with density fluctuations
---
Introduction
============
One of the challenging problems in the theory of type III bursts, widely discussed in the literature, is the fine structure of the bursts. The fine structure is observed in almost all ranges of frequencies from GHz ([@Benz82]; [@Benz96]) to a few tens of kHz in interplanetary space ([@Chaizy95]). Direct observations of Langmuir waves and energetic electrons show that Langmuir waves have rather clumpy spatial distribution whereas the electron stream seems rather continuous ([@Lin81]; [@Chaizy95]).
There are a few alternative ways to explain the observational data. The existing theories can be roughly divided into three groups in accordance with the electron beam density or the energy of the Langmuir waves. The first group of theories is based on the assumption that nonlinear instabilities of strong turbulence theory can suppress quasilinear relaxation ([@Papadopoulos74]) and lead to extreme clumpiness of the spatial distribution of Langmuir waves ([@Thejappa98]). However, some observations and theoretical studies ([@Cairns95]) raise doubts as to whether the Langmuir turbulence level is high enough for strong-turbulence processes. The second, recently developed group of theories, is based on the prediction that an electron beam propagates in a state close to marginal stability, i.e. one where the fluctuation-dependent growth rate is compensated for by the damping rate ([@Robinson92]; [@Robinson93]). In this view, the growth rate of beam-plasma instability is perturbed by the ambient density fluctuations ([@Robinson92]). The third, more traditional group of theories, considers the beam propagation in the limit of weak turbulence theory ([@Ryutov70]; [@Takakura76]; [@Magelssen77]; [@Takakura82]; [@Grognard85]). The basic idea is that the electron beam generates Langmuir waves at the front of the electron stream and the waves are absorbed at the back of the stream, ensuring electron propagation over large distances. However, this idea was not proved for a long time ([@Melrose90]). Recently Mel’nik has demonstrated analytically ([@Melnik95]) that a mono-energetic beam can propagate as a beam-plasma structure (BPS). This result has been confirmed numerically ([@Kontar98]) and applied to the theory of type III bursts ([@Melnik99]). The solution obtained ([@Melnik00a]) directly resolves Sturrock’s dilemma ([@Sturrock64]) and may explain the almost constant speed of type III sources. However, the influence of plasma inhomogeneity on the dynamics of a BPS has never been studied although the correlation between Langmuir wave clumps and density fluctuations demonstrates the importance of such considerations ([@Robinson92c]).
The influence of plasma inhomogeneity on Langmuir waves and beam electrons has been studied from various points of view. An account of plasma inhomogeneities may explain why accelerated beam electrons appear in the experiments with quasilinear relaxation of an electron beam ([@Ryutov69]). Relativistic dynamics of an electron beam with random inhomogeneities, as applied to laboratory plasmas, was considered in ([@Hishikawa76]). It has been shown ([@Muschietti85]) that the solar corona density fluctuations may be extremely effective in quenching the beam-plasma instability. Moreover, the isotropic plasma inhomogeneities may lead to efficient isotropisation of plasma waves ([@Goldman82]) whereas those alongated along the direction of ambient magnetic field have little influence on the beam stability. Therefore, the growth rate of beam-plasma instability was postulated to be very high in the regions of low amplitude density fluctuations ([@Melrose86]; [@Melrose87]). Isotropic density fluctuations of ambient plasma density were also employed to explain low level of Langmuir waves in microbursts ([@Gopalswamy93]).
In this paper the dynamics of a spatially limited electron cloud is considered in a plasma with small scale density fluctuations. In the treatment presented here, quasilinear relaxation is a dominant process and density inhomogeneities are too weak to suppress the instability. Indeed, observations of interplanetary scintillations from extragalactic radio sources ([@Cronyn72]) lead to an average value of $\Delta n/n$ of the order of $10^{-3}$ ([@Smith79]). Nevertheless, the low intensity density fluctuations lead to significant spatial redistribution of wave energy. The numerical results obtained demonstrate that electrons propagate as a continuous stream while the Langmuir waves generated by the electrons are clumpy. Both electrons and Langmuir waves propagate in a plasma as a BPS with an almost constant velocity. However, density fluctuations lead to some energy losses.
Electron beam and density fluctuations
======================================
The problem of one-dimensional electron beam propagation is considered in a plasma with density fluctuations. The one-dimensional character of electron beam propagation is supported by the 3D numerical solution of the kinetic equations ([@Churaev80]) and additionally by the fact that in the case of type III bursts electrons propagate along open magnetic field lines ([@Dulk85]).
Electron beam
-------------
There is still uncertainty in the literature as to whether electron beams are strong enough to produce strong turbulence or whether the beam is so rarified that quasilinear relaxation is suppressed by damping or scattering. While some observations are in favor of the strong turbulence regime ([@Thejappa98]) others are interpreted as implying marginal stability ([@Cairns95]). Therefore, we consider the intermediate case of a medium density beam, which is not strong enough to start strong turbulence processes, $$W/nT \ll (k\lambda _{D})^2,
\label{weakt}$$ but is dense enough to make quasilinear relaxation a dominant process. Here $W$ is the energy density of Langmuir waves generated by the beam, $T$ is the temperature of the surrounding plasma, $k$ is the wave number, and $\lambda _{D}$ is the electron Debye length.
The initial value problem is solved with an initially-unstable electron distribution function, which leads to the formation of a BPS in the case of homogeneous plasma ([@Melnik00a]) $$f(v,x,t=0)=g_0(v)\mbox{exp}(-x^2/d^2), \label{f_0}$$ where $$g_0(v)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \displaystyle \frac{2n'v}{v_0^2},
&\mbox{$v<v_0$},\\ 0, &\mbox{$v>v_0$}.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{g_0}$$ Here $d$ is the characteristic size of the electron cloud and $v_0$ is the velocity of the electron beam. The initial spectral energy density of Langmuir waves $$W(v,x,t=0)\simeq \frac{T}{2\pi ^2\lambda _{D}^2}, \label{W_0}$$ is of the thermal level and uniformly distributed in space. The electron temperature of the corona is taken to be $T=10^{6}$K, which gives an electron thermal velocity $v_{Te}=\sqrt{3kT/m}\simeq 6.7\times 10^{8}$cm s$^{-1}$.
Ambient density fluctuations
----------------------------
Following common practice in the literature on plasma inhomogeneity Langmuir waves are treated in the approximation of geometrical optics (the WKB approximation) when the length of a Langmuir wave is much smaller than the size of the plasma inhomogeneity ([@Vedenov67]; [@Ryutov69]) $$\label{WKB1}
\lambda \ll L,$$ where $$\label{WKB2}
L\equiv \left(\frac {1}{\omega _{pe}}\frac{\partial \omega _{pe}}{\partial
x}\right)^{-1},$$ is the scale of ambient plasma density fluctuations, and $\omega
_{pe}$ is the local electron plasma frequency. The plasma inhomogeneity changes the dispersion properties of Langmuir waves and if the intensity of density fluctuations is small then the dispersion relation can be written $$\label{dispersion} \omega (k,x) =\omega_{pe}\left[1+\frac
12\frac{\Delta n}{n}+\frac{3k^2v_{Te}^2}{2\omega_{pe}^2}\right],$$ where $v_{Te}$ is the electron thermal velocity. The intensity of the density fluctuations should be small ([@Coste75]) $$\label{delta_n}
\frac{\Delta n}{n} < \frac{3k^2v_{Te}^2}{\omega_{pe}^2},$$ to ensure that the corresponding fluctuations of local plasma frequency are within the thermal width of plasma frequency. Thus, for the typical parameters of the corona plasma (plasma density $n=5\times 10^8$cm$^{-3}$ or plasma frequency $f_p=\omega
_{pe}/2\pi \approx 200.73$MHz), and assuming a beam velocity $v_0=10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$, the density fluctuations are limited to $\Delta n/n<10^{-2}$.
Quasilinear equations
---------------------
In the case of weak turbulence theory (\[weakt\]), and under the conditions of the WKB approximation (\[WKB1\],\[delta\_n\]), the evolution of the electron distribution function $f(v,x,t)$ and the spectral energy density $W(v,x,t)$ are described by the system of kinetic equations ([@Ryutov69]) $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+v \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}=
\frac{4\pi ^2 e^2 }{m^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial v}
\frac{W}{v}\frac{\partial f}{\partial v}, \label{eqk1}$$ and $$\frac{\partial W}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial
\omega}{\partial k} \frac {\partial W}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial
\omega_{pe}}{\partial x } \frac{\partial W}{\partial k}=\frac{\pi
\omega_{pe}}{n}v^2W\frac{\partial f}{\partial v}, \;
\omega_{pe}=kv, \label{eqk2}$$ where $\partial \omega/\partial k=3v_{Te}^2/v$ is the group velocity of Langmuir waves, and $W(v,x,t)$ plays the same role for waves as the electron distribution function does for particles. The system (\[eqk1\],\[eqk2\]) describes the resonant interaction $\omega_{pe}=kv$ of electrons and Langmuir waves. On the right-hand side of equations (\[eqk1\],\[eqk2\]) I omit the spontaneous terms due to their small magnitude relative to the induced ones ([@Ryutov70]).
The presence of a local plasma frequency gradient leads to two physical effects on the kinetics of the Langmuir waves (\[eqk2\]). Firstly, the characteristic time of the beam-plasma interaction depends on the local density and therefore the resonance condition for the plasmons may itself change during the course of beam propagation. Secondly, the Langmuir wave propagating in the inhomogeneous plasma experiences a shift of wavenumber $\Delta k(x)$, due to the variation of the local refractive index. The second effect has been shown to have the main impact on Langmuir wave kinetics whereas the first effect can be neglected ([@Coste75]).
Thus, we are confronted with the initial value problem of electron cloud propagation in a plasma with density fluctuations. The problem is nonlinear and is characterized by three different time scales. The fastest process in the system is the quasilinear relaxation, on the quasilinear timescale $\tau \approx
n/n'\omega_{pe}$. The second timescale is that of processes connected with plasma inhomogeneity. Thirdly, there is the timescale of an electron cloud propagation in a plasma that significantly exceeds all other timescales.
Quasilinear relaxation and plasma inhomogeneity
===============================================
The main interaction in the system is beam – wave interaction governed by the quasilinear terms on the right hand side of equations (\[eqk1\],\[eqk2\]) . It is well-known that the unstable electron distribution function (\[g\_0\]) leads to the generation of plasma waves. The result of quasilinear relaxation for an electron beam homogeneously distributed in space is a plateau of the electron distribution function ([@Ryutov70]) $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle f(v,t\approx \tau) =\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \frac{n'}{v_0},&\mbox{$v<v_0$}\\
0,&\mbox{$v>v_0$}
\end{array}
\right. \label{f_relax}\end{aligned}$$ and the spectral energy density $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle W(v,t\approx \tau) =
\displaystyle \frac{mn'}{v_0\omega_{pe}}
\int_0^v\left(1-\frac{v_0}{n'}g_0(v)\right)dv,\;\;v<v_0
\label{w_relax}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_0(v)$ is the initial distribution function of the beam.
In the case of an inhomogeneous plasma we can also consider relaxation of a homogeneously distributed beam. Thus, the kinetic equations (\[eqk1\],\[eqk2\]) will take the form $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}= \frac{4\pi ^2 e^2
}{m^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial v} \frac{W}{v}\frac{\partial
f}{\partial v}, \label{k1}$$ and $$\frac{\partial W}{\partial t}+\frac{v^2}{L_0} \frac{\partial
W}{\partial v}=\frac{\pi \omega_{pe}}{n}v^2W\frac{\partial
f}{\partial v}, \;\;\; \omega_{pe}=kv, \label{k2}$$ where the transport terms are omitted. Here, the inhomogeneity scale is also assumed to be constant and equal to $L_0$. It should be noted that this assumption is physically incorrect. The change in the spectrum of the Langmuir waves is due solely to the spatial movement of the waves with the group velocity. However, from a mathematical point of view, it is well justified as the group velocity of Langmuir waves is small ($3v_{Te}^2/v\ll v$) and effects connected with wave transport can be neglected.
Equations (\[k1\],\[k2\]) describe two physical effects: quasilinear relaxation (with characteristic time $\tau $) and the drift of Langmuir waves in velocity space (the characteristic time $\tau _2 = |L_0|/v$. Since $\tau _2\gg \tau$ the influence of plasma inhomogeneity can be considered as the evolution of the final stage of quasilinear relaxation. Two possible cases of plasma density change are considered: plasma density decreasing ($L_0<0$) with distance and plasma density increasing ($L_0>0$) with distance.
Plasma density decreasing with distance
---------------------------------------
In this case $L_0$ is negative. After the time of quasilinear relaxation, a plateau is established in the electron distribution function and a high level of Langmuir waves is generated. Since the quasilinear processes are fast we have a plateau at every moment of time $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle f(v,t\approx \tau) =\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \frac{n'}{v_0},&\mbox{$v<v_0$}\\
0,&\mbox{$v>v_0$}
\end{array}
\right. \label{relax2}\end{aligned}$$ The wave spectrum is changing with time, and from the fact that we have a plateau at every moment equation (\[k2\]) can be reduced to $$\frac{\partial W}{\partial t}-\frac {v^2} {|L_0|} \frac{\partial
W}{\partial v}= 0 \label{W}$$ The role of initial wave distribution is played by the spectral energy density generated during the relaxation stage (\[w\_relax\]). Integrating equation (\[W\]) we obtain the solution for $t\gg \tau$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w1} W(v,t)=\frac{m}{\omega _{pe}}(1/v-t/|L_0|)^{-3}
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\cr
\;\;\;
\times\int_0^{1/(1/v-t/|L_0|)}\left[\frac{n'}{v_0}-g_0(v)\right]dv,\;\;
v<u(t)\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{u}
u(t)=\frac{v_0}{1+v_0t/|L_0|}$$ is the maximum velocity of the Langmuir waves. Note, that the electron distribution function is constant and presents a plateau (\[relax2\]).
![The electron distribution function $f(v,t)$ and the spectral energy density of Langmuir waves $W(v,t)$ at various times, for the case where the plasma density decreases with distance, $L_0=-5\times 10^9$cm. Numerical solution of kinetic equations (\[k1\],\[k2\]) $n'=100$cm$^{-3}$, $v_0=1.0\times 10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig1"}](ms1121f1.eps){width="90mm"}
The numerical solution of equations (\[k1\],\[k2\]) with the initial electron distribution function (\[g\_0\]) is presented in fig. \[fig1\]. Comparing the numerical results and the simplified solution (\[w1\]) we see a good agreement (see fig. \[fig1\]). The plateau for a wide range of velocities is formed after a short time, $t=0.1$s, and it remains almost unchanged up to the end of the calculation. For the time $t>0.1$s, the drift of the Langmuir wave spectrum toward smaller phase velocities becomes observable. At $t=0.5$s, the maximum phase velocity is half of the initial beam velocity.
Plasma density increasing with distance
---------------------------------------
An increasing plasma density leads to a shift toward larger phase velocities. For $v>v_0$ we have a negative derivative at the edge of the electron distribution function, and electrons absorb waves with the corresponding phase velocities. Absorption of waves then leads to acceleration of particles. This process continues until all the waves generated during the beam relaxation are absorbed by the electrons.
In the case of increasing density we are unable to find an exact solution, but we can find the solution for $t\rightarrow \infty$. Using conservation of energy ([@Ryutov69]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e_cons}
\omega _{pe}\int_0^{u(t)}\frac{W(v,t)}{v^2}dv +
\int_0^{u(t)}\frac{mn'}{2u(t)}v^2dv \cr
=\frac m2 \int_0^{v_0}g_0(v)v^2dv\end{aligned}$$ and that the fact $W(v,t)=0$ at $t\rightarrow \infty$ we can find the maximum velocity for the initial distribution function (\[g\_0\]) $$\label{u_max}
u(t\rightarrow \infty) =\sqrt{3/2}v_0$$
![The electron distribution function $f(v,t)$ and the spectral energy density of Langmuir waves $W(v,t)$ at various times for the case where the plasma density increases with distance, $L_0=5\times 10^9$cm. Numerical solution of kinetic equations (\[k1\],\[k2\]) $n'=100$cm$^{-3}$, $v_0=1.0\times 10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig2"}](ms1121f2.eps){width="90mm"}
As predicted, the numerical solution tends to the maximum velocity $\approx 1.22v_0$ (fig. \[fig2\]). As in the previous case, at $t=0.1$s we have the result of quasilinear relaxation - a plateau in the electron distribution function and a high level of Langmuir waves. For times $t>0.1$s, the drift of Langmuir waves and consequent acceleration of electrons is observable. At $t=1$s almost all plasma waves are observed near the leading edge of the plateau and the maximum plateau velocity is close to the value given by (\[u\_max\]).
Propagation of an electron cloud
================================
In this section the numerical results of the evolution of the electron beam in the plasma with density fluctuations are presented. We begin with the case where the ambient density fluctuations in the plasma are periodic and sine-like. The dependency of plasma density on distance is $$\label{sin}
n(x)= n_0(1+\alpha \mbox{sin}(x/\Delta x))$$ where $\Delta x$ defines the period of the density fluctuations and $\alpha n_0$ is the amplitude of the density irregularities. The background plasma density is taken as a typical value for the starting frequencies of type III bursts $n_0=5\times
10^8$ cm$^{-3}$, corresponding to a local plasma frequency $f_p=\omega _{pe}/2\pi=200.73$MHz. As noted, small-intensity density fluctuation are considered, i.e. the local plasma frequency change due to the inhomogeneity is less than the thermal width of the plasma frequency (\[delta\_n\]). The value $\alpha$ is taken to be $10^{-3}$, which is considered to be a typical value for solar coronal observations ([@Cronyn72]; [@Smith79]). The spatial period of the plasma fluctuations $\Delta x=d/12$ is taken to be less than the initial size of the electron cloud. Thus, we have regions of size $\pi d/12\approx
0.26d$ with positive and negative density gradients. Recently, it has been shown that an electron beam can propagate in a homogeneous plasma as a BPS ([@Melnik99]; [@Melnik00]; [@Melnik00a]). Therefore, it is important to consider the dynamics of the electron beams at distances greatly exceeding the size of the electron cloud.
Initial evolution of the electron beam and formation of a BPS
-------------------------------------------------------------
At the initial time $t=0$ we have an electron distribution function which is unstable. Due to fast quasilinear relaxation, electrons form a plateau in the electron distribution function and generate a high level of plasma waves. At time $t=0.1$s, the typical result of quasilinear relaxation is observed. The electron distribution function and the spectral energy density evolve in accordance with the gas-dynamic solution ([@Melnik95]; [@Melnik00a]) $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle f(v,x,t) =\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \frac{n'}{v_0}\mbox{exp}\left(-\frac{(x-v_0t/2)^2}{d^2}\right),
&\mbox{$v<v_0$}\\
0,&\mbox{$v>v_0$}
\end{array}
\right. \label{f_hom}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w_hom} W(v,x,t)=\frac{mn'}{v_0\omega _{pe}}v^4
\left[1-\frac{v}{v_0}\right]
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\cr
\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;
\times\mbox{exp}\left(-\frac{(x-v_0t/2)^2}{d^2}\right), \;\;v<v_0\end{aligned}$$ At this stage the influence of the plasma inhomogeneity is not observable.
The numerical solution of the kinetic equations and the gas-dynamic solution show that electrons propagate in a plasma accompanied by a high level of plasma waves. Since the plasma waves exist at a given point for some time, while the structure passes this point, the spectrum of the waves should change due to the wave movement. To understand the physics of the process we consider the evolution of the electron distribution function and the spectral energy density of Langmuir waves at a given point.
The electron distribution function and the spectral energy density of plasma waves
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At every spatial point we observe two physical processes. The first process is connected with the spatial movement of a BPS, as would be the case for a homogeneous plasma ([@Melnik00]; [@Melnik00a]). The second process is the influence of plasma inhomogeneity on the Langmuir waves. Depending on the sign of the density gradient, the Langmuir wave spectrum takes on a different form.
Consider the time evolution of the electron distribution function and the spectral energy density of Langmuir waves at two close points $x=15.2d$ and $x=15.47d$ (see fig. \[fig3\]). The first point is chosen in the region with increasing density and the second in the region where the density decreases with distance. The first particles arrive to these points at approximately $t\sim
1.9$s. The arriving electrons form a plateau in the electron distribution function and generate a high level of plasma waves for the time of quasilinear relaxation $\tau \approx 0.01$ s.
![The electron distribution function $f(v,x,t)$ and the spectral energy density of Langmuir waves $W(v,x,t)$ at $x=15.2d$ and at $x=15.47d$. Numerical solution of kinetic equations for a plasma with sine-like density fluctuations (\[sin\]) $n'=100$cm$^{-3}$, $v_0=1.0\times 10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](ms1121f3a.eps "fig:"){width="90mm"} ![The electron distribution function $f(v,x,t)$ and the spectral energy density of Langmuir waves $W(v,x,t)$ at $x=15.2d$ and at $x=15.47d$. Numerical solution of kinetic equations for a plasma with sine-like density fluctuations (\[sin\]) $n'=100$cm$^{-3}$, $v_0=1.0\times 10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](ms1121f3b.eps "fig:"){width="90mm"}
The movement of the particles leads to the growth of the plateau height at the front of the structure for $1.9\mbox{ s}<t<2.7\mbox{
s}$. Due to the fact that at the front of the structure electrons come with a positive derivative, $\partial f/\partial v
>0$, the level of plasma waves also increases. When the peak of the plateau height is reached at $t\approx 2.7$s the reverse process takes place. The plateau height decreases and the arriving electrons have a negative derivative $\partial
f/\partial v <0$ that leads to absorption of waves. The growth and decrease of the plateau height and the level of plasma waves is typical for a homogeneous plasma ([@Melnik00a]). However, while the structure passes a given point the spectrum of Langmuir waves experiences the change. This change depends on the sign of the plasma density gradient. In the region with decreasing density ($x=15.47d$) the Langmuir waves have a negative shift in velocity space while the growing plasma density ($x=15.2d$) supplies a positive shift in phase velocity of the plasma waves. At the point with the positive gradient, the Langmuir waves shifted in phase velocity space are effectively absorbed by the electrons while the negative plasma gradient does not lead to the absorption of waves. This behavior results in different levels of plasma waves at two very close points with the opposite density-gradient sign.
Figure \[fig3\] demonstrates the existence of accelerated electrons with $v>v_0$. These electrons are accelerated by Langmuir waves in the regions with positive plasma-density gradient. Electrons with velocity larger than the initial beam velocity have been observed in laboratory plasma experiments. This effect was also considered from an analytical standpoint by ([@Ryutov69]) in application to laboratory plasmas.
Dynamics of electrons and accompanying Langmuir waves
-----------------------------------------------------
The processes of wave generation at the front and absorption at the back take place at every spatial point and therefore the structure can travel over large distances, being the source of plasma waves ([@Kontar98]; [@Melnik99]; [@Melnik00a]).
At time $t=5.0$s, electrons accompanied by Langmuir waves have passed over a large distance but the general physical picture remains the same (fig. \[fig4\]). Generally, electrons and Langmuir waves propagate as a BPS. At every spatial point electrons form a plateau at the electron distribution function and we have a high level of plasma waves. The electron cloud has a maximum of the electron density at $x=27d$. Plasma waves are also concentrated in this region and the maximum of Langmuir wave density is located at the maximum of electron density $x=27d$. The spectrum of Langmuir waves has a maximum close to $v\approx
0.8v_0$. The spatial profile, averaged over the plasma inhomogeneity period, is close to the result obtained for a homogeneous plasma.
![The electron distribution function $f(v,x,t)$ and the spectral energy density of Langmuir waves $W(v,x,t)$ at $t=5.0$s. Numerical solution of the kinetic equations with sine-like density fluctuations (\[sin\]) $n'=100$cm$^{-3}$, $v_0=1.0\times 10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](ms1121f4a.eps "fig:"){width="90mm"} ![The electron distribution function $f(v,x,t)$ and the spectral energy density of Langmuir waves $W(v,x,t)$ at $t=5.0$s. Numerical solution of the kinetic equations with sine-like density fluctuations (\[sin\]) $n'=100$cm$^{-3}$, $v_0=1.0\times 10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](ms1121f4b.eps "fig:"){width="90mm"}
However, the spatial profile of Langmuir waves has a fine structure that can be seen in fig. \[fig5\]. The Langmuir waves are grouped into clumps (the regions with high level of plasma waves, following the terminology of ([@Smith79])). The size of a clump is determined by the spatial size of the density fluctuations and is equal to half of the density fluctuation period $\pi d/12\approx 0.26 d$. The maxima of Langmuir wave density are located in regions of negative plasma-density gradient and the regions with low levels of Langmuir turbulence are where the density gradient is positive.
![Detailed picture of the electron distribution function $f(v,x,t)$ and the spectral energy density of Langmuir waves $W(v,x,t)$ at $t=5.0$s. Numerical solution of kinetic equations with sine-like density fluctuations (\[sin\]) $n'=100$cm$^{-3}$, $v_0=1.0\times 10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig5"}](ms1121f5a.eps "fig:"){width="90mm"} ![Detailed picture of the electron distribution function $f(v,x,t)$ and the spectral energy density of Langmuir waves $W(v,x,t)$ at $t=5.0$s. Numerical solution of kinetic equations with sine-like density fluctuations (\[sin\]) $n'=100$cm$^{-3}$, $v_0=1.0\times 10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig5"}](ms1121f5b.eps "fig:"){width="90mm"}
The other interesting result is that while the Langmuir wave distribution is determined by the irregularities of ambient plasma the electron distribution function is a smooth function of distance (see fig. \[fig5\]). The electrons in the structure propagate as a continuous stream, being slightly perturbed by the density fluctuations. The influence of plasma inhomogeneity on electron distribution is observed in the appearance of accelerated particles with $v>v_0$ and the fact that the maximum plateau velocity is slightly decreasing with time during the course of beam-plasma passing a given point (fig. \[fig3\]). The accelerated electrons tend to accumulate at the front of the structure and the electrons decelerated concentrate at the back of the structure.
The energy distribution of waves
--------------------------------
The energy distribution of waves $$\label{we}
E_w(x,t)=\int_0^{\infty}Wdk=\omega_{pe}\int_0^{v_0}\frac{W(v,x,t)}{v^2}dv$$ is presented in fig. \[e\_sin\], where $E_0=mn'v_0^2/4$ is the initial beam energy. The energy distribution explicitly shows the correlation between the plasma and wave energy-density fluctuations. The regions of decreasing plasma density have higher levels of Langmuir turbulence than the corresponding regions with increasing plasma density. The energy distribution of waves appears to be modulated by the ambient plasma density fluctuations. On the other hand, the wave energy density distribution averaged over the period of density fluctuations has a spatial profile close to that in a homogeneous plasma. The maximum of wave energy together with the maximum of electron density propagate with the constant velocity $\approx 0.5v_0$.
![The energy density of plasma waves $E(x)$ at various times and the local plasma frequency $f_p(x)$ (\[sin\]) as a function of distance at various times. The bold line shows the numerical solution for homogeneous plasma. Numerical solution of kinetic equations $n'=100$cm$^{-3}$, $v_0=1.0\times 10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="e_sin"}](ms1121f6.eps){width="90mm"}
The other physical effect that should be noted is the energy losses by the structure in the form of Langmuir waves. In figs. \[fig4\],\[e\_sin\] we see that there is a small but non-zero level of plasma waves behind the beam-plasma structure. These waves are also concentrated into clumps in the regions where the plasma gradient is negative. To explain why the structure leaves the plasma waves we note the negative shift in phase velocity of Langmuir waves in the regions with a decreasing density. Due to this shift we have more waves with low phase velocity than the electrons are able to absorb at the back. As a result the low velocity waves form a “trace” of the structure ([@Kontar01]).
As was discussed previously, the quasilinear time is small but finite value. Therefore, the BPS experiences spatial expansion ([@Kontar98]). The initial width-at-half-height of the structure is less than $2d$ whereas the spatial width of the structure at $t=5.0$s is about $5d$. Most of the energy and the majority of particles are concentrated within the width of the structure. Since the quasilinear time depends on the beam density, the quasilinear time for the particles far from the center of the structure is much larger than for the structure electrons. In these regions we can observe the situation where the influence of the plasma inhomogeneity is comparable with the quasilinear time. Indeed, in the tail of the structure we have regions with zero level of waves (where the Langmuir waves are absorbed by electrons when the plasma density increases) and regions with Langmuir waves (where plasma density is decreasing).
Pseudo-random fluctuations of density
-------------------------------------
There is special interest in the case where the density fluctuations are random, which looks like the case for a solar coronal plasma. A pseudo-random distribution of density fluctuations can be easily built by summing $N$ sine-like perturbations with random amplitude, phase, and period $$\label{random}
n(x)= n_0(1+ \sum \limits_{i=1}^{N}\alpha _i \mbox{sin}(x/\Delta x_i+\varphi _i))$$ where $n_0\alpha_i$, $\Delta x_i$, $\varphi _i$ are the amplitude, period and phase of a given sine-like density oscillations respectively. The values are chosen in the range to ensure the applicability of the kinetic equations. Thus, $0<\alpha_i\leq
0.001$, $d/2\leq \Delta x_i\leq d/12$, $0<\varphi _i\leq2\pi$, $N=10$ are taken for the numerical calculations. The resulting density profile can be seen in fig. \[fig7\].
The spatial distribution of waves has now more complex structure (fig. \[fig7\]). However, all the main results obtained for sine-like density fluctuations are also observed for pseudo-random density fluctuations (\[random\]). Firstly, the electron stream propagates in a plasma as a BPS. Secondly, observing the energy density profile of Langmuir waves one can see the clumps of Langmuir waves. The size of the clumps is determined by the size of the regions with negative density gradient. The electron distribution function of beam electrons remains smooth as in the previous case with sine-like density oscillations.
![The spectral energy density of Langmuir waves $W(v,x,t)$, the energy density of plasma waves $E(x)$ at $t=5.0$s, and the local plasma frequency $f_p(x)$ (\[random\]) as functions of distance. Numerical solution of kinetic equations with random density fluctuations (\[random\]) $n'=100$cm$^{-3}$, $v_0=1.0\times 10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig7"}](ms1121f7a.eps "fig:"){width="90mm"} ![The spectral energy density of Langmuir waves $W(v,x,t)$, the energy density of plasma waves $E(x)$ at $t=5.0$s, and the local plasma frequency $f_p(x)$ (\[random\]) as functions of distance. Numerical solution of kinetic equations with random density fluctuations (\[random\]) $n'=100$cm$^{-3}$, $v_0=1.0\times 10^{10}$cm s$^{-1}$.[]{data-label="fig7"}](ms1121f7b.eps "fig:"){width="90mm"}
The dependence of wave energy density on the amplitude of the density fluctuations is of special interest. From equation (\[eqk2\]) it follows that a Langmuir wave propagating with the group velocity $v_{gr}=3v_{Te}^2/v$ over the distance $\Delta l$ experiences a shift of phase velocity $$\label{delta_v}
\Delta v \approx \frac{v^2}{Lv_{gr}}\Delta l.$$ Using the density profile (\[sin\]) and estimating $L\approx
\Delta l/\alpha$ one derives that $$\label{delta_v2}
\frac{\Delta v}{v} \approx \frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{v}{v_{Te}}\right)^2\alpha$$ where we obtain, for our parameters, a phase velocity shift $\leq
0.1 v$. Expression (\[delta\_v2\]) also demonstrates that the shift of the wave phase velocity linearly depends on the amplitude of the density fluctuations. Therefore, in the case with an arbitrary amplitude of the density fluctuations, the higher the amplitude of the plasma inhomogeneity the larger the variations of the wave energy distribution. This tendency can be observed in fig. \[fig7\].
Main results and discussion
===========================
From a physical point of view it is interesting to consider the physical processes which lead to the reported results. As we see, the main physical effect, which leads to a complex spatial distribution of waves, is the shift of the phase velocity $\Delta
v$ due to the wave movement. The growth rate of beam-plasma instability $$\gamma (x)=\frac{\pi
\omega_{pe}}{n}v^2\frac{\partial f}{\partial v}, \label{increment}$$ also depends on distance. However, this dependency of the instability increment on local plasma density is negligible. At every spatial point we have a plateau with $\partial f/\partial
v\approx 0$ and the value of $\partial f/\partial v$ is determined by the dynamics of a BPS not by the local plasma density. Therefore, the shift in phase velocity dominates the effect of instability increment dependency on distance. Indeed, if we manually exclude the terms connected with the velocity shift of the Langmuir waves, the spatial profile of waves will become smooth and the solution will be close to that obtained in the case of uniform plasma. This result agrees well with the qualitative results of ([@Coste75]).
For application to the theory of type III bursts, special interest is presented by a combination of the two main properties of the solutions.
On one hand, the electron beam can propagate in a plasma over large distances, and is a source of a high level of Langmuir waves. A portion of these Langmuir waves can easily be transformed into observable radio emission via nonlinear plasma processes ([@Ginzburg58]). At a scale much greater than the size of the beam, electrons and Langmuir waves propagate as a BPS that may be the source of type III bursts. The BPS propagates in inhomogeneous plasma with velocity $\approx v_0/2$ that can explain the almost-constant speed of the type III source. The finite size of the structure, the spatial expansion of the structure, and conservation of the particle number, are promising results for the theory of type III bursts.
On the other hand, plasma inhomogeneity brings additional results. The spatial distribution of Langmuir wave energy is extremely spikey and the distribution of waves is fully determined by the fluctuations of the ambient plasma density. This fact is in good agreement with satellite observations ([@Robinson92c]). Moreover, following the plasma emission model, one obtains the fine structure of the radio emission.
At distances about $1$AU the quasilinear time might have a large value and the characteristic time of a wave velocity shift could be comparable to the quasilinear time. Therefore, the region of growing plasma density may lead to the suppression of quasilinear relaxation, whereas, in regions with a decreasing density, relaxation is found. Thus the Langmuir waves might be generated in only those spatial regions where the plasma gradient is less than or equal to zero. Indeed, in the tails of a beam-plasma structure the electron beam density is low and Langmuir waves are only observed in certain regions with non-positive density gradient.
Summary
=======
In this paper the dynamics of a spatially bounded electron beam has been considered. Generally, the solution of the kinetic equations present a BPS. The structure moves with approximately constant velocity $\approx v_0/2$ and tends to conserve the number of particles. As in case of uniform plasma, electrons form a plateau and generate a high level of plasma waves at every spatial point.
However, small-scale inhomogeneity in the ambient plasma leads to significant changes in the spatial distribution of Langmuir waves. It is found that low intensity oscillations perturb the spatial distribution of Langmuir waves whereas the electron distribution function remains a smooth function of distance. The other interesting fact is that the distribution of waves is determined by the distribution of plasma inhomogeneities. The energy density of Langmuir waves has maxima and minima in the regions with positive and negative density gradient respectively.
Nevertheless, more detailed analysis is needed. One needs to include radio emission processes in order to calculate the observational consequences of the model in greater detail. The other challenge is the detailed comparison of such numerical results with satellite observations near the Earth’s orbit.
Author is extremely thankful to C. Rosenthal for his kind help in the manuscript preparation.
[111]{}
Benz, A.O., Zlobec, P., and Jaeggi, M.: 1982, [ A&A]{} [**109**]{}, 305.
Benz, A.O., Csillaghy, A., and Aschwanden, M.J.: 1996, [A&A]{} [**309**]{}, 291.
Cairns, I.H. and Robinson, P.A.: 1995, [Geophys. Res. Lett.]{} [**22**]{}, 3437.
Chaizy, P., Pick, M., Reiner, M. Anderson, K.A. Phillips, J., and Forsyth, R.: 1995, [A&A]{} [**303**]{}, 583.
Churaev, R.S. & Agapov, A.V.: 1980 [Sov. J. Plasma Physics]{} [**6**]{} 232
Coste, J.,Reinisich, G., Silevitch, M.B., and Montes, C.: 1975, [ Phys. Fluids]{} [**18**]{}, 679.
Cronyn, W.M.: 1972, [ ApJ]{} [**171**]{}, L101.
Ginzburg, V.L., and Zheleznyakov, V.V.: 1958, [ Sov. Astron. J.]{} [**2**]{}, 653.
Gopalswamy, N.: 1993, [Ap. J.]{} [**402**]{}, 326.
Grognard, R.J.-M.: 1985, [In Solar Radiophysics]{} ed. McLean, N.J.,Labrum, N.R., Cambridge Univ. Press, 289.
Goldman, M.V., and DuBois, D.F.: 1982, [Phys. Fluids]{} [**25**]{}, 1062.
Hishikawa, K., and Ryutov, D.D.: 1976, [ J. of The Phys. Soc. of Japan]{} [**41**]{}, 1757.
Kontar, E.P., Lapshin, V.I., Mel’nik, V.N.: 1998, [ Plasma Phys. Rep.]{} [**24**]{}, 772.
Kontar, E.P.: 2001, [Plasma Phys. & Control. Fusion]{} [**43**]{}, 589.
Lin R.P., Potter, D.W., Gurnett, D.A., and Scarf, F.L.: 1981, [ApJ]{} [**251**]{}, 364.
Magelssen, G.R., Smith, D.F.: 1977, [Sol. Phys.]{} [**55**]{}, 211.
Mel’nik, V.N.: 1995, [ Plasma Phys. Rep.]{} [**21**]{}, 89.
Mel’nik, V.N. Lapshin, V.I., Kontar, E.P.: 1999, [ Sol. Phys.]{} [**184**]{}, 353.
Mel’nik, V.N. Kontar, E.P. and Lapshin, V.I.: 2000, [ Sol. Phys.]{} [**196**]{}, 199.
Mel’nik, V.N., and Kontar, E.P.: 2000, [ New Astron.]{} [**5**]{}, 35.
Melrose, D.B., Dulk, G.A., and Cairns, I.H.: 1986, [A&A]{} [**163**]{}, 229.
Melrose, D.B., and Goldman, M.V.: 1987, [Sol. Phys.]{} [**107**]{}, 329.
Melrose, D.B.: 1990, [Sol. Phys.]{} [**130**]{}, 3.
Muschietti, L., Goldman, M.V. and Newman, D.: 1985, [ Sol. Phys.]{} [**96**]{}, 181.
Papadopoulos,K., Goldstein,M.L., and Smith, R.A.: 1974, [ ApJ]{} [**190**]{}, 175.
Robinson, P.A., Cairns, I.H., Garnett, D.A.: 1992, [ ApJ]{} [**387**]{}, L101.
Robinson, P.A.: 1992, [Sol. Phys.]{} [**139**]{}, 147.
Robinson, P.A. and Cairns, I.H.: 1993, [ ApJ]{} [**418**]{}, 506.
Ryutov, D.D.: 1969, [ JETP]{} [**57**]{}, 232.
Ryutov, D.D. and Sagdeev, R.Z.: 1970, [ JETP]{} [**58**]{}, 739.
Smith, D.F., and Sime, D.: 1979, [ ApJ]{} [**233**]{}, 998.
Sturrock, P.A.: 1964 AAS-NASA Symposium on Physics of Solar Flares, ed. W.N. Hess (NASA SP-50), 357.
Suzuki, S., & Dulk, G. A.: 1985 Bursts of Type III and Type V [ In Solar Radiophysics]{} ed. McLean N. J. ,Labrum N. R. Cambridge University Press, 289.
Takakura, T. and Shibahashi, H.: 1976, [ Sol. Phys.]{} [**46**]{}, 323.
Takakura, T.: 1982, [ Sol. Phys.]{} [**78**]{}, 141.
Thejappa, G.T. and MacDowall, R.J.: 1998, [ApJ]{} [**498**]{}, 465.
Vedenov, A.A., Gordeev, A.V., and Rudakov, L.I.: 1967, [ Plasma Phys.]{} [**9**]{}, 719
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using a series of high-resolution N-body simulations of the concordance cosmology we investigate how the formation histories, shapes and angular momenta of dark-matter haloes depend on environment. We first present a classification scheme that allows to distinguish between haloes in clusters, filaments, sheets and voids in the large-scale distribution of matter. This method (which goes beyond a simple measure of the local density) is based on a local-stability criterion for the orbits of test particles and closely relates to the Zel’dovich approximation. Applying this scheme to our simulations we then find that: [*i)*]{} Mass assembly histories and formation redshifts strongly depend on environment for haloes of mass $M<M_*$ (haloes of a given mass tend to be older in clusters and younger in voids) and are independent of it for larger masses ($M_*$ here indicates the typical mass scale which is entering the non-linear regime of perturbation growth); [*ii)*]{} Low-mass haloes in clusters are generally less spherical and more oblate than in other regions; [*iii)*]{} Low-mass haloes in clusters have a higher median spin than in filaments and present a more prominent fraction of rapidly spinning objects; we identify recent major mergers as a likely source of this effect. For all these relations, we provide accurate functional fits as a function of halo mass and environment. We also look for correlations between halo-spin directions and the large-scale structures: the strongest effect is seen in sheets where halo spins tend to lie within the plane of symmetry of the mass distribution. Finally, we measure the spatial auto-correlation of spin directions and the cross-correlation between the directions of intrinsic and orbital angular momenta of neighbouring haloes. While the first quantity is always very small, we find that spin-orbit correlations are rather strong especially for low-mass haloes in clusters and high-mass haloes in filaments.'
author:
- |
Oliver Hahn$^{1}$, Cristiano Porciani$^{1}$, C. Marcella Carollo$^{1}$ and Avishai Dekel$^{2}$\
$^{1}$ETH Zürich, 8093 Zürich, Switzerland\
$^{2}$Racah Institute of Physics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
date: 'MNRAS in press.'
nocite: '[@Doro70; @Shen06]'
title: 'Properties of Dark Matter Haloes in Clusters, Filaments, Sheets and Voids'
---
\[firstpage\]
cosmology: theory, dark matter, large-scale structure of Universe – galaxies: haloes – methods: N-body simulations
Introduction
============
Numerical simulations and analytical work have shown that the gravitational amplification of small density fluctuations leads to a wealth of structures resembling the observed large-scale distribution of galaxies. The resulting mass density distribution can be thought of as a “cosmic web” [@Bond96] characterised by the presence of structures with different dimensionality. Most of the volume resides in low-density regions (voids) which are surrounded by thin denser sheets of matter. A network of filaments of different sizes and density contrasts departs from the sheets and visually dominates the mass distribution. Dense clumps of matter lie at the intersections of filaments. From the dynamical point of view, matter tends to flow out of the voids, transit through the sheets and finally accrete onto the largest clumps through the filaments.
In a Universe dominated by cold dark matter (CDM), this description applies only after coarse-graining the density distribution on scales of a few Mpc. On smaller scales, the power in the primordial spectrum ends up producing a hierarchical distribution of (virialised) dark-matter haloes whose positions trace the large-scale structure described above. According to the current cosmological paradigm, galaxies form within these haloes.
Astronomical observations show that galaxy properties in the local Universe vary systematically with environment [e.g. @Dressler80; @Kauffmann04; @Blanton05]. As a fundamental step towards understanding galaxy formation it is thus important to establish how the properties of dark-matter haloes depend on the environment in which they reside. A first attempt in this direction was made by [@Lemson1999] who found that mass is the only halo property that correlates with environment at variance with concentration, spin, shape and formation epoch. Using marked statistics, [@Sheth2004] found evidence that haloes of a given mass form earlier in dense regions. Higher resolution simulations confirmed this finding and helped to better quantify it as a function of halo mass and redshift [@Gao2005; @Croton06; @Harker2006; @Reed06; @Maulbetsch06]. At the same time it has become clear that also other halo properties as concentration and spin correlate with local environment [@AvilaReese2005; @Wechsler05; @Bett06; @Maccio06; @Wetzel06].
Although the large-scale structure of matter is prominently reflected in the halo distribution, no efficient automated method has been proposed to associate a given halo to the dynamical structure it belongs to. Most of the environmental studies mentioned above use the local mass density within a few Mpc as a proxy for environment. In this paper we follow a novel approach and associate dark-matter haloes to structures with different dynamics. [*Voids*]{}, [*sheets*]{}, [*filaments*]{} and [*clusters*]{} are distinguished based on a stability criterion for the orbit of test particles which is inspired by the Zel’dovich approximation [@Zeldovich70]. Our method is accurate, fast, efficient and contains only one free parameter which fixes the spatial resolution with which the density field has to be smoothed (as in the evaluation of the density). We show that any classification based on local density is degenerate with respect to ours which we regard as more fundamental. We find that [*all*]{} halo properties at zero redshift show some dependence on the dynamical environment in which they reside. We accurately quantify this dependence and show that halo properties smoothly change when one moves from voids to sheets, then to filaments and finally to clusters. Redshift evolution of these trends will be investigated in future work.
This paper is organised as follows. In Section \[sec:Nbody\], we briefly describe the N-body simulations we use and how we compute a number of halo properties. The method for the identification of the halo environment is presented in Section \[sec:Classification\] together with a number of tests that show how well the method performs. Our main results on the environmental dependence of the halo properties are given in Section \[main\]. Finally, Section \[conclusions\] summarises the main conclusions that we draw from our work.
N-Body Simulations {#sec:Nbody}
==================
We used the tree-PM code GADGET-2 [@Springel2005] to follow the formation and the evolution of the large-scale structure in a flat $\Lambda$CDM cosmology. We have assumed the matter density parameter $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.25$, with a baryonic contribution $\Omega_{\rm b}=0.045$, and the present-day value for the Hubble constant $H_0=100 h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, with $h=0.73$. In particular, we performed three N-body simulations, each containing $512^3$ dark matter particles in periodic boxes of size $L_1=45\, h^{-1}$ Mpc, $L_2=90\, h^{-1}$ Mpc and $L_3=180\,h^{-1}$ Mpc. The corresponding particle masses are $4.7\times 10^7\,h^{-1}M_\odot$, $3.8\times 10^8\,h^{-1}M_\odot$ and $3.0\times 10^9\,h^{-1}M_\odot$, respectively. The simulations follow the evolution of Gaussian density fluctuations characterised by a scale-free initial power spectrum with spectral index $n=1$ and normalisation $\sigma_8=0.9$ (with $\sigma_8$ the rms linear density fluctuation within a sphere of $8 \,h^{-1}$ Mpc comoving radius). The initial conditions were generated using the GRAFIC2 tool [@Bertschinger2001] for the redshift $z$ at which the rms density fluctuation on the smallest resolvable scale in each box equals 0.1. This corresponds to $z\simeq 79, 65$ and 52 for $L_1, L_2$ and $L_3$ respectively. Particle positions and velocities were saved for 30 time-steps logarithmically spaced in expansion parameter $a$ between $z=10$ and $z=0$.
Halo identification and properties
----------------------------------
Virialised dark-matter haloes were identified using the standard friends-of-friends (FOF) algorithm with a linking length equal to $0.2$ times the mean inter-particle distance. We only considered haloes containing at least 300 particles, since virtually all of the halo properties we investigated show strong numerical artefacts when measured for less well resolved haloes. We found 13353, 16296 and 21041 of such haloes for $L_1$, $L_2$ and $L_3$, respectively. The most massive groups in the three simulations contain nearly $10^{6-7}$ particles and have masses $4.3\times 10^{14} h^{-1} M_\odot$, $7.6\times 10^{14} h^{-1} M_\odot$ and $2.2\times 10^{15} h^{-1} M_\odot$. Our catalog therefore spans five orders of magnitude in halo mass with high resolution haloes, ranging from the size of dwarf galaxies to massive clusters.
We characterised the mass assembly and merging history of the halos as follows. For each halo at redshift $z$, we identified a progenitor at $z_{\rm p}>z$ by intersecting the sets of their particles. The main progenitor was then chosen to be the most massive halo at each redshift that contributes at least 50 per cent of its particles to the final halo. We then defined the formation redshift $z_{\rm form}$ as the epoch at which a main progenitor which has at least half of the final mass first appears in the simulation and interpolated linearly between simulation snapshots in $\log z$ to find the point where exactly half of the mass is accumulated.
### Halo Shapes {#sec:HaloShapes}
In order to quantify the shape of FOF haloes, we determined their moment of inertia tensor, defined as $$I_{jk} \equiv m\sum_{i}\left(r_i^2\delta_{jk}-x_{i,j}x_{i,k}\right),$$ where $m$ is the particle mass, $r_i\equiv(x_{i,1},x_{i,2},x_{i,3})$ is the distance of the $i$-th particle from the centre of mass of the halo and $\delta_{jk}$ denotes the Kronecker symbol. The eigenvectors of ${\bf I}$ are related to the lengths of the principal axes of inertia $l_1\geq l_2\geq l_3$ [e.g. @Bett06]. We used the following dimensionless quantities $$S = \frac{l_3}{l_1}\qquad \textrm{and}\qquad
T = \frac{l_1^2-l_2^2}{l_1^2-l_3^2}$$ to measure sphericity and triaxiality of the haloes [e.g. @Franx1991; @Warren1992]. A spherical halo has $S=1$, a needle $S=0$, a prolate halo $T=1$ and an oblate one $T=0$.
### Halo Spin Parameter {#sec:SpinParam}
The spin parameter of a halo is a dimensionless quantity introduced by [@Peebles1969] that indicates the amount of ordered rotation compared to the internal random motions. For a halo of mass $M$ and angular momentum ${\mathbf J}$ it is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda & = & \frac{\left|\mathbf{J}\right|\,\left|E\right|^{1/2}}{GM^{5/2}},\end{aligned}$$ where the total energy $E=T+U$ with $T$ the kinetic energy of the halo after subtracting its bulk motion and $U$ the potential energy of the halo produced by its own mass distribution. Determining the potential energy of massive haloes is computationally expensive, so [@Bullock2001] introduced the alternative spin parameter $$\lambda^{\prime} \equiv \frac{\left|\mathbf{J}_{\rm vir}\right|}{\sqrt{2}M_{\rm vir}V_{\rm vir} R_{\rm vir}}.$$ Here all quantities with the subscript “vir” (angular momentum, mass and circular velocity) are computed within a sphere of radius $R_{\rm vir}$ which approximates the virial radius of the halo. As this quantity is not well defined for FOF groups, we took $R_{\rm vir}$ to be a fraction $\alpha$ of the maximum distance between a halo particle and the centre of mass. To accommodate possible fuzzy boundaries of the haloes, we chose a value of $\alpha=0.95$. We verified that the particular choice of $\alpha$ does not have an impact on the distribution of $\lambda^{\prime}$ and remains unchanged even when going as low as $\alpha=0.1$ [see also @Bullock2001]. Under the assumption that the halo is in dynamical equilibrium, $V_{\rm vir}^{2}=GM_{\rm vir}/R_{\rm vir}$, the spin parameter can be rewritten as $$\lambda^{\prime} = \frac{\left|\mathbf{J}_{\rm vir}\right|} {\sqrt{2GR_{\rm vir}} M_{\rm vir}^{3/2}}.$$ We found a spurious increase in $\lambda^{\prime}$ for haloes consisting of less than 250-300 particles. This numerical effect occurred for all of our three simulated boxes. The median spin $\lambda^{\prime}_{\rm med}$ is roughly 10 per cent higher for haloes with only 100 particles than for haloes consisting of more than 300 particles.
Orbit stability and environment {#sec:Classification}
===============================
Basic theory {#sec:ClassBasic}
------------
We use a simple stability criterion from the theory of dynamical systems to distinguish between haloes residing in clusters, filaments, sheets or voids. Consider a test particle moving in the peculiar gravitational potential, $\phi$, generated by a cosmological matter distribution frozen in time (e.g. no Hubble drag). The equation of motion in comoving coordinates for this test particle is $\ddot{\mathbf{x}} = -\mathbf{\nabla}\phi$, where the dot represents derivatives with respect to a fictitious time. Assuming that at the centre of mass of each halo $\bar{\mathbf{x}}_i$ the gravitational potential has a local extremum (i.e. $\mathbf{\nabla}\phi(\bar{\mathbf{x}}_i)=0$), the fixed points of the test particle equation of motion are exactly at the points $\bar{\mathbf{x}}_i$. We can thus linearise the equation of motion at the points $\bar{\mathbf{x}}_i$ and find the linear system $$\begin{aligned}
\ddot{x}_i & = & -T_{ij}(\bar\mathbf{x}_k)\,(x_j-\bar{x}_{k,j})\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the tidal field $T_{ij}$ is given by the Hessian of the gravitational potential $$\begin{aligned}
T_{ij}& \equiv & \partial_i\partial_j\,\phi\;. \end{aligned}$$ Thus the linear dynamics near local extrema of the gravitational potential is fully governed by the three (purely real, as $T_{ij}$ is symmetric) eigenvalues of the tidal field tensor. We use the number of positive eigenvalues of $T_{ij}$ to classify the four possible environments a halo may reside in. Note that the number of positive eigenvalues is equivalent to the dimension of the stable manifold at the fixed points. In analogy with Zel’dovich theory [@Zeldovich70], we define as
1. [*voids*]{} the region of space where $T_{ij}$ has no positive eigenvalues (unstable orbits);
2. [*sheets*]{} the set of points with one positive and two negative eigenvalues (1-dimensional stable manifold);
3. [*filaments*]{} the sites with two positive and one negative eigenvalue (2-dimensional stable manifold);
4. [*clusters*]{} the zones with three positive eigenvalues (attractive fixed points).
Dropping the assumption of local extrema of the gravitational potential at the centres of mass of the haloes introduces a constant acceleration term to the linearised equations of motion. This zeroth-order effect can be dispersed of by changing to free-falling coordinates. The deformation behaviour introduced by the first-order term, however, remains unchanged.
![ \[fig:StructureFraction\]The volume fraction being classified as clusters, filaments, sheets or voids for our $180\,h^{-1}$ Mpc box as a function of the smoothing scale $R_{\rm s}$. The vertical dotted line at $R_{\rm s}=2.1 h^{-1}$ Mpc indicates the smoothing scale adopted in this paper. The solid grey lines indicate the predicted volume fractions for a Gaussian random field [@Doro70]. For very large $R_{\rm s}$, the non-Gaussian density field of the simulations asymptotes to the predicted fractions of 42 per cent for sheets and filaments and 8 per cent for voids and clusters. Volume fractions are evaluated on a $128^3$ Cartesian subgrid.](Figures/TopoStat){width="45.00000%"}
Implementation
--------------
In order to determine the eigenspace structure of the tidal field tensor, we first compute the peculiar gravitational potential $\phi$ from the matter density distribution via Poisson’s equation $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla^2\phi & = & {4\pi G \,\bar{\rho}}\,\delta,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{\rho}$ and $\delta$ respectively denote the mean mass density of the universe and the overdensity field. For our N-body simulations, we solve Poisson’s equation using a fast Fourier transform on a grid of twice the particle resolution ($1024^3$ grid cells). The density field $\delta$ is obtained by using Cloud-In-Cell interpolation of the particles onto the grid and then smoothed using a Gaussian kernel $K_{R_{\rm s}}$. In this case, the smoothing length, $R_{\rm s}$, and the mean mass contained in the filter, $M_{\rm s}$, follow the relation $$\begin{aligned}
R_{\rm s} & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\left(\frac{M_{\rm s}}{\bar{\rho}}\right)^{1/3}\;.\end{aligned}$$ To solve Poisson’s equation on the grid, we apply the Green’s function $G^{(2)}$ of the symmetric 5-point finite difference operator that we later use to compute the tidal tensor. Altogether, we hence find the solution for the smoothed gravitational potential through the double convolution $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_{R_{\rm s}} & = & \delta\star K_{R_{\rm s}}\star G^{(2)}\;.\end{aligned}$$ We then apply the second derivative operator to $\phi_{R_{\rm s}}$ and get the diagonal components of the tidal tensor. For the off-trace components, we apply twice the symmetric first derivative operator in the corresponding coordinates. Although the second derivative operator cannot be produced from applying twice a symmetric first derivative operator, following this scheme ensures that the trace coincides with the smoothed overdensity to machine accuracy, while the off-trace components are indeed symmetric and are not suffering from a spurious self-potential. Finally, we compute the eigenspace structure of the tensor at each halo’s centre of mass.
{width="80.00000%"}
Optimisation {#sec:Optimisation}
------------
Our criterion for determining the halo environment contains one free parameter, namely the smoothing radius of the Gaussian kernel, $R_{\rm s}$. This corresponds to the typical length-scale over which we determine the dynamical stability of the orbits. The particular choice of $R_{\rm s}$ directly affects the local eigenstructure and thus changes the classification of environment. Smoothing on the scale of single haloes picks out each single halo as a stable cluster in the sense of the definition. In Figure \[fig:StructureFraction\] we show how the choice of $R_{\rm s}$ affects the fraction of the simulated volume classified in the four categories. These fractions continuously vary with $R_{\rm s}$, which implies that some haloes change their classification. For $R_{\rm s}\gg 10 h^{-1}$ Mpc, the density field becomes approximately Gaussian, and we observe convergence to the theoretical volume fractions of 42 per cent for sheets and filaments, and 8 per cent for voids and clusters (Doroshkevich 1970, see also Shen et al. 2006).\
To illustrate the transition of haloes between environment classes, in Figure \[fig:Transitionobjects\] we use a snapshot at $z=0$ to highlight the haloes that are assigned to different environments when the smoothing scale is changed from $2.1 \, h^{-1}$ Mpc to $4.5\, h^{-1}$ Mpc (corresponding to a change by a factor of 10 in $M_{\rm s}$). Basically, increasing the smoothing scale: [*i)*]{} increases the number of haloes in voids at the expenses of the surrounding sheets (panel b); [*ii)*]{} moves the thin filaments surrounding a thicker one from the sheet environment to the filament one (panel c); [*iii)*]{} moves the thin filaments surrounding a void from the filament environment to the sheet one (panel d); [*iv)*]{} increases the size of massive clusters located at the intersection of filaments at the expenses of the ending points of filaments themselves (panel e); [*v)*]{} moves the densest clumps located along filaments from the cluster environment to the filament one (panel f). Table \[matrix\] lists the fraction of the total number of haloes that are assigned to the 16 possible classifications with the two smoothing scales. The halos that contribute to the off-diagonal elements of this “transition matrix” typically live in regions where the tidal field has one nearly vanishing eigenvalue. In these transition regions, a modification of $R_{\rm s}$ can easily change the sign of this eigenvalue and thus the association of the corresponding halo to its environment. This results from using sharp boundaries (positive vs negative eigenvalues) to classify the different environments. Note that only a negligible fraction of the haloes inverts the sign of more than one eigenvalue of the tidal field when the smoothing scale is changed, indicating that our classification is indeed physical. Based on Figure \[fig:Transitionobjects\], we conclude that the combined use of two (or more) smoothing scales can be used to classify a larger variety of environments with respect to the basic four that can be found with a fixed resolution, and in particular to identify boundary regions that bridge between the basic four types. We will explore this potentiality of the orbit-stability method in future works. For simplicity, in this paper we only consider a single smoothing scale, $R_{\rm s}=2.1 \, h^{-1}$ Mpc (corresponding to $M_{\rm s}\approx10^{13} h^{-1} M_\odot$) which provides startling agreement between the outcome of the orbit-stability criterion and a visual classification of the large-scale structure. The resulting classification of halo environments is highlighted in the top-left panel of Figure \[fig:Transitionobjects\] using different colours. For $R_{\rm s}=2.1 \, h^{-1}$ Mpc, the volume fractions occupied by voids, sheets, filaments and clusters are, respectively, 13.5%, 53.6%, 31.2% and 1.7%. This suggests that we identify as voids just the inner parts of the most under-dense regions (see also Figure \[fig:DensityStat\]) and consider as sheets the volume-filling regions around them. At the same time, our clusters always contain haloes with a virial mass $M_{\rm vir}>10^{13} h^{-1} M_\odot$ and, in some cases, haloes with $M_{\rm vir}>10^{14} h^{-1} M_\odot$ and radius $R_{\rm vir}> 1\, h^{-1}$ Mpc (which are usually tagged as clusters). These haloes typically constitute the central parts of what we identify as clusters. By definition, our “cluster environment” extends to distances which are significantly larger than $R_{\rm vir}$ and also includes all the smaller haloes that are infalling onto or orbiting around the central one. For the value of $R_{\rm s}$ adopted in this paper, we find that “our” clusters have typical diameters of a few Mpc. We have tested that all our findings do not depend on the precise choice of $R_{\rm s}$.
void (L) sheet (L) filament (L) cluster (L)
-------------- ---------- ----------- -------------- -------------
void (S) 0.06 $<$0.01 0 0
sheet (S) 0.63 10.4 2.9 0.01
filament (S) 0.41 15.1 46.5 7.3
cluster (S) 0.02 1.9 8.7 5.8
: \[matrix\]Transition matrix for halo classification between smoothing at $M_{\rm s}=10^{13}M_{\odot}$, indicated by “(S)”, and $M_{\rm s}=10^{14}M_{\odot}$, indicated by “(L)”. Matrix entries are given in per cent of the total number of haloes. Non-diagonal elements represent haloes that change classification.
![ \[fig:DensityStat\]Volume weighted probability distribution of the local density for clusters, filaments, sheets and voids. Statistics have been obtained combining all three simulation volumes. Statistics weighted by halo abundance shifts the distributions to over-densities roughly a factor of 2 higher. Note that the stability criterion naturally finds “clusters” in the highest density regions and “voids” in the lowest and thus disambiguates any definition of environment that is solely based on density measures.](Figures/DeltaStat){width="45.00000%"}
Orbit stability vs density
--------------------------
Most of the work on the environmental dependence of halo properties has hitherto considered the local density as a measure of environment [e.g. @Lemson1999; @Maccio06; @Maulbetsch06]. Density corresponds to the trace of the tidal field tensor $T_{ij}$, and thus provides more limited information regarding the dynamical properties of the local flow compared to our classification, which is based on all three eigenvalues. In Fig. \[fig:DensityStat\] we show that local overdensity is largely degenerate relative to the four categories we derive from the eigenstructure. Density correlates with the dimension of the stable manifold, e.g. the median overdensity in each environment is -0.79, -0.55, 0.28 and 4.44 for voids, sheets, filaments and clusters, respectively. However, it is not possible to recover, from the density field, the more detailed environmental information that we derive from the tidal field tensor. A simple environmental classification that is based on density therefore mixes our halo populations.
Halo Properties and environment {#main}
===============================
In this section we present a detailed study of halo properties at $z=0$ as a function of the cluster, filament, sheet and void environment determined by our orbit stability criterion.
Mass function
-------------
![ \[fig:massfunction\] Mass function of the haloes residing in voids, sheets, filaments and clusters. Abundances in the whole box have been rescaled by the corresponding volume fractions. The solid grey line represents the total mass function, not split into environments. Haloes from all three simulations are included. The total mass function perfectly coincides with common analytic fits [e.g. @Jenkins01].](Figures/MassFunctionMS1000){width="45.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:massfunction\] presents the mass functions of the haloes residing in the different environments. The low-mass end has the same slope in all environments, but the position of the high-mass cutoff is a strong function of environment. The cluster mass function is top-heavy with respect to voids, while filaments and sheets lie in between. As expected, the mean halo density is higher in clusters and lower in voids. All this is in good qualitative agreement with the conditional mass function as a function of local density derived from analytic models [@BCEK; @Bower91].
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
Halo Shapes {#sec:Shapes}
-----------
![ \[fig:AssemblyHistory\]Median mass of the main progenitor of haloes in the mass range $5\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot} < M < 5\times10^{11}h{-1}M_{\odot}$ over redshift as a fraction of the mass at $z=0$ for the four different environments. The shaded area indicates the 1$\sigma$ spread of haloes in filament environments. The spread is slightly larger for haloes in clusters. The dotted grey line indicates where $z_{\rm form}$ is measured.](Figures/MassAcc){width="45.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:Shapes\] shows the median of the shape parameters $S$ and $T$ for haloes in filaments and clusters as a function of their mass (the void sample contains too few haloes and the sample for sheets shows an identical behaviour to the filaments). Only when requiring that haloes in the samples contain at least 500 particles we find convergence of the median shape parameters at the lower mass end. The overall mass dependence of $S$ and $T$ is in good agreement with previous studies [e.g. @Allgood06; @Altay06; @Bett06; @Maccio06]. @Allgood06 fit a power law to the median $S$ as a function of halo mass, while @Bett06 detect a change in slope at masses $M_c\approx2\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot$. This breakpoint $M_{\rm c}$ is present also in our findings. Interestingly, it coincides with the mass above which we do not find any significant dependence of the shape parameters on environment. Our results agree very well with the measured slopes of both fitting formulas for masses $M>M_{\rm c}$. @Bett06 argue that the offset of their fit with respect to @Allgood06 results from different halo finding algorithms which also explains why our haloes are slightly less spherical. We do not find evidence for decreasing sphericity at the low-mass end as indicated by @Bett06, based on haloes with less than 300 particles. However, we clearly detect a decrease in slope for halo masses $M<10^{12}h^{-1} M_\odot$ with respect to the fitting formula of @Allgood06.\
The vast dynamic range of our suite of simulations allows the unprecedented exploration of the low-mass end with high-resolution haloes (500 particles for a $2\times 10^{10} h^{-1}M_\odot$ halo). For masses in the range $2\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_\odot<M<M_c$ we detect a clear dependence on environment. Haloes residing in clusters tend to be less spherical and more prolate almost independently of mass. In contrast, haloes in filaments tend to be slightly more oblate as one might expect from accretion of matter onto the filament. The difference between the two classes are, however, small with respect to the intrinsic scatter. For masses $M<M_c$, our results are well described by a fit of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm med} & = & s_1\,+\,\frac{s_2}{100}\,\log_{10}\frac{M}{10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot}\\
T_{\rm med} & = & t_1\,+\,\frac{t_2}{100}\,\log_{10}\frac{M}{10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot}.\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\left. \begin{array}{rrl}
s_1 & = & 0.66\pm0.08,\\
s_2 & = & -3.6\pm0.7; \\
t_1 & = & 0.66\pm0.03,\\
t_2 & = & 2.4\pm0.24
\end{array} \right\} & \vspace{-6pt}\textrm{in filaments,} & \hspace{-5pt}M<M_{\rm c},\\
\left. \begin{array}{rrl}
s_1 & = & 0.64\pm0.05,\\
s_2 & = & -1.5\pm0.42; \\
t_1 & = & 0.69\pm0.03,\\
t_2 & = & 1.0\pm0.24
\end{array} \right\} & \vspace{-6pt}\textrm{in clusters,} & \hspace{-5pt}M<M_{\rm c},\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{\rm c}=2\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot$. These values are obtained with a robust iterative least-squares fit using a bisquare estimator.
Assembly history and formation redshift {#sec:FormationTimes}
---------------------------------------
In Figure \[fig:AssemblyHistory\] we show the assembly history of haloes with masses $5\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot} < M < 5\times10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ in the different environments. In particular, we plot the median mass of the main progenitor as a function of redshift at which it is identified. The shaded area indicates the central $1\sigma$ spread for haloes in the filament environment. Although haloes tend to assemble their mass earlier in clusters and later in voids, the effect is relatively small with respect to the intrinsic scatter. This is in very good agreement with the findings of @Maulbetsch06. These authors investigated the mass assembly history splitting the halo sample by density, smoothed on $4h^{-1}$Mpc. Their high density sample ($\delta>5$) roughly corresponds to our densest clusters, while the low density sample ($\delta<0$) includes voids, sheets and the lower density filaments.
![The median formation redshift $z_{\rm med}$ for haloes from our three simulated boxes as a function of their mass. Errorbars indicate the error in the median. The grey line indicates the result of a robust fit to the displayed medians. For masses below $5\times10^{12}h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$ we find a strong correlation with our definition of environment. The black lines indicate robust fits to the values for haloes with masses $M<5\times10^{12}h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$ that reside in the corresponding environments. The fit parameters for all environments are given in section \[sec:FormationTimes\].[]{data-label="fig:MassZForm_Median"}](Figures/MassZForm_Fit_AllEnvFits){width="45.00000%"}
![The distribution of formation redshifts for haloes with masses $2\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}<M<10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ split into our four environment categories. Note that there are many more haloes in filaments than in clusters in this mass range.[]{data-label="fig:ZFormPZForm"}](Figures/ZForm_PZForm){width="45.00000%"}
Both shape and scatter of the mass assembly curve depend strongly on the mass range at which they are evaluated. This points to a strong relation between the formation redshift of haloes, their mass and environment. In Figure \[fig:MassZForm\_Median\] we plot the median formation redshift $z_{\rm med}$ as a function of halo mass $M$ for the haloes from our three simulations. Errorbars are estimates of the error in the median computed as $$\Delta z_{\rm med} = \frac{z_{0.84}-z_{0.16}}{\sqrt{N_{\rm h}}},$$ where $z_{0.84}$ and $z_{0.16}$ denote the 84th and 16th percentile of the distribution of $z_{\rm form}$, corresponding to the $1\sigma$ spread if the underlying distribution were Gaussian, and $N_{\rm h}$ is the number of haloes used to sample the distribution. For four decades in mass, ranging from $10^{10}h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$ to $10^{14}h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$, we find a tight logarithmic relation between halo mass and formation redshift, reflecting the hierarchical structure formation paradigm. Results for all boxes agree very well when considering haloes of at least 300 particles. We fit a function of the form $$z_{\rm med} = c_1\,-\,c_2\,\log_{10}\frac{M}{10^{12}h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}}.
\label{eq:FitMassZForm}$$ The parameters given by a robust fit to all haloes from the three simulations are: $$\begin{aligned}
c_1 & = & 1.29\pm0.07, \\
c_2 & = & 0.312\pm0.006.\end{aligned}$$ For haloes with masses between $10^{10}h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$ and $\approx10^{12}h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$ we find that $z_{\rm med}$ strongly depends on environment. This dependence increases, the lower the mass of the haloes. Our results are in very good agreement with [@Sheth2004], [@Gao2005], [@Harker2006] and [@Reed06]. These authors found that haloes of given mass but different formation epochs show different clustering properties. In particular, they have shown that small-mass haloes with higher formation times cluster more strongly and are thus most likely associated to denser environments. For haloes with masses $M<5\times 10^{12}h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$ we again fitted relation (\[eq:FitMassZForm\]) separately for cluster, filament, sheet and void environments. The slope parameters $c_2$ are significantly different for the four environments. A robust fit to the data combined from all three simulations yields the fit parameters $$\begin{aligned}
%\begin{equation}
\begin{array}{lll}
\left. \begin{array}{rcl}
c_1 & = & 1.42\pm0.39 \\
c_2 & = & 0.54\pm0.03
\end{array} \right\} & \hspace{-6pt}\textrm{clusters, }&\hspace{-8pt}M<5\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot; \\
\left. \begin{array}{rcl}
c_1 & = & 1.30\pm0.04 \\
c_2 & = & 0.39\pm0.01
\end{array} \right\} & \hspace{-6pt}\textrm{filaments, }&\hspace{-8pt}M<5\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot;\\
\left. \begin{array}{rcl}
c_1 & = & 1.21\pm0.11 \\
c_2 & = & 0.28\pm0.01
\end{array} \right\} & \hspace{-6pt}\textrm{sheets, }&\hspace{-8pt}M<5\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot; \\
\left. \begin{array}{rcl}
c_1 & = & 1.36\pm0.48 \\
c_2 & = & 0.08\pm0.04
\end{array} \right\} & \hspace{-6pt}\textrm{voids, }&\hspace{-8pt}M<5\times10^{11}h^{-1}M_\odot.
\end{array}
%\end{equation}\end{aligned}$$ For $M>5\times10^{12}h^{-1}\,M_{\odot}$, we do not find any dependence on environment and the relation between $z_{\rm med}$ and halo mass is best fit by the relation for all haloes given above. The differences between the environments become even more significant when considering mean values of $z_{\rm form}$ instead of the medians due to the skewness of the formation redshift distributions in each mass bin. To illustrate this, we plotted in figure \[fig:ZFormPZForm\] the distribution of formation redshifts for haloes with masses $2\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}<M<10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ in the four environments. In very good agreement with @wang06, we find that the oldest haloes with $z_{\rm form}>3$ are relatively overrepresented in cluster environments. Thus, small mass haloes in the vicinity of clusters tend to be older, and there has to be some effect that prevents them from strong continuous accretion and major mergers in this environment. In absolute numbers, we find a comparable amount of these very old low mass haloes also in our filament environments, such that, to a lesser extent, a similar effect must be present in filaments. @wang06 suggest that the survival of these fossil haloes may be related to the “temperature” of the surrounding flow. It is evident from these findings, that this “temperature” would then strongly correlate with the dimension of the stable manifold in our classification of environment. The precise connection has to be investigated in future work, but it is conceivable that the higher the number of stable dimensions, the less coherent and more accelerated is the infall of surrounding matter, and the stronger the heating of dark matter random motion.
Halo Spin {#sec:HaloSpins}
---------
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
We investigate the dependence of the halo spin parameter $\lambda^\prime$ on environment. Figure \[fig:LambdaEnvMass\] shows the distribution of $\lambda^\prime$ in the mass ranges $5\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot} < M < 5\times10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ and $M>5\times 10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$. In the high-mass bin, the distribution of spin parameters is well approximated by a log-normal probability density function, $$p(\lambda^\prime) = \frac{1}{\lambda^\prime\,\sigma_{\lambda^\prime}\,\sqrt{2\pi}}\,\exp\left[ -\frac{\log^2\left( \lambda^\prime\,/\,\lambda^\prime_0 \right)}{2\,\sigma^2_{\lambda^\prime}}\right]\;,$$ with best-fitting parameters $\lambda^\prime_0=0.035$ and width $\sigma_{\lambda^{\prime}}=0.70$. However, for $M<5\times 10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, we find a tail of rapidly spinning haloes that is most prominent in clusters, and to a lesser extent in filaments. For the mass range $5\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot} < M < 5\times10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, we find good agreement of all environments with a log-normal distribution only for spin parameters $\lambda^{\prime}<0.1$. The fit parameters for $\lambda^{\prime}<0.1$ in the low mass regime are $\lambda^\prime_0=0.030$ and $\sigma_{\lambda^{\prime}}=0.61$. Our findings for the parameter $\lambda^{\prime}_0$ agree well with earlier findings [e.g. @Bullock2001; @Bett06]. At $\lambda^{\prime}\approx0.1$, however, we detect evidence for a departure from the log-normal distribution that is very well fit by a power-law behaviour. We find $$p(\lambda^{\prime}\,|\,\lambda^{\prime}>0.1) = 0.0012\,\lambda^{\prime\,-3.1}$$ for haloes in filaments and $$p(\lambda^{\prime}\,|\,\lambda^{\prime}>0.1) = 0.035\,\lambda^{\prime\,-1.8}$$ for haloes in clusters. This tail is almost independent of the assumed value of $\alpha$, i.e. the fraction of the virial radius within which $\lambda^{\prime}$ is determined. However, the environmental dependence of the spin distribution slightly decreases when only the very innermost parts of a halo are used to determine $\lambda^\prime$. We have also verified that the high-spin tail of the distribution is not affected by measurement errors of the halo spin, i.e. the statistics remains unaltered when only haloes containing $>1000$ particles are considered.
Our results appear to be in disagreement with [@AvilaReese2005] who found that haloes in clusters are less rapidly spinning than in the field. However, a direct comparison is problematic since [*a)*]{} we use a different halo finder algorithm, [*b)*]{} we do not consider sub-haloes (which likely suffer strong tidal stripping), and [*c)*]{} we use a different definition of the cluster environment. However, we agree well with their finding that the parameter $\sigma_{\lambda^{\prime}}$ of the log-normal fit is significantly larger for haloes in cluster environments than for haloes in under-dense regions.
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
[@Hetznecker06] have recently shown that the halo spin parameter increases significantly after a major merger, and relaxes to more standard values after 1-2 Gyr. The formation redshift of a halo, as defined in section \[sec:Nbody\], is a good indicator for the occurrence of major mergers. Low formation redshifts correspond to recent major mergers, while high values of $z_{\rm form}$ denote less violent accretion histories. Figure \[fig:LambdaZForm\] shows the median spin parameter as a function of $z_{\rm form}$ for two mass-bins. We find that, in all environments and mass ranges, the median $\lambda^\prime$ is a decreasing function of $z_{\rm form}$. At the same time, for a given $z_{\rm form}$, the spin parameter shows an important environmental dependence: low-mass haloes tend to spin faster if they reside in clusters while massive haloes tend to spin slower in this environment. The haloes with the largest spin parameter (median $\lambda^\prime>0.1$) are low mass haloes $M<5\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot$ that reside in clusters and have $z_{\rm form}<1$. However, for fixed $z_{\rm form}$ haloes in clusters have higher median $\lambda^\prime$ compared to the other environments.
Angular Momentum Alignments
---------------------------
![The alignment between halo angular momentum vectors and the eigenvector corresponding a direction perpendicular to the sheets (top), and corresponding the direction of the filaments (bottom), for haloes in these two environments. Halo populations are divided in two bins $5\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}<M<10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ and $M>10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot$. The dotted grey lines indicate a random signal.[]{data-label="fig:AM-Filament-Alignment"}](Figures/AMStruct){width="45.00000%"}
Do halo spin directions retain memory of the cosmic web in which the haloes formed? Both filaments and sheets have a preferred direction given by the structure of the eigenspace. While filaments are one-dimensional structures with a preferred direction in space, sheets are two-dimensional and can thus be uniquely described by their normal vectors. Using the definition in section \[sec:ClassBasic\] these directions are given by the unit eigenvector $\hat{\mathbf{v}}$ corresponding to the negative eigenvalue of the tidal field tensor for filaments and the positive eigenvalue for sheets. One can therefore compute the degree of alignment between the angular momentum vector of a halo and the respective eigenvectors of the environment in which it resides, ${\hat{\mathbf{J}} \cdot \hat{\mathbf{v}}}$. Figure \[fig:AM-Filament-Alignment\] shows the distribution of alignments between halo angular momentum and both filament direction and sheet normal vector in the two mass-bins $5\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot}<M<10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ and $M>10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$. For haloes in filaments we find only a weak trend for their angular momenta to be aligned with the filament direction. Haloes in sheets, however, show a very strong tendency to have their angular momentum parallel to the sheet. Similar correlations are also found in walls delimiting voids [@Patiri06; @Brunino06], and might be reflected in the distribution of galactic disks [e.g. @Navarro04; @Trujillo06]. We did not detect any strong correlation with eigenvectors of the other environments. The presence of alignments between large-scale structures and halo spins could produce a coherent alignment of galaxy shapes and thus generate a systematic contamination in weak lensing maps of cosmic shear [e.g. @Hirata04; @Heymans06].
We next compute correlations of the intrinsic angular momentum of each halo with both the intrinsic angular momentum and the orbital angular momentum of neighbouring haloes residing in the same environment. We define the spin-spin correlation function as [@Porciani02; @Bailin2005]: $$\xi_{\mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{J}}(r) = \langle \hat{\mathbf{J}}({\bf x})\cdot\hat{\mathbf{J}}({\bf x}+{\bf r})\rangle,$$ where $\mathbf{J}$ is the intrinsic angular momentum of each halo, and the average is taken over all pairs of haloes which are separated by a distance $r$ and reside in the same environment class. Similarly, we define the spin-orbit correlation as $$\xi_{\mathbf{J}\cdot\mathbf{L}}(r) = \langle \hat{\mathbf{J}}({\bf x})\cdot\hat{\mathbf{L}}({\bf x}+{\bf r})\rangle,$$ where $\mathbf{L}$ is the relative orbital angular momentum between two haloes separated by a distance $r$.
![The mean alignment of intrinsic spin angular momenta between haloes in filaments, panels a) and c), and clusters, panels b) and d). Data is plotted for the two mass-bins $5\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot} < M < 5\times10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, panels a) and b), and $M > 5\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, panels c) and d). Errorbars are the $1\sigma$ uncertainty of the mean. The grey line indicates the mean correlation for the whole halo population, independent of environment, for the same mass bins. The dotted line represents a random signal with no correlation.[]{data-label="fig:AMAM_JJ"}](Figures/AMAM_LL){width="45.00000%"}
![The mean alignment of intrinsic spin and relative orbital angular momentum between haloes in filaments, panels a) and c), and clusters, panels b) and d). Data is plotted for the two mass-bins $5\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot} < M < 5\times10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, panels a) and b), and $M > 5\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$, panels c) and d). Errorbars are the $1\sigma$ uncertainties of the mean. The solid grey line indicates the mean correlation for the whole halo population, independent of environment, for the same mass bins. The dotted line represents a random signal with no correlation.[]{data-label="fig:AMAM_JL"}](Figures/AMAM_Lr){width="45.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:AMAM\_JJ\] shows the spin-spin correlation for haloes in two mass bins, $5\times10^{10}h^{-1}M_{\odot} < M < 5\times10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ and $M > 5\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$. We find a significant correlation only for haloes with $M>5\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot$ in cluster environments. These haloes have a strong tendency to have their spin vectors anti-parallel to the spins of haloes within a distance of a few Mpc. All other correlations are essentially consistent with a random signal. The results for haloes with masses $5\times10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\odot} < M < 5\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ are fully consistent with those for the lower mass bin and therefore not shown in the plots. Regarding the alignment of spin and orbital angular momenta, the results, given in Figure \[fig:AMAM\_JL\], show a much stronger signal and a clear dependence on environment. We find an evident tendency for the two angular momenta to be [*parallel*]{} regardless of mass and environment. Remarkably this correlation significantly extends out to $\sim 2\,h^{-1}$ Mpc in all environments and is most prominent for smaller haloes in clusters and massive haloes in filaments.
Summary {#conclusions}
=======
We have presented a new method to classify dark-matter haloes as belonging to four different environments: [*clusters*]{}, [*filaments*]{}, [*sheets*]{} and [*voids*]{}. This scheme computes the dimensionality of the stable manifold for the orbits of test particles by simply looking at the number of positive eigenvalues of the local tidal tensor. The algorithm contains only one free parameter: the smoothing radius for the gravitational potential. This quantity fixes the length-scale over which the stability of structures is determined and can be fine tuned to optimise the classification. At the same time, combining the results obtained adopting two or more different smoothing scales allows us to select regions with particular properties in the large-scale structure (e.g. transition regions between the basic four environments).
Our classification scheme correlates with local density so that the densest regions are always associated with clusters and the emptiest with voids. However, our method retains more information on the local dynamics and a simple halo classification based on density will unavoidably mix our populations up.
We have used the classification scheme to study how the properties of isolated dark-matter haloes depend on the environment in which they reside at $z=0$. Our main results can be summarised as follows.
[*1) Halo shapes*]{}
- Massive haloes with $M>\,{\rm a\ few}\,\times 10^{12} h^{-1} M_\odot$ do not show any significant dependence of their shape on environment.
- Less massive haloes in clusters are less spherical and more oblate than in other regions but the trend is generally weak compared with the intrinsic scatter.
[*2) Halo formation times*]{}
- For the whole halo population (not split by environment) we found a very strong correlation between median formation redshift and halo mass. A fit to this relation which holds for halo masses between $10^{10} h^{-1} M_\odot<M<10^{14} h^{-1} M_\odot$ is given in equation (\[eq:FitMassZForm\]). This dependence is a direct consequence of hierarchical structure formation.
- For $M<5\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot$ haloes of fixed mass in the four environments have significantly different mass assembly histories. In particular, cluster haloes tend to be older while void haloes younger. All this hints at mechanisms that suppress the growth of lower mass haloes in clusters and lead to an enhanced survival rate of fossil haloes [see e.g. @wang06 for a possible explanation].
- Analytic fitting formulae for the dependence of the median formation redshift on halo mass and environment are given in Section \[sec:FormationTimes\].
[*3) Halo spins*]{}
- The median spin parameter of all haloes is the highest in clusters followed in order by filaments, sheets and voids. This dependence, presumably, has its origin in the tidal-torque history of the haloes which likely correlates with the specific eigenstructure of the tidal field at the final halo position [@Bond96; @Porciani02; @Porciani02b].
- This trend is reversed for massive objects. Haloes with $M>5\times10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot$ in clusters are less rapidly spinning than in filaments.
- On the other hand, for smaller masses, haloes in clusters generally possess higher spin parameters than in the other three environments. As these rapidly spinning haloes have also the most recent formation time, we conjecture that the high spin tail is generated by recent major mergers that bias the distribution towards rapid rotation. Hence, the high-spin tail of unrelaxed haloes overlaps the distribution of quiescently evolving haloes which is best fit by a log-normal distribution.
[*4) Alignment of halo spins and large-scale structures*]{}
- Haloes in sheets show a strong tendency for their spin vector to lie in the symmetry plane of the mass distribution. This effect is present for all haloes but it becomes much more prominent for haloes with $M<10^{12}h^{-1}M_\odot$.
- For haloes in filaments, there is a slightly enhanced probability to find their angular momentum orthogonal to the filament direction, independently of mass.
- No other significant correlation has been detected (but we suffer from small-number statistics in voids).
[*5) Spatial correlations between halo angular momenta*]{}
- Significant spin-spin correlations have been only detected for massive haloes in clusters. In this case, haloes in close pairs (separations smaller than a few Mpc) show a weak tendency to have antiparallel spins.
- Alignments between spin and orbital angular momentum, however, were found to be much stronger. Regardless of mass and environment, spins of haloes in close pairs tend to be preferentially parallel to the orbital angular momentum of the pair. This strong effect is even enhanced for low-mass haloes in clusters and massive haloes in filaments.
Our study has revealed that a number of halo properties depend on environment. This shows that our dynamical classification is physical and represents a first step towards understanding how the galaxy formation process is influenced by large-scale structures. We will further explore the potential of this method in future work.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
OH acknowledges support from the Swiss National Science Foundation. All simulations were performed on the Gonzales cluster at ETH Zurich, Switzerland. We are very grateful to Olivier Byrde for excellent cluster support. While our paper was under consideration for publication, an interesting related work by [@Aragon06] appeared as a preprint.
[99]{}
B., [Flores]{} R. A., [Primack]{} J. R., [Kravtsov]{} A. V., [Wechsler]{} R. H., [Faltenbacher]{} A., [Bullock]{} J. S., 2006, , 367, 1781
G., [Colberg]{} J. M., [Croft]{} R. A. C., 2006, , 370, 1422
M. A., [van de Weygaert]{} R., [Jones]{} B. J. T., [Thijs van der Hulst]{} J. M., 2006, astro-ph/0610249
V., [Col[í]{}n]{} P., [Gottl[ö]{}ber]{} S., [Firmani]{} C., [Maulbetsch]{} C., 2005, , 634, 51
J., [Steinmetz]{} M., 2005, , 627, 647
E., 2001, , 137, 1
P., [Eke]{} V., [Frenk]{} C. S., [Jenkins]{} A., [Helly]{} J., [Navarro]{} J., 2006, astro-ph/0608607
M. R., [Eisenstein]{} D., [Hogg]{} D. W., [Schlegel]{} D. J., [Brinkmann]{} J., 2005, , 629, 143
J. R., [Cole]{} S., [Efstathiou]{} G., [Kaiser]{} N., 1991, , 379, 440
J. R., [Kofman]{} L., [Pogosyan]{} D., 1996, , 380, 603
R. G., 1991, , 248, 332
R., [Trujillo]{} I., [Pearce]{} F. R., [Thomas]{} P. A., 2006, astro-ph/0609629
J. S., [Dekel]{} A., [Kolatt]{} T. S., [Kravtsov]{} A. V., [Klypin]{} A. A., [Porciani]{} C., [Primack]{} J. R., 2001, , 555, 240
D. J., [Gao]{} L., [White]{} S. D. M., 2006, astro-ph/0605636
A. G., 1970, Astrophysics, 6, 320
A., 1980, , 236, 351
M., [Illingworth]{} G., [de Zeeuw]{} T., 1991, , 383, 112
L., [Springel]{} V., [White]{} S. D. M., 2005, , 363, L66
G., [Cole]{} S., [Helly]{} J., [Frenk]{} C., [Jenkins]{} A., 2006, , 367, 1039
H., [Burkert]{} A., 2006, , 370, 1905
C., [White]{} M., [Heavens]{} A., [Vale]{} C., [van Waerbeke]{} L., 2006, , 371, 750
C. M., [Seljak]{} U., 2004, , 70, 063526
A., [Frenk]{} C. S., [White]{} S. D. M., [Colberg]{} J. M., [Cole]{} S., [Evrard]{} A. E., [Couchman]{} H. M. P., [Yoshida]{} N., 2001, , 321, 372
G., [White]{} S. D. M., [Heckman]{} T. M., [M[é]{}nard]{} B., [Brinchmann]{} J., [Charlot]{} S., [Tremonti]{} C., [Brinkmann]{} J., 2004, , 353, 713
G., [Kauffmann]{} G., 1999, , 302, 111
A. V., [Dutton]{} A. A., [van den Bosch]{} F. C., [Moore]{} B., [Potter]{} D., [Stadel]{} J., 2006, astro-ph/0608157
C., [Avila-Reese]{} V., [Colin]{} P., [Gottloeber]{} S., [Khalatyan]{} A., [Steinmetz]{} M., 2006, astro-ph/0606360
J. F., [Abadi]{} M. G., [Steinmetz]{} M., 2004, , 613, L41
S. G., [Cuesta]{} A. J., [Prada]{} F., [Betancort-Rijo]{} J., [Klypin]{} A., 2006, astro-ph/0606415
P. J. E., 1969, , 155, 393
C., [Dekel]{} A., [Hoffman]{} Y., 2002a, , 332, 325
C., [Dekel]{} A., [Hoffman]{} Y., 2002b, , 332, 339
D. S., [Governato]{} F., [Quinn]{} T., [Stadel]{} J., [Lake]{} G., 2006, astro-ph/0602003
J., [Abel]{} T., [Mo]{} H. J., [Sheth]{} R. K., 2006, , 645, 783
R. K., [Tormen]{} G., 2004, , 350, 1385
V., 2005, , 364, 1105
I., [Carretero]{} C., [Patiri]{} S. G., 2006, , 640, L111
H. Y., [Mo]{} H. J., [Jing]{} Y. P., 2006, astro-ph/0608690
M. S., [Quinn]{} P. J., [Salmon]{} J. K., [Zurek]{} W. H., 1992, , 399, 405
R. H., [Zentner]{} A. R., [Bullock]{} J. S., [Kravtsov]{} A. V., [Allgood]{} B., 2005, astro-ph/0512416
A. R., [Cohn]{} J. D., [White]{} M., [Holz]{} D. E., [Warren]{} M. S., 2006, astro-ph/0606699
Y. B., 1970, , 5, 84
\[lastpage\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Haifa\
31905 Haifa, Israel
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Penn State Altoona\
Altoona, PA 16601, USA
- |
Department of Mathematics\
Calvin College\
Grand Rapids, MI 49546, USA
author:
- David Blanc
- 'Mark W. Johnson'
- 'James M. Turner'
date: 'July 9, 2007; revised April 3, 2008'
title: 'Local-to-global spectral sequences for the cohomology of diagrams'
---
Introduction {#sint}
============
The cohomology of diagrams arises as a natural object of study in several mathematical contexts: in deformation theory (see [@GSchaA; @GSchaD; @GGSchaD]), and in classifying diagrams of groups, as in [@CegaCD]. If $I$ is the one-object category corresponding to a group $G$, a diagram [ $X\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} is just an object in ${{\mathcal C}}$ equipped with a $G$-action, and its cohomology is the equivariant cohomology of [@IllmE1] (cf. [@PiacCD §2]). On the other hand, for any discrete or Lie group $G$, let [ $I={{\mathcal O}}_{G}$ ]{} denote the orbit category of $G$: if $X$ is a $G$-space, [ ${{\EuScript X}}:{{\mathcal O}}_{G}\to{{\EuScript Top}}$ ]{} is the corresponding fixed point diagram [ ${{\EuScript X}}(G/H):=X^{H}$[,]{} ]{} and [ $M:{{\mathcal O}}_{G}\to{{\EuScript AbGp}}$[,]{} ]{} is any system of coefficients, then the corresponding cohomology [ $H({{\EuScript X}};{{\mathcal M}})$ ]{} is Bredon cohomology (cf.[@MayEHC I,§4]). Finally, when $I$ consists of a single arrow, and the coefficients are constant, we have the usual cohomology of a pair. See [@BGuinCD], [@DSchuD], [@FWillB], [@OlumHS], [@PaveG], and [@BCarlD] for further applications.
[Diagrams in homotopy theory]{} \[sdht\] The cohomology of diagrams also plays a major role in the Dwyer-Kan-Smith theory for the rectification of homotopy-commutative diagrams (cf. [@DKSmH] and [@DroHH; @DKaHM]). In fact, our interest in the subject was motivated by the related realization problem for diagrams of [$\Pi$-algebra]{}s (graded groups with an action of the primary homotopy operations): as in the case of a single [$\Pi$-algebra]{} (cf. [@BDGoerR]), the obstructions to realizing a diagram of [$\Pi$-algebra]{}s[ $\Lambda:I\to{{{\Pi}\text{-}{\EuScript Alg}}}$ ]{} lie in appropriate cohomology groups of $\Lambda$ (see [@BJTurR Thm. 6.3]).
Furthermore, given a [$\Pi$-algebra]{} $\Gamma$, all distinct homotopy types realizing $\Gamma$ may be distinguished by a set of higher homotopy operations associated to a collection [ $(I^{\alpha})_{\alpha\in A}$ ]{} of finite indexing categories [ $I^{\alpha}$ ]{} and homotopy-commutative diagrams [ $X^{\alpha}:I^{\alpha}\to {\operatorname{ho}}{{\EuScript Top}}$[,]{} ]{} where all the spaces [ $X_{i}^{\alpha}$ ]{} are wedges of spheres. Since these higher operations are obstructions to the rectification of the diagrams [ $(X^{\alpha})_{\alpha\in A}$ ]{} (and thus the associated diagrams [ $\Lambda^{\alpha}:=\pi_{\ast}X^{\alpha}:I^{\alpha}\to{{{\Pi}\text{-}{\EuScript Alg}}}$[),]{} ]{} they correspond to elements in the cohomology of $\Gamma$. Understanding the cohomology groups of such diagrams may therefore be helpful in algebraicizing (and organizing) the “higher [$\Pi$-algebra]{}” of a space $Y$, consisting of all higher homotopy operations in [ $\pi_{\ast} Y$[.]{} ]{}
[Computing diagram cohomology]{} \[scdc\] Even the cohomology of a single map may be hard to calculate (cf. [@BJTurR §5.16]), so some computational tools are needed. For this purpose we construct “local-to-global” spectral sequences for the cohomology of a diagram, which can be used to compute the cohomology of the full diagram in terms of smaller pieces.
Given a small category $I$, a model category ${{\mathcal C}}$ (in the sense of [@QuiH]), and an $I$-diagram [ $X\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[,]{} ]{} one can define the cohomology of $X$ with coefficients in any abelian group object [ $Y\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[.]{} ]{} For technical reasons, we shall concentrate on the case where [ ${{\mathcal C}}=s{{\mathcal A}}$ ]{} is the category of simplicial objects over some variety of universal algebras ${{\mathcal A}}$: since the homotopy category of simplicial groups is equivalent to that of (pointed connected) topological spaces, this actually covers all cases of interest above. Some of our results are valid, however, for an arbitrary simplicial model category ${{\mathcal C}}$.
Another reason for our interest in the “local-to-global” approach to diagram cohomology is that in order for the higher homotopy operation corresponding to a homotopy commutative diagram [ $X:I\to{\operatorname{ho}}{{\EuScript Top}}$ ]{} to be *defined*, all lower order operations (corresponding to subdiagrams of $I$) must vanish *coherently*. Thus an essential step in a cohomological description of higher order operations is the ability to piece together local data to obtain global information.
\[rlg\] We should point out that our methods work (almost exclusively) for a *directed* indexing category $I$ (i.e., with only identities as endomorphisms), which is a significant restriction. However, such diagrams certainly suffice for the description of higher homotopy operations, as above: even the linear case – when $I$ consists of a single composable sequence of arrows – is of interest, since the realizability of such a diagram is essentially equivalent to calculating higher Toda brackets. Furthermore, diagrams arising in deformation theory (indexed by the nerve of a covering) are of this form. Our methods, suitably modified (cf. Remark \[rgroup\]), also apply to diagrams indexed by the orbit category [ ${{\mathcal O}}_{G}$ ]{} of a group $G$.
[The spectral sequences]{} Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a simplicial model category and $I$ a directed index category, and assume given diagrams [ $Z:I\to{{\mathcal C}}$[,]{} ]{} and [ $X,Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} with $Y$ an abelian group object in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[.]{} ]{} Our main results may be summarized as follows:
There is a first quadrant spectral sequence with: $$E^{2}_{s,t}~=~\prod_{j\in{\widetilde{J}_{s}}}~H^{t+s}(X_{j}/Z_{j},\hat{\phi}_{j})
~\Longrightarrow H^{s+t}(X/Z;\,Y)$$
This is constructed by taking increasing truncations of the coefficient diagram $Y$ (cf. Theorem \[tone\]). Here [ $H^{\ast}(X/Z,\phi)$ ]{} denotes relative cohomology for a map of the coefficients (see Definition \[drelc\]).
There is a first quadrant spectral sequence with: $$E^{2}_{s,t}~=~H^{s+t}(\eta_{s};\,Y)~\Longrightarrow H^{s+t}(X/Z;\,Y)$$
This spectral sequence is constructed dually to the previous one, by taking increasing truncations of the *source* diagram $X$ (see Theorem \[ttwo\]). Here [ $H^{\ast}(\eta,Y)$ ]{} denotes the usual cohomology of a map (or pair).
If $I$ is countable, then for any ordering [ $(c_{s})_{s=1}^{\infty}$ ]{} of the objects of $I$, there is a first quadrant spectral sequence with [ $E^{2}_{s,t}~=~H^{t+s}_{c_{s}}(X/Z;Y)~\Longrightarrow H^{s+t}(X/Z;\,Y)$[.]{} ]{}
This is constructed by successively omitting the objects [ $c_{s}$ ]{} from $I$ (see Theorem \[tthree\]). Here [ $H^{\ast}_{c}(X/Z,Y)$ ]{} denote the local cohomology groups at an object [ $c\in I$ ]{} (see Definition \[dlocoh\]).
There are versions of all three spectral sequences defined for any suitable cover ${{\mathcal J}}$ of $I$ (Definition \[dcover\]). In particular, the spectral sequences always converge if ${{\mathcal J}}$ is finite, hence if $I$ itself is finite.
[Other variants]{} \[sov\] Other spectral sequences for the cohomology of a diagram have appeared in the literature. One should mention the universal coefficients spectral sequence of Piacenza (see [@PiacD §1]), the the $p$-chain spectral sequence of Davis and Lück (see [@DLuckP]), the equivariant Serre spectral sequence of Moerdijk and Svensson (see [@MSvenS], and the local-to-global spectral sequences of Jibladze and Pirashvili (see [@JPirCA]) and Robinson (see [@MRobiC]) – though the last three use a different definition of cohomology, based on the Baues-Wirsching and Hochschild-Mitchell cohomologies of categories (cf. [@BWirC; @BMitR]).
[Organization]{} \[sorg\] Section \[ccd\] provides background material on diagrams, their covers, and the model category of diagrams. In Section \[ctow\] we determine when the “restriction tower” associated to a cover of the indexing category $I$ is a tower of fibrations, and in Section \[css\] we use this to set up the first two spectral sequences.
The second half of the paper is devoted to the (somewhat more technical) approach based on “localizing at an object”: Section \[calc\] provides the setting, and explains the method. In Section \[cauxt\] we describe an auxiliary construction associated to the tower of certain covers of $I$, and in Section \[cfibat\] show that this auxiliary tower is a tower of fibrations. Finally, in Section \[cif\] we identify the fibers of the new tower, and obtain the third spectral sequence.
We would like to thank the referee for his or her comments. This research was supported by BSF grant 2006039; the third author was also supported by NSF grant DMS-0206647 and a Calvin Research Fellowship (SDG).
The category of diagrams {#ccd}
========================
Our object of study will be the category [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} of diagrams – i.e., functors from a fixed small (often finite) indexing category $I$ into a model category ${{\mathcal C}}$. The maps are natural transformations. In this section we define some concepts and introduce notation related to $I$ and [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[:]{} ]{}
\[dcover\] Let $I$ be any small category. By an $N$-indexed *cover* of $I$ we mean some collection [ ${{\mathcal J}}=\{J_{\nu}\}_{\nu\in N}$ ]{} of subcategories of $I$, such that each arrow in $I$ belongs to at least one [ $J_{\nu}$[.]{} ]{}
A cover [ ${{\mathcal J}}=\{J_{\nu}\}_{\nu\in N}$ ]{} for $I$ will be called *orderable* if the relation: $$\nu_{1}\prec \nu_{2}~~\stackrel{\text{Def}}{\Longleftrightarrow}~~
\exists~i_{1}\in J_{\nu_{1}},~i_{2}\in J_{\nu_{2}}~
\exists~\phi:i_{2}\to i_{1}~\text{in}~ I \ \text{with}~
i_{1}\not\in J_{\nu_{2}}\ \text{or}~i_{2}\not\in J_{\nu_{1}}~.$$ defines a partial order on $N$, and the partially ordered set [ $(N,\prec)$ ]{} can be embedded as a (possibly infinite) segment of [ $({\mathbb Z},\leq)$[.]{} ]{} Choosing such an embedding [ $N\subseteq{\mathbb Z}$[,]{} ]{} we may think of ${{\mathcal J}}$ as indexed by integers, and we can then filter $I$ by setting [ ${J[{n}]}:=\bigcup_{i\leq n}~J_{i}$[.]{} ]{} If $N$ is bounded below in ${\mathbb Z}$ we say that ${{\mathcal J}}$ is *right-orderable*, and if it is bounded above we say it is *left-orderable*.
\[rorder\] Note that the linear ordering of ${{\mathcal J}}$ (indicated by the indices) is not generally uniquely determined by the partial order $\prec$: there may be elements of ${{\mathcal J}}$ which are not comparable under $\prec$. This happens when all maps out of [ $J_{n}$ ]{} actually land in [ ${J[{k}]}$ ]{} for [ $k<n-1$[.]{} ]{} In this case the linear ordering of [ $J_{n}$ ]{} and [ $J_{n-1}$[,]{} ]{} for example, may be switched with impunity.
[Directed indexing categories]{} \[sdirect\] A *directed indexing category* is a small category $I$ equipped with a map [ $\deg:{\operatorname{Obj}}(I)\to{\mathbb Z}$[,]{} ]{} such that for every non-identity map [ $\phi:j\to i$ ]{} in $I$, [ $\deg(j)>\deg(i)$[.]{} ]{} Then $I$ is filtered by the full subcategories [ $I_{n}={J[{n}]}$ ]{} whose objects have degree at most $n$.
An orderable cover [ ${{\mathcal J}}=\{J_{n}\}_{n\in N}$ ]{} for such an $I$ will be called *compatible* (with the choice of [ $\deg$[)]{} ]{} if there is a strictly increasing sequence of integers [ $(k_{n})_{n\in N}$ ]{} such that [ ${\operatorname{Obj}}(J_{n})=\deg^{-1}([k_{n-1},k_{n}])$[.]{} ]{}
\[emainex\] The *fine cover* for a directed indexing category $I$ is defined by letting [ $J_{n}$ ]{} be the subcategory obtained from the “difference categories” [ ${\widetilde{J}_{n}}:=I_{n}\setminus I_{n-1}$ ]{} (discrete, by assumption) by adding all the maps from any of these objects into [ $I_{n-1}$[.]{} ]{}
For instance, if [ $I=[{\mathbf{n}}]$ ]{} is the *linear* category of $n$ composable maps (with degrees as labels): $$n~{\xrightarrow{\phi_{n}}}~n-1~{\xrightarrow{\phi_{n-1}}}~\dotsc~2~{\xrightarrow{\phi_{2}}}~\dotsc~1~
{\xrightarrow{\phi_{1}}}~0~,$$ then [ $I_{k}$ ]{} consists of the $k$ arrows on the right, [ ${\widetilde{J}_{k}}=\{k\}$[,]{} ]{} and the fine cover thus is [ $J_{k}:=\{\phi_{k}\}$[.]{} ]{}
\[squarefilter\] If $I$ is the commutative square diagram
[$$\tag{\thethm}{\label{basicsquare}}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
4 \ar[r]^{d} \ar[d]_{c} & 3 \ar[d]^{b} \\
2 \ar[r]_{a} & 1
}}$$]{} then [ ${\widetilde{J}_{k}}$ ]{} contains only $k$, while [ $J_{2}=\{a:2 \to 1 \}$[,]{} ]{} [ $J_{3}=\{b:3 \to 1\}$[,]{} ]{} and [ $J_{4}$ ]{} contains both [ $c:4 \to 2$ ]{} and [ $d:4 \to 3$ ]{} (since [ $I_{3}$ ]{} contains both $2$ and $3$).
\[rgroup\] As noted in the introduction, a group (or monoid) $G$ may be thought of as a category with a single object. If we start with a directed indexing category [ $I'$[,]{} ]{} and for [ $i\in I'$[,]{} ]{} we add maps [ $g:i\to i$ ]{} for each [ $g\in G$ ]{} for some group [ $G=G_{i}$ ]{} (with suitable commutation relations with the maps of [ $I'$[),]{} ]{} we obtain a small category $I$ (no longer directed) whose diagrams describe directed systems of group actions. Clearly, any orderable cover [ ${{\mathcal J}}'$ ]{} of [ $I'$ ]{} induces an orderable cover ${{\mathcal J}}$ of $I$.
\[egroup\] Let [ $I'$ ]{} consist of two parallel arrows [ $\phi_{1},\phi_{-1}:i\to j$[,]{} ]{} [ $G_{i}={\mathbb Z}/2$[,]{} ]{} and [ $G_{j}=0$[.]{} ]{} Then the indexing category $I$ has a single new non-identity map [ $f:i\to i$ ]{} and [ $\phi_{k}\circ f=\phi_{-k}$ ]{} ([ $k= \pm 1$[).]{} ]{} Compare [@DatuC].
[Model categories]{} \[smodel\]
Now let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a simplicial model category (cf. [@QuiH II, §1]), and let [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} denote the functor category of $I$-diagrams in ${{\mathcal C}}$. There are (at least) two relevant simplicial model category structures on [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[:]{} ]{}
1. For general $I$ and cofibrantly generated ${{\mathcal C}}$, we have the *diagram* model category structure, in which the weak equivalences and fibrations are defined objectwise, and the cofibrations are generated (under retracts, pushouts, and transfinite compositions) by the free maps (free on a generating cofibration at some [ $i\in I$[)]{} ]{} – cf. [@HirM Theorem 11.6.1].
2. If $I$ is a directed indexing category as above, it is in particular a (one-sided) Reedy category (cf. [@HirM §15.1.1]). Thus [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} has a *Reedy* model category structure, in which the weak equivalences are defined objectwise, the cofibrations are defined by attaching of a suitable latching object, and the fibrations are defined by requiring that the structure map to the matching objects are all fibrations (cf. [@HirM §15.3]).
\[rmodel\] In the cases where $I$ is a Reedy category and ${{\mathcal C}}$ is cofibrantly generated, the identity [ ${\operatorname{Id}}:{{\mathcal C}}\to{{\mathcal C}}$ ]{} is a strong Quillen functor (actually a Quillen equivalence) between the two model category structures (see [@HirM Theorem 15.6.4]), considered as a right adjoint from the Reedy model structure to the diagram model structure. As a consequence, every Reedy fibration is an objectwise fibration (cf. [@HirM Proposition 15.3.11]), and conversely, every cofibration in the diagram model category is a Reedy cofibration. In both cases we use the same simplicial mapping spaces [ $\operatorname{map}_{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}}(X,Y)$[,]{} ]{} (sometimes denoted simply by [ ${\operatorname{map}\,}(X,Y)$[),]{} ]{} with
\_[[[[C]{}]{}\^[I]{}]{}]{}(X,Y)\_[n]{} := \_[[[[C]{}]{}\^[I]{}]{}]{}(X,Y) .
[Diagrams over $Z$]{} \[scomma\] For a fixed ground diagram [ $Z:I\to{{\mathcal C}}$[,]{} ]{} the comma category [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} consists of diagrams [ $X:I\to{{\mathcal C}}$ ]{} over $Z$ – that is, for each [ $i\in I$ ]{} we have maps [ $p_{i}:X_{i}\to Z_{i}$[,]{} ]{} natural in $I$. Once again [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} has the two model category structures described above. The simplicial mapping space [ $\operatorname{map}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}}(X,Y)$[,]{} ]{} defined as in [ ]{} will usually be denoted simply by [ $\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$[.]{} ]{} We may assume that $Z$ is Reedy fibrant, so in particular (objectwise) fibrant.
[Sketchable categories]{} \[ssketch\] Most of our results are valid for quite general simplicial model categories ${{\mathcal C}}$. However, as noted in the introduction, we shall be mainly interested in the case where [ ${{\mathcal C}}=s{{\mathcal A}}$ ]{} is the category of simplicial objects over some FP-sketchable category ${{\mathcal A}}$ (essentially: a category of (possibly graded) universal algebras – cf.[@ARosiL §1]). Note that any such ${{\mathcal C}}$ is cofibrantly generated – in fact, a resolution model category (see [@BJTurR §3]). Such an ${{\mathcal A}}$ will be called *${\mathfrak{G}}$-sketchable* if it is equipped with a faithful forgetful functor to a category of graded groups (compare [@BPescF §4.1]). The important property for our purposes is that a map [ $f:X\to Y$ ]{} in ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a fibration if and only if it is an epimorphism onto the basepoint component of $Y$ (cf. [@QuiH II, §3, Prop. 1]).
If we let [ ${{\mathcal A}}={{\EuScript Gp}}$[,]{} ]{} we obtain the homotopy category of pointed connected topological spaces (see [@GJarS V, §6]), so our assumptions cover all the topological applications mentioned in the introduction.
In this context we may need to consider diagrams over a fixed ground diagram $Z$: following [@QuiC §2] and [@BecT §3], for (diagrams of simplicial objects in) a ${\mathfrak{G}}$-sketchable category ${{\mathcal A}}$, one may identify $Z$-modules with abelian group objects over $Z$. Thus we may be forced to work in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} if we want to study cohomology with twisted coefficients.
[Diagram completion]{} \[scompl\] Any inclusion of categories [ $J\hookrightarrow I$ ]{} induces a forgetful *truncation* functor [ $\tau=\tau^{I}_{J}:{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}\to{{{\mathcal C}}^{J}}$[,]{} ]{} and this has a right adjoint [ $\xi=\xi^{I}_{J}:{{{\mathcal C}}^{J}}\to{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[,]{} ]{} which assigns to a diagram [ $Y:J\to{{\mathcal C}}$ ]{} the diagram [ $\xi Y:I\to{{\mathcal C}}$ ]{} with [ $\xi Y(i):=\lim_{i/J} Y$ ]{} for each [ $i\in I$ ]{} (where [ $i/J$ ]{} is the obvious subcategory of the under category [ $i/I$[).]{} ]{} Note that [ $\xi Y(j)=Y_{j}$ ]{} for [ $j\in J$[.]{} ]{} Also, if [ $J\subseteq J' \subseteq I$ ]{} then [ $\xi^{J'}_{J}=\tau_{J'}^{I}\circ\xi^{I}_{J}$[,]{} ]{} [ $\xi^{I}_{J}=\xi^{I}_{J'}\circ\xi^{J'}_{J}$[,]{} ]{} and [ $\tau^{I}_{J}=\tau^{J'}_{J}\circ\tau^{I}_{J'}$[,]{} ]{} so we shall often omit the superscripts from these functors, with the second category understood from the context.
The resulting monad [ $\sigma_{J}:=\xi_J\circ\tau_J:{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}\to{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} is called the *completion* at $J$, and we denote the augmentation of the adjunction by [ $\omega_{J}:Y\to\sigma_J Y$[.]{} ]{}
Moreover, given a fixed [ $Z\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[,]{} ]{} the truncation functor [ $\hat{\tau}_{J}:{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z\to{{{\mathcal C}}^{J}}/\tau Z$ ]{} also has a right adjoint [ $\hat{\xi}_{J}:{{{\mathcal C}}^{J}}/\tau Z\to{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} with the limit [ $\hat{\xi}_{J} Y(i):=\lim_{i/J} Y$ ]{} taken over [ $\tau_{J}Z$ ]{} (that is, the diagram whose limit we take consists of [ $Y{\lvert_{i/J}}$ ]{} mapping to [ $\tau_{J}Z$[,]{} ]{} where the latter includes also [ $Z_{i}$[).]{} ]{} Thus the completion at $J$ in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is:
\[ezero\] \_[J]{}Y(j) = \_[J]{}Y(j)\_[\_[J]{}Z(j)]{} Z\_[j]{} ,
where the structure map [ $\sigma_{J}q:\sigma_{J}Y\to\sigma_{J}Z$ ]{} is induced by the functoriality of limits. Once again, there will be an augmentation [ ${\hat{\omega}}_J:Y \to {\hat{\sigma}}_J Y$[.]{} ]{}
\[ecompl\] If [ $I=[{\mathbf{n}}]$ ]{} is linear (§\[emainex\]) and [ $J=[{\mathbf{k}}]$ ]{} is an initial (right) segment, then for any tower [ $Y:[{\mathbf{n}}]\to{{\mathcal C}}$ ]{} we have: $$\sigma_J Y(i)~=~\begin{cases}
Y_{i} & \text{if}\ i\leq k\\
Y_{k} & \text{if}\ i\geq k
\end{cases}$$
\[ecomplsquare\] If $I$ is the commutative square of §\[squarefilter\], then [ $\sigma_{I_{3}} Y$ ]{} is the pullback diagram [$$\tag{\thethm}{}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
Y_{2} \times_{Y_{1}} Y_{3} \ar[r] \ar[d] & Y_{3} \ar[d]^{Y(b)} \\
Y_{2} \ar[r]_{Y(a)} & Y_{1} ,
}}$$]{} while [ ${\hat{\sigma}}_{I_{3}}Y(3)$ ]{} is the further pullback [$$\tag{\thethm}{}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
{\hat{\sigma}}_{I_{3}}Y(3) \ar[r] \ar[d] & Y_{2} \times_{Y_{1}} Y_{3} \ar[d] \\
Z_{4} \ar[r] & Z_{2} \times_{Z_{1}} Z_{3} .
}}$$]{}
\[ecomplmatch\] If [ $I=\Delta'\subseteq \Delta^{{\operatorname{op}}}$ ]{} is the indexing category for restricted simplicial objects $Y$ (without degeneracies), and $J$ is its truncation to dimensions $<n$, then [ $\sigma_J Y(n)=M_{n}Y$ ]{} is the classical matching object of [@BKaH X,§4.5]
[Maps of diagrams]{} \[smaps\] Given a fixed Reedy fibrant ground diagram [ $Z:I\to{{\mathcal C}}$[,]{} ]{} consider the simplicial mapping space [ $\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$ ]{} as in §\[scomma\] for [ $X,Y\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z$[,]{} ]{} where $X$ is cofibrant and $Y$ is fibrant.
In the cases of interest to us, $Y$ will be an abelian group object in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z$[,]{} ]{} so the homotopy groups of $\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$ are the cohomology groups of $X$ with coefficients in $Y$ (see [@BJTurR §5] for further details). In order to build our restriction tower, we need an appropriate orderable cover ${{\mathcal J}}$ of $I$ (§\[dcover\]), yielding a filtration $$I\supseteq \dotsc\supseteq\ I_{n}\ \supseteq\ I_{n-1}\ \supseteq\ \dotsc~.$$
Let [ $M_{n}:=\operatorname{map}_{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{n}}}/\tau_{n}Z}(\tau_{n}X,\tau_{n}Z)$ ]{} for each [ $n\in N$[,]{} ]{} where [ $\tau_{n}X$ ]{} is the restriction of a diagram [ $X\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} to [ $I_{n}$[.]{} ]{} The inclusions [ $I_{n-1}{\hookrightarrow}I_{n}$ ]{} and [ $I_{n}{\hookrightarrow}I$ ]{} induce maps [ $\rho_{n}:M_{n}\to M_{n-1}$ ]{} and [ $\hat{\rho}_{n}:M\to M_{n}$ ]{} which fit into a tower:
[$$\tag{\thethm}{\label{eone}}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y) \ar[dr]^>>>>{\hat{\rho}_{n+1}} \ar@/^1pc/[drr]^>>>>{\hat{\rho}_{n}}
\ar@/^2pc/[drrr]^>>>>{\hat{\rho}_{n-1}} & & & & \\
\ldots \ar[r] & ~~M_{n+1}~~~~ \ar[r]^{\rho_{n+1}} &
~~M_{n}~~~~ \ar[r]^{\rho_{n}} &
~~M_{n-1}~~~~ \ar[r]^{\rho_{n-1}} & ~~~~\ldots M_{0}
}}$$]{} with
\[etwo\] \_[Z]{}(X,Y) \_[n]{}M\_[n]{} .
A tower of fibrations {#ctow}
=====================
To determine when [ ]{} is a tower of fibrations (so that [ ]{} is a homotopy limit), we need the following:
\[dgood\] Let $I$ be an indexing category, ${{\mathcal C}}$ a model category, and [ $Z\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[.]{} ]{} Given an orderable cover [ ${{\mathcal J}}=\{J_{\nu}\}_{\nu \in N}$ ]{} of $I$ with associated filtration [ $(I_{n})=({J[{n}]})_{n\in {\mathbb Z}}$[,]{} ]{} let [ $\tau_{k}:{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}\to {{{\mathcal C}}^{I_k}}$ ]{} and [ $\tau^{m}_{k}:{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_m}}\to {{{\mathcal C}}^{I_k}}$ ]{} denote the truncation functors, with adjoints indexed accordingly. A diagram [ $Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is called ${{\mathcal J}}$-*fibrant* if for each [ $n\in {\mathbb Z}$[,]{} ]{} the augmentation [ ${\hat{\omega}}_{n+1}:\tau_{n+1}Y\to{\hat{\sigma}}_{n}^{n+1} Y={\hat{\sigma}}^{I_{n+1}}_{I_{n}}Y$ ]{} is a fibration in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{n+1}}}/\sigma_{n}^{n+1}Z={{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{n+1}}}/\sigma^{I_{n+1}}_{I_{n}}Z$[.]{} ]{}
\[assume\] Because we assumed the degree is strictly decreasing, [ $I_{n+1}$ ]{} and $I$ are the same so far as the augmentation map [ ${\hat{\omega}}_{n+1}$ ]{} is concerned. Thus if we assume for simplicity that [ $I=I_{n+1}$[,]{} ]{} then [ ${\hat{\omega}}_{n+1}$ ]{} may be identified with its adjoint map [ $Y\to{\hat{\sigma}}_{n}Y$ ]{} in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{n+1}}}/\sigma_{n}^{n+1}Z={{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/\sigma_{n}Z$[.]{} ]{}
\[pone\] Assume [ ${{\mathcal J}}=\{J_{\nu}\}_{\nu \in N}$ ]{} is an orderable cover of $I$, [ $X\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is cofibrant, and [ $Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is a ${{\mathcal J}}$-fibrant abelian group object. Then $$F_{n+1}~\to~M_{n+1}~{\xrightarrow{\rho_{n+1}}}~M_{n}$$ is a fibration sequence of simplicial abelian groups for each [ $n\in {\mathbb Z}$[,]{} ]{} and the fiber $F_{n+1}$ is [ $\operatorname{map}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{J_{n+1}}}/Z}{\lvert_{J_{n+1}}}}\,(X{\lvert_{J_{n+1}}},~{\operatorname{Fib}}(\omega_{n+1}))$[.]{} ]{} Here [ ${\operatorname{Fib}}(\omega_{n+1})$ ]{} denotes the fiber (in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{n+1}}}/\sigma_{n}^{n+1} Z$[)]{} ]{} of the augmentation [ $\omega_{n+1}:\tau_{n+1}Y\to\sigma_{n}^{n+1} Y=\sigma_{I_{n}}^{I_{n+1}}\,Y$[.]{} ]{}
Assume for simplicity that [ $I=I_{n+1}(={J[{n+1}]})$[,]{} ]{} with [ $\tau_{n}=\tau_{I_{n}}:{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}\to{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{n}}}$ ]{} and [ $\sigma_{n}(=\sigma_{{J[{n}]}})$ ]{} the completion at [ $I_{n}(={J[{n}]})$ ]{} (as in Remark \[assume\]). Then there is a natural adjunction isomorphism: $$\operatorname{map}_{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{n}}}/\tau_{n} Z}(\tau_{n} X,\tau_{n} Y)~
=~\operatorname{map}_{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/\sigma_{n} Z}(X,{\hat{\sigma}}_{n} Y)~,$$ under which [ $\rho_{n}$ ]{} is identified with the map induced in [ $\operatorname{map}_{\sigma_{n}Z}(X,-)$ ]{} by [ ${\hat{\omega}}_{n+1}:Y\to{\hat{\sigma}}_{n} Y$[.]{} ]{} This [ ${\hat{\omega}}_{n+1}$ ]{} is a fibration in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/\sigma_{n} Z$ ]{} by Definition \[dgood\], and thus induces a fibration of mapping spaces, with fiber [ $\operatorname{map}_{\sigma_{n} Z}(X,~{\operatorname{Fib}}({\hat{\omega}}_{n+1}))$[.]{} ]{}
Thus, it suffices to identify the fiber instead as [ $\operatorname{map}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{J_{n+1}}}/Z}{\lvert_{J_{n+1}}}}\,(X{\lvert_{J_{n+1}}},~{\operatorname{Fib}}(\omega_{n+1}))$[.]{} ]{} However, since [ ${\hat{\omega}}_{n+1}(i):Y_{i}\to{\hat{\sigma}}_{n} Y(i)$ ]{} is the identity for [ $i\in I_{n}$[,]{} ]{} the diagram [ ${\operatorname{Fib}}({\hat{\omega}}_{n+1}):I\to{{\mathcal C}}$ ]{} is trivial (over $Z$) when restricted to [ $I_{n}$[,]{} ]{} and since ${{\mathcal J}}$ was orderable, any map [ $f:X=\tau_{n+1}X\to{\operatorname{Fib}}({\hat{\omega}}_{n+1})$ ]{} is determined uniquely by its restriction to [ $J_{n+1}$ ]{} – in fact, to the discrete subcategory [ ${\widetilde{J}_{n+1}}:=J_{n+1}\setminus I_{n}$[.]{} ]{}
The fact that $Y$ is an abelian group object in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} implies, by definition, that for each [ $i\in I$ ]{} there is a commuting triangle: [$$\tag{\thethm}{\label{eeight}}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
Z_{i} \ar[d]_{=} \ar[r]^{s_{i}} & Y_{i} \ar[dl]^{q_{i}}\\
Z_{i} & \ ,
}}$$]{} natural in $I$. Thus [ ${\operatorname{Fib}}({\hat{\omega}}_{n+1})(j)$ ]{} for [ $j\in J_{n+1}$ ]{} is by definition the pullback of: [$$\tag{\thethm}{}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
& Z_{j} \ar[d] \ar[rd]_{\sigma_{n}s_{j}\circ\omega_{Z}} \ar[rrd]^{{\operatorname{Id}}} & & \\
Y_{j}~\ar[r]^<<<<{{\hat{\omega}}}_<<<<{(\omega,q_{j})}~~ &
~~~~{\hat{\sigma}}_{n} Y_{j}~~~~~~~~=~&
\sigma_{n} Y(j)\hspace*{3mm}\times_{\sigma_{n} Z(j)} & Z_{j}~,
}}$$]{} and we readily check that this is the same as [ ${\operatorname{Fib}}(\omega_{n+1})(j)$[,]{} ]{} which is the pullback of: [$$\tag{\thethm}{}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
& \sigma_{n} Z(j)\ar[d]^{\sigma_{n} s(j)} \\
Y_{j} \ar[r]^-{\omega_Y}& \sigma_{n} Y(j) \ .
}}$$]{}
[Directed indexing diagrams]{} \[sdid\]
We shall now see how Proposition \[pone\] applies when ${{\mathcal J}}$ is an orderable cover of a directed indexing category $I$ (see §\[sdirect\]).
Recall that in the Reedy model category structure (cf. §\[smodel\]) on [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[,]{} ]{} a map [ $f:X\to Y$ ]{} is a fibration if and only if
\[ethree\] X\_[j]{} Y\_[j]{}\_[\_[n]{} Y(j)]{} \_[n]{} X(j)
is a fibration in ${{\mathcal C}}$ for every [ $j\in{\operatorname{Obj}}I$ ]{} with [ $\deg(j)=n+1$[,]{} ]{} where [ $\sigma_{n}=\sigma_{I_{n}}$ ]{} is the completion at [ $I_{n}$[.]{} ]{} In [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} we must replace $\sigma_{n}$ by ${\hat{\sigma}}_{n}$ (§\[scompl\]), of course.
\[lone\] If $I$ is a directed indexing category, any Reedy fibrant [ $Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is ${{\mathcal J}}$-fibrant for the fine cover of $I$ (§\[emainex\]).
Once again we assume [ $I=I_{n+1}$ ]{} (§\[assume\]), so we must show that [ ${\hat{\omega}}_{n+1}:Y\to{\hat{\sigma}}_{n} Y$ ]{} is a fibration in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/\sigma_{n} Z$[.]{} ]{} Since ${\hat{\omega}}_{n+1}$ is the identity for [ $j\in I_{n}$[,]{} ]{} consider [ $j\in{\widetilde{J}_{n+1}}:=I_{n+1}\setminus I_{n}$[.]{} ]{} Since $Y$ is Reedy fibrant in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} [ $q:Y\to Z$ ]{} is a Reedy fibration in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[,]{} ]{} and since ${{\mathcal J}}$ is fine, this means that $$Y_{j}~{\xrightarrow{(\omega_{n+1},q_{j})}}~\sigma_{n}Y(j)\times_{\sigma_{n}Z(j)} Z_{j}~=~
{\hat{\sigma}}_{n}Y(j)~=~{\hat{\sigma}}_{n}Y(j)\times_{{\hat{\sigma}}_{n}Y(j)}~{\hat{\sigma}}_{n}Y(j)$$ is a fibration in ${{\mathcal C}}$ – which shows that [ ]{} indeed holds for each [ $j\in I$[.]{} ]{}
\[ptwo\] Let [ ${{\mathcal C}}=s{{\mathcal A}}$ ]{} for some ${\mathfrak{G}}$-sketchable category ${{\mathcal A}}$ (§\[ssketch\]), and let [ ${{\mathcal J}}=\{J_{\nu}\}_{\nu \in N}$ ]{} be an orderable cover of a directed indexing category $I$, with [ $Z \in {{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} Reedy fibrant. Then any abelian group object [ $Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is weakly equivalent to a fibrant (objectwise) abelian group object which is ${{\mathcal J}}$-fibrant.
Because $I$ is directed, we may construct the desired ${{\mathcal J}}$-fibrant replacement ${\bar{Y}}$ – an abelian group object in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} – by induction on the degree of [ $j\in I$[.]{} ]{} Moreover, we assumed that $Z$ is Reedy fibrant, so in particular objectwise fibrant (see Remark \[rmodel\]). Note that any abelian group object [ $p:V\to Z$ ]{} in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is (objectwise) fibrant, since $p$ has a section by [ ]{} and §\[ssketch\]; hence $p$ has the right lifting property with respect to any acyclic cofibration.
We assume by induction on [ $\deg(j)=n+1$ ]{} that both [ $\bar\omega_{n+1}(j):{\bar{Y}}_{j}\to{\hat{\sigma}}_{n} {\bar{Y}}(j)$ ]{} and [ $\bar{q}_{j}:{\bar{Y}}_{j}\to Z_{j}$ ]{} are fibrations in ${{\mathcal C}}$. Since for each $j$, [ $\sigma_{n} Y(j)$ ]{} is defined as a limit, and an abelian group object structure on any $V$ is a map [ $V\times_{Z}\, V\to V$ ]{} (over $Z$), by functoriality (and commutativity) of limits we see that [ $\sigma_{n} q:\sigma_{n} {\bar{Y}}\to\sigma_{n} Z$ ]{} is an abelian group object, too – so [ $\sigma_{n} q$ ]{} is an objectwise fibration in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[.]{} ]{} But $$\xymatrix@R=25pt{
{\hat{\sigma}}_{n} {\bar{Y}}_{j} \ar[r]^{\pi_{Z}} \ar[d] & Z_{j} \ar[d]\\
\sigma_{n} {\bar{Y}}(j)\ar[r]^{\sigma_{n} q} & \sigma_{n} Z(j)
}$$ is a pullback square, by definition, so [ $\pi_{Z}$ ]{} is a fibration in ${{\mathcal C}}$ by base change.
In the induction step, for each $j$ of degree [ $n+1$[,]{} ]{} we factor: $$\bar{{\hat{\omega}}}_{j}:{\bar{Y}}_{j}~\to~{\hat{\sigma}}_{n} {\bar{Y}}(j)~=~
\sigma_{n} {\bar{Y}}(j)\,\times_{\sigma_{n} Z(j)}~Z_{j}$$ as $${\bar{Y}}_{j}~{\hookrightarrow}~{\bar{Y}}_{j}'~{\xrightarrow{\bar{\omega}_{j}'}}~{\hat{\sigma}}{\bar{Y}}(j)$$ (an acyclic cofibration followed by a fibration), and replace [ ${\bar{Y}}_{j}$ ]{} by [ ${\bar{Y}}'_{j}$[.]{} ]{} Both [ $\bar{\omega}'_{j}$ ]{} and [ $\bar{q}_{j}:=\pi_{Z}\circ\bar{\omega}'_{j}:{\bar{Y}}_{j}\to Z_{j}$ ]{} are then fibrations in ${{\mathcal C}}$, as required.
\[rcgroup\] This actually works for some orderable covers of indexing categories which are not directed. For example, if we use the fine cover ${{\mathcal J}}$ for an indexing category $I$ constructed as in §\[rgroup\], we can still change any $Y$ into a ${{\mathcal J}}$-fibrant one by induction on the degree in [ $I'$[,]{} ]{} since we have not introduced any new objects
\[ecgroup\] In Example \[egroup\], for any [ $Y\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[,]{} ]{} [ $\sigma Y$ ]{} is given by: $$\sigma Y(j)~=~Y_{i}\times Y_{i}
\raisebox{-0.6ex}
{$~~~\stackrel{\textstyle \longrightarrow}{\longrightarrow}~~~$}
Y_{i} ~=~\sigma Y(i)~,$$ with horizontal maps [ $Y(\phi_{\pm1})$ ]{} the two projections, and [ $f:\sigma Y(j)\to \sigma Y(j)$ ]{} the switch map. To make this ${{\mathcal J}}$-fibrant for the obvious (fine) cover, we just have to choose [ ${\bar{Y}}$ ]{} so that [ ${\hat{\omega}}:{\bar{Y}}_{j}\to \sigma {\bar{Y}}(j)$ ]{} is a ${\mathbb Z}/2$-equivariant fibration.
[The dual construction]{} \[sdc\]
The approach described above is clearly best suited to directed indexing categories $I$ where the degree function is non-negative. In the inverse case, the dual approach may be preferable:
Given a small indexing category $I$ and a subcategory $J$, the truncation functor [ $\tau=\tau^{I}_{J}:{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}\to{{{\mathcal C}}^{J}}$ ]{} also has a left adjoint [ $\zeta=\zeta^{I}_{J}:{{{\mathcal C}}^{J}}\to{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[,]{} ]{} which assigns to a diagram [ $X:J\to{{\mathcal C}}$ ]{} the diagram [ $\zeta X:I\to{{\mathcal C}}$ ]{} with [ $\zeta X(i):={\operatorname{colim}}_{J/i} X$ ]{} for each [ $i\in I$[.]{} ]{} We denote the resulting comonad on [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} by [ $\theta_J=\zeta_J\circ\tau_J$[.]{} ]{} Note that if [ $X\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} then [ $\theta_J X$ ]{} comes equipped with a map to [ $\theta_J Z\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} so we do not need the analogue of [ ]{}
We then say that a diagram [ $X\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is ${{\mathcal J}}$-*cofibrant* for an orderable cover ${{\mathcal J}}$ if for each [ $n\in {\mathbb Z}$[,]{} ]{} the coaugmentation [ $\eta_{n+1}:\theta_{n}^{n+1}X=\theta_{I_{n}}^{I_{n+1}} X\to\tau_{n+1}X$ ]{} is a cofibration in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{n+1}}}/\tau_{n+1}Z$[.]{} ]{} We then have:
\[dualtower\] Assume [ ${{\mathcal J}}=\{J_{\nu}\}_{\nu \in N}$ ]{} is an orderable cover of $I$, [ $X\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is ${{\mathcal J}}$-cofibrant, and [ $Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is a fibrant abelian group object. Then $$F_{n+1} \to \operatorname{map}_{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{n+1}}}/\tau_{n+1}Z}(\tau_{n+1}X,\tau_{n+1}Y)~
{\xrightarrow{\rho_{n+1}}}~\operatorname{map}_{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{n}}}/\tau_{n}Z}(\tau_{n}X,\tau_{n}Y)$$ is a fibration sequence of simplicial abelian groups for each [ $n\in {\mathbb Z}$[,]{} ]{} and the fiber [ $F_{n+1}$ ]{} is [ $\operatorname{map}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{J_{n+1}}}/Z}{\lvert_{J_{n+1}}}}\,({\operatorname{Cof}}(\eta_{n+1}),\,Y{\lvert_{J_{n+1}}})$[.]{} ]{}
Here [ ${\operatorname{Cof}}(\eta_{n+1})$ ]{} denotes the cofiber (over [ $\tau_{n+1} Z$[)]{} ]{} of the coaugmentation [ $\eta_{n+1}:\theta_{n}^{n+1} X\to \tau_{n+1} X$[.]{} ]{}
Dual to that of Proposition \[pone\]
Note that if $I$ is a directed indexing category, we need no special assumptions on [ $X,Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} (or ${{\mathcal C}}$) in order for the dual of Proposition \[ptwo\] to hold, since all colimits are over $Z$ to begin with. Thus, we can again build ${{\mathcal J}}$-cofibrant replacements by induction on degree to yield the following:
\[ptwoagain\] Let [ ${{\mathcal C}}=s{{\mathcal A}}$ ]{} for some ${\mathfrak{G}}$-sketchable category ${{\mathcal A}}$, and let [ ${{\mathcal J}}=\{J_{\nu}\}_{\nu \in N}$ ]{} be an orderable cover of a directed indexing category $I$. Then any [ $X\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is weakly equivalent to a cofibrant object (with respect to the model structure of §\[smodel\](a)), which is ${{\mathcal J}}$-cofibrant.
The two truncation spectral sequences {#css}
=====================================
As noted above, for a suitable model category ${{\mathcal C}}$ and any indexing category $I$, given [ $Z\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} and [ $X,Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} with $X$ cofibrant and $Y$ a fibrant abelian group object, the homotopy groups of [ $\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$ ]{} are the cohomology groups [ $H^{\ast}(X/Z,Y)$ ]{} (suitably indexed). Thus if ${{\mathcal J}}$ is some orderable cover of $I$ such that $Y$ is ${{\mathcal J}}$-fibrant, the homotopy spectral sequence for the tower of fibrations (cf. [@GJarS VII, §6]) of (fibrant) simplicial sets [ ]{} yields a spectral sequence with [ $E^{2}_{k,n}~=~\pi_{k+n}{\operatorname{Fib}}(\rho_{n})~\Longrightarrow
\pi_{k+n} \operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$[.]{} ]{} To identify the $E^{2}$-term, we need the following:
\[drelc\] Consider an orderable cover [ ${{\mathcal J}}=\{I',J\}$ ]{} of a diagram $I$ (where we have in mind [ $I=I_{n+1}$[,]{} ]{} [ $I'=I_{n}$[,]{} ]{} and [ $J=J_{n+1}$[).]{} ]{} If $Y$ is an abelian group object in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} which is ${{\mathcal J}}$-fibrant, then we have a fibration sequence $${\operatorname{Fib}}({\hat{\omega}})~\to~Y~{\xrightarrow{{\hat{\omega}}}}~{\hat{\sigma}}Y~,$$ of abelian group objects over $Z$, where ${\hat{\sigma}}$ is the completion at [ $I'$[.]{} ]{}
We define the *relative cohomology* of the pair [ $(I,J)$ ]{} to be the total left derived functor of [ ${\operatorname{Hom}}_{{{{\mathcal C}}^{J}}/Z{\lvert_{J}}}(-,~{\operatorname{Fib}}({\hat{\omega}}))$[,]{} ]{} (into simplicial abelian groups), denoted by [ $H(X/Z;{\hat{\omega}})$[.]{} ]{} In particular, the $i$-th *relative cohomology group* for [ $(I,J)$ ]{} is [ $H^{i}(X/Z;{\hat{\omega}}):=\pi_{i}H(X/Z;{\hat{\omega}})$[.]{} ]{}
\[rindex\] Note that in most applications the abelian group object [ $Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} will be an $n$-th dimensional Eilenberg-Mac Lane object (over $Z$), in which case it is customary to re-index the relative cohomology groups so that [ $H^{n}(X/Z;{\hat{\omega}}):=\pi_{0}H(X/Z;{\hat{\omega}})$[.]{} ]{}
Observe, however, that our setup allows $Y$ to consist of Eilenberg-Mac Lane objects of varying dimensions, with the maps [ $Y(f)$ ]{} representing cohomology operations. In this general setting, no canonical re-indexing exists.
\[frelc\] Given [ $I,J,I'$ ]{} and [ $Y,Z$ ]{} as above, for any (cofibrant) [ $X\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} there is a long exact sequence in cohomology
H\^[i]{}((X/Z)[\_[J]{}]{};)H\^[i]{}(X/Z;Y)H\^[i]{}((X/Z)[\_[I’]{}]{};Y[\_[I’]{}]{})H\^[i+1]{}((X/Z)[\_[J]{}]{};)
\[tone\] For any simplicial model category ${{\mathcal C}}$, directed indexing category $I$, and diagrams [ $Z:I\to{{\mathcal C}}$[,]{} ]{} [ $X\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} abelian group object [ $Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} and left-orderable cover ${{\mathcal J}}$ of $I$ there is a first quadrant spectral sequence with: $$E^{2}_{s,t}~=~H^{t+s}((X/Z){\lvert_{J_{t}}};\,{\hat{\omega}})
~\Longrightarrow H^{s+t}(X/Z;\,Y)$$ and [ $d^{2}:E^{2}_{s,t}\to E^{2}_{s-2,t+1}$[.]{} ]{}
Replace $Z$ by a weakly equivalent Reedy fibrant diagram in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[,]{} ]{} then $X$ by a weakly equivalent cofibrant object in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} and then using Proposition \[ptwo\] to replace $Y$ by a weakly equivalent ${{\mathcal J}}$-fibrant abelian group object in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[.]{} ]{} Proposition \[pone\] then implies that [ ]{} is a tower of fibrations, and the associated homotopy spectral sequence has the specified relative cohomology groups as the homotopy groups of the fibers (which are the $E^{2}$-term of the spectral sequence, in our indexing).
The spectral sequence need not converge, in general, without some cohomological connectivity assumptions on the subdiagrams (unless the cover ${{\mathcal J}}$ is finite, of course).
\[rfine\] If ${{\mathcal J}}$ is the fine cover, the $E^{2}$-term simplifies to: $$E^{2}_{s,t}~=~\prod_{j\in{\widetilde{J}_{t}}}~H^{t+s}(X_{j}/Z_{j},\hat{\phi}_{j})~,$$ where [ $\hat{\phi}_j:Y_{j}\to \underset{\phi:j\to i}{\lim}\,Y_{i}$ ]{} is the structure map.
Using the approach of §\[sdc\], we also obtain a dual spectral sequence:
\[ttwo\] For ${{\mathcal C}}$, $I$, $Z$, $X$, and $Y$ as in Theorem \[tone\], and ${{\mathcal J}}$ right-orderable, there is a first quadrant spectral sequence with: $$E^{2}_{s,t}~=~H^{s+t}(\eta_{t};\,Y)
~\Longrightarrow H^{s+t}(X/Z;\,Y)~.$$
\[rdual\] Note that [ $H^{\ast}(\eta_{t};\,Y):=H^{\ast}({\operatorname{Cof}}(\eta_{t})/Z{\lvert_{J_{t}}};\,Y)$ ]{} is just the usual cohomology of the map of diagrams [ $\eta_{t}:\theta_{t-1}^{t} X\to\tau_{s}X$ ]{} (see §\[sdc\]). This fits into the usual long exact sequence of a pair, dual to that of [ ]{}
When $X$ is cofibrant, $Z$ and $Y$ are constant, and [ ${\operatorname{colim}}_{I} X=\operatorname{hocolim}_{I} X$ ]{} – for example, when $I$ is a partially ordered set, so [ ${\operatorname{colim}}_{I} X=\bigcup_{i\in I}\,X_{i}$ ]{} – then [ $H^{\ast}(X/Z;\,Y)=H^{\ast}({\operatorname{colim}}_{I} X/Z;\,Y)$[,]{} ]{} and the dual spectral seqeunce is simply the usual Mayer-Vietoris spectral sequence for the cover $X$ of [ ${\operatorname{colim}}_{I} X$ ]{} (cf. [@SegCC §5], and compare [@BKaH XII,4.5], [@VogtHL §10], and [@SlomS]).
\[egsquare\] Let $I$ be the commuting square as in Example \[squarefilter\]:
Given a diagram of abelian group objects [ $Y:I\to{{\mathcal C}}$[,]{} ]{} the successive fibers [ ${\operatorname{Fib}}(\omega_{n+1})$ ]{} (see Proposition \[pone\]) are: $$\xymatrix{
{\operatorname{Ker}}(Y(c))\cap{\operatorname{Ker}}(Y(d)) \ar[r]\ar[d] & 0 \ar[d] \\
0\ar[r] & 0
}$$ for [ $\omega_{4}:Y=\tau_{4}Y\to\sigma_{3}Y$[;]{} ]{} $$\xymatrix{
& {\operatorname{Ker}}(Y(b)) \ar[d] \\ 0 \ar[r] & 0
}$$ for [ $\omega_{3}:\tau_{3}Y\to\sigma_{2}Y$[;]{} ]{} $$\xymatrix{{\operatorname{Ker}}(Y(a)) \ar[r] & 0}$$ for [ $\omega_{2}:\tau_{2}Y\to\sigma_{1}Y$[;]{} ]{} and the single object [ $Y_{1}$ ]{} for [ $\omega_{1}:\tau_{1}Y\to\sigma_{0}Y$[.]{} ]{}
Thus the $E^{2}$-term for the spectral sequence consists of only four non-trivial lines:
E\^[2]{}\_[s,t]{}
H\^[s+4]{}(X\_[4]{}; (Y(c))(Y(d))) & t=4;\
H\^[s+3]{}(X\_[3]{}; (Y(b))) & t=3;\
H\^[s+2]{}(X\_[2]{}; (Y(a))) & t=2;\
H\^[s+1]{}(X\_[1]{}; Y\_[1]{}) & t=1;\
0 &
If we had used the fine cover, by Remark \[rfine\] we would instead have: $$E^{2}_{s,t}~\cong~\begin{cases}
H^{s+3}(X_{4};~{\operatorname{Ker}}(Y(c))\cap{\operatorname{Ker}}(Y(d))) & \text{if} \ t=3;\\
H^{s+2}(X_{3};~{\operatorname{Ker}}(Y(a)))\oplus H^{s+2}(X_{2};~{\operatorname{Ker}}(Y(b))) & \text{if} \ t=2;\\
H^{s+1}(X_{1};~Y_{1}) & \text{if} \ t=1;\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
\[rsquare\] The square can be thought of as a single morphism in the category of arrows, so that we could analyze it as in [@BJTurR §4], where [ $H^{\ast}(X;Y)$ ]{} is shown to fit into a long exact sequence with ordinary cohomology groups in the remaining two slots. See §\[scompar\] below.
An approach through local cohomology {#calc}
====================================
The towers of Section \[ctow\] were constructed by covering a given indexing category $I$ by truncated subcategories, obtained by omitting successive initial (or terminal) objects. We now present an alternative approach, using subcategories obtained by omitting *internal* objects of $I$. As we shall see, the resulting towers differ in nature from those considered above.
\[dgoodi\] An indexing category $I$ will be called *strongly directed* if:
1. It is *directed* in the sense of having no maps [ $f:i\to i$ ]{} but the identity.
2. It has a nonempty *weakly initial* subcategory (necessarily discrete) consisting of all objects with no incoming maps, as well as a nonempty *weakly final* subcategory consisting of all objects with no outgoing maps.
3. It is *locally finite* (that is, all ${\operatorname{Hom}}$-sets are finite).
4. $I$ (that is, its underlying undirected graph) is *connected*.
\[admit\] We refer to [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} as *admissible* if:
1. ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a simplicial model category;
2. $I$ is [strongly directed[;]{}]{}
3. [ $Z\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} is Reedy fibrant (hence objectwise fibrant);
4. [ $X,Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} with $X$ cofibrant and $Y$ a fibrant abelian group object.
\[dtrans\] For any categories ${{\mathcal C}}$ and $I$ and diagrams [ $Z\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} and [ $X,Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} the product of simplicial sets $${{{{\mathcal D}}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}}({X},{Y})}~:=~\prod_{i\in I}\operatorname{map}_{{{\mathcal C}}/Z_{i}}(X_{i},Y_{i})~.$$ will be called the *space of discrete transformations* from $X$ to $Y$ over $Z$.
We shall generally abbreviate this to [ ${{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}$[.]{} ]{} Note that these are maps of functors only for the discrete indexing category [ $I^{\delta}$[,]{} ]{} with no non-identity maps.
[The primary tower]{} \[spt\]
In the spirit of Section \[ccd\], for any finite indexing category $I$ we construct a finite sequence of full subcategories
I\_[1]{} I\_[2]{} …I\_[n]{}=I
of $I$, starting with [ $I_{1}$[,]{} ]{} whose objects are the weakly initial and final sets.
As before, this can be done in several ways (ultimately yielding variant spectral sequences). In any case, we can refine [ ]{} so that for each $k$, [ $I_{k-1}$ ]{} is obtained from [ $I_{k}$ ]{} by omitting a single internal object [ $i_{k}$ ]{} (where *internal* means that it is neither weakly initial nor weakly final).
If [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible, the inclusions of categories [ $\iota_{k-1}:I_{k-1}{\hookrightarrow}I_{k}$ ]{} induce a finite tower of simplicial abelian groups:
\_[[[[[C]{}]{}\^[I\_[n]{}]{}]{}/Z]{}]{}(X,Y) \_[[[[[C]{}]{}\^[I\_[k]{}]{}]{}/Z]{}]{}(X,Y) \_[[[[[C]{}]{}\^[I\_[k-1]{}]{}]{}/Z]{}]{}(X,Y) ,
analogous to [ ]{}
[The auxiliary fibration]{} \[sauxf\] Unfortunately, [ ]{} is not, in general, a tower of fibrations, so we cannot use it directly to obtain a useable spectral sequence for the cohomology of a diagram. To do so, we must replace it (up to homotopy) by a tower of fibrations, with [ $\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$ ]{} as its homotopy inverse limit. The resulting spectral sequence (abutting to the homotopy groups of [ $\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$[),]{} ]{} will have the homotopy groups of the homotopy fibers of the maps [ $\iota_{k}^{\ast}$ ]{} as its $E^{2}$-term. In fact, instead of constructing the replacement directly, we make use of the following observation:
For any indexing category $I$ and diagrams [ $X,Y:I\to{{\mathcal C}}$[,]{} ]{} the set [ ${\operatorname{Nat}_{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}}({X},{Y})}$ ]{} of diagram maps (natural transformations) from $X$ to $Y$ fits into an equalizer diagram:
[\_[[[[C]{}]{}\^[I]{}]{}]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{}\_[iI]{}\_[[[C]{}]{}]{}(X\_[i]{},Y\_[i]{}) [ ]{}\_[i,jI]{} \_[\_[I]{}(i,j)]{} \_[[[C]{}]{}]{}(X\_[i]{},Y\_[j]{}) .
Here the two parallel arrows map to each factor indexed by [ $\eta:i\to j$ ]{} in $I$ by the appropriate projection, followed by either [ $Y(\eta)_{\ast}:{\operatorname{Hom}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}(X_{i},Y_{i})\to{\operatorname{Hom}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}(X_{i},Y_{j})$[,]{} ]{} or [ $X(\eta)^{\ast}:{\operatorname{Hom}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}(X_{j},Y_{j})\to{\operatorname{Hom}}_{{{\mathcal C}}}(X_{i},Y_{j})$[,]{} ]{} respectively.
In the case where $Y$ is an abelian group object in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} (or [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[),]{} ]{} this describes [ ${\operatorname{Nat}_{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}}({X},{Y})}$ ]{} as the kernel of the difference $\xi$ of the two parallel arrows. By considering mapping spaces rather than ${\operatorname{Hom}}$-sets, we obtain a left-exact sequence of simplicial abelian groups:
0(X,Y) [[[[D]{}]{}]{}\_([X]{},[Y]{})]{} \_[i,jI]{} \_[:ij]{} (X\_[i]{},Y\_[j]{}) ,
and similarly for [ $\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$[.]{} ]{}
However, [ ]{} is not generally a fibration sequence, except when the underlying graph of $I$ is a tree (the proof of [@BJTurR Prop. 4.23], where $I$ consists of a single map, generalizes to this case). Nevertheless, for [strongly directed]{}indexing categories $I$ (Definition \[dgoodi\]), we can define a subspace [ ${L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} (see Definition \[dlof\]) inside the right-hand space of [ ]{} such that $\xi$ factors through a fibration $\Psi$ (see Lemma \[diffmap\] below), and:
0\_[Z]{}(X,Y) [[[[D]{}]{}]{}\_[Z]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{} [L\_[I]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{}
is thus a fibration sequence.
For such an $I$ we obtain an auxiliary tower:
[L\_[I\_[n]{}]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{} [L\_[I\_[n-1]{}]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{} [L\_[I\_[2]{}]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{} [L\_[I\_[1]{}]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{}
(see §\[nlof\]). We shall show that the maps [ $p_{k}$ ]{} are fibrations (see Proposition \[ppsifib\]), with a fiber which we identify as [ $F_{k}:={{\mathcal H}}^{I_{k}}_{c}(X/Z,Y)$ ]{} (cf. Definition \[dlocoh\]).
[The auxiliary fibers]{} \[sauxfib\] Since all of these constructions will be natural, for each $k$ the inclusion of categories [ $i_{k-1}:I_{k-1}{\hookrightarrow}I_{k}$ ]{} will induce a commuting square of fibrations: $$\xymatrix{
{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{k}}}/Z}}({X},{Y})} \ar[r]^-{\Psi_{k}} \ar[d]_{\pi_{k-1}} &
{L_{I_{k}}\left({X},{Y}\right)} \ar[d]^{p_{k-1}} \\
{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{k-1}}}/Z}}({X},{Y})} \ar[r]^-{\Psi_{k-1}} &
{L_{I_{k-1}}\left({X},{Y}\right)}~,
}$$ where the left vertical map [ $\pi_{k-1}$ ]{} is the projection onto the appropriate factors. Thus we will have a homotopy-commutative diagram: [$$\tag{\thethm}{\label{eqsquare}}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
{\operatorname{Fib}}(i_{k-1}^{\ast}) \ar[r] \ar[d] &
\prod\limits_{i\in I_{k}\setminus I_{k-1}}\,\operatorname{map}_{{{\mathcal C}}/Z_{i}}(X_{i},Y_{i})
\ar[r] \ar[d] &
{{\mathcal H}}^{I_{k}}_{c}(X/Z,Y) \ar[d] \\
\operatorname{map}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{k}}}/Z}}(X,Y) \ar[r] \ar[d]_{i_{k-1}^{\ast}} &
{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{k}}}/Z}}({X},{Y})} \ar[r]^-{\Psi_{k}} \ar[d]_{\pi_{k-1}} &
{L_{I_{k}}\left({X},{Y}\right)} \ar[d]^{p_{k-1}} \\
\operatorname{map}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{k-1}}}/Z}}(X,Y) \ar[r] &
{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{k-1}}}/Z}}({X},{Y})} \ar[r]^-{\Psi_{k-1}} &
{L_{I_{k-1}}\left({X},{Y}\right)}
}}$$]{} in which all rows and columns are fibration sequences up to homotopy.
Since the homotopy groups of [ $\Pi_{i}\operatorname{map}_{{{\mathcal C}}/Z_{i}}(X_{i},Y_{i})$ ]{} are a direct product of cohomology groups of the individual spaces in the diagram $X$, the top row of [ ]{} allows us to identify the successive homotopy fibers of maps of the primary tower [ ]{} in terms of those of the auxiliary tower [ ]{} Taking [ $k=n$[,]{} ]{} we see also that [ $\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$ ]{} is in fact the homotopy limit of the primary tower.
[A modified primary tower]{} \[smpt\] Using standard methods, we can change [ ]{} into a tower with the same homotopy limit, but simpler successive fibers:
For [ $1 \leq k \leq n$ ]{} we define [ $q_{k}:{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}\to{L_{I_{k}}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} to be the composite fibration: $${{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}~{\xrightarrow{\Psi_{I}}}~{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}~
{\xrightarrow{p_{k}\circ\dotsc\circ p_{n-1}}}~{L_{I_{k}}\left({X},{Y}\right)}~,$$ and denote the fiber of [ $q_{k}$ ]{} by [ ${{{\mathcal E}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I_{k}}}/Z}}^{I}({X},{Y})}$[.]{} ]{}
The induced maps [ $r_{k}:{{{\mathcal E}}_{Z}^{I_{k}}({X},{Y})}\to{{{\mathcal E}}_{Z}^{I_{k-1}}({X},{Y})}$ ]{} then fit into a tower:
[[[E]{}]{}\_[Z]{}\^[I\_[n]{}]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{} [[[E]{}]{}\_[Z]{}\^[I\_[2]{}]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{} [[[E]{}]{}\_[Z]{}\^[I\_[1]{}]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{} .
As in §\[sauxfib\], we see that the homotopy fiber of [ $r_{k}$ ]{} is the loop space of the fiber [ $F_{k}:={{\mathcal H}}^{I_{k}}_{c}(X/Z,Y)$ ]{} of [ $p_{k}$[,]{} ]{} while the homotopy limit of [ ]{} is [ ${{{\mathcal E}}_{Z}^{I}({X},{Y})}=\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$[.]{} ]{} Therefore, if we take the homotopy spectral sequence for the tower [ ]{} rather than that for [ ]{} we get the same abutment, and a closely related $E^{2}$-term.
\[dctrans\] For [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} as above and $J$ a subcategory of $I$, we denote by [ ${{{\mathcal E}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}}^{J}({X},{Y})}={{{\mathcal E}}_{Z}^{J}({X},{Y})}$ ]{} the sub-simplicial set of [ ${{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}$ ]{} consisting of transformations which are natural when restricted to $J$-diagrams. In other words, these are elements $\sigma$ of [ ${{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}$ ]{} which make [$$\tag{\thethm}{}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
X_{i} \ar[d]_{\sigma_{i}} \ar[r]^{X(f)} & X_{j} \ar[d]^{\sigma_{j}} \\
Y_{i} \ar[r]_{Y(f)} & Y_{j}
}}$$]{} commute, for any morphism [ $f:i\to j$ ]{} in $J$.
For example, [ ${{{\mathcal E}}_{Z}^{I_{1}}({X},{Y})}$[,]{} ]{} consists of those transformations which are natural only with respect to morphisms of maximal length. On the other hand, [ ${{{\mathcal E}}_{Z}^{I}({X},{Y})}$ ]{} is simply [ $\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$[.]{} ]{}
Note that any inclusion of subcategories [ $J' \to J$ ]{} of $I$ induces an injection of simplicial sets [ $r^{J}_{J'}:{{{\mathcal E}}_{Z}^{J}({X},{Y})}\to{{{\mathcal E}}_{Z}^{J'}({X},{Y})}$[,]{} ]{} since any transformation natural over $J$ must be natural over the subcategory [ $J'$[.]{} ]{}
\[lctrans\] For [ $(I_{k})_{k=1}^{n}$ ]{} as in [ ]{} we can identify [ ${{{\mathcal E}}_{Z}^{I_{k}}({X},{Y})}$ ]{} of §\[smpt\] with [ ${{{\mathcal E}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}}^{I_{k}}({X},{Y})}$[,]{} ]{} and [ $r_{k}:{{{\mathcal E}}_{Z}^{I_{k}}({X},{Y})}\to{{{\mathcal E}}_{Z}^{I_{k-1}}({X},{Y})}$ ]{} with [ $r^{I_{k}}_{I_{k-1}}$[.]{} ]{}
Follows from Definition \[dctrans\].
The Auxiliary Tower {#cauxt}
===================
Suppose [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible. In order to construct the auxiliary tower [ ]{} we need a number of definitions:
\[ddiags\] Assuming [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible:
1. For any composable sequence [ ${f_{\bullet}}$ ]{} of $k$ non-identity morphisms in $I$ (i.e., a $k$-simplex of the reduced nerve of $I$, [ ${{\mathcal N}}(I)$[,]{} ]{} where identities are excluded) its *diagonal* mapping space is $${{M({f_{\bullet}})}}:=\operatorname{map}_{Z_{t(f_{k})}}(X_{s(f_{1})},Y_{t(f_{k})})~,$$ In particular, for [ $f:a\to b$ ]{} in $I$ we have [ ${{M(f)}}:=\operatorname{map}_{Z_{b}}(X_{a},Y_{b})$[.]{} ]{}
2. For each [ $k\geq 1$[,]{} ]{} let [ $\displaystyle {\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)}~:=~
\prod_{{f_{\bullet}}\in\,{{\mathcal N}}(I)_{k}}~{{M({f_{\bullet}})}}$[.]{} ]{} In particular, we denote [ ${\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{1}\left({X},{Y}\right)}=\prod_{f \in I}~{{M(f)}}$ ]{} by[ ${\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[.]{} ]{}
3. Any map into the product [ ${\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} is defined by specifying its projection onto each factor [ ${{M({f_{\bullet}})}}$[,]{} ]{} indexed by [ ${f_{\bullet}}\in {{\mathcal N}}(I)_k$[.]{} ]{}
In particular, we have two maps of interest [ ${\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k-1}\left({X},{Y}\right)} \to {\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[:]{} ]{}
1. [ $X^{\ast}$[,]{} ]{} for which the ${f_{\bullet}}$-component is the composite $${\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k-1}\left({X},{Y}\right)}{\xrightarrow{{\operatorname{proj}}}}
{M(f_{2},\dotsc,f_{k})}
{\xrightarrow{X(f_{1})^{\ast}}} {{M({f_{\bullet}})}}~.$$
2. [ $Y_{\ast}$[,]{} ]{} for which the ${f_{\bullet}}$-component is the composite $${\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k-1}\left({X},{Y}\right)}{\xrightarrow{{\operatorname{proj}}}}
{M(f_{1},\dotsc,f_{k-1})}
{\xrightarrow{Y(f_{k})_{\ast}}} {{M({f_{\bullet}})}}$$
4. By iterating the maps [ ${\Phi^{1}_{}}:=Y_{\ast}+X^{\ast}:{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k-1}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} for various [ $k>1$ ]{} we obtain maps: $${\Phi^{j}_{}}:{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)} \to {\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k+j}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$$ for each [ $j \geq 1$[.]{} ]{} Setting [ ${\Phi^{0}_{}}:={\operatorname{Id}}:{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{1}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{1}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[,]{} ]{} we may combine these to define: $${{\Phi^{}_{}}}:{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to \prod_{k=1}^{n}~{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)}~.$$ For any [ ${f_{\bullet}}\in{{\mathcal N}}(I)_{k}$[,]{} ]{} we write [ ${{\Phi^{}_{{f_{\bullet}}}}}$ ]{} for ${{\Phi^{}_{}}}$ composed with the projection onto [ ${{M({f_{\bullet}})}}$[.]{} ]{}
5. For any [ ${f_{\bullet}}=(f_{1},\dotsc,,f_{k})\in{{\mathcal N}}(I)_{k}$[,]{} ]{} let [ ${c({{f_{\bullet}}})}:=f_{k}\circ f_{k-1}\circ\dotsc\circ f_{1}$ ]{} denote the composition in $I$. We then have a map [ $\kappa_{{f_{\bullet}}}:\prod_{k=1}^{n}{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to{M({c({{f_{\bullet}}})})}$[,]{} ]{} which is just the projection onto [ ${{M({f_{\bullet}})}}{\xrightarrow{=}} {M({c({{f_{\bullet}}})})}$[.]{} ]{}
\[rphis\] If [ $(g,f)\in{{\mathcal N}}(I)_{2}$[,]{} ]{} is a composable pair in $I$, then by definition of $\Phi$ we have $${{\Phi^{}_{(g,f)}}}=Y(f)\circ{{\Phi^{}_{g}}}+{{\Phi^{}_{f}}}\circ X(g)~.$$ More generally, if [ ${h_{\bullet}}=({g_{\bullet}},{f_{\bullet}})\in{{\mathcal N}}(I)_{k+j}$ ]{} is the concatentation of [ ${g_{\bullet}}\in{{\mathcal N}}(I)_{k}$ ]{} and [ ${f_{\bullet}}\in{{\mathcal N}}(I)_{j}$[,]{} ]{} then:
[[\^\_[([g\_]{},[f\_]{})]{}]{}]{} = Y([c([[f\_]{}]{})]{})\_[[\^\_[[g\_]{}]{}]{}]{} + X([c([[g\_]{}]{})]{})\^[[\^\_[[f\_]{}]{}]{}]{} .
Note also that $$(Y_{\ast}+X^{\ast}) \circ (Y_{\ast}+X^{\ast})~=~
Y_{\ast}Y_{\ast}+Y_{\ast}X^{\ast}+X^{\ast}X^{\ast}:{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to
{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k+2}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$$ and so inductively:
[\^[j]{}\_]{}=(Y\_+X\^)\^j = \_[i=0]{}\^j (Y\_)\^[j-i]{}(X\^)\^i:[\_[Z]{}\^[k]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{} [\_[Z]{}\^[k+j]{}([X]{},[Y]{})]{}.
\[dlof\] Let [ $K_{I}$ ]{} denote the indexing category with
1. objects: ${\mathbf{0}}$, ${\mathbf{1}}$, and [ ${\operatorname{Arr}}(I):={{\mathcal N}}(I)_{1}$[,]{} ]{}
2. morphisms: one arrow [ $\phi:{\mathbf{0}}\to{\mathbf{1}}$[,]{} ]{} and an arrow [ $k_{{f_{\bullet}}}:{\mathbf{1}}\to {c({{f_{\bullet}}})}\in{\operatorname{Arr}}(I)$ ]{} for each [ ${f_{\bullet}}\in{{\mathcal N}}(I)$[.]{} ]{}
If [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible, define a diagram of simplicial abelian groups [ $V_{I}:K_{I}\to s{{\mathcal A}}$ ]{} by setting [ $V_{I}({\mathbf{0}})={\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[,]{} ]{} [ $V_{I}({\mathbf{1}})=\prod_{k=1}^{n}~{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[,]{} ]{} and [ $V_{I}(f)={{M(f)}}$[,]{} ]{} with [ $V_{I}(\phi)={{\Phi^{}_{}}}$ ]{} and [ $V_{I}(k_{{f_{\bullet}}})=\kappa_{{f_{\bullet}}}$[.]{} ]{} Then set [ ${L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}:=\lim_{K_{I}}~V_{I}$[.]{} ]{}
This limit can be described more concretely as follows: write [ ${\operatorname{Indec}_{}({I})}$ ]{} for the collection of indecomposable maps in $I$, and let [ ${{{\mathcal L}}_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} denote the subspace of [ $\prod_{f \in {\operatorname{Indec}_{}({I})}}~{{M(f)}}$ ]{} consisting of tuples [ ${\varphi_{\bullet}}$ ]{} satisfying
\_[i=0]{}\^k Y(f\_[k]{} …f\_[i+1]{})\_[f\_[i]{}]{}X(f\_[i-1]{} …f\_[1]{}) = \_[i=0]{}\^l Y(g\_[l]{} …g\_[i+1]{})\_[g\_[i]{}]{}X(g\_[i-1]{} …g\_[1]{})
whenever [ ${c({{f_{\bullet}}})}={c({{g_{\bullet}}})}$[.]{} ]{}
\[llof\] The simplicial abelian group [ ${L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} is isomorphic to [ ${{{\mathcal L}}_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[.]{} ]{}
The limit condition for [ $\varphi \in {L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} implies that the value of [ $\varphi_{f}$ ]{} for any decomposable $f$ is uniquely determined by the values of [ $\varphi_{f_{i}}$ ]{} for [ $f_{i}$ ]{} indecomposable, by the recursive formula [ ]{}
\[include\] As a consequence of the previous lemma, for (full) subcategories [ $J \subset I$ ]{} we have natural inclusion maps [ $i_J:{L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)} \to\prod_{f \in {\operatorname{Indec}_{}({J})}} {{M(f)}}$[.]{} ]{}
We now investigate the properties of [ ${L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} and its associated fibrations. First, note that there are two maps [ $X^{\ast},Y_{\ast}:{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}\to{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[,]{} ]{} which project to precomposition and postcomposition respectively on appropriate factors and we show:
\[diffmap\] The difference map [ $\xi:=Y_{\ast}-X^{\ast}:{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}\to{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} factors through a map [ $\Psi:{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}\to{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} with kernel [ $\operatorname{map}_{Z}(X,Y)$[.]{} ]{}
Note that the sum [ ]{} applied to an element in the image of the difference map $$Y_{\ast}-X^{\ast}:{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}\to{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}\left({X},{Y}\right)}~,$$ is telescopic, so we are left with: [ $(Y_{\ast})^k-(X^{\ast})^{k}$[.]{} ]{} Since $X$ and $Y$ are in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[,]{} ]{} for any [ ${f_{\bullet}}\in{{\mathcal N}}(I)_{k}$ ]{} the composite: $${{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}\to{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to \prod_{k=1}^n{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)}
~{\xrightarrow{\kappa_{{f_{\bullet}}}}}~{M({c({{f_{\bullet}}})})}$$ sends any $\sigma$ to [ $Y(f)\sigma_{s(f)}-\sigma_{t(f)}X(f)$[.]{} ]{} As a consequence, we get an identical value for any [ ${g_{\bullet}}\in{{\mathcal N}}(I)_{j}$ ]{} with [ ${c({{f_{\bullet}}})}={c({{g_{\bullet}}})}$[.]{} ]{} Thus, the universal property of the limit implies the difference map factors through the limit [ ${L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[.]{} ]{}
To identify the kernel of $\Psi$, we instead consider the difference map: $$Y_{\ast}-X^{\ast}:{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}\to{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}\left({X},{Y}\right)}~.$$ Clearly [ $\Psi(\sigma)=0$ ]{} if and only if [ $Y(f)\sigma_{s(f)}-\sigma_{t(f)}X(f)=0$[,]{} ]{} for every morphism $f$ in $I$ – that is, precisely when $\sigma$ is a natural transformation of [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[.]{} ]{} Since both $X$ and $Y$ are diagrams over $Z$, and each [ $\sigma_{f}$ ]{} is a map over [ $Z_{f}$[,]{} ]{} $\sigma$ is in that case actually a natural transformation over $Z$.
\[nlof\] In order to describe the behavior of the $L$-construction with respect to the inclusion of a subcategory [ $\iota:J \to I$[,]{} ]{} note that we can define two different diagrams of simplicial abelian groups indexed by [ $K_{J}$ ]{} (Definition \[dlof\]):
One is [ $V_{J}$[,]{} ]{} whose limit is [ ${L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[.]{} ]{} The second, which we denote by [ $V_{I,J}$[,]{} ]{} has [ $V_{I,J}({\mathbf{0}})={\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[,]{} ]{} [ $V_{I,J}({\mathbf{1}})=\prod_{k=1}^{n}~{\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[,]{} ]{} as for [ $V_{I}$[,]{} ]{} (and [ $V_{I,J}(f)={{M(f)}}$ ]{} for [ $f\in{\operatorname{Arr}}(J)$[).]{} ]{} If we set [ ${L_{I,J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}:=\lim_{K_{J}}~V_{I,J}$[,]{} ]{} we see that there is a canonical map [ $\tau:{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to {L_{I,J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} (since fewer constraints are imposed in defining the second limit as a subset of [ $\prod_{f \in {\operatorname{Indec}_{}({I})}}~{{M(f)}}$[).]{} ]{}
On the other hand, we have a morphism of $K_{J}$-diagrams from [ $\xi:V_{I,J}\to V_{J}$[,]{} ]{} obtained by projecting the larger products [ ${\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{k}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} onto [ ${\operatorname{Diag}_{Z{\lvert_{J}}}^{k}\left({X{\lvert_{J}}},{Y{\lvert_{J}}}\right)}$ ]{} for each [ $k\geq 1$[.]{} ]{} This induces a map on the limits [ $\xi_{\ast}:{L_{I,J}\left({X},{Y}\right)} \to {L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[,]{} ]{} and we define the *restriction map* [ $(p=)p^{I}_{J}:{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)} \to {L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} to be [ $p^I_J:=\xi_{\ast}\circ\tau$[.]{} ]{}
Finally, note that there is an obvious restriction map [ $r:{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}}({X},{Y})}\to{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{J}}/Z}}({X},{Y})}$[,]{} ]{} which is simply the projection onto the factors indexed by [ ${\operatorname{Arr}}(J)$[.]{} ]{}
From the definitions it is clear that the diagram: [$$\tag{\thethm}{\label{dilof}}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}}({X},{Y})} \ar[r]^-{\Psi_{I}} \ar[d]_{r} & {L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)} \ar[d]^{p^I_J} \\
{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{J}}/Z}}({X},{Y})} \ar[r]_-{\Psi_{J}} & {L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}.
}}$$]{} commutes.
The kernel of [ $p^I_J\circ\Psi_{I}$ ]{} will be the same as the kernel of [ $\Psi_{J} \circ r^I_J$[,]{} ]{} by the commutativity of [ ]{} However, by Lemma \[diffmap\], the kernel of [ $\Psi_{J}$ ]{} is the space of $J$-natural transformations. Thus the kernel of the composite [ $p^I_J \circ \Psi_{I}$ ]{} will be the space [ ${{{{\mathcal D}}}_{{{{{\mathcal C}}^{J}}/Z}}({X},{Y})}$[.]{} ]{}
\[ldescript\] Given [ $J\subseteq I$ ]{} and [ $f \in {\operatorname{Indec}_{}({J})}$ ]{} with [ $f={c({{f_{\bullet}}})}$ ]{} for [ ${f_{\bullet}}=(f_{k},f_{k-1},\dotsc,f_{1})\in{{\mathcal N}}(I)_{k}$ ]{} with [ $f_{i}\in{\operatorname{Indec}_{}({I})}$ ]{} ($i=1,\dotsc k$), the following diagram commutes: [$$\tag{\thethm}{\label{didescript}}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)} \ar[r]^{p^I_J} \ar[d]^-{i_{I}} & {L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)} \ar[d]^-{i_{J}}\\
{\displaystyle \prod_{f \in {\operatorname{Indec}_{}({I})}}{{M(f)}}} \ar[d]^{{\operatorname{proj}}} &
{\displaystyle \prod_{f \in {\operatorname{Indec}_{}({J})}}{{M(f)}}} \ar[d]^{{\operatorname{proj}}} \\
{M(f_{1})}\times\dotsc\times{M(f_{k})} \ar[r]^-{{\Phi^{k}_{{f_{\bullet}}}}} & {{M(f)}}}}$$]{} where the maps [ $i_{I}$ ]{} and [ $i_{J}$ ]{} are the inclusions of §\[include\].
Suppose [ ${\varphi_{\bullet}}$ ]{} is an element of [ ${L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[,]{} ]{} while [ $f={c({{f_{\bullet}}})}$ ]{} is a maximal decomposition (so each [ $f_{i}$ ]{} is indecomposable). Then [ $\varphi_{f}$ ]{} lies in [ ${\operatorname{Diag}_{Z}^{1}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[,]{} ]{} so [ ${{\Phi^{}_{\varphi_{f}}}}=\varphi_{f}$ ]{} lands in [ ${{M(f)}}$[.]{} ]{} However, [ $(\varphi_{f_{k}},\dots,\varphi_{f_{1}})\in
{M(f_{k})}\times\dots\times{M(f_{1})}$ ]{} maps to [ $\Sigma_{i=0}^{k} Y(f_{k} \circ \dots \circ f_{i+1})\varphi_{f_{i}}X(f_{i-1}
\circ \dots \circ f_{1})$ ]{} also in [ ${M({c({{f_{\bullet}}})})}={{M(f)}}$[.]{} ]{} Thus, [ ${\varphi_{\bullet}}\in {L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}={{{\mathcal L}}_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} (see Lemma \[llof\]) implies the value of [ $\varphi_{f}$ ]{} for any decomposable $f$ is uniquely determined by the values of [ $\varphi_{f_{i}}$ ]{} for [ $f_{i}$ ]{} indecomposable, using formula [ ]{}
Note that if $f$ is also indecomposable in $I$, the bottom map of [ ]{} is [ ${\operatorname{Id}}:{{M(f)}}\to{{M(f)}}$[.]{} ]{} The choice of decomposition of $f$ in $I$ is also irrelevant, by Definition \[dlof\].
Fibrations in the Auxiliary Tower {#cfibat}
=================================
As noted in §\[sauxf\], the auxiliary tower [ ]{} was constructed with two goals in mind: to replace [ ]{} by a tower of fibrations (with the same homotopy limit), and to identify the homotopy fibers of the successive maps in [ ]{} In this section we show that the map $\Psi$ of Lemma \[diffmap\] is indeed a fibration, and that the auxiliary tower is a tower of fibrations. First, we need the following:
\[dfiltrs\] Any [strongly directed]{}indexing category $I$ has two filtrations, defined inductively:
1. The filtration [ $\{{{\mathcal F}}_{i}\}_{i=0}^{n}$ ]{} on $I$ is defined by decomposition length from the left, so [ ${{\mathcal F}}_{0}$ ]{} consists of weakly initial objects in $I$ and [ ${{\mathcal F}}_{n+1}$ ]{} consists of indecomposable maps with sources in [ ${{\mathcal F}}_{n}$[,]{} ]{} (including their targets).
2. The filtration [ $\{{{\mathcal G}}_{i}\}_{i=0}^{n}$ ]{} is similarly defined by decomposition length from the right, so [ ${{\mathcal G}}_{0}$ ]{} consists of the weakly terminal objects in $I$ and [ ${{\mathcal G}}_{n+1}$ ]{} consists of indecomposable maps with targets in [ ${{\mathcal G}}_{n}$[,]{} ]{} (including their sources).
\[ppsifib\] If [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible, the induced difference map: $$\Psi:{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}\to {L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$$ of Lemma \[diffmap\] is a fibration of simplicial abelian groups.
By [@QuiH II, §3, Prop. 1], it suffices to show that $\Psi$ surjects onto the zero component of [ ${L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[.]{} ]{} Thus, given [ $0\sim{\varphi_{\bullet}}\in{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[,]{} ]{} we must produce an element [ ${\sigma_{\bullet}}\in{{{{\mathcal D}}}_{Z}({X},{Y})}$ ]{} with [ $\Psi({\sigma_{\bullet}})={\varphi_{\bullet}}$[;]{} ]{} i.e., for every [ $f:a\to b$ ]{} in $I$ we want:
\_[b]{}X(f) = Y(f)\_[a]{}-[\_[f]{}]{} .
Note that since $Y$ is an abelian group object in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} the zero map [ $X\to Y$ ]{} is the unique map in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} that factors through the section [ $s:Z \to Y$ ]{} (which exists by [ ]{} and §\[ssketch\]).
We proceed by induction on the filtration [ $\{{{\mathcal F}}_{i}\}_{i=0}^{n}$ ]{} of $I$ of Definition \[dfiltrs\]. To begin, for each [ $c\in{{\mathcal F}}_{0}$[,]{} ]{} we may choose [ $\sigma_{c}:X_{c}\to Y_{c}$ ]{} to be $0$.
Assume by induction that we have constructed maps [ $\sigma_{c}:X_{c}\to Y_{c}$ ]{} for each [ $c\in{{\mathcal F}}_{i}$[,]{} ]{} satisfying [ ]{} for every $f$ in [ ${{\mathcal F}}_{i}$[,]{} ]{} and with each [ $\sigma_{c}\sim 0$[.]{} ]{} Note that for any [ $f:b\to c$[,]{} ]{} in [ ${{\mathcal F}}_{i+1}$ ]{} the map:
[([f]{})]{} := Y(f)\_[b]{}-[\_[f]{}]{}:X\_[b]{}Y\_[c]{}
is well-defined (since necessarily [ $b\in{{\mathcal F}}_{i}$[).]{} ]{} This is our candidate for [ $\sigma_{c}\circ X(f)$[,]{} ]{} and [ ${\nu\left({f}\right)} \sim -Y(f)\circ\sigma_{b} \sim 0$ ]{} by the assumption on $\varphi$ together with the induction hypothesis (considering naturality of the section [ $Z \to Y$[).]{} ]{}
Moreover, given any [ $g:a\to b$ ]{} (necessarily in [ ${{\mathcal F}}_{i}$[),]{} ]{} we have [ ${\varphi_{g}}=Y(g)\circ\sigma_{a}+\sigma_{b}\circ X(f)$ ]{} by [ ]{} so from [ ${\varphi_{\bullet}}\in {L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} it follows that:
[([f g]{})]{} =& Y(fg)\_[a]{}-[\_[fg]{}]{}\
=& Y(fg)\_[a]{}-\[Y(f)[\_[g]{}]{}+[\_[f]{}]{}X(g)\]\
=& Y(fg)\_[a]{}- \[Y(f) (Y(g)\_[a]{}-\_[b]{}X(g))+[\_[f]{}]{}X(g)\]\
=& [([f]{})]{}X(g) .
Now given [ $c\in{{\mathcal F}}_{i+1}\setminus{{\mathcal F}}_{i}$[,]{} ]{} set: $${\hat{X}}_{c}~:=~{\raisebox{-0.25cm}{$\stackrel{\textstyle{\operatorname{colim}}}
{\mbox{\scriptsize{${b\in I/c}$}}}$}\,\vspace{0.4cm}}X_{b}~.$$
Since [ $X\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} is cofibrant, it is Reedy cofibrant (§\[rmodel\]), which implies that the canonical map [ $\varepsilon_{c}:{\hat{X}}_{c}\to X_{c}$ ]{} is a cofibration. Moreover, [ ]{} implies that the maps [ ${\nu\left({f}\right)}$ ]{} defined above induce a map [ $\hat{\nu_c}:{\hat{X}}_{c}\to Y_{c}$[.]{} ]{} Since all the maps in question are nullhomotopic by construction, the diagram: $$\xymatrix{
{\hat{X}}_{c} \ar[rd]_{\hat{\nu_c}}\ar[r]^{\varepsilon_{c}} & X_{c}\ar[d]^{0} \\
& Y_{c}\\
}$$ commutes up to homotopy. Hence by [@BJTurR Cor. 4.20] there is a map [ $\sigma:X_{c}\to Y_{c}$ ]{} in [ ${{\mathcal C}}/Z_{c}$ ]{} making the diagram [$$\tag{\thethm}{\label{diextend}}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
{\hat{X}}_{c} \ar[rd]_{\hat{\nu_c}}\ar[r]^{\varepsilon_{c}} & X_{c}\ar[d]^{\sigma} \\
& Y_{c}\\
}}$$]{} commute, and we choose this to be [ $\sigma_{c}$[.]{} ]{} By construction [ $\sigma_{c}\circ X(f)={\nu\left({f}\right)}$ ]{} for every [ $f:b\to c$[,]{} ]{} so [ ]{} is satisfied. This completes the induction.
\[pfibl\] If [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible, let $J$ be a subcategory of $I$ obtained by omitting a terminal object $c$. Then the restriction map [ $p^I_J:{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to{L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} is a fibration.
As in the previous proof, we must inductively define a lift [ ${\sigma_{\bullet}}\in {L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} for a nullhomotopic [ ${\varphi_{\bullet}}\in {L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[.]{} ]{} Under these conditions, [ $p^I_J$ ]{} is simply a forgetful functor, so this means [ $\sigma_g=\varphi_g$ ]{} for $g$ a morphism of $J$ and we must define [ $\sigma_{\ell}:X_d \to Y_c$ ]{} whenever [ $\ell:d \to c$ ]{} is a morphism in $I$, in a manner compatible with the definition of [ ${\varphi_{\bullet}}$[.]{} ]{} Note that [ ${\varphi_{\bullet}}$ ]{} determines the composite [ $Y(f) \circ {\Phi^{I}_{{g_{\bullet}}}}=:{\psi \left( {g_{\bullet}},f \right)}$[.]{} ]{}
Following the approach of the previous proof, we will define [ ${\nu\left({{g_{\bullet}},f}\right)}$ ]{} for any [ $e{\xrightarrow{{g_{\bullet}}}} d{\xrightarrow{f}} c$ ]{} in $I$, where $f$ is indecomposable, so as to satisfy three properties:
First, we require that our choices be *coherent*:
[([[g\_]{},f]{})]{}=[([[g\_]{},f]{})]{} X([c([[h\_]{}]{})]{}) ,
which will allow us to build a homotopy commutative triangle using a colimit construction.
Second, we need our choices to be *consistent*:
[([[g\_]{},f]{})]{}=[([[g\_]{}’,f’]{})]{} + [( [g\_]{},f )]{} - [( [g\_]{}’,f’ )]{} f [g\_]{}=f’ [g\_]{}’ I ,
which is needed so that we eventually obtain an element [ ${\sigma_{\bullet}}\in {L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[.]{} ]{} In fact, our construction will also work when [ ${g_{\bullet}}=\emptyset$[,]{} ]{} which will yield [ ${\,\sigma\left({f}\right)}={\nu\left({\emptyset,f}\right)}$[.]{} ]{}
Finally, we require that each [ ${\nu\left({{g_{\bullet}},f}\right)} \sim 0$[.]{} ]{}
We now proceed to choose [ ${\nu\left({{g_{\bullet}},f}\right)}$ ]{} for [ $e{\xrightarrow{{g_{\bullet}}}}d{\xrightarrow{f}} c$ ]{} with [ $e\in{{\mathcal F}}_{i}$ ]{} (Definition \[dfiltrs\]) by induction on [ $i\geq 0$[:]{} ]{}
For each [ $\ell:e\to c$ ]{} in $I$ with [ $e\in{{\mathcal F}}_{0}$[,]{} ]{} choose some decomposition [ $e{\xrightarrow{{g_{\bullet}}}} d{\xrightarrow{f}} c$ ]{} (with [ $\ell={c({{g_{\bullet}},f})}$ ]{} and $f$ indecomposable), and an arbitrary nullhomotopic [ $0={\nu\left({{g_{\bullet}},f}\right)}:X_{e}\to Y_{c}$[.]{} ]{} For any other decomposition [ $\ell={c({{g_{\bullet}}',f'})}$[,]{} ]{} the map [ ${\nu\left({{g_{\bullet}}',f'}\right)}$ ]{} is then determined by [ ]{}
Assume that $\nu$ has been defined for every [ $e \in {{\mathcal F}}_{i}$ ]{} so that [ ]{} and [ ]{} hold (wherever applicable). For each [ $e\in{{\mathcal F}}_{i+1}\setminus{{\mathcal F}}_{i}$ ]{} and map [ $\ell:e\to c$[,]{} ]{} consider the over-category [ ${{\mathcal F}}_{i}/e$ ]{} (which is non-empty by definition of [ ${{\mathcal F}}_{i+1}$[)]{} ]{} and set [ ${\hat{X}}_{e}:={\operatorname{colim}}_{a\in{{\mathcal F}}_{i}/e}\,X_{a}$[.]{} ]{} Because the diagram $X$ is cofibrant, hence Reedy cofibrant (§\[rmodel\]) in [ ${{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$[,]{} ]{} the canonical map [ $\varepsilon_{e}:{\hat{X}}_{e}{\hookrightarrow}X_{e}$ ]{} is a cofibration.
Again choose some decomposition [ $e{\xrightarrow{{g_{\bullet}}}} d{\xrightarrow{f}}c$ ]{} of $\ell$. The maps [ ${\nu\left({{g_{\bullet}}\circ {h_{\bullet}},f}\right)}:X_{a}\to Y_{c}$[,]{} ]{} for each composable sequence [ ${h_{\bullet}}:a\to e$ ]{} in [ ${{\mathcal F}}_{i}/e$ ]{} induce a (necessarily nullhomotopic) map [ $\hat{\mu}_{e}:{\hat{X}}_{e}\to Y_{c}$ ]{} by [ ]{} Since: $$\xymatrix{
{\hat{X}}_{e} \ar[r]^{\varepsilon_{e}} \ar[rd]_{\hat{\nu}_{({g_{\bullet}},f)}} & X_{e}
\ar[d]^{0}\\
& Y_{c}
}$$ then commutes up to homotopy, we apply [@BJTurR Cor. 4.20] to find $$\xymatrix{
{\hat{X}}_{e} \ar[r]^{\varepsilon_{e}} \ar[rd]_{\hat{\nu}_{({g_{\bullet}},f)}} & X_{e}
\ar[d]^{{\nu\left({{g_{\bullet}},f}\right)}}\\
& Y_{c}
}$$ making the diagram commute.
For any other decomposition [ $e{\xrightarrow{{g_{\bullet}}'}} d'{\xrightarrow{f'}} c$ ]{} of $\ell$, use [ ]{} to define [ ${\nu\left({{g_{\bullet}}',f'}\right)}$[.]{} ]{} This completes the induction step.
We have thus defined [ ${\nu\left({{g_{\bullet}},f}\right)}:X_{e}\to Y_{c}$ ]{} satisfying [ ]{} and [ ]{} for every [ $e{\xrightarrow{{g_{\bullet}}}} d{\xrightarrow{f}} c$ ]{} in [ $I/c$[.]{} ]{} In particular, we can choose [ ${\,\sigma\left({f}\right)}={\nu\left({\emptyset,f}\right)}:X_{d}\to Y_{c}$ ]{} for each indecomposable [ $f:d\to c$ ]{} in $I$ and see that [ ${\sigma_{\bullet}}\in{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} (by Lemma \[llof\]) is the desired lift.
\[cfibl\] If [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible, let $J$ be a full subcategory of $I$ obtained by omitting an object $c$ such that all maps out of $c$ are indecomposable. Then [ $p^I_J:{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to{L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} is a fibration.
As in the proof of Proposition \[pfibl\] we can construct [ ${\,\sigma\left({f}\right)}$ ]{} for each [ $f:d\to c$[.]{} ]{} in $I$, such that we have [ $\hat{\nu}:{\operatorname{colim}}_{d\in I/c}\,X_{d}\to Y_{c}$[,]{} ]{} as well as [ $\hat{\epsilon_c}:{\operatorname{colim}}_{d\in I/c}\,X_{d}\to X_{c}$[.]{} ]{} For any [ $g:c\to b$[,]{} ]{} in $I$ (indecomposable by assumption), we also have a map [ $\hat{\varphi}:{\operatorname{colim}}_{d\in I/c}\,X_{d}\to X_{b}$ ]{} induced by [ ${\varphi_{\bullet}}$[.]{} ]{} Note that by [ ]{} we must have: $${\,\sigma\left({g}\right)}\circ X(\hat{\epsilon_c})~=~{\Phi^{I}_{(g,f)}}-Y(g)\circ{\,\sigma\left({f}\right)}~=~
\hat{\varphi}-Y(g)\circ\hat{\nu}~,$$ and since [ $X(f)$ ]{} is a cofibration, we may choose the extension [ ${\,\sigma\left({g}\right)}$ ]{} as in [ ]{}
\[dstrongf\] If $I$ is a [strongly directed]{}indexing category, let [ ${{\mathcal J}}=\{J_{k}\}_{k\in N}$ ]{} be a fine orderable cover (§\[emainex\]) of $I$ subordinate to the filtration ${{\mathcal G}}$ (Definition \[dfiltrs\]), such that [ $J_{k}\setminus J_{k-1}$ ]{} consists of a single object of $I$ for each [ $k\in N$[.]{} ]{} Let [ ${{\mathcal C}}=s{{\mathcal A}}$ ]{} for some ${\mathfrak{G}}$-sketchable category ${{\mathcal A}}$ (§\[ssketch\]), with [ $Z\in{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}$ ]{} fibrant. A fibrant abelian group object [ $Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is called *strongly fibrant* if it is ${{\mathcal J}}$-fibrant with respect to the model category structure of §\[smodel\](a).
\[rstrongf\] Note that this definition is independent of the choice of the refinement ${{\mathcal J}}$ of ${{\mathcal G}}$. Forthermore, by Proposition \[ptwo\], any abelian group object [ $Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} is weakly equivalent to one which is strongly fibrant.
\[pfibr\] Suppose [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible, and that $Y$ is strongly fibrant. Assume that $J$ is obtained from $I$ by omitting an object $c$ such that all maps into $c$ are indecomposable. Then the restriction map [ $p^I_J:{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to{L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} is a fibration.
Dual to the proofs of Proposition \[pfibl\] and Corollary \[cfibl\]. The strong fibrancy is needed since in the model category we use for diagrams ordinary fibrancy is merely objectwise, while strong fibrancy is dual to Reedy cofibrancy for our purposes.
\[pfibrest\] If [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible, $Y$ is strongly fibrant, and $J$ is obtained from $I$ by omitting any object $c$, then the restriction map [ $p^I_J:{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to{L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} is a fibration.
Consider any composable sequence:
d c b a
in $I$. As above, [ $0 \sim {\varphi_{\bullet}}\in {L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} will determine the map
[( [h\_]{},g,[f\_]{})]{} := Y([c([(g,[f\_]{})]{})]{})[\^[I]{}\_[[h\_]{}]{}]{} + [\^[I]{}\_[[f\_]{}]{}]{}X([c([([h\_]{},g)]{})]{})
and we use [ ${\nu\left({{h_{\bullet}},g,{f_{\bullet}}}\right)}:X_{d}\to Y_{a}$[,]{} ]{} to denote the candidate for [ $Y({c({{f_{\bullet}}})})\circ{\,\sigma\left({g}\right)}\circ X({c({{h_{\bullet}}})})$ ]{} which we will construct.
As before we require *coherence*:
[([[h\_]{},g,[k\_]{}]{})]{} = Y([c([[k\_]{}]{})]{})[([[h\_]{},g,[f\_]{}]{})]{}X([c([[\_]{}]{})]{})
for any $$e{\xrightarrow{{\ell_{\bullet}}}} d{\xrightarrow{{h_{\bullet}}}} c{\xrightarrow{g}} b{\xrightarrow{{f_{\bullet}}}} a{\xrightarrow{{k_{\bullet}}}} z$$ in $I$; and *consistency*:
[([[h\_]{}’,g’,[f\_]{}’]{})]{} = [( [h\_]{},g,[f\_]{})]{}+[([[h\_]{},g,[f\_]{}]{})]{}- [( [h\_]{}’,g’,[f\_]{}’ )]{}
whenever [ ${c({{h_{\bullet}}',g',{f_{\bullet}}'})}={c({{h_{\bullet}},g,{f_{\bullet}}})}$[.]{} ]{}\
We choose the maps $\nu$ satisfying [ ]{} and [ ]{} by two successive inductions:
1. The first is by induction on $i$, the filtration degree of $d$ in [ $\{{{\mathcal F}}_{i}\}_{i=0}^{m}$ ]{} (by composition length from the left): this is done as in the proof of Proposition \[pfibl\], until finally we have [ ${\nu\left({h,g,{f_{\bullet}}}\right)}$ ]{} for every [ $d{\xrightarrow{h}} c{\xrightarrow{g}} b{\xrightarrow{{f_{\bullet}}}}a$[,]{} ]{} where $h$ is indecomposable and $a$ is terminal in $I$ (by coherence this extends back to any [ $d{\xrightarrow{{h_{\bullet}}}} c$[).]{} ]{}
2. The second is by induction on $j$, the filtration degree of $a$ in [ $\{{{\mathcal G}}_{j}\}_{j=0}^{n}$ ]{} (by composition length from the right), as in the proof of Proposition \[pfibr\] (which is why we need $Y$ to be strongly fibrant).
At the end of the two induction processes we have chosen [ ${\nu\left({h,g}\right)}:X_{d}\to Y_{b}$ ]{} for $h$ and $g$ indecomposable. We can then choose [ ${\,\sigma\left({h}\right)}={\nu\left({h}\right)}:X_{d}\to Y_{c}$ ]{} as in the last step of the proof of Proposition \[pfibl\], and finally choose [ ${\,\sigma\left({g}\right)}={\nu\left({g}\right)}:X_{c}\to Y_{b}$ ]{} as in the proof of Corollary \[cfibl\]. This completes the construction of a lift [ ${\sigma_{\bullet}}\in {L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} for [ ${\varphi_{\bullet}}$ ]{} as required.
\[cfib\] Suppose [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible, $Y$ is strongly fibrant, and $J$ is any full subcategory of $I$ with the same weakly initial and final objects. Then the restriction map [ $p:{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to{L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} is a fibration
By induction on the number of objects in [ $I\setminus J$[,]{} ]{} using Proposition \[pfibrest\].
Identifying the Fibers {#cif}
======================
As we have just seen, if $I$ is a good indexing category, under our standard assumptions on $Z$, $X$, and $Y$ the auxiliary tower [ ]{} is a tower of fibrations of simplicial abelian groups. It remains to identify the fibers of the restriction maps [ $p:{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to{L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$[,]{} ]{} for a subcategory $J$ of $I$; this will allow us to determine those of the primary tower [ ]{} (or, more directly, those of the modified tower [ ]{} We consider only the case when [ $I\setminus J$ ]{} consists of a single internal object $c$.
\[lfiber\] If [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible and $Y$ is strongly fibrant, then [ ${\varphi_{\bullet}}\in{\operatorname{Ker}}(p)\subseteq{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} if and only if
1. [ ${\varphi_{f}}=0$ ]{} for each morphism $f$ of $I$ which does not begin or end in $c$.
2. for any [ $d {\xrightarrow{g}} c {\xrightarrow{f}} b$ ]{} in $I$ with $f$ and $g$ indecomposable:
Y(f)[\_[g]{}]{}+[\_[f]{}]{}X(g)=0 ,
This follows from Lemma \[ldescript\].
\[rsign\] The lemma implies that [ $({\varphi_{f}},-{\varphi_{g}})$ ]{} defines a map from [ $X(g)$ ]{} to [ $Y(f)$[.]{} ]{} Note also that if [ $\varphi_{f}$ ]{} is an arrow over [ $Z_{t(f)}$[,]{} ]{} the same is true of its negative; the remainder of the diagram for a map over [ $Z(f)$ ]{} already commutes because $X$ and $Y$ are diagrams over $Z$. Thus [ $({\varphi_{f}},-{\varphi_{g}})$ ]{} is a map of arrows over [ $Z(f)$[.]{} ]{}
\[dlocoh\] If [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible, we define the *local cohomology* of [ $X\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} at an object [ $c\in I$[,]{} ]{} denoted by [ ${{\mathcal H}}_{c}(X/Z,Y)$[,]{} ]{} to be the total derived functors into simplicial abelian groups of [ $\operatorname{map}_{\phi_{c}}(\psi_{c},\rho_{c})$ ]{} applied to $X$, where [ $\psi_{c}:\operatorname{hocolim}\limits_{d\in I/c}\,X_{d}\to X_{c}$[,]{} ]{} [ $\rho_{c}:Y_{c}\to\operatorname{holim}\limits_{b\in c/I}\,Y_{b}$[,]{} ]{} and [ $\phi_{c}:Z_{c}\to\operatorname{holim}\limits_{b\in c/I}\,Z_{b}$[,]{} ]{} are the structure maps. The $i$-th *local cohomology group* of [ $X\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$ ]{} at $c$ is defined to be [ ${{\mathcal H}}^{i}_{c}(X/Z,Y):=\pi_{i}{{\mathcal H}}_{c}(X/Z,Y)$[.]{} ]{}
In many cases, the local cohomology at $c$ can be identified explicitly as the André-Quillen cohomology of an appropriate (small) diagram.
\[pfiber\] If [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible, $Y$ is strongly fibrant, and [ $J=I\setminus\{c\}$[,]{} ]{} then [ $Ker(p)$ ]{} is weakly equivalent (as a simplicial abelian group) to [ ${{\mathcal H}}_{c}(X/Z,Y)$[.]{} ]{}
To obtain the total derived functors, in this case, we must replace $X$ by a weakly equivalent cofibrant, hence Reedy cofibrant object, which implies that [ $\operatorname{hocolim}\limits_{d\in I/c}\,X_{d}$ ]{} is simply the colimit, and [ $\psi_{c}$ ]{} is a cofibration. By Remark \[rstrongf\], we can replace $Y$ by a weakly equivalent strongly fibrant abelian group object in [ ${{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} which implies that [ $\operatorname{holim}\limits_{b\in c/I}\,Y_{b}$ ]{} is the limit, and [ $\rho_{c}$ ]{} is a fibration. With these choices, [ ${{\mathcal H}}^{I}_{c}(X/Z,Y)$ ]{} is simply the mapping space [ $\operatorname{map}_{\phi_{c}}(\psi_{c},\rho_{c})$[,]{} ]{} which is isomorphic to [ $Ker(p)$ ]{} in Lemma \[lfiber\] (using the sign of Remark \[rsign\]).
\[tthree\] If [ ${({{\mathcal C}},I,Z,X,Y)}$ ]{} is admissible, for any ordering [ $(c_{i})_{i=1}^{\infty}$ ]{} of the objects of $I$, there is a natural first quadrant spectral sequence with: $$E^{2}_{s,t}~=~{{\mathcal H}}^{s+1}_{c_{t}}(X/Z;Y)~\Longrightarrow H^{s+t+1}(X/Z;\,Y)~,$$ with [ $d_{2}:E^2_{s,t} \to E^2_{s-2,t+1}$[.]{} ]{}
We may replace $Y$ by a weakly equivalent strongly fibrant abelian group object, by Remark \[rstrongf\]. By Corollary \[cfib\], [ ]{} is then a tower of fibrations, so it has an associated homotopy spectral sequence. To identify the $E^{2}$-term, note that the homotopy groups of the homotopy fibers of the tower are the local cohomology groups in Proposition \[pfiber\], suitably indexed (see Remark \[rindex\]).
\[rtthree\] Note that [ $p^{I}_{J}:{L_{I}\left({X},{Y}\right)}\to{L_{J}\left({X},{Y}\right)}$ ]{} is a fibration for any full subcategory [ $J\subseteq I$ ]{} with the same weakly initial and final objects (Corollary \[cfib\]), and we can similarly describe the fiber of [ $p^{I}_{J}$ ]{} as a sort of local cohomology [ ${{\mathcal H}}^{I}_{J}(X/Z,Y)$[,]{} ]{} and thus identify the $E^{2}$-term of the spectral sequence obtained from a fairly arbitrary cover of $I$.
We shall not attempt to define [ ${{\mathcal H}}^{I}_{J}(X/Z,Y)$ ]{} in general. Observe, however, that if $J$ is discrete (i.e., there are no non-identity maps between its objects [ $c_{1},\dotsc, c_{n}$[),]{} ]{} then
[[H]{}]{}\^[I]{}\_[J]{}(X/Z,Y) \_[i=1]{}\^[n]{} [[H]{}]{}\_[c\_[i]{}]{}(X/Z,Y) .
\[egsquartwo\] For the commuting square of Example \[egsquare\], we now get a cover for $I$ consisting of [ $I_{3}=I$[,]{} ]{} [ $I_{2}=I\setminus\{3\}$ ]{} – i.e., a commuting triangle: $$\xymatrix{
4 \ar[d]_{c} \ar[rd]^{b\circ d} \\
2 \ar[r]_{a} & d
}$$ [ $I_{1}~=~\{4{\xrightarrow{a \circ c}} 1\}$[,]{} ]{} and [ $I_0=\{ 4\}$[.]{} ]{}
Given a diagram of abelian group objects [ $Y:I\to{{\mathcal C}}$[,]{} ]{} the local cohomology groups which form the $E^{2}$-term of the spectral sequence of Theorem \[tthree\] are: $$E^{2}_{s,t}~\cong~\begin{cases}
H^{s+3}(X(d);\,Y(b)) & \text{if} \ t=2;\\
H^{s+2}(X(c);\,Y(a)) & \text{if} \ t=1;\\
H^{s+1}(X_{4};\,Y_{1}) & \text{if} \ t=0;\\
0 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
Once more we could unite the first and second rows by omitting [ $I_{2}$ ]{} from our cover, as in Example \[egsquare\], by [ ]{}
[A comparison]{} \[scompar\] In the simplest case, when [ $I=[{\mathbf{1}}]$ ]{} (a single map): $$\xymatrix@R=25pt{
& X_{2} \ar[d]^{f_{2}} \ar[ldd]_{p_{2}} \ar[r]^{X\phi} &
X_{1} \ar[d]_{f_{1}} \ar[rdd]^{p_{1}} & \\
& Y_{2} \ar[ld]^<<<<{q_{2}} \ar[r]_{Y\phi} &
Y_{1} \ar[rd]_<<<<{q_{1}} & \\
Z_{2} \ar[rrr]^{Z\phi} & & & Z_{1}~,
}$$ we have the “defining fibration sequence”:
(X,Y) (X\_[2]{},Y\_[2]{})(X\_[1]{},Y\_[1]{}) (X\_[2]{},Y\_[1]{})
of [@BJTurR Prop. 4.20] (where all mapping spaces are taken in the appropriate comma categories).
Projecting the total space of [ ]{} onto the second factor yields the following interlocking diagram of horizontal and vertical fibration sequences: [$$\tag{\thethm}{\label{esix}}\vcenter{\xymatrix{
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{2},{\operatorname{Fib}}(Y\phi))\ar[d]_{i_{\ast}} \ar[r] &
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X,Y) \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{1},Y_{1}) \ar[d]^{{\operatorname{Id}}}\\
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{2},Y_{2}) \ar[d]_{\phi_{\ast}}\ar[r] &
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{2},Y_{2})\times{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{1},Y_{1})\ar[r]^<<<<<{\pi} \ar[d]^{\xi} &
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{1},Y_{1}) \ar[d]\\
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{2},Y_{1}) \ar[r]^{{\operatorname{Id}}} & {\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{2},Y_{1})\ar[r]& \ast
}}$$]{}
We see that the spectral sequence of Theorem \[tone\] reduces to the long exact sequence in homotopy for the top horizontal fibration sequence in [ ]{}, while the long exact sequence of Fact \[frelc\] is obtained from the left vertical fibration sequence in [ ]{}
\[rinter\] This actually works for any linear order [ $I=[{\mathbf{n}}]$ ]{} (§\[emainex\]):
Given [ $X,Y\in{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}$[,]{} ]{} if we set [ $I':=[{\mathbf{n-1}}]$ ]{} (so [ $J:=\{n~{\xrightarrow{\phi_{n}}}~n-1\}$[)]{} ]{} and let [ $\tau=\tau^{I}_{I'}:{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I}}/Z}\to{{{{\mathcal C}}^{I'}}/Z}{\lvert_{I'}}$[,]{} ]{} then [ ]{} yields a fibration sequence: $${\operatorname{map}\,}(X,Y)~\to~
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{n},Y_{n})\times{\operatorname{map}\,}(\tau X,\tau Y){\xrightarrow{\xi}}~{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{n},Y_{n-1})$$ which again induces a interlocking diagram of fibrations: $$\xymatrix@R=25pt{
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{n},{\operatorname{Fib}}(Y\phi_{n}))\ar[d]_{i_{\ast}} \ar[r] &
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X,Y) \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\operatorname{map}\,}(\tau X,\tau Y) \ar[d]^{{\operatorname{Id}}}\\
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{n},Y_{n}) \ar[d]_{(\phi_{n})_{\ast}}\ar[r] &
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{n},Y_{n})\times{\operatorname{map}\,}(\tau X,\tau Y)\ar[r]^<<<<<{\pi} \ar[d]^{\xi} &
{\operatorname{map}\,}(\tau X,\tau Y) \ar[d]\\
{\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{n},Y_{n-1}) \ar[r]^{{\operatorname{Id}}} & {\operatorname{map}\,}(X_{n},Y_{n-1})\ar[r]& \ast
}$$ as in [ ]{} Note that the long exact sequences in homotopy (i.e., cohomology) of the central vertical fibrations (for various values of $n$) provide an alternative inductive approach to calculating the cohomology of $X$, which can again be formalized in a spectral sequence (though in this case the fibers are the unknown quantity).
[ABC2]{} J.V Adámek & J Rosický, *Locally presentable and accessible categories*, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1994. D.W. Anderson, “A generalization of the [Eilenberg]{}-[Moore]{} spectral sequence”,*Bull. AMS* **78** (1972), No. 5, pp. 784-786. H.J. Baues & G. Wirsching, “The cohomology of small categories”,, *J. Pure Appl. Alg.* **38** (1985), pp. 187-211. J.M. Beck, “Triples, algebras and cohomology”, *Repr. Theory Appl. Cats.* **2** (2003), pp. 1-59. B. Bendiffalah & D. Guin, “Cohomologie de diagrammes d’algèbres triangulaires”, In *Colloquium on Homology and Representation Theory (Vaquerías, 1998)*, *Bol. Acad. Nac. Cienc. (C[ó]{}rdoba* **65** (2000), pp. 61-71. D.J. Benson & J.F. Carlson, “Diagrammatic methods for modular representations and cohomology”,*Comm. Algebra* **15** (1987), 53-121. D. Blanc, “Higher homotopy operations and the realizability of homotopy groups”,*Proc. London Math. Soc.* **70** (1995), pp. 214-240. D. Blanc, W.G. Dwyer & P.G. Goerss, “The realization space of a [$\Pi$-algebra]{}: a moduli problem in algebraic topology”, *Topology* **43** (2004), pp. 857-892. D. Blanc, M.W. Johnson, & J.M. Turner, “On Realizing Diagrams of $\Pi$-algebras”,*Algebraic & Geometric Topology* **6** (2006), pp. 763-807 D. Blanc & G. Peschke, “The fiber of functors between categories of algebras”,*J. Pure & Appl. Alg.* **207** (2006), pp. 687-715. A.K. Bousfield, “On the homology spectral sequence of a cosimplicial space”,*Amer. J. Math.* **109** (1987), No. 2, pp. 361-394. A.K. Bousfield & D.M. Kan, *Homotopy Limits, Completions, and Localizations*,Springer *Lec. Notes Math.* **304**, Berlin-New York, 1972. A.M. Cegarra, “Cohomology of diagrams of groups. The classification of (co)fibred categorical groups”,*Int. Math. J.* **3** (2003), pp. 643-680. T. Datuashvili, “Cohomologically trivial internal categories in categories of groups with operations”,*Appl. Categ. Structures* **3** (1995), pp. 221-237. J.F. Davis & W. Lück“, “The $p$-chain spectral sequence”,*$K$-Theory* **30** (2003), pp. 71-104. E. Dror-Farjoun, “Homotopy and homology of diagrams of spaces”,in H.R. Miller & D.C. Ravenel, eds., *Algebraic Topology (Seattle, Wash., 1985)*, Springer *Lec. Notes Math.* **1286**, Berlin-New York, 1987, pp. 93-134. G. Dula & R. Schultz, “Diagram cohomology and isovariant homotopy theory”,*Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.* **110**, Providence, RI, 1994. W.G. Dwyer & D.M. Kan, “Hochschild-Mitchell cohomology of simplicial categories and the cohomology of simplicial diagrams of simplicial sets”,*Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Indag. Math.* **50** (1988), pp. 111-120. W.G. Dwyer, D.M. Kan, & J.H. Smith, “Homotopy commutative diagrams and their realizations”,*J. Pure & Appl. Alg.* **57** (1989), pp. 5-24. H.R. Fischer & F.L. Williams, “Borel-LePotier diagrams–calculus of their cohomology bundles”,*Tohoku Math. J. (2)* **36** (1984), pp. 233-251. M. Gerstenhaber, A. Giaquinto & S.D. Schack, “Diagrams of Lie algebras”,*J. Pure & Appl. Alg.* **196** (2005), pp. 169-184. M. Gerstenhaber & S.D. Schack, “On the deformation of algebra morphisms and diagrams”,*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.* **279** (1983), pp. 1-50. M. Gerstenhaber & S.D. Schack, “Algebraic cohomology and deformation theory”,in M. Gerstenhaber & M. Hazewinkel, eds., *Deformation theory of algebras and structures and applications (Il Ciocco, 1986)* NATO ASI, Series C **247**, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1997, pp. 11-264. P.G. Goerss & J.F. Jardine, *Simplicial Homotopy Theory*,Prog. in Math. **174**, Birkh[ä]{}user, Boston-Stuttgart, 1999. P.S. Hirschhorn, *Model Categories and their Localizations*, AMS, Providence, RI, 2002. S. Illman, *Equivariant singular homology and cohomology, I*,Number 156 in *Mem. AMS* **156**, Am. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1975. M.A. Jibladze & T.I. Pirashvili, “Cohomology of algebraic theories”,*J. Alg.* **137** (1991), No. 2, pp. 253-296. J.P. May, *Equivariant homotopy and cohomology theory*,Reg. Conf. Ser. Math. **91**, Am. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1996. B. Mitchell, “Rings with several objects”, *Advances in Math.* **8** (1972), pp. 1-161. I. Moerdijk & J.-A. Svensson”, “The equivariant Serre spectral sequence”,*Proc. AMS* **118** (1993), pp. 263-267. P. Olum, “Homology of squares and factoring of diagrams”,in *Category Theory, Homology Theory and their Applications, III (Battelle Institute Conference, Seattle, WA, 1968)* Springer, Berlin-New York, 1969, pp. 480-489. P. Pavešić, “Diagram cohomologies using categorical fibrations”,*J. Pure Appl. Algebra* **112** (1996), pp. 73-90. R.J. Piacenza, “Cohomology of diagrams and equivariant singular theory”,*Pac. J. Math.* **91** (1980), pp. 435-443. R.J. Piacenza, “Diagrams of simplicial sets, complexes and bundles”,*Tamkang J. Math.* **15** (1984), pp. 83-94. D.G. Quillen, *Homotopical Algebra*,Springer *Lec. Notes Math.* **20**, Berlin-New York, 1963. D.G. Quillen, “On the (co-)homology of commutative rings”,*Applications of Categorical Algebra*, Proc. Symp. Pure Math.**17**, AMS, Providence, RI, 1970, pp. 65-87. M. Robinson, “Cohomology of diagrams of algebras”,preprint, 2008 ([arXiv:0802.3651]{}). G.B. Segal, “Categories and cohomology theories”,*Topology* **13** (1974), pp. 293-312. J. S[ł]{}omi[ń]{}ska, “Some spectral sequences in Bredon cohomology”,*Cahiers Top. G[é]{}om. Diff. Cat.* **33** (1992), pp. 99-133. R.M. Vogt, “Homotopy limits and colimits”,*Math. Z.* **134** (1973), pp. 11-52.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In semi-inclusive DIS of polarized leptons on a transversely polarized target eight azimuthal modulations appear in the cross-section. Within QCD parton model four azimuthal asymmetries can be interpreted at leading order, two of them being the already measured Collins and Sivers asymmetries. The other two leading twist asymmetries, related to different transverse momentum dependent quark distribution functions, and also additional four asymmetries which can be interpreted as twist-three contributions have been measured for the first time at COMPASS, using a 160 GeV/c longitudinally polarized ($P_{beam}\simeq -0.8$) muon beam and a transversely polarized $^6LiD$ target. We present here the preliminary results from the 2002-2004 data.'
author:
- |
Aram Kotzinian [^1] \
on behalf of the COMPASS collaboration\
INFN, Sezione di Torino, Via P. Giuria 1, I-10125 Torino, Italy\
\
title: 'Beyond Collins and Sivers: further measurements of the target transverse spin-dependent azimuthal asymmetries in semi-inclusive DIS from COMPASS'
---
Introduction
============
During last few years many exciting experimental results and theory development are obtained in SIDIS on the transversely polarized target. Up to now only the measurements [@herm; @comp1; @comp2] of Sivers and Collins asymmetries were performed by HERMES and COMPASS collaborations and together with data from BELLE [@belle] they allow a first extraction the transversity and Sivers transverse momentum dependent (TMD) distribution functions (DFs) and Collins fragmentation function (FF). In addition to these, the general expression of SIDIS cross section [@Kotzinian:1994dv] contains six more target transverse polarization dependent azimuthal asymmetries. Here we present the preliminary results on these asymmetries for the first time measured by COMPASS from the 2002-2004 data.
Definition of asymmetries \[sec:asym\_def\]
-------------------------------------------
In the following the notations of Ref. [@Bacchetta:2006tn] are used. There are eight azimuthal modulations related to the target transverse polarization: $$\begin{aligned}
&&w_1(\phi_h, \phi_s)=\sin(\phi _h -\phi _s ),\;
w_2(\phi_h,\phi_s)=\sin(\phi _h +\phi _s ),\; w_3(\phi_h,
\phi_s)=\sin(3\phi _h -\phi _s ),\nonumber \\
&& w_4(\phi_h, \phi_s)=\sin(\phi _s ),\; w_5(\phi_h,
\phi_s)=\sin(2\phi _h -\phi _s ),\; w_6(\phi_h, \phi_s)=\cos(\phi _h
-\phi _s ),\\
&& w_7(\phi_h, \phi_s)=\cos(\phi _s ),\; w_8(\phi_h,
\phi_s)=\cos(2\phi _h -\phi _s ),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where first two correspond to Sivers and Collins effects. The expression for the cross section in interest can be represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cros-sect-short}
d \sigma(\phi_h, \phi_s, ...) & \propto & (1 +
|{\bf S}_T| {\sum_{i=1}^5} D^{w_i(\phi_h, \phi_s)} A_{UT}^{w_i(\phi_h,
\phi_s)}
w_i(\phi_h,\phi_s)\\ \nonumber
& + &
P_{beam} |{\bf S}_T| {\sum_{i=6}^8} D^{w_i(\phi_h, \phi_s)}
A_{LT}^{w_i(\phi_h, \phi_s)} w_i(\phi_h,\phi_s) + ...\big),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf S}_T$ is the target transverse polarization. We factored out the explicitly calculable depolarization factors, $D^{w_i(\phi_h, \phi_s)}$, and defined the asymmetries as the ratios of corresponding structure functions to unpolarized one:
$$\label{eq:as_def}
A_{BT}^{w_i(\phi_h, \phi_s)} \equiv \frac{F_{BT}^{w_i(\phi_h,
\phi_s)}}{F_{UU,T}},$$
where $B=L$ or $B=U$ corresponds to beam polarization dependent or independent part of asymmetry.
The depolarization factors entering in Eq. (\[eq:cros-sect-short\]) depend only on $y$ and are given as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:depol}
&& D^{\sin(\phi _h -\phi _s )}(y) = 1,\;\;
D^{\cos(\phi _h -\phi _s )}(y) =\frac {y(2-y)} {1+(1-y)^2},\nonumber\\
&& D^{\sin(\phi _h +\phi _s )}(y) = D^{\sin(3\phi _h +\phi _s )}(y)
=\frac {2(1-y)} {1+(1-y)^2}, \nonumber\\
&& D^{\sin(2\phi _h -\phi _s )}(y) = D^{\sin(\phi _s )}(y) = \frac
{2(2-y)\sqrt{1-y}} {1+(1-y)^2}, \\
&&D^{\cos(2\phi _h -\phi _s )}(y) = D^{\cos(\phi _s )}(y) = \frac
{2y\sqrt{1-y}}
{1+(1-y)^2}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The asymmetries extracted from the data as amplitudes of corresponding azimuthal modulations (raw asymmetries) are then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:as_exp}
A_{UT, \; raw}^{w_i(\phi_h, \phi_s)} &=&D^{w_i(\phi_h, \phi_s)}(y) f
|S_T| A_{UT}^{w_i(\phi_h, \phi_s)}\, , \;\;(i=1,5),\\
A_{LT, \; raw}^{w_i(\phi_h, \phi_s)} &=&D^{w_i(\phi_h, \phi_s)}(y) f
P_{beam} |S_T| A_{LT}^{w_i(\phi_h, \phi_s)}\, , \;\;(i=6,8),\end{aligned}$$ where $f$ is the target polarization dilution factor.
In the QCD parton model the asymmetries $A_{LT}^{\cos (\phi _h -\phi
_s )}$ and $A_{UT}^{\sin (3\phi _h -\phi _s )}$ are given by the ratio of convolutions of spin-dependent to spin-independent twist two DFs and FFs, for example $$\label{eq:examp_h1tp}
A_{UT}^{\sin (3\phi _h -\phi _s )} = \frac{h_{1T}^{\perp\,q} \otimes H_{1q}^{\bot h}}
{f_1^q \otimes D_{1q}^{h}},$$ and can be used for extraction of DFs $g_{1T}^q$ and $h_{1T}^{\perp\,q}$ describing the quark longitudinal and transverse (along quark transverse momentum) polarization in the transversely polarized nucleon. The other asymmetries can be interpreted as Cahn kinematic corrections to spin effects on the transversely polarized nucleon [@Kotzinian:1994dv], for example: $$A_{LT}^{\cos (\phi _s )} = \frac{M}{Q} \frac{g_{1T}^q \otimes
D_{1q}^h}{f_1^q \otimes D_{1q}^{h}}.$$
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The event selection and asymmetry extraction are done as described in [@comp2]. The following kinematic cuts were imposed: $Q^2>1$ (GeV/c)$^2$, $W>5$ GeV, $0.1<y<0.9$, $P_T^h>0.1$ GeV/c and $z>0.2$. In Figs. \[Fig:1\] and \[Fig:2\] for the first time we present six target transverse spin dependent asymmetries extracted from COMPASS 2002–2004 data collected on deuterium target. The estimated systematic errors are smaller than statistical. All six newly measured asymmetries are compatible with zero within statistical errors.
![The asymmetries $A_{LT}^{\cos (\phi _h -\phi _s )}$ and $A_{UT}^{\sin (3\phi _h -\phi _s )}$ as a function of $x$, $z$ and $P_T^h$.[]{data-label="Fig:1"}](kotzinian_aram.fig1.eps){width="1.\columnwidth"}
![The asymmetries $A_{LT}^{\cos (\phi _h -\phi _s )}$ and $A_{UT}^{\sin (3\phi _h -\phi _s )}$ as a function of $x$, $z$ and $P_T^h$.[]{data-label="Fig:1"}](kotzinian_aram.fig2.eps){width="1.\columnwidth"}
![The asymmetries $A_{LT}^{\cos \phi _s}$, $A_{LT}^{\cos
(2\phi _h -\phi _s )}$, $A_{UT}^{\sin \phi _s }$ and $A_{UT}^{\sin
(2\phi _h -\phi _s )}$ as a function of $x$, $z$ and $P_T^h$.[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](kotzinian_aram.fig3.eps){width="1.\columnwidth"}
![The asymmetries $A_{LT}^{\cos \phi _s}$, $A_{LT}^{\cos
(2\phi _h -\phi _s )}$, $A_{UT}^{\sin \phi _s }$ and $A_{UT}^{\sin
(2\phi _h -\phi _s )}$ as a function of $x$, $z$ and $P_T^h$.[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](kotzinian_aram.fig4.eps){width="1.\columnwidth"}
![The asymmetries $A_{LT}^{\cos \phi _s}$, $A_{LT}^{\cos
(2\phi _h -\phi _s )}$, $A_{UT}^{\sin \phi _s }$ and $A_{UT}^{\sin
(2\phi _h -\phi _s )}$ as a function of $x$, $z$ and $P_T^h$.[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](kotzinian_aram.fig5.eps){width="1.\columnwidth"}
![The asymmetries $A_{LT}^{\cos \phi _s}$, $A_{LT}^{\cos
(2\phi _h -\phi _s )}$, $A_{UT}^{\sin \phi _s }$ and $A_{UT}^{\sin
(2\phi _h -\phi _s )}$ as a function of $x$, $z$ and $P_T^h$.[]{data-label="Fig:2"}](kotzinian_aram.fig6.eps){width="1.\columnwidth"}
[99]{} A. Airapetian [*et al.*]{} \[HERMES Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 012002 (2005)
V. Y. Alexakhin [*et al.*]{} \[COMPASS Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 202002 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ex/0503002\]. E. S. Ageev [*et al.*]{} \[COMPASS Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. B [**765**]{}, 31 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ex/0610068\]; R. Seidl [*et al.*]{} \[Belle Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 232002 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ex/0507063\]. A. Kotzinian, Nucl. Phys. B [**441**]{}, 234 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9412283\]. A. Bacchetta, M. Diehl, K. Goeke, A. Metz, P. Mulders and M. Schlegel, JHEP [**0702**]{}, 093 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0611265\].
[^1]: On leave from Yerevan Physics Institute, 375036 Yerevan, Armenia and JINR, 141980 Dubna, Russia.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A simple new algorithm for the calculation of two-particle Bose-Einstein correlations from classical event generators is derived and discussed.'
address: |
Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Regensburg,\
D-93040 Regensburg, Germany
author:
- 'Q.H. Zhang[@home], U.A. Wiedemann, C. Slotta, and U. Heinz'
title: 'Bose-Einstein Weights for Event Generators'
---
-1cm
For ultrarelativistic heavy-ion collisions, two-particle Bose-Einstein correlations between identical pions or kaons provide a unique possibility to reconstruct the geometry (size, temporal extension) ${\em and}$ dynamics (collective expansion flow) of the source at the point of hadron freeze-out. (For a recent theoretical review see [@H96].) This reconstruction is, however, not completely model independent; it requires the use of “reasonable” source parametrizations (e.g. [@H96; @CL96; @CN96]) whose parameters are then fixed by a simultaneous analysis of single-particle momentum spectra and two-particle momentum correlations [@CN96; @S96].
Invaluable help for the selection of “reasonable” source parametrization comes from microscopic event generators (e.g. VENUS [@W93], RQMD [@SSG89] or ARC [@PSK92]) which generate the phase-space distribution of hadrons at freeze-out from a dynamical Monte Carlo simulation of the (classical) kinetic phase-space evolution of the collision zone. Unfortunately, it was recently pointed out [@A97; @MKF96] that the direct computation of two-particle correlation functions from classical kinetic codes [@W93; @SSG89; @PSK92] is fraught with severe conceptual and practical problems. These can be simply understood by starting from the general relation [@S73] between the 2-particle correlation function $C(\bbox{q}, \bbox{K})$ and the (real) “emission function” (one-particle Wigner density at freeze-out) $S(x,K)$,
\[1\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{1a}
\FL C(\bbox{q},\bbox{K}) =
1 + \frac{{\left\vert\int d^{4}x\, S(x,K)\, e^{iq\cdot x}
\right\vert}^{2}}
{\int d^{4}x\, S(x,p_{a}) \,\int d^{4}y\, S(y,p_{b})} \, ,
\\
\label{1b}
\FL \bbox{q}{=}\bbox{p}_a{-}\bbox{p}_b, \
q^{0}{=}E_{a}{-}E_{b},\
\bbox{K}{=}{\bbox{p}_a{+}\bbox{p}_b \over 2},\
K^{0}{=}{E_{a}{+}E_{b} \over 2}.
\end{aligned}$$
$(\bbox{p}_a, E_{a})$ and $(\bbox{p}_b, E_{b})$ are the 4-momenta of the two observed particles. Eq. (\[1a\]) neglects final state interactions which we will leave out in this Letter in order to concentrate on the principal issues.
The numerator in the second term of Eq. (\[1a\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2}
{\rm Num} (q,K) =&&
\int d^4x\, d^4y \,S(x,K)\, S(y,K)
\nonumber\\
&& \ \times\, \cos(q{\cdot}(x-y)) \, .
\end{aligned}$$ The problem is the construction of the Wigner density $S(x,K)$ from the output of the event generators. The latter consists of a set of phase-space points $(x_{i},p_{i})$ denoting the (on-shell) momenta $p_{i}$ and points of last interaction $x_{i}$ of the produced particles. According to (\[1b\]) $K$ is the average of two on-shell momenta, but not itself on-shell, $K^{0} \ne \sqrt{m^2+{\bbox{K}^2}}$. Therefore $S(x,K)$ cannot be directly related to the phase-space density generated by the distribution of points $(x_{i},p_{i})$. To overcome this difficulty one ususally imposes [@YK78; @P94] the “smoothness assumption” $S(x,\frac{p_a+p_b}{2}) \approx S(x,p_a) \approx S(x,p_b)$ and rewrites the expression (\[2\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{3}
{\rm Num}(q,K) =&&
\int d^{4}x\, d^{4}y \, S(x,p_a) \, S(y,p_b)
\nonumber\\
&& \times \cos\bigl((p_a-p_b){\cdot}(x-y)\bigr)\, .
\end{aligned}$$ One now identifies $S(x,p)$ with the classical output distribution from the event generator, $$\label{4}
S_{\rm class}(x,p) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \delta^{(4)}(x-x_{i})\,
\delta^{(4)}(p-p_{i})\, ,$$ where $N$ is the total number of pions of a given charge in the event. In the widely used Pratt algorithm [@P94] the expression which results after inserting (\[4\]) into (\[3\]) is simulated by the ad hoc prescription $$\label{5}
{\rm Num} (q,K) \longmapsto \sum_{i,j \in {\rm bin}}
\cos\bigl((p_i-p_j){\cdot}(x_i-x_j)\bigr) \, .$$ Here “bin” denotes a small bin in $(\bbox{q},\bbox{K})$ with $\bbox{p}_i-\bbox{p}_j \approx \bbox{q}$ and $(\bbox{p}_i+\bbox{p}_j)/2
\approx \bbox{K}$. (In practice the bin size depends on event statistics.)
The prescription (\[5\]) has two severe problems: first, the positivity of Num$(q,K)$ got lost between Eqs. (\[2\]) and (\[3\]) when making the “smoothness assumption”. It was pointed out in Refs. [@CH94; @PRW94] and practically demonstrated in Ref. [@MKF96] that for sources with strong $x$-$p$-correlations (e.g. rapidly expanding sources) this can lead to unphysical oscillations of the simulated correlation function around unity. Second, the intuitive substitution law (\[5\]) is formally incorrect and results in a wrong selection of contributing pairs as well as an incorrect weighting factor for each pair.
To prove this last point let us write in (\[2\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{6}
S(x,K)\!\!&&\!\!\! S(y,K) = \int d^4P_1\, d^4P_2 \, S(x,P_1)\, S(y,P_2)
\nonumber\\
&\times&\, \delta^{(4)}(P_1-P_2) \,
\delta^{(4)}\left(K-\frac{P_1+P_2}{2}\right)\, .
\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the classical expression (\[4\]) one finds instead of (\[5\])
\[7\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{7a}
{\rm Num}(q,K) =&& \sum_{i,j=1}^{N} \delta^{(4)}(p_i-p_j) \,
\delta^{(4)}\left(K-\frac{p_i+p_j}{2}\right)
\nonumber\\
&& \qquad \times \cos\bigl(q{\cdot}(x_i-x_j)\bigr)
\\
\label{7b}
\longmapsto &&
\sum_{i,j \in {\rm bin}(K,\epsilon)} \cos\bigl(q{\cdot}(x_i-x_j)\bigr)\, .
\end{aligned}$$
Here “${\rm bin}(K,\epsilon)$” denotes a small bin around $K$ with width $\epsilon$ in each of the four directions. The prescription (\[7b\]) can be derived rigorously and directly by first generating from Eq. (\[4\]) a piecewise constant function (“histogram”) through “binning”, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{binning}
\bar S (x,K) &=& \int_{{\rm bin}(K,\epsilon)} d^4p\, S_{\rm class}(x,p)
\nonumber\\
&=& \int_ {K-\epsilon/2}^{K+\epsilon/2} d^4p\, S_{\rm class}(x,p)\, ,
\end{aligned}$$ and then inserting $\bar S(x,K)$ into Eq. (\[6\]). Eq. (\[binning\]) is a technical step required by finite event statistics; in practice, $\epsilon$ should be chosen as small as technically possible. Note that the selection of pairs in (\[7b\]) differs from the one in (\[5\]): for given $K$ the algorithm (\[7\]) selects pairs with $p_i \approx
p_j \approx K$, independent of the value $\bbox{q}$ at which the correlation is to be evaluated. For different values of $\bbox{q}$ at fixed $\bbox{K}$, the correlator is obtained by weighting the [*same*]{} set of pairs with different weight factors $\cos\bigl(q{\cdot}(x_i-x_j)\bigr)$ which depend only on the spatial coordinates, but not on the momenta of the particles in the pair. This is consistent with the expectation from Eqs. (\[1a\],\[2\]) that the measured $\bbox{q}$-dependence of the correlator gives access to the distribution of relative distances $x_i-x_j$ in the source (at fixed $K$). Since the steps from Eq. (\[2\]) to Eq. (\[7\]) involve only identical transformations (the difference between (\[7a\]) and (\[7b\]) arising only from a different choice of emission functions (\[4\]) resp. (\[binning\])), they preserve the positivity of the second term in (\[1a\]). Please note that in contrast to (\[5\]), (\[7\]) is a continuous function of $\bbox{q}$, i.e. no binning in $\bbox{q}$ is required.
We have checked for the simple analytically solvable model presented in [@MKF96] that the algorithm (\[7\]) indeed allows to reconstruct from a classical Monte Carlo simulation the correct analytical expression for $C(\bbox{q},\bbox{K})$; in particular it removes the unphysical oscillations found in [@MKF96]. In Fig. 1 we show various approximations for the correlation function for a 1-dimensional source in $z$-direction with emission function $$\label{model}
S(z,t;K) = e^{-z^2/R^2}\, \delta(K-\alpha z)\,
\delta(t)\, ,$$ with $R{=}10$ fm and $\alpha{=}0.02$ GeV/fm. This classical source features perfect $z$-$K$-correlations, $K{=}\alpha z$, which are, of course, quantum mechanically forbidden (see below). For the source (\[model\]), the exact correlator (\[1\]) can be calculated analytically, yielding $C(q) = 1 + \exp[q^2/(2\alpha^2 R^2)]$ (solid line in Fig. 1). The pathological rise of $C(q)$ [ *above*]{} the value 2 at $q{=}0$ is due to the violation of the uncertainty relation between $z$ and $p_z$ by the model (\[model\]); we selected this model because we believed that such a feature may be particularly difficult to reproduce in an event generator. Indeed, reconstructing the correlator from a Monte Carlo simulation of (\[model\]) via the Pratt prescription (\[5\]) yields the long-dashed line in Fig. 1 [@MKF96]; it can be calculated analytically from Eq. (\[3\]) as $C(q) = 1 +
\cos(q^2/\alpha)$. This is always less than 2, but oscillates wildly around 1, becoming even 0 at regular $q$-intervals. This contradicts the positivity of the second term in (\[1\]) and is due to the smoothness approximation (\[3\]). – The two remaining lines in Fig. 1 show results from the same Monte Carlo simulation of (\[model\]) but reconstructing the correlator through the new algorithm (\[7b\]) instead of (\[5\]). For the dot-dashed line the bin width $\epsilon$ was chosen as $\epsilon= 10$ MeV, for the dotted line as $\epsilon = 5$ MeV. In both cases the simulated result deviates from the exact one (solid line); this is not a failure of the algorithm, but a result of the binning procedure (\[binning\]) applied to the source (\[model\]) – a purely technical step required by finite event statistics. As seen, the discrepancy decreases with decreasing bin width $\epsilon$.
-4.0cm
-2.5cm
While Eq. (\[7\]) thus solves the technical problems of the prescription (\[5\]), it does not address the principal physical problem that the classical distribution (\[4\]) is not a valid Wigner density since it violates the uncertainty relation by simultaneously fixing the coordinates $x_{i}$ and momenta $p_{i}$ of the emitted particles. It has been repeatedly suggested [@PGG90; @Z96; @MP97] that this can be remedied by replacing the sharply localized $\delta$-functions in (\[4\]) by minimum-uncertainty wave packets. In the remainder of this Letter we will discuss how such a procedure will modify the algorithm for calculating single-particle spectra and two-particle correlations from event generators, thereby rendering it quantum mechanically consistent.
Let us start from the folding relation for the emission function, derived in Ref. [@CH94] within the covariant current formalism [@GKW79]: $$\label{8}
S(x,K) = \int d^4z \, d^4Q \, \rho(x-z,Q) \, S_{0}(z,K-Q) \, .$$ Here $$\label{9}
S_{0}(x,p) = \int d^4v\, e^{-ip{\cdot}v}\,
j_0^*\left(x+{\textstyle{v\over 2}}\right) \,
j_0\left(x-{\textstyle{v\over 2}}\right)$$ is the Wigner density associated with an elementary source current amplitude $j_0(x)$, taken below as a Gaussian wavepacket, and $\rho(x,p)$ is a classical phase-space distribution for the centers $x_i$ and (average) momenta $p_i$ of these wave packets, here taken as $$\label{10}
\rho(x,p) = \sum_{i=1}^N \delta^{(4)}(x-x_i) \, \delta^{(4)}(p-p_i)\, .$$ For the elementary source amplitude we make the ansatz $$\label{11}
j_0(x) = {\cal N} \, \exp\left(-{\bbox{x}^2 \over 2\sigma^2}\right)
\, \delta(x^0) \, ;$$ this source emits a Gaussian wave-packet with width parameter $\sigma$ at “freeze-out time” $x^0$. With this ansatz the elementary Wigner density $S_0$ becomes $$\label{12}
S_0(x,p) = 8 (\pi\sigma^2)^{\frac{3}{2}} \,\vert{\cal N} \vert^2
\delta(x^{0}) \exp\left(-{\bbox{x}^2 \over \sigma^2}
-\sigma^2\bbox{p}^2 \right) \, .$$ Inserting this and (\[10\]) into (\[8\]) one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{13}
S(x,K) = {\cal N'} \sum_{i=1}^N &&\delta(x^0-x_i^0) \,
\exp\left(-{(\bbox{x}-\bbox{x}_i)^2 \over \sigma^2}\right)
\nonumber\\
&\times&
\exp\left(-\sigma^2(\bbox{K}-\bbox{p}_i)^2 \right)\, , \end{aligned}$$ with ${\cal N'} = 8(\pi\sigma^2)^{\frac{3}{2}} \vert {\cal N}\vert^2$. This generalizes the classical ansatz (\[4\]) into a quantum mechanically consistent source Wigner density; with the free parameter $\sigma$ one can choose the relative degree of localization in coordinate space $(\sigma \to 0)$ or momentum space $(\sigma \to \infty)$, always preserving $\Delta x \cdot \Delta p = \hbar$.
The single particle spectrum, which occurs in the denominator of the second term of (\[1a\]), is now given by
\[14\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{14a}
E_a {dN\over d^3p_a} &=& \int d^4x \, S(x,p_a) =
{\cal N''} \sum_{i=1}^{N} v_i(\bbox{p}_a) \, ,
\\
\label{14b}
{\cal N''} &=& (2\pi\sigma^2)^2 \vert {\cal N} \vert^2 \, ,
\\
\label{14c}
v_ i (\bbox{p}_a) &=&
\exp\bigl(-\sigma^2 (\bbox{p}_a-\bbox{p}_i)^2\bigr) \, ,
\end{aligned}$$
and similarly for $\bbox{p}_b$. It is normalized to the total number $N$ of pions in the event; this fixes the normalization constant ${\cal N}$ above. The exchange term (\[2\]) in the two-particle spectrum (with $q$ and $K$ defined in Eq. (\[1b\])) is similarly derived as
\[15\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{15a}
{\rm Num}(\bbox{q},\bbox{K})\! &=& \!({\cal N''})^2
\exp(-{\textstyle{1\over 2}}\sigma^2\bbox{q}^2)
\sum_{i,j=1}^N w_{ij}(\bbox{q},\bbox{K}) ,
\\
\label{15b}
w_{ij}(\bbox{q},\bbox{K})\! &=& \! v_i(\bbox{K}) \, v_j(\bbox{K}) \,
\cos\bigl(q{\cdot}(x_i-x_j)\bigr) .
\end{aligned}$$
The normalization ${\cal N''}$ drops out in the correlator (\[1a\]). Eq. (\[15\]) should be compared with the classical expressions (\[5\]) and (\[7\]). Like (\[7\]) (but contrary to (\[5\])) it is positive definite and thus free of spurious oscillations around 0. The sum in (\[15a\]) is now over [*all*]{} pairs $(i,j)$; the sharp restriction to the bin “${\rm bin}(K,\epsilon)$” in (\[7\]) is replaced by the Gaussian weight factors $v_i(\bbox{K})$ and $\exp(-{1\over 2}
\sigma^2 \bbox{q}^2)$. Please note, however, that the former also occur in the new definition (\[14a\]) for the single particle spectrum, and must be kept in both places for consistency. Eq. (\[15b\]) shares with Eq. (\[7\]) the property (which was already discussed) that the cosine weight factor for each pair $(i,j)$ depends only on $x_i-x_j$, but not on $p_i$ and $p_j$. By combining Eqs. (\[14\]) and (\[15\]) it can be shown that now the correlator $C(\bbox{q,K})$ is always between 1 and 2, i.e. that the pathological rise above 2 shown in Fig. 1 cannot happen for an emission function which respects the uncertainty relation. In Ref. [@Wetal] the results (\[14\]) and (\[15\]) (but not (\[7\])) were derived with different methods, including finite multiplicity corrections.
Expressions (\[14\]) and (\[15\]) depend on one free parameter, the Gaussian width $\sigma$ of the wave-packets. It is instructive to discuss the two obvious limits, $\sigma \to 0$ and $\sigma \to
\infty$. For $\sigma=0$ the elementary sources are sharply localized in space (cf. Eq. (\[11\])); as a result, the single-particle momentum spectrum (\[14\]) is completely flat. Furthermore, one sees from Eqs. (\[15\]) that the correlation function becomes $K$-independent, even for expanding sources of type (\[10\]) where the $x_i$ and $p_i$ are strongly correlated. Both features are clearly unrealistic. In the opposite limit, $\sigma \to \infty$, the Gaussian smearing factors in the single particle spectrum (\[14\]) disappear, and Eq. (\[14a\]) degenerates to a sum over $\delta$-functions; this is the usually employed algorithm for computing single-particle spectra from event generators with classical particle propagation [@W93; @SSG89; @PSK92]. The two-particle correlation term (\[15\]), on the other hand, is then sharply concentrated at $q=0$, i.e. the correlator $C(\bbox{q},\bbox{K})$ drops from 2 to 1 over a $q$-range of order $1/\sigma$. This translates into a source radius $\sim \sigma$ and reflects the diverging spatial extension of the elementary wavepackets in this limit, irrespective of the (localized) spatial distribution $\rho(x,p)$ of their centers.
It is thus clear that in practice $\sigma$ must be kept finite, but non-zero. As pointed out in [@PGG90; @Z96; @MP97] this implies a broadening of the single-particle momentum distributions relative to the one derived from the classical phase-space distribution $\rho (x,p)$ of freeze-out points. Using the algorithms (\[14\],\[15\]) for a quantum mechanically consistent computation of spectra and Bose-Einstein correlations from classical event generators thus requires a retuning of the codes to elementary $e^+e^-$ and $pp$ collisions, using the same algorithms there.
This last step imposes rather restrictive limits for the value of $\sigma$ [@PGG90]. Since the pions from high energy $pp$ and $e^+e^-$ collisions have an average transverse momentum $\langle
p_\perp \rangle \simeq 0.35$ GeV, the Gaussian width in momentum space of the elementary wave packets must be below this value. This implies $\sigma \gtrsim 0.5$ fm. On the other hand, the effective source radii for such collisions extracted from 2-particle correlations are of the order of only $0.8 - 2$ fm [@L89]. This implies $\sigma
\lesssim 1$ fm. It was already pointed out in the pioneering GGLP paper [@GGLP60] that this value roughly agrees with the pion’s Compton wavelength. This suggests the following interpretation of the measured pion spectra and Bose-Einstein correlations from elementary hadron-hadron and $e^+e^-$ collisions: each elementary collision produces a small number of elementary Gaussian wave packets with width $\sigma$, 0.5 fm $< \sigma <$ 1 fm. For $\sigma \sim 0.5$ fm the width of the Gaussian momentum distribution in (\[14c\]) nearly exhausts the measured $\langle p_\perp
\rangle$; the measured single-pion spectra thus reflect mostly the intrinsic momentum distribution of the elementary pion wave packet. On the other hand, the HBT radius $R_{\perp}^{\rm HBT} =
\sigma/\sqrt{2}$ corresponding to the $q$-Gaussian in (\[15a\]) nearly exhausts the values extracted from two-particle correlation measurements; the latter thus mirror the intrinsic spatial width of the wave packets. There is very little additional room in the data for random (thermal) motion of the wave packets relative to each other, nor for their spatial distribution over a larger volume. If the total source is much bigger than 1 fm, it must expand very rapidly, with homogeneity regions which are not much larger than the size of an elementary wave packet. In this sense, pion spectra from $e^{+}e^{-}$ and $pp$ collision measure the smallest sources compatible with the uncertainty relation.
In summary, we have derived a new algorithm for the computation of single-particle spectra and two-particle correlations from classical event generators. The classical algorithm (\[7\]) removes the recently discovered deficiencies of the presently employed Pratt algorithm (\[5\]). The quantum mechanical algorithm (\[14\],\[15\]) additionally ensures that the uncertainty relation is not violated. We also showed how the free parameter $\sigma$ in the latter algorithm can be fixed from elementary $e^{+}e^{-}$ and hadron-hadron collisions.
We acknowledge stimulating conversations with P. Foka, H. Kalechofsky, M. Martin, and S. Pratt, as well as many discussions during the HBT96 Workshop at the ECT\* in Trento, Sept. 16-27, 1996, which brought the problems with (\[5\]) into the open. This work was supported by BMBF, GSI and DFG. Q.H.Z. acknowledges support by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through a Research Fellowship.
[99]{} Humboldt Research Fellow; on leave from China Center of Advanced Science and Technology (CCAST). U. Heinz, in: [*Correlations and Clustering Phenomena in Subatomic Physics*]{}, ed. by M.N. Harakeh, O. Scholtan and J.H. Koch, NATO ASI Series B, (Plenum, New York, 1997), in press (Los Alamos eprint archive nucl-th/9609029) T. Csörgő and B. Lörstad, Phys. Rev. C[**54**]{} (1996) 1396; and Nucl. Phys. A[**590**]{} (1995) 465c. S. Chapman and J.R. Nix, Phys. Rev. C[**54**]{} (1996) 866. S. Schönfelder, (NA49 Coll.), Ph.D. thesis, TU München, 1996. K. Werner, Phys. Rep. [**232**]{} (1993) 87. H. Sorge, H. Stöcker, and W. Greiner, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) [**192**]{} (1989) 266. Y. Pang, T.J. Schlagel, and S.H. Kahana, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{} (1992) 2743; T.J. Schlagel, Y. Pang, and S.H. Kahana, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{} (1992) 3290. J. Aichelin, Nucl. Phys. A (1997), in press (Los Alamos eprint archive nucl-th/9609006). M. Martin, H. Kalechofsky, P. Foka, and U.A. Wiedemann, Los Alamos eprint archive nucl-th/9612023. E. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. B[**44**]{} (1973) 387; Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**18**]{} (1974) 667. F. Yano and S. Koonin, Phys. Lett. B[**78**]{} (1978) 556. S. Pratt et al., Nucl. Phys. A[**566**]{} (1994) 103c; and in [*Quark-Gluon Plasma 2*]{}, ed. by R.C. Hwa (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995), p. 700. S. Chapman and U. Heinz, Phys. Lett. B[**340**]{} (1994) 250. M. Plümer, L.V. Razumov, and R.M. Weiner, Phys. Rev. D[**49**]{} (1994) 4434; A. Timmermann, M. Plümer, L.V. Razumov, and R.M. Weiner, Phys. Rev. C[**50**]{} (1994) 3060. S. Padula, M. Gyulassy, and S. Gavin, Nucl. Phys. B[**329**]{} (1990) 357. J. Zimányi, talk given at the HBT96 Workshop, ECT\* Trento, Sep. 16-27, 1996. H. Merlitz and D. Pelte, Los Alamos eprint archive nucl-th/9702005. M. Gyulassy, S.K. Kauffmann, and L.W. Wilson, Phys. Rev. C[**20**]{} (1994) 2267. U.A. Wiedemann, P. Foka, H. Kalechofsky, M. Martin, C. Slotta, Q.H. Zhang, in preparation. B. Lörstad, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A[**12**]{} (1989) 2861. For a non-relativistic Boltzmann distribution, $\rho(x,p) \sim
\exp[-\bbox{p}^2/(2mT)]$, the prescription (\[14\]) results in an effective Boltzmann distribution with an increased temperature $T_{\rm eff} = T + 1/(2m\sigma^2)$ [@Z96; @MP97]. G. Goldhaber, S. Goldhaber, W. Lee, and A. Pais, Phys. Rev. [**120**]{} (1960) 300.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
For extreme value copulas with a known upper tail dependence coefficient we find pointwise upper and lower bounds, which are used to establish upper and lower bounds of the Spearman and Kendall correlation coefficients. We shown that in all cases the lower bounds are attained on Marshall–Olkin copulas, and the upper ones, on copulas with piecewise linear dependence functions.
*Keywords*: extreme value copulas, upper tail dependence coefficient, Spearman’s correlation coefficient, Kendall’s correlation coefficient
*MSC:* 60E15, 60G70, 62G32, 62H20
---
**On the Interrelation between Dependence Coefficients of Extreme Value Copulas**\
Alexey V. Lebedev[^1]
Introduction
============
For a long time, to describe dependence of random variables, linear Gaussian models were mainly used.
However, by the end of XX century there appeared common understanding that such models are not good enough to well describe many natural, engineering, and social phenomena. Therefore, copulas have become quite popular in the last decades. Their various applications and theoretical studies mutually motivate each other.
A *copula* $C$ is a multivariate distribution function on $[0,1]^d$, $d\ge
2$, such that all univariate marginal distributions are uniform on $[0,1]$. According to Sklar’s famous theorem, any multivariate function in $\mathbb{R}^d$ can be represented as $$F(x_1,\dots x_d)=C(F_1(x_1),\dots F_d(x_d)),$$ where $F_i$, $1\le i\le d$, are marginal distribution functions. Thus, to each multivariate distribution there corresponds its copula. If the marginal distribution functions are continuous, then such a representation is unique.
As an excellent textbook on copulas, we recommend [@Nel].
Below we only consider bivariate copula $C(u,v)$ of random vectors $(X,Y)$ with continuous distribution functions $F_X$ and $F_Y$ of the components, so that for the joint distribution function of $X$ and $Y$ there exists a unique representation $$F(x,y)=C(F_X(x),F_Y(y)).$$
A *survival copula* ${\hat C}$ is most simply defined as a copula of the random vector $(-X,-Y)$. It is related with the original copula by $${\hat C}(u,v)=u+v-1+C(1-u,1-v).$$ The survival copula relates distribution tails instead of the original functions: $${\bar F}(x,y)={\bf P}(X>x,Y>y)={\hat C}({\bar F}_X(x),{\bar F}_Y(y)).$$
Consider a classical example. Let there be a two-component system with two independent factors that may cause failure of one of the components each. Let there also be a third factor causing failure of both components simultaneously. Assuming that all the factors act with a constant intensity, there occurs a bivariate exponential Marshall–Olkin distribution [@Nel Section 3.1.1]. The survival copula of this distribution is accordingly referred to as a Marshall–Olkin copula and can be represented as $$\label{mo}
C(u,v)=\min\{u^{1-\alpha}v,uv^{1-\beta}\},\quad 0\le\alpha,\beta\le 1.$$ This copula plays a major role in our study, and we will refer to it repeatedly.
There are several dependence coefficients related to copulas. We will need the following ones:
1\. *Spearman’s correlation coefficient* $\rho_S$ is defined as standard (Pearson’s) correlation coefficient of the random variables $U=F_X(X)$ and $V=F_Y(Y)$. Taking into account their uniform distribution on $[0,1]$, we have $$\rho_S=12{\bf E}UV-3.$$
2\. *Kendall’s correlation coefficient* $\tau_K$ is defined as $$\tau_K={\bf E}{\rm\ sign}(X_1-X_2)(Y_1-Y_2),$$ where $(X_1,Y_1)$ and $(X_2,Y_2)$ are independent random vectors distributed as $(X,Y)$.
3\. *Upper tail dependence coefficient* $\lambda_U$ is defined as $$\lambda_U=\lim_{t\to 1-0}{\bf P}(X>F^{-1}_X(t)\,|\,Y>F^{-1}_Y(t)).$$
In what follows, instead of $\rho_S$, $\tau_K$, and $\lambda_U$ we will write $\rho$, $\tau$, and $\lambda$.
All these coefficients can be uniquely expressed through copulas and do not depend on marginal distributions of the random variables: $$\begin{gathered}
\rho=12\int_0^1\int_0^1C(u,v)\,du\,dv-3,\qquad
\tau=4\int_0^1\int_0^1C(u,v)\,dC(u,v)-1,\\ \lambda=2-\lim_{t\to
1-0}\frac{1-C(t,t)}{1-t}.\end{gathered}$$
In particular, for the Marshall–Olkin copula we have $$\label{mo3}
\rho=\frac{3\alpha\beta}{2\alpha-\alpha\beta+2\beta},\qquad
\tau=\frac{\alpha\beta}{\alpha-\alpha\beta+\beta},\qquad
\lambda=\min\{\alpha,\beta\}.$$
*Extreme value copulas* are copulas of multivariate extreme value distributions. If we take the componentwise maximum of several i.i.d. random variables with this distribution, its distribution will be of the same type (up to shift-scale transformations of the components). The same distributions appear as limiting ones in the maxima scheme of i.i.d. random vectors (under linear normalization). Respectively, in the minima scheme, survival copulas appear to be extreme value copulas.
A necessary and sufficient condition for a copula to be an extreme value copula is the identity $$C(u^s,v^s)=C^s(u,v),\quad \forall s>0.$$
Among the copulas mentioned above, the class of extreme value copulas comprises the Marshall–Olkin copula and the Gumbel copula $$\label{gum}
C(u,v)=\exp\left\{-\left((-\ln u)^\theta+(-\ln
v)^\theta\right)^{1/\theta}\right\},\quad \theta\ge 1.$$
For the Gumbel copula we have $$\label{gumpar}
\tau=1-\frac{1}{\theta},\qquad \lambda=2-2^{1/\theta},$$ and $\rho$, unfortunately, cannot be expressed explicitly.
Extreme value copulas have Pickands’ representation[^2]: $$\label{pik}
C(u,v)=\exp\left\{(\ln u+\ln v)A\left(\frac{\ln v}{\ln u+\ln v}\right)\right\},\quad
A(t)=-\ln C(e^{-(1-t)},e^{-t}),$$ where the *dependence function* $A(t)$ on $[0,1]$ is convex and satisfies the inequality $$\max\{t,1-t\}\le A(t)\le 1.$$
For example, for the Marshall–Olkin copula, from and we obtain $$\label{mo2}
A(t)=1-\min\{\beta t, \alpha (1-t)\}.$$
In the class of extreme value copulas, we have the following expressions for the dependence coefficients introduced above: $$\label{vyr}
\rho=12\int_0^1\frac{dt}{(A(t)+1)^2}-3,\qquad
\tau=\int_0^1\frac{t(1-t)dA'(t)}{A(t)},\qquad \lambda=2(1-A(1/2)).$$
Furthermore, for an extreme value copula, the upper tail dependence coefficient uniquely determines its behavior on the main diagonal, namely $$C(u,u)=u^{2-\lambda},\quad 0\le u\le 1.$$
One of the most important and interesting problems in copula theory is establishing interrelations between various dependence coefficients. The classical domain of possible values of $\rho$ and $\tau$ is given by $$\begin{array}{c} \displaystyle
\frac{3\tau-1}{2}\le\rho\le\frac{1+2\tau-\tau^2}{2},\quad \tau\ge 0,\\ \displaystyle
\frac{\tau^2+2\tau-1}{2}\le\rho\le\frac{1+3\tau}{2},\quad \tau\le 0,
\end{array}$$ whereas for extreme value copulas we have $\rho,\tau\ge 0$ and the Hutchinson–Lai inequality $$\sqrt{1+3\tau}-1\le\rho\le\min\{(3/2)\tau,2\tau-\tau^2\}$$ holds true, which for long stood as a conjecture and has been proved in [@Hurl].
Modern refinements of these results can be found in recent papers [@Trut2018; @Trut2; @Trut1].
So, in [@Trut2018] a new sharp inequality for bivariate extreme value copulas is derived: $$\rho\ge\frac{3\tau}{2+\tau}.$$
The coefficient $\lambda$ was historically paid less attention. In [@Esh Section 3.2] there were found domains of possible values of $\lambda$ and $\tau$ for some families of extreme value copulas ($t$-EV, BB5, Tawn, Joe). Below we find tight bounds on $\rho$ and $\tau$ for a known $\lambda$ on the whole class of extreme value copulas, but first we pointwise estimate the copulas themselves.
Main Results and Discussion
===========================
For any extreme value copula with a known $\lambda\in [0,1]$ we have $$\label{omin}
C(u,v)\ge\min\{u^{1-\lambda}v,uv^{1-\lambda}\}$$ and there exist $a,b\ge 0$, $a+b=\lambda$, such that $$\label{omax}
C(u,v)\le\min\{u,v,u^{1-a}v^{1-b}\};$$ moreover, these bounds are extreme value copulas with the same $\lambda$.
By , the extreme value copula $C$ decreases monotonically with $A$, so it suffices to estimate the function $A$ from above and below. Consider the plot given in Fig. 1.
The graph of $A$ (bold line) passes through the points $K(0;1)$ and $M(1;1)$, and implies that it also passes through $L(1/2;1-\lambda/2)$. By the convexity of the curve, no point of the graph lies above the broken line $KLM$, and the equation of the latter coincides with formula for the Marshall–Olkin copula with $\alpha=\beta=\lambda$. This yields .
Next, by the convexity, the graph of $A$ has at least one tangent line at $L$ and does not lie below it at any point. This tangent can be parametrized by the equation $$\label{kas}
s=(1-a)(1-t)+(1-b)t.$$ By the convexity of $A$, on the segment $[0,1]$ this tangent cannot pass above the points $K$ and $L$, and therefore $a,b\ge 0$. Plugging the coordinates of $L$ into , we obtain $a+b=\lambda$.
Denote the intersection points of the straight line with $KN$ and $OM$ by $P$ and $Q$ respectively. The equation of the broken line $KPQM$, lower bounding the graph of $A$, is of the form $$s=\max\{1-t,t,(1-a)(1-t)+(1-b)t\},$$ which, taking into account , implies .
Let us compare the situation with that studied in [@Bounds], see also [@Nel p. 184, Theorem 5.1.16], where upper and lower pointwise bounds for copulas with known values of $\rho$ and $\tau$ were found (without restrictions on a class of copulas). The obtained bounds are found to be copulas but do not have desired values of the coefficients. In our case the lower pointwise bound belongs to the class of extreme value copulas with a given $\lambda$, but the upper one does not. Nevertheless, instead of the latter there exists a family of copulas $$\label{sem}
C(u,v)=\min\{u,v,u^{1-a}v^{1-b}\},\quad a+b=\lambda,\quad a,b\ge 0,$$ forming a Pareto bound. This copulas are unimprovable in the sense that none of them can be increased at some point without decreasing at another one. This approach could also be useful in other cases where searching for pointwise bounds leads to estimates in the form of quasi-copulas which have no probabilistic sense [@Flor].
For copulas we have $$\label{semrho}
\rho=1-\frac{16(1-\lambda)^2}{(4-\lambda)^2-9(a-b)^2}$$ and $$\label{semtau}
\tau=\lambda.$$
Denote for brevity $\nu=a-b$; then $$a=\frac{\lambda+\nu}{2},\qquad b=\frac{\lambda-\nu}{2}.$$
Again consider the graph plotted in Fig. 1. From the intersection of lines $s=1-t$ and $s=t$ with $s=(1-a)(1-t)+(1-b)t$ we find abscissae of the points $P$ and $Q$: $$t_P=\frac{a}{1+\nu},\qquad t_Q=\frac{1-a}{1-\nu}.$$
We have $$A(t)=
\begin{cases}
1-t, & 0\le t<t_P,\\ (1-a)(1-t)+(1-b)t, & t_P\le
t<t_Q,\\ t, & t_Q\le t\le 1.
\end{cases}$$
Compute the integral $$\begin{aligned}
I&=\int_0^1\frac{dt}{(A(t)+1)^2}\\ &=\int_0^{t_P}\frac{dt}{(2-t)^2}
+\int_{t_P}^{t_Q}\frac{dt}{((1-a)(1-t)+(1-b)t+1)^2}+\int_{t_Q}^1\frac{dt}{(t+1)^2}\\
&=\frac{1+ab-a^2-b^2}{(2+a-2b)(2+b-2a)}
=\frac{1}{3}\left(1-\frac{4(1-\lambda)^2}{(4-\lambda)^2-9\nu^2}\right);
\end{aligned}$$ this, together with $\rho=12I-3$, yields .
To compute $\tau$, note that the derivative $A'(t)$ is zero everywhere except for the points $t_P$ and $t_Q$, where it has jumps from $-1$ to $\nu$ and from $\nu$ to 1 respectively. We get $$\tau=\int_0^1\frac{t(1-t)dA'(t)}{A(t)}=\frac{t_P(1-t_P)(1+\nu)}{1-t_P}
+\frac{t_Q(1-t_Q)(1-\nu)}{t_Q}=a+b=\lambda.$$
For any extreme value copula with a known $\lambda\in [0,1]$, we have $$\label{orho}
\frac{3\lambda}{4-\lambda}\le\rho\le 1-16\left(\frac{1-\lambda}{4-\lambda}\right)^2$$ and $$\label{otau}
\frac{\lambda}{2-\lambda}\le\tau\le\lambda,$$ where the lower bounds are attained at Marshall–Olkin copulas with $\alpha=\beta=\lambda$, and the upper ones, at copulas of the family with $a=b=\lambda/2$.
First note that $\rho$ and $\tau$ are measures of concordance, which are monotonically nondecreasing with $C$ [@Nel p. 169, Theorem 5.1.9] (though this is not evident from formulas for $\tau$, in contrast to $\rho$).
Thus, the lower bound for $C$ in Theorem 1 yields lower bounds for $\rho$ and $\tau$ in the particular case of a Marshall–Olkin copula with $\alpha=\beta=\lambda$ according to .
The upper bound for $C$ in Theorem 1, taking into account Lemma 1, immediately gives an upper bound for $\tau$. One can also observe that, according to , the coefficient $\rho$ decreases in $|a-b|$ and attains its maximum value when $a=b=\lambda/2$. Hence we get the upper bounds.
Bounds of Theorem 2 are presented as solid lines in Figs. 2 and 3.
To make the picture complete, by dashed lines we plot the coefficients in the case of the popular Gumbel copula , for which gives $$\tau=1-\log_2(2-\lambda),$$ and values of $\rho$ were numerically evaluated by the author and are presented in the following table:
$$
$\lambda$ $\theta$ $\rho$
----------- ---------- --------
0 1 0
0.1 1.080 0.110
0.2 1.179 0.225
0.3 1.306 0.342
0.4 1.475 0.461
0.5 1.710 0.581
0.6 2.060 0.699
0.7 2.641 0.808
0.8 3.802 0.904
0.9 7.273 0.973
1 $\infty$ 1
$$\medskip
Let us also mention Blomqvist's coefficient, which can be defined as$$ \_[X,Y]{}=[**E**]{}[ sign]{}(X-X\_m)(Y-Y\_m) $$ where $X_m$ and $Y_m$ are medians of $X$ and $Y$ respectively, and is expressed through a copula as $$\beta_C=4C(1/2,1/2)-1.$$ By and , for extreme value copulas this coefficient is uniquely related with the upper tail dependence coefficient: $$\beta_C=2^\lambda-1,\quad \lambda=\log_2(1+\beta_C).$$ Thus, the results of Theorem 2 can easily be recalculated to the case of a known Blomqvist’s coefficient instead of the upper tail dependence coefficient.
Main results were briefly presented in [@Leb].
[10]{}
Eschenburg, P. 2013. [*Properties of Extreme-Value Copulas.*]{} Technische Universität München. Fakultät für Mathematik. München.\
E-print: https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/doc/1145695/1145695.pdf
Hürlimann, W. 2003. Hutchinson–Lai’s Conjecture for Bivariate Extreme Value Copulas. [*Statist. Probab. Lett.*]{} 61(2): 191–198.
Lebedev, A.V. 2017. On the Interrelation between some Dependence Coefficients of Bivariate Extreme Value Copulas. [*Proceedings of the III International scientific and practical conference “Modern problems of physical and mathematical sciences”. 23–26 November 2017. Orel, Russia.*]{} 151–154. (in Russian)\
E-print: https://phys-math.ru/[\_]{}media/conf2017/spfmn-2017-sbornik.pdf
McNeil, A.J., R. Frey and P. Embrechts. 2005. [*Quantitative Risk Management.*]{} Princeton, NJ. Princeton University Press.
Mroz, T. and W. Trutschnig. 2018. A sharp inequality for Kendall’s $\tau$ and Spearman’s $\rho$ of Extreme-Value Copulas. [*arXiv: 1811.02256v1 \[math.ST\] 6 Nov 2018.*]{}
Nelsen, R. 2006. [*An Introduction to Copulas.*]{} Springer. New York.
Nelsen, R.B., J.J. Quesada Molina, J.A. Rodríguez-Lallena and M. Úbeda-Flores. 2001. Bounds on Bivariate Distribution Functions with Given Margins and Measures of Association. [*Commun. Statist. Theory Methods.*]{} 30(6): 1055–1062.
Rodríguez-Lallena, J.A. and M. Úbeda-Flores. 2005. Best-possible Bounds on Sets of Multivariate Distribution Functions. [*Commun. Statist. Theory Methods.*]{} 33(4): 805–820.
Schreyer, M., R. Paulin and W. Trutschnig. 2017. On the Exact Region Determined by Kendall’s $\tau$ and Spearman’s $\rho$. [*J. R. Statist. Soc. B.*]{} 79(2): 613–633.
Trutschnig, W., M. Schreyer and J. Fernández-Sánchez. 2016. Mass Distributions of Two-Dimensional Extreme-Value Copulas and Related Results. [*Extremes.*]{} 19(3): 405–427.
[^1]: Department of Probability Theory, Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia. E-mail: `[email protected]`. ORCID: 0000-0002-9258-0588.
[^2]: Here we follow the definition from [@Nel p. 98], but many other sources, for instance, [@QRM p. 312], use a mirror symmetric representation (for our purposes, this is not significant): $$C(u,v)=\exp\left\{(\ln u+\ln v)A\left(\frac{\ln u}{\ln u+\ln v}\right)\right\},\quad
A(t)=-\ln C(e^{-t},e^{-(1-t)}).$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we study how the degrees of the elements in a minimal $\mu$-basis of a parametrized surface behave. For an arbitrary rational surface parametrization $P(s,t)=(a_1(s,t),a_2(s,t),a_3(s,t),\\a_4(s,t)) \in {\mathbb{F}}[s,t]^4$ over an infinite field ${\mathbb{F}}$, we show the existence of a $\mu$-basis with polynomials bounded in degree by $O(d^{33})$, where $d=\max(\deg(a_1),\deg(a_2), \deg(a_3), \deg(a_4))$. Under additional assumptions we can obtain tighter bounds.'
address: 'Department de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Facultat de Matemàtiques i Informàtica, Universitat de Barcelona, Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 585; 08007 Barcelona, Spain.'
author:
- 'Yairon Cid-Ruiz'
title: 'Bounding the degrees of a minimal $\mu$-basis for a rational surface parametrization.'
---
Syzygies, $\mu$-basis, Koszul complex, Hilbert Syzygy Theorem, Quillen-Suslin Theorem, unimodular matrix, liaison. 13D02 ,14Q10.
Introduction
============
The concept of a $\mu$-basis is an important notion in Computer Aided Geometric Design and Geometric Modeling, that was introduced in [@MU_BASIS_CURVES] to study the implicitization problem in the case of parametrized curves. The $\mu$-basis of a parametric curve is a well-understood object that provides the implicit equation by computing its resultant [@MU_BASIS_CURVES Section 4] and has a number of applications in the study of rational curves (see e.g. [@CHEN_SEDERB_IMP; @CHEN_WANG_YANG_SING; @GOLDMAN_JIA]). On the other hand, the $\mu$-basis of a parametric surface is a more complicated object and its development took several years of research. In a first attempt, for the particular case of rational ruled surfaces the concept of a $\mu$-basis was defined in [@MU_BASIS_RULED_SURF] and [@CHEN_WANG_REVIS] (also, see [@DOHM]). Later, in [@MU_BASIS], the existence of a $\mu$-basis was proved for an arbitrary rational surface.
The existence of $\mu$-bases for rational surfaces is a strong result whose geometrical meaning is that any rational surface is the intersection of three moving planes without extraneous factors. Additionally, a $\mu$-basis of a rational surface parametrization coincides with a basis of the syzygy module [@MU_BASIS Corollary 3.1] and can be used to obtain the implicit equation [@MU_BASIS Section 4]. Contrary to the case of rational curves, there is no known upper bound for the degrees of the elements in a minimal $\mu$-basis of a rational surface parametrization. The main purpose of this article is to obtain such an upper bound.
In order to describe the main results of this paper, we briefly recall the notion of a $\mu$-basis for a rational parametric surface.
Let ${\mathbb{F}}$ be an infinite field and $R$ be the polynomial ring $R={\mathbb{F}}[s,t]$.
A rational surface parametrization in homogeneous form is defined by $$\label{rational_surface}
P(s, t) = \big(a_1(s, t), a_2(s, t), a_3(s, t), a_4(s, t)\big)$$ where $a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4 \in R$ and $\gcd(a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4) = 1$.
A moving plane following the rational parametrization is a quadruple $$\big(A(s, t), B(s, t), C(s, t), D(s, t)\big) \in R^4$$ such that $$\label{moving_plane}
A(s, t)a_1(s,t) +
B(s, t)a_2(s,t) + C(s, t)a_3(s,t) + D(s, t)a_4(s,t) = 0.$$
Let $\mathbf{p}=(p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4), \mathbf{q}=(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4), \mathbf{r}=(r_1,r_2,r_3,r_4)$ be three moving planes such that $$\label{equation_MU_BASIS}
[\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q},\mathbf{r}]=\alpha P(s,t)$$ for some nonzero constant $\alpha \in {\mathbb{F}}$. Then $\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q},\mathbf{r}$ are said to be a $\mathbf{\mu-basis}$ of the rational surface parametrization . Here $[\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q},\mathbf{r}]$ is defined as the outer product $$[\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q},\mathbf{r}]=\left(
\left|
\begin{array}{ccc}
p_2 & p_3 & p_4 \\
q_2 & q_3 & q_4 \\
r_2 & r_3 & r_4
\end{array}
\right|
,-
\left|
\begin{array}{ccc}
p_1 & p_3 & p_4 \\
q_1 & q_3 & q_4 \\
r_1 & r_3 & r_4
\end{array}
\right|,
\left|
\begin{array}{ccc}
p_1 & p_2 & p_4 \\
q_1 & q_2 & q_4 \\
r_1 & r_2 & r_4
\end{array}
\right|
,-
\left|
\begin{array}{ccc}
p_1 & p_2 & p_3 \\
q_1 & q_2 & q_3 \\
r_1 & r_2 & r_3
\end{array}
\right|
\right).$$
As noted before, there is a $1-1$ relation between a $\mu$-basis and a basis for the syzygy module ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ given in the following form:
[@MU_BASIS Corollary 3.1] $\mathbf{p}$, $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{r}$ form a $\mu$-basis if and only if $\mathbf{p}$, $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{r}$ are a basis of ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4)$.
For any vector $\mathbf{v} \in R^m$ we denote its degree by $\deg(\mathbf{v})=\max_{j}\{\deg(\mathbf{v}_j)\}$, where $\deg(\mathbf{v}_j)$ is equal to the total degree of the polynomial $\mathbf{v}_j$ in the variables $s$ and $t$.
$\mathbf{p}$, $\mathbf{q}$ and $\mathbf{r}$ are said to form a **minimal $\mathbf{\mu}$-basis** of the rational surface if among all the triples satisfying , $\deg(\mathbf{p})+\deg(\mathbf{q})+\deg(\mathbf{r})$ is the smallest.
In [@MU_BASIS] there are left several questions of interest for further research and better understanding. Here we try to address the question:
**What can be said about the degrees of the polynomials in a minimal $\mathbf{\mu}$-basis?**
that was asked in [@MU_BASIS Section 5, second question].
Due to the equivalence between being a $\mu$-basis and being a basis for the syzygy module, this question is the same as finding an upper bound for the latter one. We remark that the problem of studying the degrees of the syzygies of an ideal or a module has attracted the attention of several researchers (see e.g. [@LAZARD_ALG_LIN; @LAZARD_UPPER_BOUND_NOTE; @SYZ_COMP; @YAP_LOWER; @PEEVA_STURM; @AVARAM_LUCH_CONC]).
Another interesting feature of the $\mu$-bases is that they form the linear part of the moving curve/surface ideals in the case of curves/surfaces. In [@COX_MOVING], it was noticed that computing the moving curve/surface ideal is the same as determining the defining equations of the Rees algebra of the ideal generated by the parametrization of the curve/surface. The problem of finding the presentation of the Rees algebra is a long standing problem in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry that is a very active research topic (see e.g. [@VASC_EQ_REES; @COX_REES_MU_1; @HONG_SIMIS_VASC_ELIM; @LAURENT; @CARLOS_MONOID; @CARLOS_MU2; @CARLOS_MONO; @KPU_NORMAL_SCROLL; @KPU_GOR3; @DMOD; @SAT_SPEC_FIB]).
In the following construction we homogenize the ideal $I = (a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4) \subset R$ defined by the parametrization .
Given the data $\{a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4\}$ that determines , then we define the homogeneous ideal ${\hat{I}}=(b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4)$ with generators $$\label{homogenization}
b_i(s,t,u) = u^d a_i(\frac{s}{u}, \frac{t}{u}) \in {\mathbb{F}}[s,t,u],$$ where $d=\max(\deg(a_1), \deg(a_2), \deg(a_3), \deg(a_4))$.
The main result of this paper is the following theorem where we find upper bounds for the degrees of the elements in a minimal $\mu$-basis.
\[Main\_Thm\] Let $P(s,t)$ be the parametrization in and $d$ be the number $$d=\max\{\deg(a_1),\deg(a_2),\deg(a_3),\deg(a_4)\}.$$ Then, the following statements hold:
(i) There exists a $\mu$-basis with polynomials bounded in the order of $O(d^{33})$.
(ii) If the homogenized ideal ${\hat{I}}$ (obtained in ) has height ${\normalfont\text{ht}}({\hat{I}})=3$, then there exists a $\mu$-basis with degree bounded by $O(d^{22})$.
(iii) If the homogenized ideal ${\hat{I}}$ is a “general” Artinian almost complete intersection (i.e, like in ), then there exists a $\mu$-basis with degree bounded by $O(d^{12})$.
(iv) If the homogenized ideal ${\hat{I}}$ has projective dimension ${\normalfont\text{pd}}({\hat{I}})=1$, then there exists a $\mu$-basis with degree bounded by $d$.
The proof of is based on two fundamental ingredients. By using techniques coming from homological and commutative algebra we bound numerical invariants of the minimal free resolution (e.g. regularity and Betti numbers) of the ideal ${\hat{I}}$ obtained by homogenizing the ideal $I=(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$, and then a process of dehomogenization gives us a presentation of ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ where everything can be bounded in terms of $d$. Under the assumptions of working over an infinite field ${\mathbb{F}}$ and having a presentation of ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$, then we apply the remarkable results of [@SERRE_ART] where an effective version of the Quillen-Suslin Theorem is given.
In the part $(iii)$ we use an explicit description of the minimal free resolution of a general Artinian almost complete intersection, that was obtained in [@ROIG]. The part $(iv)$ follows from [@STRONG_MU_BASIS] where the case ${\normalfont\text{pd}}({\hat{I}})=1$ was studied and called *strong $\mu$-basis*.
In contrast to our results, the elements of a $\mu$-basis of a parametric rational curve of degree $d$ are bounded in degree by exactly $d$. This big difference between the case of curves and surfaces comes from the fact that the syzygy module of the homogenized ideal may not be free in the case of surfaces but in the case of curves is always free. Actually, the condition of $(iv)$ accounts to say that the syzygy module of ${\hat{I}}$ is free, and the case of a parametric rational surface having a strong $\mu$-basis is treated similarly to the case of rational curves. In the general case where the syzygy module of ${\hat{I}}$ is not free, then the dehomogenization process that we use does not give us a basis of ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$. To overcome this difficulty, we use the effective version of Quillen-Suslin Theorem in [@SERRE_ART], and it is in this last step where the complexity of our upper bounds becomes large. As a general opinion, we think that our upper bounds are not sharp.
In our proof of we needed to find some upper bounds for the regularity and Betti numbers of the homogeneous ideal ${\hat{I}}$. Since we think that these auxiliary upper bounds may be of interest on their own, we worked with more general ideals and obtained the following results:
(i) Let ${\mathbb{K}}$ be an arbitrary field. For a homogeneous ideal $J=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m) \subset {\mathbb{K}}[s,t,u]$ generated by $m\ge 2$ relatively prime polynomials in ${\mathbb{K}}[s,t,u]$, in we give upper bounds for the regularity and the Betti numbers of $J$.
(ii) For a homogeneous ideal $J=(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4) \subset {\mathbb{F}}[s,t,u]$ with $\deg(g_1)=\cdots=\deg(g_4)$ and ${\normalfont\text{ht}}(I)=3$, in we improve the upper bounds for the Betti numbers of $J$.
The basic outline of this paper is as follows. In , we study the syzygies of ideals in a polynomial ring, and in particular we show that ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ is a free module of rank $3$. In , we compute upper bounds for the regularity and the Betti numbers of ideals generated by relatively prime polynomials in three variables. In , by applying the effective version of Quillen-Suslin Theorem in [@SERRE_ART], we prove . In , we briefly discuss the sharpness of our upper bounds. In , we give a simple example to show the process of computing $\mu$-bases with our method.
Finally, for the sake of completeness we recall some basic definitions that will be used. For notational purposes, let $M$ be an $R$-module and $J\subset R$ be an ideal. The *projective dimension* of $M$, denoted by ${\normalfont\text{pd}}(M)$, is the smallest possible length of a projective resolution of $M$ (see [@ROTMAN page 233]). The *height* of $J$, denoted by ${\normalfont\text{ht}}(J)$, is equal to ${\normalfont\text{ht}}(J)=\inf\{{\normalfont\text{ht}}({\normalfont\mathfrak{p}}) \mid I \subset {\normalfont\mathfrak{p}}\in {\normalfont\text{Spec}}(R) \}$, where the height of a prime ideal ${\normalfont\mathfrak{p}}$ is the maximum of the lengths of increasing chains of prime ideals contained in ${\normalfont\mathfrak{p}}$ (see [@MATSUMURA Section 5]). The *grade* of $J$, denoted by ${\normalfont\text{grade}}(J)$, is the maximum of the lengths of the regular sequences contained in $J$ (see [@BRUNS_HERZ Definition 1.2.6]).
Assume in addition that $M$ is a finitely generated graded $R$-module. The $k$-th graded component of $M$ is denoted by $M_k$. The *Hilbert function* of $M$, denoted by $H_M(k)$, is equal to $\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}}(M_k)$. The *minimal free resolution* of $M$ is unique up to isomorphism (see [@GRADED Theorem 7.5]), then as a consequence, we can define the *Betti numbers* of $M$ (see [@GRADED Section 11]) and the *regularity* of $M$ (see [@GRADED Section 18]).
Dealing with syzygies {#section2}
=====================
The fact that ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ is a free module of rank $3$ is an important step in [@MU_BASIS] to show the existence of a $\mu$-basis. In this section we give a different proof for that statement, which we also generalize because we will need the case of three variables after homogenizing the ideal $I=(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$.
In this section we use the following notation.
Let ${\mathbb{K}}$ be an arbitrary field and $R$ be the polynomial ring $R={\mathbb{K}}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ where $n\ge 2$.
\[free\_syzygy\] Let $I$ be an ideal in $R$. Then, for any projective resolution $$\cdots \xrightarrow{d_{n}} P_{n-1} \xrightarrow{d_{n-1}} P_{n-2} \xrightarrow{d_{n-2}} P_{n-3} \xrightarrow{d_{n-3}} \cdots \xrightarrow{d_1} P_0 \xrightarrow{d_0} I \rightarrow 0$$ where the $P_i$’s are finitely generated, the corresponding *(n-2)-th* syzygy $K_{n-2}={\normalfont\text{Ker}}(d_{n-2})$ is free.
By the Hilbert Syzygy Theorem [@ROTMAN Corollary 9.36], there exists a finite free resolution of length at most $n$ for the quotient ring $R/I$. We assume that it has length $n$ and we denote it by $$0 \rightarrow F_n \rightarrow F_{n-1} \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow F_0 \rightarrow R/I \rightarrow 0,$$ because if it has length smaller than $n$ then we can simply fill it with zero modules.
With the given projective resolution of $I$ we get the exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow K_{n-2} \rightarrow P_{n-2} \xrightarrow{d_{n-2}} P_{n-3} \xrightarrow{d_{n-3}} \cdots \xrightarrow{d_1} P_0 \xrightarrow{d_0} R \rightarrow R/I \rightarrow 0,$$ where $K_{n-2}={\normalfont\text{Ker}}(d_{n-2})$ is the *(n-2)-th* syzygy. Then, from the generalized Schanuel Lemma (see [@KAP Theorem 189]) we have the isomorphism $$K_{n-2} \,\bigoplus\,
\left(\bigoplus_{j=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor} F_{n-1-2j} \right)\,\bigoplus\, \left(\bigoplus_{j=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n-3}{2}\rfloor} P_{n-3-2j} \right) \;\cong\; \left(\bigoplus_{j=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor} F_{n-2j} \right) \,\bigoplus\, \left(\bigoplus_{j=0}^{\lfloor\frac{n-2}{2}\rfloor} P_{n-2-2j} \right),$$ which implies that $K_{n-2}$ is a projective module. Since $R$ is Noetherian and $P_{n-2}$ is finitely generated, then $P_{n-2}$ is Noetherian and $K_{n-2} \subset P_{n-2}$ is finitely generated. Finally, the Quillen-Suslin Theorem [@ROTMAN Theorem 4.59] implies that the module $K_{n-2}$ is free.
\[pd\_ineq\_ideal\] For any ideal $I \subset R$ we have ${\normalfont\text{pd}}(I) \le n-1$.
Using that $R$ is Noetherian, for the ideal $I$ we can always find a free resolution composed of finitely generated modules. So the corollary follows from .
We finish this section by proving that the free module ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ has rank $3$.
\[Euler\_char\] Let $A$ be a Noetherian ring, and $I \subset A$ be a nonzero ideal with a finite free resolution. Then ${\normalfont\text{rank}}(I)=1$.
From $0\rightarrow I \rightarrow A \rightarrow A/I \rightarrow 0$ and the additivity of the ${\normalfont\text{rank}}$ function [@BRUNS_HERZ Proposition 1.4.5], we obtain ${\normalfont\text{rank}}(A)={\normalfont\text{rank}}(I)+{\normalfont\text{rank}}(A/I)$. We always have ${\normalfont\text{rank}}(A)=1$ and from [@KAP Theorem 195] we get ${\normalfont\text{rank}}(A/I)=0$. Therefore ${\normalfont\text{rank}}(I)=1$.
From the Hilbert Syzygy Theorem we know that any finitely generated module over $R$ has a finite free resolution, so we are free to apply the previous in this case.
\[syzygy\_rank\] Let $I=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m)$ be an ideal in $R$ with ${\normalfont\text{pd}}(I)=1$. Then ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m)$ is a free module of rank $m-1$.
The hypothesis ${\normalfont\text{pd}}(I)=1$ implies that the ideal $I$ has a projective resolution of the form $$0 \rightarrow P_1 \rightarrow P_0 \rightarrow I \rightarrow 0.$$
To study the module ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m)$, we consider the short exact sequence $$\label{EQ_SYZ_SHORT}
0 \rightarrow{\normalfont\text{Syz}}(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m) \rightarrow R^m \rightarrow I \rightarrow 0.$$ Then, the Schanuel lemma (see e.g. [@LANG_ALGEBRA page 841, Lemma 2.4]) yields the following isomorphism $${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m) \oplus P_0 \;\cong\; P_1 \oplus R^m,$$ which implies that ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m)$ is a projective module. Since ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m)$ is also finitely generated, then the Quillen-Suslin Theorem [@ROTMAN Theorem 4.59] implies that ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m)$ is actually free. Finally, the short exact sequence , the additivity of the rank function and give us $${\normalfont\text{rank}}\left({\normalfont\text{Syz}}(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m)\right)={\normalfont\text{rank}}(R^m) - {\normalfont\text{rank}}(I) = m -1,$$ and so the claim of the corollary follows.
Upper bounds for the regularity and the Betti numbers {#section3}
=====================================================
This section is devoted to finding an upper bound for the regularity and the Betti numbers of ${\hat{I}}$. Since the results of this section could be of general interest, we will deal with the case of homogeneous ideals generated by relatively prime polynomials in three variables. Our main reference will be the chapter *“Graded Free Resolutions”* of [@GRADED].
First we note that the homogenized ideal ${\hat{I}}$ satisfies the condition of being generated by relatively prime polynomials.
For the ideal $\hat{I}=(b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4)$ constructed in we have that $b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4$ are relatively prime (i.e. $\gcd(b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4)=1$).
Suppose that $g = \gcd(b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4) \neq 1\in {\mathbb{F}}[s,t,u]$. Since $g(s,t,1) \mid a_i(s,t)$ and $\gcd(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)=1$, then we necessarily have that $g \in {\mathbb{K}}[u]$. By construction one of the $b_i$’s has a term that is free of $u$, without loss of generality we assume that $b_1(s,t,u) = \lambda s^{\alpha}t^{d-\alpha} + u p(s,t,u)$ with $p \in {\mathbb{F}}[s,t,u]$ and $\lambda\neq 0$. So, since $b_1$ is homogeneous of degree $d$, we have that $g \mid b_1$ is a contradiction.
During the present section we use the following notation.
Let ${\mathbb{K}}$ be an arbitrary field and ${\mathbb{F}}$ be an infinite field. Let $T$ and $S$ be the polynomial rings $T={\mathbb{K}}[s,t,u]$ and $S={\mathbb{F}}[s,t,u]$.
We divide the section into two different parts. In the first part, we consider a homogeneous ideal $J=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m) \subset T$ generated by $m\ge 2$ relatively prime polynomials. In the second part, we deal with the special case of an ideal $J = (g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4) \in S$ with $\deg(g_1)=\cdots=\deg(g_4)$ and ${\normalfont\text{ht}}(J)=3$.
\[bounds\] Let $m\ge 2$, $J=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m) \subset T$ be a homogeneous ideal, $\gcd(f_1,\ldots,f_m)=1$ and $\deg(f_1),\ldots,\deg(f_m) \le d$. Then, the following statements hold:
(i) ${\normalfont\text{reg}}(J) \le 3d-2.$
(ii) $
\beta_1(J) \le \beta_2(J) + m -1.
$
(iii) $
\beta_2(J) \le H_J({\normalfont\text{reg}}(J)) \le H_J(3d-2) \le \binom{3d}{2}.
$
In addition if $\deg(f_1)=\deg(f_2)=\ldots=\deg(f_m)=d$ then $
\beta_2(J) \le m \binom{2d}{2}.
$
We break the proof of in some steps that now follow. First, we prove that any ideal as $J$ above has two relatively prime elements, but in order to prove it we have to make a more complicated reformulation.
\[lemma\_gcd\] Let $m \ge 2$ and $f_1, \ldots,f_m \in {\mathbb{K}}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ be relatively prime polynomials (i.e. $\gcd(f_1,\ldots, f_m)=1$). Then there exists an infinite sequence of polynomials $\{h_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty} \subset (f_1,\ldots,f_m)$, with $\gcd(h_i,h_j)=1$ for $i \ne j$.
We proceed by an induction argument on $m$. Fix $m\ge 2$. We compute $g=\gcd(f_1,\ldots,f_{m-1})$ and the new polynomials $f_1^{'}=f_1/g, \ldots, f_{m-1}^{'}=f_{m-1}/g$. In the case $m=2$ we have $f_1^{'}=1$, and when $m>2$ we get $\gcd(f_1^{'},\ldots,f_{m-1}^{'})=1$. Hence, in both cases, we can obtain an infinite sequence $\{h_i^{'}\}_{i=1}^{\infty} \subset (f_1^{'},\ldots,f_{m-1}^{'})$ with $\gcd(h_i^{'}, h_j^{'})=1$ for $i \ne j$, because when $m=2$ we have $(f_1^{'})={\mathbb{K}}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and when $m>2$ we can use the induction hypothesis.
For each $h_i^{'}$ we have that $\gcd(f_m,f_m+gh_i^{'})=\gcd(f_m,gh_i^{'})$. From $\gcd(f_1,\ldots,f_m)=1$ we conclude that $\gcd(f_m,g)=1$, and for some $j \in {\mathbb{N}}$ we should have $\gcd(f_m,gh_j^{'})=1$, because all the $h_i^{'}$’s have different prime factors but $f_m$ can have only a finite amount of prime factors.
Suppose we have computed a sequence of polynomials $h_1,\ldots,h_k$ and a polynomial $g_k$, with the properties $\gcd(h_i,h_j)=1$ for $1\le i < j \le k$ and $\gcd(h_i,g_k)=1$ for $1\le i \le k$. Again, for each $h_i{'}$ we have $$\label{gcd_equation}
\gcd(h_1\cdots h_k, h_1\cdots h_k + g_kh_i^{'})=\gcd(h_1\cdots h_k, g_kh_i^{'})=\gcd(h_1\cdots h_k+g_kh_i^{'},g_kh_i^{'}),$$ and there must exist some $j\in{\mathbb{N}}$ with $\gcd(h_1h_2\cdots h_k, g_kh_j^{'})=1$. Thus we define the next elements in the inductive step as $
h_{k+1}=h_1h_2\cdots h_k + g_kh_j^{'}$ and $g_{k+1}=g_kh_j^{'}.
$
From we have that $\gcd(h_1h_2\cdots h_k,h_{k+1})=\gcd(h_1h_2\cdots h_k,g_{k+1})=\gcd(h_{k+1},g_{k+1})=1$, which implies $\gcd(h_i,h_j)=1$ for $1\le i < j \le k+1$ and $\gcd(h_i,g_{k+1})=1$ for $1\le i \le k+1$. Starting with $h_1=f_m,\; g_1=g$ and following this iterative process we can construct the required sequence $\{h_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty} \subset (f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ with $\gcd(h_i,h_j)=1$ for $i \neq j$.
\[the\_depth\] Let $m\ge 2$ and $J=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m) \subset T$ be a homogeneous ideal, where $\gcd(f_1,\ldots,f_m)=1$. Then ${\normalfont\text{grade}}(J) \ge 2 $.
We choose two relatively prime elements $p$ and $q$ from the previous . Then $p$ is regular on $T$, and $q$ is regular on $T/p$ because $\gcd(p,q)=1$. Therefore $\{p,q\}$ is a regular sequence and ${\normalfont\text{grade}}(J) \ge 2$.
As consequence of our translation of the condition $\gcd(f_1,\ldots,f_m)=1$ in terms of ${\normalfont\text{grade}}(J)\ge 2$, we obtain the following upper bound for the regularity of $J$.
\[bound\_regularity\] Let $m\ge2$ and $J=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m) \subset T$ be a homogeneous ideal, where $\gcd(f_1,\ldots,f_m)=1$ and $\deg(f_1),\ldots,\deg(f_m) \le d$. Then the regularity is bounded by ${\normalfont\text{reg}}(J) \le 3d-2.$
If we prove $\dim(T/J) \le 1$, then from [@REGULARITY Theorem 1.9.4] we get ${\normalfont\text{reg}}(J)={\normalfont\text{reg}}(T/J)+1\le 3d - 2$. Since $T$ is a Cohen-Macaulay ring we obtain ${\normalfont\text{ht}}(J)={\normalfont\text{grade}}(J) \ge 2$. Finally, $
\text{ht}(J) + \dim(T/J) = \dim(T) = 3
$ implies that $\dim(T/J) \le 1$.
The following proposition uses the Koszul complex in order to relate the Betti numbers of $J$ with the Hilbert function of $J$.
\[bound\_graded\_betti\] Let $J=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m) \subset T$ be a homogeneous ideal. Then $$\beta_{2,p}(J)=\dim_{{\mathbb{K}}}({\normalfont\text{Tor}}_2^T(J,{\mathbb{K}})_p) \le H_{J}(p-2)-H_{J}(p-3).$$
Let ${\mathbf{x}}=\{s,t,u\}$, we consider the Koszul complex $K({\mathbf{x}}; J) = K({\mathbf{x}}) \otimes_T J$: $$0 \rightarrow
J \otimes_T\bigwedge\nolimits^{\!3}T(-3)^3 \xrightarrow{id \otimes_T d_3}
J \otimes_T\bigwedge\nolimits^{\!2}T(-2)^3 \xrightarrow{id \otimes_T d_2} J \otimes_T\bigwedge\nolimits^{\!1}T(-1)^3 \xrightarrow{id \otimes_T d_1}
J \otimes_T\bigwedge\nolimits^{\!0}T^3 \rightarrow
0.$$ We need to compute in the graded part $(J \otimes_T\bigwedge\nolimits^{\!2}T(-2)^3)_p=J_{p-2} \otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}\bigwedge\nolimits^{\!3}{\mathbb{K}}^3$, so we only take the complex $$\begin{aligned}
0 \rightarrow
J_{p-3} \otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}\bigwedge\nolimits^{\!3}{\mathbb{K}}^3 \xrightarrow{(id\otimes_T d_3)_{p-3}}
J_{p-2} \otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}&\bigwedge\nolimits^{\!2}{\mathbb{K}}^3 \xrightarrow{(id\otimes_T d_2)_{p-2}}\\
&J_{p-1} \otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}\bigwedge\nolimits^{\!1}{\mathbb{K}}^3 \xrightarrow{(id\otimes_T d_1)_{p-1}}
J_{p}\otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}\bigwedge\nolimits^{\!0}{\mathbb{K}}^3 \rightarrow
0,
\end{aligned}$$ and we get the formula $${\normalfont\text{Tor}}_2^T(J,{\mathbb{K}})_p\cong H_2K({\mathbf{x}};J)_p = \frac{{\normalfont\text{Ker}}(id\otimes_Td_2)_p}{{\normalfont\text{Im}}(id\otimes_Td_3)_p}
=\frac{{\normalfont\text{Ker}}((id\otimes_Td_2)_{p-2})}{{\normalfont\text{Im}}((id\otimes_Td_3)_{p-3})}.$$ Then using the fact that ${\normalfont\text{Ker}}((id\otimes_Td_2)_{p-2})$ and ${\normalfont\text{Im}}((id\otimes_Td_3)_{p-3})$ are ${\mathbb{K}}$-vector spaces, we can compute $
\beta_{2,p}(J)=\dim_{{\mathbb{K}}}({\normalfont\text{Ker}}((id\otimes_Td_2)_{p-2}))-\dim_{{\mathbb{K}}}({\normalfont\text{Im}}((id\otimes_Td_3)_{p-3})).
$
From we know that ${\normalfont\text{pd}}_T(J)\le 2$, then we have that $H_3K({\mathbf{x}};J) \cong {\normalfont\text{Tor}}_3^T(J,{\mathbb{K}})=0$ and so ${\normalfont\text{Ker}}(id\otimes_Td_3)=0$. From this we conclude that $(id\otimes_Td_3)_{p-3}$ is an injective map and $\dim_{{\mathbb{K}}}({\normalfont\text{Im}}((id\otimes_Td_3)_{p-3}))=\dim_{{\mathbb{K}}}(J_{p-3} \otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}\bigwedge\nolimits^{\!3}{\mathbb{K}}^3)=H_{J}(p-3)$.
Let $h_{12} \otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}} e_1\wedge e_2+h_{13} \otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}} e_1\wedge e_3+h_{23} \otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}} e_2\wedge e_3 \in {\normalfont\text{Ker}}((id\otimes_T d_2)_{p-2})$. By applying the differential map of the Koszul complex we have $$sh_{12}\otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}e_2-th_{12}\otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}e_1+
sh_{13}\otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}e_3-uh_{13}\otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}e_1+
th_{23}\otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}e_3-uh_{23}\otimes_{{\mathbb{K}}}e_2=0.$$ From here we deduce the equations $
th_{12}=-uh_{13},
sh_{12}=uh_{23},
sh_{13}=-th_{23}.
$ Therefore one of the terms can completely determine the other two. This simple fact implies the inequality $\dim_{{\mathbb{K}}}({\normalfont\text{Ker}}((id\otimes_Td_2)_{p-2})) \le H_{J}(p-2),$ and concludes the proof of the proposition.
\[second\_betti\] Let $m\ge2$ and $J=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m) \subset T$ be a homogeneous ideal, with $\gcd(f_1,\ldots,f_m)=1$ and $\deg(f_1),\ldots,\deg(f_m) \le d$. Then $\beta_2(J) \le H_J({\normalfont\text{reg}}(J)) \le H_{J}(3d-2).$
We have that $\beta_{2,p}=0$ for $p > {\normalfont\text{reg}}(J)+2$. Then we compute $$\beta_2(J) = \sum_{p=1}^{{\normalfont\text{reg}}(J)+2} \beta_{2,p}(J) \le \sum_{p=1}^{{\normalfont\text{reg}}(J)+2} (H_{J}(p-2)-H_{J}(p-3))= H_J({\normalfont\text{reg}}(J))\le H_{J}(3d-2).$$ The last inequality is obtained from .
*(i)* The upper bound for the regularity has already been proved in .
*(ii)* Follows from the additivity of the rank function.
*(iii)* We know that the number of monomials of degree $d$ in ${\mathbb{K}}[s,t,u]$ is $\binom{d+2}{2}$, hence from we get the upper bound $\beta_2(J) \le H_J({\normalfont\text{reg}}(J)) \le H_J(3d-2) \le \binom{3d}{2}.$
Now we add the extra condition that $J=(f_1,f_2,\ldots,f_m)$ is generated by $m$ polynomials of the same degree $d$. Hence for any $p \ge d$ we have that the ${\mathbb{K}}$-vector space $J_p$ is generated by elements of the form $gf_i\; (1\le i\le m)$ where $g$ is a monomial of degree $p-d$. So we have that the Hilbert function of $J$ is bounded by $
H_{J}(p) \le m\binom{p-d+2}{2}.
$
Now for the second part of this section we work with an ideal $J = (g_1, g_2, g_3, g_4) \in S$, such that $d=\deg(g_1)=\cdots=\deg(g_4)$ and ${\normalfont\text{ht}}(J)=3$.
\[HH3\] Let $J=(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4) \subset S$ be a homogeneous ideal with $d=\deg(g_1)=\cdots=\deg(g_4)$ and ${\normalfont\text{ht}}(J)=3$. Then $
\beta_1(J) \le 2d+2$ and $
\beta_2(J) \le 2d-1$.
The proof of is divided in some steps that are given below.
From the Unmixedness Theorem and the fact that ${\mathbb{F}}$ is an infinite field, we can find a complete intersection inside $J$ (see [@SZANTO Lemma A.10], [@KAP Theorem 125]). Explicitly, there exist scalars $\alpha_{ij} \in {\mathbb{F}}$ that give us the following sort of triangular transformation $$\begin{aligned}
h_1&= g_1 + \alpha_{12}g_2 + \alpha_{13}g_3 + \alpha_{14}g_4, \\
h_2&= g_2 + \alpha_{23}g_3 +\alpha_{24}g_4,\\
h_3&= g_3 + \alpha_{34}g_4,\\
h_4&= g_4,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\{h_1,h_2,h_3\}$ is a complete intersection. Therefore, we can assume that $J=(h_1,h_2,h_3,h_4)$, where $\{h_1,h_2,h_3\}$ is a complete intersection and $d=\deg(h_1)=\cdots=\deg(h_4)$. Also, we can suppose that $h_4 \not\in (h_1,h_2,h_3)$, because in case $J=(h_1,h_2,h_3)$ then the minimal free resolution of $S/J$ can be obtained with the Koszul complex, that trivially satisfies the result of .
We shall take a similar approach to [@ROIG] using a process of linkage or liaison. We make the observation that $J=(h_1,h_2,h_3,h_4)$ can be linked to a Gorenstein ideal $G$ (see [@LIAISON Corollary 5.19], [@GORH3 Proposition 5.2]) via the complete intersection $K=(h_1,h_2,h_3)$, i.e., $G=(K:J)$.
The minimal free resolution of $S/K$ is given by the Koszul complex. Using Buchsbaum and Eisenbud’s structure theorem for height 3 Gorenstein ideals [@GORH3 Theorem 2.1], the minimal free resolution of $S/G$ has the form $$0 \rightarrow S(-s-3) \xrightarrow{g^{*}} \bigoplus_{i=1}^{m}S(-p_i) \xrightarrow{f} \bigoplus_{i=1}^{m}S(-q_i) \xrightarrow{g} S \rightarrow S/G \rightarrow 0,$$ where $s$ is the socle degree of $G$ (the largest $k$ such that ${(S/G)}_k\neq 0$), $m$ is odd, $f$ is alternating, and $G=\text{Pf}_{m-1}(f)$ (the ideal generated by the $(m-1)$-th Pfaffians of $f$).
\[Socle\_Deg\] The socle degree of $S/G$ is $s=2d-3$.
Since $K$ is a complete intersection we know that the socle degree of $S/K$ is $3d-3$. We have that the Hilbert function of an Artinian Gorenstein algebra is symmetric, also we can relate the Hilbert functions of $S/K$, $S/G$ and $S/J$ (see [@SIXCOMM Theorem 2.10, page 308], [@ROIG]) in the following way $$H_{S/G}(t) = H_{S/K}(3d-3-t) - H_{S/J}(3d-3-t).$$ Then for any $t > 2d-3$ we have $3d-3-t < d$ and $H_{S/J}(3d-3-t)=H_{S/K}(3d-3-t)=\binom{3d-1-t}{2}$, also we can easily check that $H_{S/G}(2d-3)=1$.
By using we substitute the socle degree of $S/G$ in its minimal free resolution, and from the canonical map $S/K \rightarrow S/G$ we can lift a comparison map
\(m) \[matrix of math nodes,row sep=3em,column sep=2.5em,minimum width=2em,text height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex\] [ 0&S(-3d) & S(-2d)\^3 & S(-d)\^3 & S & S/K & 0\
0 & S(-2d) & \_[i=1]{}\^[m]{}S(-p\_i) & \_[i=1]{}\^[m]{}S(-q\_i) & S & S/G & 0.\
]{}; (m-1-6) edge node \[right\] [$can$]{} (m-2-6) (m-1-5) edge node \[right\] [$\phi_0=id$]{} (m-2-5) (m-1-4) edge node \[right\] [$\phi_1$]{} (m-2-4) (m-1-3) edge node \[right\] [$\phi_2$]{} (m-2-3) (m-1-2) edge node \[right\] [$\phi_3$]{} (m-2-2) (m-1-1) edge (m-1-2) (m-2-1) edge (m-2-2) (m-1-6) edge (m-1-7) (m-2-6) edge (m-2-7) (m-1-2) edge node \[above\] [$d_3$]{} (m-1-3) (m-1-3) edge node \[above\] [$d_2$]{} (m-1-4) (m-1-4) edge node \[above\] [$d_1$]{} (m-1-5) (m-1-5) edge (m-1-6) (m-2-2) edge node \[above\] [$g^{*}$]{} (m-2-3) (m-2-3) edge node \[above\] [$f$]{} (m-2-4) (m-2-4) edge node \[above\] [$g$]{} (m-2-5) (m-2-5) edge (m-2-6) ;
With a dual mapping cone construction ([@GORH3], [@ROIG]) we can obtain the following free resolution for $S/J$ (not necessarily minimal) $$0 \rightarrow \bigoplus_{i=1}^mS(-3d+q_i) \rightarrow
\begin{array}{c}
S(-2d)^3\\
\bigoplus \\
\bigoplus_{i=1}^mS(-3d+p_i)
\end{array} \rightarrow S(-d)^4 \rightarrow S \rightarrow
S/J \rightarrow 0.$$ Thus we have $\beta_2(J) \le m$ and $\beta_1(J) \le m+3$. In [@DIESEL Theorem 3.3] it is proved that given the smallest degree $k$ of the generators of $G$ (i.e., $k$ is the first position in which $H_{S/G}(k) < \binom{k+2}{2}$) then $m\le 2k+1$.
Since $S/G$ has socle degree $2d-3$ and its Hilbert function is symmetric, we have $H_{S/G}(d-2)=H_{S/G}(d-1)$. Hence $k \le d-1$ because otherwise we get the contradiction $\binom{d}{2} = \binom{d+1}{2}$. Therefore, we have obtained $\beta_2(J) \le 2d-1$ and $\beta_1(J) \le 2d+2$.
\[general\_form\] An interesting fact proved in [@ROIG Corollary 4.4], is that when the ideal $J=(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)$ is a general Artinian almost complete intersection of type $(d,d,d,d)$, then the minimal free resolution can be given explicitly. This means that $J$ is generated by “generically chosen” polynomials $g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4$, where $(g_1,g_2,g_3)$ are a complete intersection, $g_4 \not\in (g_1,g_2,g_3)$, and $d=\deg(g_1)=\cdots=\deg(g_4)$. The minimal free resolution of $S/J$ in this case is $$0 \rightarrow S(-2d-1)^d \rightarrow
\begin{array}{c}
S(-2d)^3\\
\bigoplus \\
S(-2d+1)^d
\end{array} \rightarrow S(-d)^4 \rightarrow S \rightarrow
S/J \rightarrow 0.$$ The term “generically chosen” means that $g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4$ belong to a suitable dense open subset of $S_d \times S_d \times S_d \times S_d$ in the Zariski topology.
Projective dimension two {#section4}
========================
From we know that ${\normalfont\text{pd}}({\hat{I}}) \le 2$. Here we deal with the remaining case ${\normalfont\text{pd}}({\hat{I}})=2$, because ${\normalfont\text{pd}}({\hat{I}})=1$ was studied in [@STRONG_MU_BASIS]. In the rest of this paper we use the following notation.
Let ${\mathbb{F}}$ be an infinite field, $R$ be the polynomial ring $R={\mathbb{F}}[s,t]$ and $S$ be the polynomial ring $S={\mathbb{F}}[s,t,u]$.
From we get a free resolution $$\label{resolut_pd_2}
0 \rightarrow S^{a} \xrightarrow{\hat{d_2}} S^{a+3} \xrightarrow{\hat{d_1}} S^4 \xrightarrow{[b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4]} {\hat{I}}\rightarrow 0,$$ and now we want to compute the value of $a$. Here we are using an abuse of notation, because we should write $$\label{resolut_pd_2_}
0 \rightarrow \bigoplus_{i=1}^{a} S(-p_i) \xrightarrow{\hat{d_2}} \bigoplus_{i=1}^{a+3} S(-q_i) \xrightarrow{\hat{d_1}} S(-d)^4 \xrightarrow{[b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4]} {\hat{I}}\rightarrow 0,$$ if we want to take care of the grading.
In we do not know if ${b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4}$ is a minimal system of generators. But in the next step of finding the resolution of ${\hat{I}}$, we can choose a minimal system of generators for ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4)$ because it is a graded module. Therefore, from [@GRADED Theorem 7.3] we can assure that ${\normalfont\text{Im}}(\hat{d_2}) \subseteq {\mathfrak{m}}S^{a+3}$, where ${\mathfrak{m}}=(s,t,u)$ is the irrelevant ideal. By exploiting the condition ${\normalfont\text{Im}}(\hat{d_2}) \subset {\mathfrak{m}}S^{a+3}$ we will *“adapt”* the upper bounds obtained in the previous section to .
\[bound\_grading\] For the resolution (more specifically ) we have that
(i) $\max_{1\le i \le a+3}(q_i) \le 3d-1$,
(ii) $\max_{1\le i \le a}(p_i) \le 3d$,
(iii) $a = \beta_2({\hat{I}}).$
Here we use the key fact that for a graded free $S$-module $F = \bigoplus_{i = 1}^r S(-\alpha_i)$ we have $(F \otimes_S {\mathbb{F}})_p=0$ if and only if $p \neq \alpha_i$ for all $1 \le i \le r$.
*(i)* Let $p> 3d-2+1=3d-1$. The upper bound ${\normalfont\text{reg}}({\hat{I}}) \le 3d-2$ ($(i)$) yields that $\beta_{1,p}=0$, and this implies that ${\normalfont\text{Tor}}_1^S({\hat{I}},{\mathbb{F}})_p=0$. The condition ${\normalfont\text{Im}}(\hat{d_2}) \subseteq {\mathfrak{m}}S^{a+3}$ gives us that ${\normalfont\text{Im}}(\hat{d_2} \otimes_S {\mathbb{F}}) =0$ and so we get ${\normalfont\text{Ker}}((\hat{d_1} \otimes_S {\mathbb{F}})_p)={\normalfont\text{Tor}}_1^S({\hat{I}},{\mathbb{F}})_p=0$. Since $(\hat{d_1} \otimes_S {\mathbb{F}})_p$ is an injective map and $(S(-d)^4 \otimes_S {\mathbb{F}})_q=0$ for $q > d$, then we conclude $${\left(\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^{a+3}S(-q_i)\right)\bigotimes_{S} {\mathbb{F}}\right)}_p=0.$$ Therefore we have the inequality $\max_{1\le i \le a+3}(q_i) \le 3d-1$.
*(ii), (iii)* Deleting ${\hat{I}}$ from and applying the tensor product $\otimes_S {\mathbb{F}}$ we get the complex $$0 \rightarrow {\mathbb{F}}^{a} \xrightarrow{0} {\mathbb{F}}^{a+3} \xrightarrow{\hat{d_1} \otimes_S F} {\mathbb{F}}^4 \rightarrow 0.$$ So $a=\dim_{{\mathbb{F}}}({\normalfont\text{Tor}}_2^S({\hat{I}},{\mathbb{F}}))=\beta_2({\hat{I}})$, and the grading of the module $S^a$ is just like the one for a minimal free resolution, i.e. $\le (3d-2)+2=3d$.
So in this case the resolution of ${\hat{I}}$ is of the form $$0 \rightarrow S^{\beta_2({\hat{I}})} \xrightarrow{\hat{d_2}} S^{\beta_2({\hat{I}})+3} \xrightarrow{\hat{d_1}} S^4 \xrightarrow{[b_1,b_2,b_3,b_4]} {\hat{I}}\rightarrow 0,$$ where the polynomials in the entries of the matrices $\hat{d_1}$ and $\hat{d_2}$ have degree bounded by $3d-1-d=2d-1$, and $3d-d=2d$ respectively.
\[Upper\_bound\_deg\_Syz\] We apply the tensor product with $\otimes_S S/(u-1)$ to obtain the exact sequence (see [@EISENBUD_COMM Corollary 19.8] or [@BRUNS_HERZ Proposition 1.1.5]) $$0 \rightarrow R^{\beta_2({\hat{I}})} \xrightarrow{d_2} R^{\beta_2({\hat{I}})+3} \xrightarrow{d_1} R^4 \xrightarrow{[a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4]} I \rightarrow 0,$$ where $d_1=\hat{d_1} \otimes_S S/(u-1)$ and $d_2=\hat{d_2} \otimes_S S/(u-1)$ are matrices with entries in $R$ bounded in degree by $2d-1$ and $2d$ respectively.
For the rest of this section we shall work with the exact sequence $$\label{split_exact_seq}
0 \rightarrow R^{\beta_2({\hat{I}})} \xrightarrow{d_2} R^{\beta_2({\hat{I}})+3} \xrightarrow{d_1} {\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4) \;(\subset R^4) \rightarrow 0,$$ which is a split exact sequence because we know that ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ is a free module.
An $m \times n\;(m>n)$ polynomial matrix $A \in R^{m \times n}$ is said to be *unimodular* if it satisfies one of the following equivalent conditions (see [@SERRE_CONJ])
(i) $A$ can be completed into an invertible $m \times m$ square matrix.
(ii) there exists an $n \times m$ polynomial matrix $B \in R^{n \times m}$ such that $AB=I_m$.
(iii) there exists an $n \times m$ polynomial matrix $B \in R^{n \times m}$ such that $BA=I_n$.
(iv) the ideal generated by the $n \times n$ minors of A is equal to $R$.
We define the degree of a matrix $M=(a_{ij}) \in R^{m \times n}$ as the maximum degree of the polynomial entries of $M$, i.e., $\deg(M)=\max(\deg(a_{ij}))$. For an *“effective”* solution of completing a unimodular matrix we are going to use the following result from [@SERRE_ART].
\[CANIGLIA\_RES\] Let $F \in R^{m \times n} \; (m < n)$ be a unimodular matrix. Then there exists a square matrix $M \in R^{n \times n}$ such that
(i) $M$ is unimodular,
(ii) $FM=[I_m,0] \in R^{m \times n}$,
(iii) $\deg(M) \le 2D(1+2D)(1+D^{4})(1+D)^{4}$, where $D = m(1 + \deg(F))$.
See the for a discussion.
This previous result is given for completing rows (i.e., $m < n$), but we want to complete columns (i.e., $m > n$). By simply taking transpose in $(ii)$ of the previous theorem we get the following corollary.
\[completing\_cols\] Let $F \in R^{m \times n} \; (m > n)$ be a unimodular matrix. Then there exists a square matrix $M \in R^{m \times m}$ such that
(i) $M$ is unimodular,
(ii) $MF=\left[ \begin{array}{c}
I_n \\
0
\end{array}\right] \in R^{m \times n}$,
(iii) $\deg(M) \le 2D(1+2D)(1+D^{4})(1+D)^{4}$, where $D = n(1 + \deg(F))$.
For notational purposes we make the following conventions
we use just $\beta_2$ instead of $\beta_2({\hat{I}})$,
$m = \beta_2+3$ and $n=\beta_2$,
$F \in R^{m \times n}$ denotes the $m \times n$ matrix corresponding with the map $d_2$,
$\gamma_2 = \deg(F)$,
$G \in R^{4 \times m}$ denotes the $4 \times m$ matrix corresponding with the map $d_1$,
$\gamma_1 =\deg(G)$,
$D = n(1+\deg(F)) = \beta_2(1+\gamma_2)$,
thus we end up with the following short exact sequence $$\label{split_seq_final}
0 \rightarrow R^n \xrightarrow{F} R^m \xrightarrow{G} {\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)\;(\subset R^4) \rightarrow 0.$$ Since this sequence splits, there exists a matrix $H \in R^{n \times m}$ with $HF=I_n$ and so the matrix $F$ is unimodular.
\[find\_basis\] From the exact sequence we can get a basis for ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ made of three vectors $\mathbf{p},\mathbf{q},\mathbf{r} \in R^4$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\max(\deg(\mathbf{p}),\deg(\mathbf{q}),\deg(\mathbf{r})) &\le \gamma_1(\beta_2+2)2D(1+2D)(1+D^{4})(1+D)^{4}\\
\le 2\gamma_1(\beta_2+2)\beta_2&(1+\gamma_2)(1+2\beta_2(1+\gamma_2))(1+{(\beta_2(1+\gamma_2))}^{4})(1+\beta_2(1+\gamma_2))^{4}.
\end{aligned}$$
We can get a matrix $M \in R^{m \times m}$ that satisfies *(i), (ii), (iii)* from . Let $N \in R^{m \times m}$ be the inverse matrix of $M$, then we have that $\deg(N) \le (m-1)\deg(M)$, because the determinant of every $(m-1)\times(m-1)$-minor is a polynomial of degree at most $m-1$ in terms of the entries of $M$. Also, from the item $(ii)$ of we have that $$F = N \left[ \begin{array}{c}
I_n \\
0
\end{array}\right].$$
We know that $N$ is an automorphism for $R^m=N(\text{span}(e_1,\ldots,e_n,e_{n+1},e_{n+2},e_{n+3}))$ and that $
{\normalfont\text{Ker}}(G) = {\normalfont\text{Im}}(F) = N(\text{span}(e_1, \ldots, e_n)),
$ where $e_i$ is the $i$-th column vector of $R^m$. Hence we have $${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)={\normalfont\text{Im}}(G)=G(R^m)=GN(\text{span}(e_1,\ldots,e_m))=GN(\text{span}(e_{n+1},e_{n+2},e_{n+3})),$$ and we define the basis for ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{p} &= GNe_{n+1},\\
\mathbf{q} &= GNe_{n+2},\\
\mathbf{r} &= GNe_{n+3}.
\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we obtain the result $$\begin{aligned}
\max(\deg(\mathbf{p}),\deg(\mathbf{q}),\deg(\mathbf{r})) &\le \deg(G)\deg(N) \le \gamma_1(\beta_2+2)2D(1+2D)(1+D^{4})(1+D)^{4} \\
\le 2\gamma_1(\beta_2+2)\beta_2&(1+\gamma_2)(1+2\beta_2(1+\gamma_2))(1+{(\beta_2(1+\gamma_2))}^{4})(1+\beta_2(1+\gamma_2))^{4}. \qedhere
\end{aligned}$$
The following theorem contains the main result of this paper, and gives different degree bounds for the generators of the basis depending on the type of exact sequence (presentation) that we can obtain.
\[result\_pd\_2\] Given the data $\{a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4\}$ defining where $$d = \max_{1\le i \le4}(\deg(a_i)) \quad \text{ and } \quad \gcd(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)=1.$$ Then, the following statements hold:
(i) There exists a basis for ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ with polynomials bounded in the order of $O(d^{33})$.
(ii) If the homogenized ideal ${\hat{I}}$ (obtained in ) has height ${\normalfont\text{ht}}({\hat{I}})=3$, then there exists a basis with degree bounded by $O(d^{22})$.
(iii) If the homogenized ideal ${\hat{I}}$ is a “general” almost complete intersection (i.e, like in ), then there exists a basis with degree bounded by $O(d^{12})$.
(iv) If the homogenized ideal ${\hat{I}}$ has projective dimension ${\normalfont\text{pd}}({\hat{I}})=1$, then there exists a basis with degree bounded by $d$.
$(i)$ By we know that $\gamma_1=\deg(G) \le 2d-1$ and $\gamma_2=\deg(F)\le 2d$, from we have $\beta_2 \le 4\binom{2d}{2} \in O(d^2)$. Therefore substituting in the formula obtained in we get a basis bounded by $O(d^{33})$.
$(ii)$ In this case from we have $\beta_2 \le 2d-1$. So we can reduce the upper bound to $O(d^{22})$.
$(iii)$ In we saw that when ${\hat{I}}$ is a general Artinian almost complete intersection then $S/{\hat{I}}$ has a very special minimal free resolution, from which we can obtain $\gamma_1=\deg(G)=d$, $\gamma_2=\deg(F)=2$ and $\beta_2=d$. Therefore we obtain an upper bound in the order of $O(d^{12})$.
$(iv)$ From [@STRONG_MU_BASIS §5.1], the resolution of ${\hat{I}}$ is given by $$0 \rightarrow S(-d-\mu_1)\oplus S(-d-\mu_2)\oplus S(-d-\mu_3) \rightarrow S(-d)^4 \rightarrow {\hat{I}}\rightarrow 0,$$ where $\mu_1+\mu_2+\mu_3=d$. Then the same dehomogenization of gives us the result.
Discussions of the upper bounds and a related problem {#section5}
=====================================================
In this short section we discuss the sharpness of the upper bounds obtained in .
First, from we obtain the interesting fact that the syzygy module ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ can be generated by elements of degree bounded by $2d-1$. In our particular case, this is almost identical to a remarkable result of Lazard (see [@LAZARD_UPPER_BOUND_NOTE; @LAZARD_ALG_LIN]). Let $S(n,d)$ be the least integer such that the module of syzygies ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(h_1,h_2,\ldots,h_k)$ can be generated by elements of degree at most $S(n,d)$, where $h_1,h_2,\ldots,h_k$ are arbitrary polynomials in $n$ variables and degree at most $d$ (this definition is independent of the particular polynomials $h_i$’s). In [@LAZARD_UPPER_BOUND_NOTE] there is an important general upper bound for $S(n,d)$, and also the following $$S(2,d)\le 2d - \min(2, d)$$ sharp upper bound (see [@LAZARD_ALG_LIN Proposition 5, Proposition 10]). So, the upper bound that we obtained for the degree of the generators of ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ is “almost sharp”.
The main obstacle is that in the general case of non-graded modules we do not have a well-defined concept of “minimal set of generators” (see e.g. [@CLO_USING_AG pages 236 and 237, Excercise 4]). Due to this fact, it is unclear to the author how to obtain a basis of ${\normalfont\text{Syz}}(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)$ if we are given a set of generators. After obtaining the results of and , we “only needed” to solve a particular case of the following problem.
\[PROBLEM\] Find a function $f:{\mathbb{N}}^2\rightarrow {\mathbb{N}}$, such that for any free module $F \subset {{\mathbb{K}}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]}^m$ of rank $r < m$ and generated by a set of elements $\{v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_k\} \subset {{\mathbb{K}}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]}^m$ with $\deg(v_i) \le d$, then there exists a basis $\{w_1,w_2,\ldots,w_r\} \subset {{\mathbb{K}}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]}^m$ of $F$ satisfying the condition $$\deg(w_i) \le f(d,k).$$
In this paper we use an effective version of the Quillen-Suslin Theorem to solve the problem above. We remark that the best known upper bounds for the effective Quillen-Suslin Theorem are given in [@SERRE_ART] (see [@LOMBARDI page 715, Remark (1)]).
In conclusions, the sharpness of the upper bounds in depends mostly in our ability to solve . As a general opinion, we think that they can be improved.
Example {#section6}
=======
The aim of this example is to show some computational aspects of the case studied in this paper (i.e., ${\normalfont\text{pd}}({\hat{I}})=2$). With a simple example, we make all the steps of our method for computing a $\mu$-basis.
Find a $\mu$-basis for the rational surface parametrization $$P(s,t)=(s^2,t^2,s^2-1,s^2+1).$$
Using a computer algebra system like *Singular* ([@SINGULAR]), we get the following free resolution $$0 \rightarrow S \xrightarrow{\left(\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
s^2 \\
-u^2 \\
-t^2
\end{array}\right)}
S^4 \xrightarrow{\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-2 & -t^2 & -t^2 & u^2-s^2\\
0 & u^2 & s^2 & 0\\
1 & t^2 & 0 & s^2\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)} S^4 \xrightarrow{\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
s^2 & t^2 & s^2-u^2 & s^2+u^2
\end{array}\right)}
{\hat{I}}\rightarrow 0.$$ Substituting $u=1$ and cutting the resolution, we obtain $$0 \rightarrow R \xrightarrow{\left(\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
s^2 \\
-1 \\
-t^2
\end{array}\right)}
R^4 \xrightarrow{\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-2 & -t^2 & -t^2 & 1-s^2\\
0 & 1 & s^2 & 0\\
1 & t^2 & 0 & s^2\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)} {\normalfont\text{Syz}}(s^2, t^2, s^2-1, s^2+1) \;(\subset R^4) \rightarrow 0.$$
Proceeding as in , we have to complete the unimodular column $(0, s^2, -1, -t^2)^{t}$ into an invertible matrix $N \in R^{4 \times 4}$. For this we can check that the following matrix $$N = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
s^2 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
t^2 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right)$$ has determinant $1$. Therefore, a $\mu$-basis for $P(s,t)=(s^2,t^2,s^2-1,s^2+1)$ is given by the vectors $$\mathbf{p} = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-2 & -t^2 & -t^2 & 1-s^2\\
0 & 1 & s^2 & 0\\
1 & t^2 & 0 & s^2\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
s^2 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
t^2 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
1\\
0\\
0
\end{array}\right)
=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
-t^2\\
1\\
t^2\\
0
\end{array}\right),$$ $$\mathbf{q} = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-2 & -t^2 & -t^2 & 1-s^2\\
0 & 1 & s^2 & 0\\
1 & t^2 & 0 & s^2\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
s^2 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
t^2 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0\\
1\\
0
\end{array}\right)
=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
-2\\
0\\
1\\
1
\end{array}\right),$$ $$\mathbf{r} = \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
-2 & -t^2 & -t^2 & 1-s^2\\
0 & 1 & s^2 & 0\\
1 & t^2 & 0 & s^2\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
s^2 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
-1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
t^2 & 0 & 0 & 1
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0\\
0\\
1
\end{array}\right)
=
\left(\begin{array}{c}
1-s^2\\
0\\
s^2\\
0
\end{array}\right).$$
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The author is grateful to the support and guidance of Lothar Göttsche as his thesis supervisor in the Postgraduate Diploma in Mathematics of ICTP, where a big part of this project was developed. The author expresses his gratitude to his current PhD supervisor in the University of Barcelona, Carlos D’Andrea, for suggesting the problem, for a thorough reading of earlier drafts, and for his important help in the culmination of the paper. The author thanks Laurent Busé, Alicia Dickenstein, Rosa Maria Miró-Roig, Pablo Solernó and Martin Sombra for helpful discussions and suggestions. The author wishes to thank the referees for numerous suggestions to improve the exposition. The author thanks David Cox for pointing out his previous work [@STRONG_MU_BASIS]. The author was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 675789.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
\[appendix\] In this appendix we will discuss the “effective” completion of unimodular matrices that we used in . The main result we shall follow from [@SERRE_ART] is the following theorem.
\[serre\_bound\] *[@SERRE_ART Theorem 3.1]* Let $R={\mathbb{F}}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and assume that $F \in R^{r \times s} \; (r < s)$ is unimodular. Then there exists a square matrix $M \in R^{s \times s}$ such that
(i) $M$ is unimodular,
(ii) $FM=[I_r,0] \in R^{r \times s}$,
(iii) $\deg(M)=(r(1+\deg(F))^{O(n)}$.
In our case $n=2$ and we will have to make some small *“adjustments”* to find an actual constant. We will follow exactly the same proof as in [@SERRE_ART], and in certain steps we will substitute phrases like $n+3n \in O(n)$ by the exact computation $n+3n=4n$. Inside this appendix section by the variable $d$ we denote $d = 1 + \deg(F)$.
*[@SERRE_ART Proposition 4.1]* Assume that $F \in R^{r \times s} \; (R={\mathbb{F}}[x_1,\ldots,x_n],\; r < s)$ is unimodular. Then there exists a square matrix $M \in R^{s \times s}$ such that:
(i) $M$ is unimodular,
(ii) $FM=[f_{ij}(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},0)]$ (i.e., $FM$ is equal to the $r \times s$ matrix obtained by specializing the indeterminate $x_n$ to zero in the matrix $F$),
(iii) $\deg(M) \le D(1+2D)(1+D^{2n})(1+D)^{2n}$, with $D = r(1+\deg(F))=rd$.
We denote $F(t)$ as the matrix $F(t)=[f_{ij}(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1},t)]$.
*[@SERRE_ART Procedure 4.6, Step 1 and Step 2]* There exists elements $c_1, \ldots, c_N \in {\mathbb{F}}[x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}]$ with $N \le (1+rd)^{2n}$ such that $1 \in (c_1, \ldots, c_N)$. Also we can find elements $a_1,\ldots,a_N \in x_n{\mathbb{F}}[x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1}]$, such that $
x_n = a_1c_1+\ldots+a_Nc_N
$ and with $
\max_{1 \le k \le N} \{\deg(a_kc_k)\} \le 1+(rd)^{2n}.
$
*[@SERRE_ART Procedure 4.6, Step 3 and Step 4]* For $1 \le k \le N$, let $
b_k = \sum_{h=1}^{k} a_hc_h,
$ then there exist unimodular matrices $E_k$ with the properties
$F(b_k)E_k = F(b_{k-1})$,
$\deg(E_k) \le rd(1+2rd)\max\{\deg(b_k),\deg(b_{k-1})\} \le rd(1+2rd)(1+(rd)^{2n})$.
Therefore we define $M=E_NE_{N-1}\ldots E_1$ and we have $F(x_n)M=F(0)$, with the upper bound $$\begin{aligned}
\deg(M) &\le Nrd(1+2rd)(1+(rd)^{2n})\le rd(1+2rd)(1+(rd)^{2n})(1+rd)^{2n} \\
\deg(M) &\le D(1+2D)(1+D^{2n})(1+D)^{2n}.
\end{aligned}$$
For a matrix $F=[f_{ij}(x_1,\ldots,x_n)]$ the substitution of a variable $x_i$ for $0$ does not increase the degree of the matrix, and keeps the unimodularity. Therefore, applying the previous proposition $n$ times and some elementary transformations, we can find an invertible matrix $M \in R^{s \times s}$, with $FM=[I_r,0]$ and $
\deg(M) \le nD(1+2D)(1+D^{2n})(1+D)^{2n}.
$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Chemical tagging of stars based on their similar compositions can offer new insights about the star formation and dynamical history of the Milky Way. We investigate the feasibility of identifying groups of stars in chemical space by forgoing the use of model derived abundances in favour of direct analysis of spectra. This facilitates the propagation of measurement uncertainties and does not presuppose knowledge of which elements are important for distinguishing stars in chemical space. We use $\sim$16,000 red-giant and red-clump $H$-band spectra from the Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment and perform polynomial fits to remove trends not due to abundance-ratio variations. Using expectation maximized principal component analysis, we find principal components with high signal in the wavelength regions most important for distinguishing between stars. Different subsamples of red-giant and red-clump stars are all consistent with needing about 10 principal components to accurately model the spectra above the level of the measurement uncertainties. The dimensionality of stellar chemical space that can be investigated in the $H$-band is therefore $\lesssim 10$. For APOGEE observations with typical signal-to-noise ratios of 100, the number of chemical space cells within which stars cannot be distinguished is approximately $10^{10\pm2} \times (5\pm 2)^{n-10}$ with $n$ the number of principal components. This high dimensionality and the fine-grained sampling of chemical space are a promising first step towards chemical tagging based on spectra alone.'
author:
- |
Natalie Price-Jones,$^{1,2}$[^1] Jo Bovy$^{1,2,3,4}$\
$^{1}$Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, 50 St. George Street, Toronto ON M5S 3H4, Canada\
$^{2}$ Dunlap Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, 50 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3H4, Canada\
$^{3}$ Center for Computational Astrophysics, Flatiron Institute, 162 5th Ave, New York, NY 10010, USA\
$^{4}$ Alfred P. Sloan Fellow
bibliography:
- 'chemical-tagging.bib'
date: 'Accepted XXX. Received YYY; in original form ZZZ'
title: The dimensionality of stellar chemical space using spectra from the Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment
---
\[firstpage\]
stars: abundances – stars: late type – open clusters and associations: general – techniques: spectroscopic – Galaxy: evolution,
Introduction
============
In general, the observational study of galaxy evolution is statistical, using observations of many different galaxies to constrain the general behaviour of a larger population with shared characteristics (e.g., @VanDokkum2013). In the Milky Way, we have the unique opportunity to contrast these probabilistic models with a detailed evolutionary history informed by observations of individual stars. Tracing a star through the Milky Way’s evolution has become increasingly possible thanks to the many large surveys of the Milky Way (e.g., RAVE - @Steinmetz2006; LAMOST - @Zhao2012; APOGEE - @Majewski2015; GALAH - @DeSilva2015; Gaia - @GaiaCollaboration2016). However, a star’s path through the Galaxy cannot be traced through kinematic information alone, as gravitational interactions throughout its life erase its orbital history. Although stars mostly form together in chemically homogeneous clusters (@DeSilva2006, @DeSilva2007, @Bovy2016), most clusters are dispersed by gravitational interactions on timescales of $< 100$ Myr [@Lada2003].
Unlike kinematic properties, the surface chemical composition of most stars evolves predictably over a stellar lifetime (e.g., @Kraft1994, @Weiss2000). Accurate measurements of this composition for many stars may be able to partially reconstruct information about stellar formation environments. We can take advantage of this by employing chemical tagging, the process of grouping stars based on their positions in chemical abundance space that was first proposed by @Freeman2002. Successfully chemical tagging in the weak limit—looking for large scale patterns in chemical space—requires precise spectroscopic measurements of a large sample of stars. With an appropriate sample, this form of chemical tagging can identify trends in abundances with stellar age, Galactocentric height or radius (e.g., @Haywood2013, @Hayden2015, @Anders2016, @Bovy2015, @Fernandez-Alvar2016), and reveal chemical subpopulations in large-scale components of the Galaxy (e.g., @Martell2010, @Schiavon2015, @Recio-Blanco2017) or within smaller structures such as globular clusters (e.g., @Schiavon2016, @Tang2017). One can also perform chemical tagging in the weak regime to investigate the chemical properties of larger structures like the Galactic disk or halo previously identified with kinematic information (e.g., @Hawkins2015, @Wojno2016).
The strong limit of chemical tagging is the powerful process of finding ‘birth clusters’: identifying groups of stars in chemical space that were born in the same giant molecular cloud (GMC) without using any dynamical information. Success in this limit would allow us to address detailed questions about the Milky Way’s star formation and enrichment history as well as probing stellar migration after birth and providing an additional measure of stellar ages (@Bland-Hawthorn2010, @Mitschang2014). Whether strong chemical tagging is possible in practice depends on the physics of star formation. The first requirement for strong chemical tagging is that the star-forming GMC is well mixed (see @Feng2014 for a turbulent mixing model) and not enriched during formation such that the resulting cluster is chemically homogeneous. Recent work on open clusters and moving groups has shown that these as yet undispersed birth clusters are homogeneous to the level of our measurement precision (e.g. @DeSilva2006, @DeSilva2007, @Bovy2016). It is unlikely that these clusters are truly homogeneous; recent work by @Liu2016 found abundance variations between pairs of stars belonging to the same open cluster. However if these variations are sufficiently small, or confined to a small subset of cluster stars, a birth cluster will still appear as an overdensity in chemical space. The second requirement for strong chemical tagging is that the star-forming GMCs from which birth clusters form are chemically distinct, giving each birth cluster a unique chemical signature. The question of birth cluster uniqueness has been addressed by @Blanco-Cuaresma2015, who found significant overlap of some chemical abundances for their sample of open clusters. However, they were able to identify elements that allowed for a greater degree of discrimination between the clusters, implying that probing the appropriate spectral features may still provide unique chemical signatures for each cluster.
As strong chemical tagging offers a new window into the Milky Way’s history, there have been many recent attempts to determine its viability. Some blind chemical tagging studies have offered promising results (e.g. @Hogg2016, @Jofre2016) for identifying groups of stars from chemical space information alone. However not all approaches have been optimistic about the uniqueness of cluster chemical signatures and the dimensionality of the space they span (e.g. @Mitschang2014, @Ting2015a, @Blanco-Cuaresma2016, @Ness2017).
These studies share a similar approach to chemical tagging by making use of model-derived chemical abundances. This approach to measuring a star’s chemistry is known to be problematic; most abundance determinations use simplified models that do not fully capture the complexity of stellar photospheres, and chemical abundances are derived simultaneously with other parameters with which they are degenerate. This leads to residual systematic trends between abundances and other stellar parameters (e.g., @Holtzman2015). To avoid this, other approaches for finding accurate chemical abundances have been developed (e.g, @Ness2015, @Rix2016). Here, we propose to circumvent the problem of precise abundance measurements by using stellar spectra directly. This allows a more transparent approach to tracking measurement uncertainties, and does not rely on prior knowledge of which elements are relevant in the spectrum. Because many parts of a spectrum are affected by the same element, or by elements that share production channels, parts of the spectrum will be correlated and thus not all of a star’s spectrum uniquely differentiates it from other stars. Given this, we examine the spectral space and reduce its dimensionality to orthogonal directions that maximally explain variance between spectra above the level of the measurement uncertainty. We determine that the resulting space is high dimensional ($n \approx10$ dimensions) and well sampled ($\approx 5$ chemical space cells per dimension), which has promising implications for the future ability to identify birth clusters in this space.
We begin our approach to this result by describing our dataset of $H$-band red giant spectra from the Apache Point Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE; @Majewski2015) in §\[sec:data\]. We continue in §\[sec:methods\] by outlining our approach to analyzing this data, describing the masking of bad pixels, the removal of bulk stellar properties through polynomial fitting, and our use of Expectation Maximized Principal Component Analysis (EMPCA) to reduce the spectra to only their most relevant principal components. In §\[sec:app\], we show the results of applying our technique to open cluster, red clump, and red giant stars, finding the number of relevant components and thus the dimensionality and granularity of the chemical space spanned by each sample. We describe the consequences of these results and avenues for future work in §\[sec:discussion\], concluding with a brief summary in §\[sec:conclusion\].
Data Set {#sec:data}
========
The high resolution ($R\sim 22,500$) stellar spectra used in this study were taken by APOGEE, an instrument mounted on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS - @Eisenstein2011). APOGEE is an H-band ($1.5{{\,\mu\mathrm{m}}}$ to $1.7{{\,\mu\mathrm{m}}}$) spectrograph capable of simultaneously observing 300 targets [@Majewski2015]. The survey’s target selection populates fields that span up to $\sim$5 kpc away from the Earth in the Milky Way’s disk and up to $\sim$1 kpc away from the Galactic midplane [@Zasowski2013]. This multi-object spectroscopy is combined with the 3 degree field of view of the Apache Point Observatory 2.5 m telescope [@Gunn2006] in order to obtain broad spatial coverage of the Milky Way and to allow for repeated observations of most of the $150,000$ stars in the APOGEE sample.
These repeated observations are radial velocity corrected, roughly continuum normalized, then combined into a single spectrum by the data reduction pipeline (@Nidever2015). The APOGEE Stellar Parameter and Chemical Abundances Pipeline (ASPCAP; @Perez2015) continuum-normalizes the combined spectra and fits with a grid of synthetic spectra [@Zamora2015] to determine the stars’ effective temperature ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$, surface gravity $\log g$, and metallicity $Z$, as well as the abundances of 15 elements with absorption features in the H-band (C, N, O, Na, Mg, Al, Si/H, S/H, K/H, Ca/H, Ti/H, V/H, Mn/H, Fe, Ni - @Holtzman2015). We use data from APOGEE’s public data release 12 (DR12 - @Alam2015) to avoid the artificial adjustments to the measurement uncertainties used to strongly downweight persistence regions that are present in subsequent data releases.
Of the 150,000 stars in the APOGEE survey, we use two subsamples: red-giant stars and red-clump stars. Each sample consists of $\sim 20,000$ stars, plotted in $\log g$ and ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$ in Figure \[fig:HR\]. Stars belonging to each sample were selected by a cut in the stellar properties provided by the ASPCAP. The selection process for the red-clump in APOGEE DR12 combines ASPCAP stellar parameters with the results of simulated stellar evolution, and is described in detail in @Bovy2014. To select the red-giant subsample, we first constrain metallicity $Z > -0.8$. Of this subsample we then choose the objects that are either bluer than the red clump ($(J - K_s)_0 \geq 0.8$) or that do not satisfy the red clump constraint derived in @Bovy2014: $$\begin{aligned}
\log g &>& 0.0018\, \mathrm{dex}/\mathrm{K} \left(T_{\mathrm{eff}} - T_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{ref}}([\mathrm{Fe/H}])\right)+2.5 \nonumber\\
T_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{ref}} &=& -382.5\,\mathrm{K}/\mathrm{dex}\, [\mathrm{Fe/H}] + 4607 \, \mathrm{K}\end{aligned}$$ $J$ and $K_s$ are colours from 2MASS [@Skrutskie2006], and the zero subscript indicates that colours are dereddened. By applying these selection cuts to APOGEE targets with asteroseismology in the APOKASC catalog [@Pinsonneault2014] for which the evolutionary state is known from the observed frequency and period spacing of stellar oscillations, we find that these red-giant selection cuts create a red-giant sample with only $\sim 3\%$ contamination from red-clump stars.
The choice of these samples was advantageous for our goal of finding the dimensionality of spectral space for several reasons. Red giants are intrinsically luminous, which allows them to be observed at high signal-to-noise ratio over a wide area of the Galaxy, and they have cool photospheres, which causes many absorption features to be present in their spectra. They are also known to rotate slowly (@Gray1982, @DeMedeirosJ.R.1996) and the effect of stellar rotation on spectral features is therefore minimal. An additional advantage of using red giant stars was highlighted in the work of @Dotter2017 on surface abundance evolution from initial bulk abundances through atomic diffusion. @Dotter2017 showed that changes between initial and surface abundances are small for red giants, and argued that comparing surface abundances for stars in the same evolutionary phase should reduce the uncertainty introduced by the time evolution of surface abundances.
In addition to the two main data samples, red clump and red giant stars belonging to a set of open clusters are used as a test case of the methods outlined in the following section. Open clusters that were sufficiently sampled by APOGEE ($\geq$ 10 stars) were chosen for this purpose: NGC 6819, NGC 2158 and M67. We also tested our methods on globular cluster M13, which is known to have multiple populations in chemical space [@Carretta2009]. We obtain members of these clusters from the work of @Meszaros2013 and @Meszaros2015.
Methods {#sec:methods}
=======
Abundances are an obvious way to access chemical space. However, standard methods for calculating abundances involve fitting complex model spectra with a large number of parameters. Varying these parameters to optimize a fit, even assuming a one-dimensional star and local themodynamic equilibrium, is computationally taxing and simplifying assumptions are made (@Smiljanic2014, @Perez2015). The complexity of the fitting procedure and the assumptions on the photosphere needed to make a fit possible make deriving realistic measurement uncertainties very challenging, which in turn makes it difficult to assess the precision of the resulting abundances. This challenge has inspired new approaches to measuring chemical abundances, including polynomial fitting of stellar properties to determine abundances [@Rix2016], linear interpolation of abundances from an existing non-rectangular grid of model spectra [@Ting2016], and the use of machine learning algorithms to predict abundances based on training data where abundances are well known (@Ness2015, @Casey2016a). While these methods offer improved precision in chemical abundances, they still aim to calculate abundances for a fixed number of elements. For our work assessing the dimensionality of chemical abundance space, we are only interested in the variation between stellar spectra due to their differing chemistry, not the chemical abundances themselves. Because of this, we are able to forgo computing these abundances in favour of a simpler method that reveals chemical information despite relying on a few assumptions: (a) that non-chemical differences between stars are fully described by specifying ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$, $\log g$ and \[Fe/H\], (b) that the overall dependence of the spectra on ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$, $\log g$ and \[Fe/H\] can be described using quadratic functions of these quantities, (c) that the spectral differences coming from varying the abundance ratios at fixed (${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$, $\log g$, \[Fe/H\]) are essentially linear, with no dependence on those quantities, and finally (d) that the noise model associated with spectra from the APOGEE survey serves as an accurate description of the measurement uncertainties. As we demonstrate with our results, these assumptions approximately hold for the relatively narrow temperature range of the samples we consider. We outline below our approach to isolating the differences between stellar spectra due only to their differing chemical abundances, a method first described in @Bovy2016.
In this section, we use the following notation conventions. Matrices are bolded upper case characters (e.g., $\mathbf{V}$), vectors are bolded lower case characters (e.g., $\mathbf{v}$) and scalars are lower case characters (e.g., $v$). Columns or rows of a matrix are denoted as bold lower case characters with the index of their row or column: $\mathbf{v}^{i}$ is the $i$’th row of $\mathbf{V}$, and $\mathbf{v}_j$ is the $j$’th column of $\mathbf{V}$. Individual elements of a matrix are identified by their indices; the jth element of the ith row of a matrix $\mathbf{V}$ is denoted $\mathbf{V}_{ij}$. The symbol $\cdot$ denotes matrix multiplication, while the symbol $*$ indicates element-wise multiplication. Finally, the index $s$ is used for dimensions that span the number of stars in the sample, from $1$ to $S$, the index $p$ is used for dimensions that span the number of pixels in a spectrum, from 1 to $P$, and the index $n$ is used for dimensions that span the number of principal components used to decompose the sample. The code used to implement the methods in the following sections is available online through the `spectralspace` Python package, which can be installed from <https://github.com/npricejones/spectralspace>.
Pixel level masking of spectra
------------------------------
We begin by masking untrusted parts of each individual spectrum using the APOGEE\_PIXMASK bitmask from the ASPCAP [@Holtzman2015]. In our ‘standard mask’, we exclude pixels where bits 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 12 are set. In our more aggressive ‘persistence mask’, we additionally exclude pixels where bits 9, 10, or 11 are set. The full breakdown of the APOGEE\_PIXMASK bitmask can be found in Table \[tab:bitmask\].
-------------------
**Standard mask**
-------------------
: APOGEE\_PIXMASK bitmask flags and their use in our masks [@Holtzman2015].[]{data-label="tab:bitmask"}
\
Bit Flag
----- -------------------------------------------------
0 Pixel marked as bad according to bad pixel mask
1 Pixel struck by cosmic ray
2 Pixel saturated
3 Pixel marked as unfixable
4 Pixel marked as bad according to dark frame
5 Pixel marked as bad according to flat frame
6 Pixel set to have a very high error
7 No sky available for this pixel from sky fibers
12 Pixel falls near sky line
: APOGEE\_PIXMASK bitmask flags and their use in our masks [@Holtzman2015].[]{data-label="tab:bitmask"}
\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Persistence mask (Standard mask with the following additional bits)**
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
: APOGEE\_PIXMASK bitmask flags and their use in our masks [@Holtzman2015].[]{data-label="tab:bitmask"}
\
Bit Flag
----- ------------------------------------------
9 Pixel falls in high persistence region
10 Pixel falls in medium persistence region
11 Pixel falls in low persistence region
: APOGEE\_PIXMASK bitmask flags and their use in our masks [@Holtzman2015].[]{data-label="tab:bitmask"}
\
-----------------
**Unused bits**
-----------------
: APOGEE\_PIXMASK bitmask flags and their use in our masks [@Holtzman2015].[]{data-label="tab:bitmask"}
\
Bit Flag
----- -----------------------------------------------------
8 Pixel falls in Littrow ghost
13 Pixel falls near telluric line
14 Less than half of star’s PSF is seen in good pixels
: APOGEE\_PIXMASK bitmask flags and their use in our masks [@Holtzman2015].[]{data-label="tab:bitmask"}
In most samples, we also apply a cut to remove stars that were frequently observed with fibers known to be affected by super-persistence in the blue detector, which mostly affects fibers 0-100. After applying one of the masks and potentially applying a fiber cut, we also mask on individual pixels with low signal-to-noise ratio, calculated as SNR = $\mathbf{F}/\mathbf{M}$, where $\mathbf{F}$ are the continuum-normalized spectra and $\mathbf{M}$ are the measurement uncertainties. We mask pixels with SNR $< 50$. After this masking, we check that each pixel $p$ has enough unmasked stars to do a second order polynomial fit (i.e., more than fifteen stars for the red clump and red giant subsamples, or more than five stars for the clusters). Pixels that do not meet this requirement are masked for all stars in the sample, although this condition only triggered in the smaller open cluster samples.
Removal of non-abundance ratio spectral variations
--------------------------------------------------
To remove overall non-chemical trends with temperature, gravity and metallicity from the stellar spectra, we compute a polynomial fit at each of the $P$ pixels in the spectra. Specifically, we fit in effective temperature ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$, surface gravity $\log g$ and iron abundance \[Fe/H\], where these quantities are as computed by the ASPCAP. This choice of parameters captures the primary properties of a given star; along the giant branch they are convenient proxies for mass, age and metallicity. For a given pixel $p$, we model the flux at that pixel as a second order polynomial. We compute the best-fitting coefficients $\mathbf{b}_p$ by solving the matrix equation $\mathbf{f}_{p} = \mathbf{X}\mathbf{b}_{p}$, where $\mathbf{f}_p$ is the $p$’th column vector of $\mathbf{F}$, $\mathbf{b}_{p}$ is a column vector corresponding to the fit coefficients and $\mathbf{X}$ is a two dimensional matrix of fit variables constructed as the transpose of Equation : $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\mathbf{X}^{\mathrm{T}} & =
\begin{pmatrix}
{{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}_{,0}}^2 & \cdots & {{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}_{,\mathrm{S}}}^2\\
{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}_{,0} & \cdots & {{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}_{,\mathrm{S}}\\
(\log g)_0^2 & \cdots & (\log g)_{\mathrm{S}}^2\\
(\log g)_0 & \cdots & (\log g)_{\mathrm{S}}\\
{{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}}_0^2 & \cdots & {{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}}_{\mathrm{S}}^2\\
{{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}}_0 & \cdots & {{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}}_{\mathrm{S}}\\
{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}_{,0}*(\log g)_0 & \cdots & {{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}_{,\mathrm{S}}*(\log g)_{\mathrm{S}}\\
{{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}_{,0}*{{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}}_0 & \cdots & {{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}_{,\mathrm{S}}*{{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}}_{\mathrm{S}}\\
(\log g)_0*{{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}}_0 & \cdots & (\log g)_{\mathrm{S}}*{{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}}_{\mathrm{S}}\\
1 & \cdots & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\end{split}.
\label{eqn:Xmatrix}
\end{aligned}$$
This fit is overconstrained and the measurements $\mathbf{y}_{p}$ have associated uncertainties. We define the best fit as those coefficients that minimize $$\chi^2 = \left(\mathbf{f}_p - \mathbf{X}\mathbf{b}_p\right)^T \mathbf{V}_p^{-1} \left(\mathbf{f}_p - \mathbf{X}\mathbf{b}_p\right)$$ where $\mathbf{V}_p$ is the covariance matrix of the measurement uncertainties. The minimum $\chi^2$ occurs when $$\mathbf{b}_{p} = \left[\mathbf{X}^{\mathrm{T}} \cdot \mathbf{V}_{p}^{-1} \cdot \mathbf{X}\right]^{-1} \cdot \left[\mathbf{X}^{\mathrm{T}} \cdot \mathbf{V}_{p}^{-1} \cdot \mathbf{f}_{p}\right],
\label{eqn:coeffs}$$ In the simplest case (which we assume here), $\mathbf{V}_p$ is diagonal with diagonal elements $\mathbf{m}_p * \mathbf{m}_p$ where $\mathbf{m}_p$ is, the $p$’th column of the measurement uncertainties $\mathbf{M}$. If the simplest case cannot be assumed, $\mathbf{V}_p$ must remain the full covariance matrix. While we ignore correlations between pixels for the purposes of this study, these correlations will impact the principal components we derive in §\[sec:dimension\], making the number we identify as important for modelling spectra an upper limit.
With the coefficients $\mathbf{b}_{p}$, we can find the residuals for pixel $p$ $$\mathbf{d}^p = \left[\mathbf{f}_{p} - \mathbf{X}\mathbf{b}_{p}\right]^{\mathrm{T}}$$ where $\mathbf{d}^p$ is the $p$’th row of the residual matrix $\mathbf{D}$. The matrix $\mathbf{D}$ with rows $\mathbf{d}^p$ is a new version of the spectra in our sample in which the effects of ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$, $\log g$ and \[Fe/H\] (representing mass, age and metallicity) have been removed.
An example of the results of the fitting process on stars in open cluster NGC6819 is shown in Figure \[fig:fit\]. Given that the range of age and metallicity within a cluster are small, we use only ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$ in the polynomial fit. The top panel shows the fit compared to the data used to generate it, while the lower panel displays the resulting residuals at that pixel.
Dimension reduction {#sec:dimension}
-------------------
Our goal now is to analyze the fit residuals from all pixels to understand how they inform us about the dimensionality of the chemical space spanned by the sample. Because we have removed the overall trends with mass, age and metallicity from the spectra, we work under the assumption that any remaining variation between the spectra is due to their having different abundance ratios $[\mathrm{X/Fe}]$. We discuss the caveats to and limitations of this assumption in §\[sec:discussion\] below.
Since not every one of the $P$ pixels is relevant for distinguishing between stars, we employ an algorithm that will reduce this number of dimensions to only those that are relevant. Classical principal component analysis (PCA; @Joliffe2002, @Ivezic2014) solves exactly this problem by minimizing $$\chi^2 = \sum_{p=1,s=1}^{P,S}\left[\mathbf{D}_{ps} - \sum_{n=1}^{N}\left(\mathbf{E}_{pn}*\mathbf{C}_{ns}\right)\right]^2,$$ where N is the number of spectra, $\mathbf{D}$ are the fit residual spectra, $\mathbf{E}$ is a matrix whose columns are the eigenvectors (or principal components) of $\mathbf{D}$’s covariance matrix, $N$ is the total number of components in the model, and $\mathbf{C}$ is the matrix of coefficients that scale the principal components to model $\mathbf{D}$.
In our case, the resulting principal components will have the greatest magnitude in pixels that are most important for distinguishing between stellar spectra. PCA assumes the spectra vary linearly, and so a linear combination of principal components with appropriate coefficients should be an accurate model of the input spectra. This approximately applies to our data set of red giants in a fixed temperature range, where intensity in a pixel across all stars in the sample is well modelled by a second order polynomial (see Figure \[fig:fit\] for an example fit). Subtracting this polynomial leaves small residuals, which can be well approximated as linear variation (see Figure \[fig:model\] for an example of a spectrum reconstructed from principal components and the polynomial fits for each pixel).
However, classical PCA has some limitations, in that it weights all data equally and has no way to handle missing data. Our dataset has already been masked to remove untrusted data, and has measurement uncertainties that should be incorporated to weight against finding directions of data variance that are due to noise. To retain the dimension reducing power of PCA but avoid these limitations, we employed expectation maximized PCA (EMPCA; @Dempster1977, @Roweis1997). We use the implementation from @Bailey2012 and refer the reader to that paper for a detailed description of the algorithm summarized below.
### EMPCA algorithm {#sec:EMPCA}
EMPCA seeks to find the set of principal components that maximizes the likelihood of that model being an accurate description of the data given uncertainties in that data. The algorithm minimizes $$\chi^2 = \sum_s^S\left[\mathbf{d}_s - \mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{c}_{s}\right]^T\cdot\mathbf{V}_{s}^{-1}\cdot\left[\mathbf{d}_s - \mathbf{E}\cdot\mathbf{c}_{s}\right]
\label{eqn:chisquared}$$ where $\mathbf{d}_s$ is the $s$’th column of residual matrix $\mathbf{D}$, $\mathbf{c}_s$ is the $s$’th column of the coefficient matrix $\mathbf{C}$ and $\mathbf{V}_{s}$ is the pixel covariance matrix for star $s$. The algorithm minimizes this objective function by starting with a random set of principal components for the columns of $\mathbf{E}$, then iterating over the following two steps:
1. The expectation step: Fixing $\mathbf{E}$, solve for the coefficient matrix $\mathbf{C}$. We find the columns of $\mathbf{C}$ that minimize Equation with $$\mathbf{c}_s = \left[\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{T}}\cdot\mathbf{V}_{s}^{-1}\cdot \mathbf{E}\right]^{-1}\cdot\left[\mathbf{E}^{\mathrm{T}}\cdot\mathbf{V}_{s}^{-1}\cdot\mathbf{d}_s\right]$$
2. The maximization step: Use the solution for $\mathbf{C}$ to update $\mathbf{E}$. We solve for each column of $\mathbf{E}$ after subtracting out a model constructed from the previous columns. Thus each column of $\mathbf{E}$ is given by $$\mathbf{e}_n = \left[\sum_s^S \mathbf{C}_{ns} * \mathbf{V}_{s}^{-1} * \mathbf{C}_{ns}\right]^{-1}\cdot\left[\sum_s^S \mathbf{C}_{ns} * \mathbf{V}_{s}^{-1} \cdot \mathbf{d}^{(n)}_s\right]$$ where $\mathbf{d}^{n}_s$ is the $s$’th column of $\mathbf{D}^{(n)}$, whose elements are defined as $$\mathbf{D}^{(n)}_{ps} = \mathbf{D}_{ps} - \sum_{i<n}\mathbf{e}_{pi}\cdot\mathbf{c}_{is},
\label{eqn:deltaj}$$ i.e. the fit residual spectra after the first $n-1$ principal components have been subtracted.
The quality of the resulting model is demonstrated in Figure \[fig:model\], where an input red-clump stellar spectrum is reconstructed by multiplying the first 8 principal components by their coefficients for the chosen star. After summing these coefficient-scaled principal components, we add back the values of polynomial fits at each pixel and plot the resulting model over the original spectrum. In the lower panel of Figure \[fig:model\], we show the residuals between the model and the input spectrum, with horizontal lines marking the median uncertainty about zero for this spectrum. With just 8 principal components we can model this particular spectrum to within the typical measurement uncertainty.
In Figure \[fig:residualhist\], we show the distribution of model residuals for all spectra in our example slice of the red clump for models using 0, 4 and 8 principal components. As we expect, increasing the number of principal components used in the model causes the residual histogram to become more peaked towards a value of 0, with shallower wings. Given this continual improvement in modelling, it is necessary to define a cutoff to determine when improvements to the model explain variations due to noise, not intrinsic stellar differences.
### Assessing principal components
We now define some useful statistics that can be computed from the results of EMPCA, which allow us to assess the results of the algorithm.
We define $V_{\mathrm{data}}^{\mathrm{mean}}$ as the mean based variance of $\mathbf{D}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:meanvar}
V_{\mathrm{data}}^{\mathrm{mean}} &=& \frac{1}{P*S}\sum_{p=1,s=1}^{P,S}\left(\mathbf{D}_{ps} - \overline{\mathbf{D}}\right)^2,\\
\overline{\mathbf{D}} &=& \frac{1}{P* S} \sum_{p=1,s=1}^{P,S} \mathbf{D}_{ps},\end{aligned}$$ We define a similar quantity $V_{\mathrm{data}}^{\mathrm{MAD}}$ as the median absolute deviation (MAD) based variance of $\mathbf{D}$ $$V_{\mathrm{data}}^{\mathrm{MAD}} = 1.4826^2\sum_{p=1}^{P}\mathrm{med}\left(\left[\mathbf{d}^p - \mathrm{med}\left(\mathbf{d}^p\right)\right]^2\right),
\label{eqn:madvar}$$ where $\mathbf{d}^p$ is the $p$’th row of $\mathbf{D}$, the operation ‘$\mathrm{med}$’ is taking the median of the data, and the factor of $1.4826$ scales the median absolute deviation to the standard deviation for normally distributed data, i.e. $V_{\mathrm{data}}^{\mathrm{mean}} = V_{\mathrm{data}}^{\mathrm{MAD}}$ for data drawn from a Gaussian distribution.
Equations and represent the total variance in the data. We wish to compare these to the variance after removing the principal component model produced by EMPCA. To do this, we define two additional quantities that compute the variance in the data after the contribution from the first $n$ principal components has been subtracted out: $$V_{\mathrm{model}}^{\mathrm{mean}}(n) = \frac{1}{P*S}\sum_{p=1,s=1}^{P,S}\left(\mathbf{D}^{(n)}_{ps} - \overline{\mathbf{D}^{(n)}}\right)^2,
\label{eqn:meanveig}$$ $$V_{\mathrm{model}}^{\mathrm{MAD}}(n) = 1.4826^2\sum_{p=1}^{P}\mathrm{med}\left(\left[\mathbf{d}^{p\,(n)} - \mathrm{med}\left(\mathbf{d}^{p\,(n)}\right)\right]^2\right).
\label{eqn:madveig}$$ Here $\mathbf{D}^{(n)}$ is the original data set after the model using the first $n$ principal components has been removed (Equation ), and $\mathbf{d}^{p\,(n)}$ is the $p$’th row of $\mathbf{D}^{(n)}$. Note that in the case where $n=0$, $V_{\mathrm{model}}^{\mathrm{mean}}(0) = V_{\mathrm{data}}^{\mathrm{mean}}$ and $V_{\mathrm{model}}^{\mathrm{MAD}}(0) = V_{\mathrm{data}}^{\mathrm{MAD}}$. Also note that when the number of components is maximized ($n = \min(N,P) = n_{\mathrm{limit}}$), $V_{\mathrm{model}}^{\mathrm{mean}}(n_{\mathrm{limit}}) = 0$ and $V_{\mathrm{model}}^{\mathrm{MAD}}(n_{\mathrm{limit}}) = 0$, because in that case the model can perfectly represent all of the data. In what follows, we use $V_{\mathrm{data}}$ and $V_{\mathrm{model}}$ without superscripts when either the mean-based or MAD-based versions could be used.
We compare these variances using $R^2(n)$, defined as: $${{R^2}}(n) = 1 - \frac{V_{\mathrm{model}}(n)}{V_{\mathrm{data}}}.
\label{eqn:Rsq}$$ The $R^2(n)$ curve should increase in height with the number of iterations on the model components. The maximal value for $R^2(n)$ is 1, which indicates the data can be perfectly reproduced by a linear combination of $n$ components and occurs at $n = \min(N,P) = n_{\mathrm{limit}}$.
Example $R^2(n)$ curves for $n$ from 1 to 5 are shown in Figure \[fig:n6819R2\], where the upper curve was computed with mean based variance and the lower curve using median absolute deviation. In this figure, the ${{R^2}}$ values are compared to ${{R^2_{\mathrm{noise}}}}$, a statistical quantity that describes the variance in the data due to measurement noise: $$\label{eqn:Rnoise}
{{R^2_{\mathrm{noise}}}}= 1 - \frac{V_{\mathrm{noise}}}{V_{\mathrm{data}}},$$ where with our assumption that pixels are independent: $$V_{\mathrm{noise}} = \sum_{p=1,s=1}^{P,S} \left(\mathbf{M}_{ps} * \mathbf{M}_{ps}\right),$$ where $\mathbf{M}$ is the matrix of measurement uncertainties. ${{R^2_{\mathrm{noise}}}}$ can vary depending on our chosen form for computing $V_{\mathrm{data}}$, using either Equation or for mean or MAD based variance respectively. The results for both methods of computation are shown as dashed lines in Figure \[fig:n6819R2\], where they are colour coded to correspond to their respective solid $R^2$ curves.
Computing ${{R^2_{\mathrm{noise}}}}$ is useful because it provides the threshold mentioned at the end of §\[sec:dimension\]. Adding additional principal components to a model where ${{R^2}}> {{R^2_{\mathrm{noise}}}}$ succeeds only in explaining variation due to measurement uncertainty. We denote the maximum number of components for which ${{R^2}}$ is below the ${{R^2_{\mathrm{noise}}}}$ threshold as $n_{\max}$.
### Sampling precision of chemical space
While comparing $R^2(n)$ to ${{R^2_{\mathrm{noise}}}}$ gives us a sense of how many dimensions are needed to span chemical space, it is also valuable to compute the number of chemical cells ($N_{\mathrm{cells}}$) that our analysis samples. In this we follow @Ting2015a, dividing the total chemical space volume spanned by the principal components by the volume of a single chemical space cell, which is limited by the measurement noise.
$$N_{\mathrm{cells}} = \frac{\mathrm{total\,\,chemical\,\,volume}}{\mathrm{chemical\,\,cell\,\,size}}.$$
The total chemical volume is determined by the variance spanned by each principal component. In PCA, the eigenvalue associated with $n$th principal component represents the additional variance of the data explained by adding the $n$th principal component to a model consisting of $n-1$ principal components:
$$\lambda_n^2 = V_{\mathrm{model}}(n-1) - V_{\mathrm{model}}(n),$$
where $V_{\mathrm{model}}$ can be calculated with Equation or Equation . Thus for $n$ components, the total chemical space volume corresponds to $$\prod_{i=0}^{n} \min (S,P) \lambda_i,$$ where $\lambda_i^2$ is the eigenvalue of the $i$th principal component, and with $7214$ pixels per APOGEE spectrum, $\min (S,P) = S$ for our samples.
The size of an individual chemical cell $h$ can be determined by how the measurement uncertainty projects onto each principal component:
$$h_n = \sqrt{\frac{1}{S}\sum_{s=1}^{S}\left(\mathbf{m}_{s}*\mathbf{m}_{s}\right)\cdot \mathbf{e}_n},$$
where $\mathbf{m}_{s}$ is the $s$’th column of the measurement uncertainties $\mathbf{M}$, and $\mathbf{e}_n$ is the $n$’th principal component, the $n$’th column of $\mathbf{E}$ as defined in §\[sec:methods\]. We can make more conservative estimates for $h_n$ by assuming that the noise is the essentially the same in all pixels, in which case $h_n \rightarrow h$ with $h$ given by $$h = \sqrt{\frac{1}{P*S}\sum_{p=1,s=1}^{P,S} \mathbf{M}_{sp} * \mathbf{M}_{sp}}.
\label{eqn:consth}$$ We use this as our fiducial choice for cell size. It can be made even more conservative by scaling $h$ up by some factor, or by choosing $h=\lambda_{\max}$, where $\lambda_{\max}^2$ is the eigenvalue of the $n_{\max}$ principal component.
Whatever our choice for $h$, we can compute $N_{\mathrm{cells}}$ when using $n$ principal components in the model as $$N_{\mathrm{cells}}(n) = \frac{\prod_{i=1}^n S \lambda_i}{\prod_{i=1}^n h_i}.
\label{eqn:Ncells}$$
An example of calculating $N_{\mathrm{cells}}(n)$ for a temperature slice of the red clump using Equation is shown in Figure \[fig:rcNcell\].
Jackknife {#sec:jackknife}
---------
To determine the uncertainty in our results, we employed a jackknife technique to verify the robustness of the number of principal components we measure. For an individual slice of the red-clump or red-giant stars in ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$ or $\log g$, we divided the stars randomly into 25 bins and computed the number of principal components for 25 subsamples created by using star from all but one of the bins. We then found the mean number of components $\bar{n}_{\mathrm{max}}$ across the 25 subsamples and computed the variance in the average with $$\sigma^2_{\mathrm{max}} = \frac{J-1}{J}\sum_{j=0}^J \left(n_{\mathrm{max},j} -\overline{n_{\mathrm{max}}}\right)^2,$$ where $J$ is the total number of subsamples and $n_{\mathrm{max},j}$ is the number of principal components as computed from the $j$’th subsample.
An example of jackknife results is shown in Figure \[fig:R2RC\]. The bold vertical line marks the location of the average number of principal components computed for 25 subsamples $\bar{n}_{\mathrm{max}}$, while the shaded regions show the uncertainty $\sigma_{\mathrm{max}}$ on this number.
Results
=======
\[sec:app\]
We apply the algorithm described in the previous section to analyze the chemical space represented by several slices in the stellar properties of our main samples of red-giant and red-clump stars. We first test that our method reproduces the expected behaviour in open and globular clusters.
Cluster samples {#sec:OC}
---------------
We use open clusters for which APOGEE has observed at least 10 stars: NGC 6819 (30 stars), M67 (24 stars), and NGC 2158 (10 stars). Our primary test subject was NGC 6819, as it had the most stars observed and had the fewest stars observed with persistence-flagged fibers. The ${{R^2}}$ curve for this cluster is displayed for several masking techniques in Figure \[fig:n6819R2\]. For each masking choice, two ${{R^2}}$ curves are shown, one for the mean-based variance and one for the MAD-based variance. The ${{R^2}}$ curves do not differ much, especially in the case of aggressive masking, but the ${{R^2_{\mathrm{noise}}}}$ values shown by the dashed horizontal lines more than doubles when using mean-based variance instead of MAD. ${{R^2_{\mathrm{noise}}}}$ is defined as ${{R^2_{\mathrm{noise}}}}= 1-V_{\mathrm{noise}}/V_{\mathrm{data}}$. $V_{\mathrm{noise}}$ is always computed in the same way, but $V_{\mathrm{data}}$ changes with choice of mean-based or MAD-based variance, and is larger when mean-based variance is chosen, indicating that the distribution of flux variations is non-Gaussian with heavy tails. The mean-based variance is very sensitive to outlying stars, when we would prefer to sample the most densely populated part of spectral space. For this reason, we use the MAD-based variance to compute all ${{R^2}}$ statistics from the other samples. We also choose the most aggressive masking technique to reduce the influence of instrumental effects in finding principal components. While this approach works well for NGC 6819, it masks all but four of the stars in M67 and completely masks NGC 2158. However, much like for NGC 6819, we find that we require zero principal components to model these clusters even with only a standard mask. In truly homogeneous open clusters, we expect the number of components to be zero, since all stars in such a cluster would be tightly localized in spectral space, with scatter attributable only to measurement uncertainty. Reproducing this expected result with our analysis is confirmation that our algorithm behaves as expected.
We performed an additional test on a sample of 71 stars from the globular cluster M13. Applying our most aggressive mask reduces the sample to 18 stars. Using MAD-based variances yields two principal components needed to model this cluster. A brief analysis of these principal components by investigating absorption lines tabulated in @Smith2013 reveals that the first component has a strong signal at the only unmasked aluminum line in our spectrum ($1.675515\,\mu\mathrm{m}$). This identifies that line as a location where spectra vary strongly, and indicates that Al is an important element for distinguishing between the stars. M13 stars have been measured to have significant spread in \[Al/Fe\] of about 2.5 dex when their traditional abundances are computed [@Meszaros2015], with a smaller spread of about 0.5 dex in \[Mg/Fe\]. We also see signal in our first principal component around some Mg lines, but it is weaker than that displayed in the Al line. Both signals are stronger than those typically seen at wavelengths corresponding to absorption features for other elements, and the Al feature is much stronger than the local mean. However, there are also sharp absorption-like features in the principal components that do not correspond to absorption features for these two elements, and neither element is particularly strong in the second principal component. We describe how we might go beyond this preliminary analysis in §\[sec:discussion\], but the confirmation of significant spread in Al is further evidence for the success of our approach to analyzing chemical space.
Red clump and red giant samples {#sec:RC}
-------------------------------
With successful tests on the cluster samples, we apply the algorithm to the larger red clump and red giant samples, now assessing not only the dimensionality of chemical space (the number of principal components), but also the granularity in that space (the number of chemical space cells).
### Principal components
We show an example ${{R^2}}$ curve using a sample drawn from the peak of the red clump distribution in Figure \[fig:R2RC\]; this sample is hereafter referred to as the example slice ($4700\,\mathrm{K} < {{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}< 4900\,\mathrm{K}$). The intersection between ${{R^2}}$ and ${{R^2_{\mathrm{noise}}}}$ gives approximately 8 principal components needed to model this slice, although this varies slightly with different masking approaches. As we explain in §\[sec:OC\], we choose the most aggressive mask (cutting out stars observed with persistence-affected fibers and masking persistence affected pixels), and use an MAD-based approach to computing the variance in the sample. This corresponds to the rightmost panel of Figure \[fig:R2RC\]. Using the same choices for mask and variance computation, we compare the example slice with several other samples: two sub-slices of the example slice with $4700\,\mathrm{K} < {{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}< 4800\,\mathrm{K}$ (3191 stars), and $4800\,\mathrm{K} < {{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}< 4900\,\mathrm{K}$ (2547 stars), and two slices of the red-giant stars with $2\, < \log g < \, 3$ (6532 stars), and $3\, < \log g < \, 4$ (3618 stars). This choice of red-giant slices covers a large fraction of the red-giant stars, even after our cuts on fiber, and overlaps with the peak of the red clump distribution. These samples are compared in Figure \[fig:samplesnvec\], where we show the number of principal components needed to explain each sample above the level of measurement noise. Errorbars are computed through the jackknife technique described in §\[sec:jackknife\].
Figure \[fig:samplesnvec\] reveals that the red-clump slices and the red-giant slices are internally consistent, and that the red-clump and red-giant slices are mostly consistent with each other, with overlap occurring around 10 principal components. The red-giant samples display a slightly higher dimensionality. In general, the samples with more stars tend to have smaller errorbars, pointing to a consistent dimensionality regardless of which stars are used. Although the uncertainties derived from the jackknife approach are not insignificant, generally of order 2-4 components, it is worth noting just how markedly consistent all the samples are. Even when performing very different cuts on stellar properties, the underlying distribution being sampled has similar dimensionality, reflective of the fact that we constrain stellar evolutionary phase and sample a similar region of the Galaxy with each slice.
### Chemical space cells
A variation of a few in the number of principal components can translate into a large change in the number of chemical space cells $N_{\mathrm{cells}}$ spanned by a sample. An example calculation of $N_{\mathrm{cells}}$ in the fiducial case of constant cell size (Equation ) is shown for our example slice in Figure \[fig:rcNcell\]. It is clear that for this constant cell size ($h\approx 0.007$), $N_{\mathrm{cells}}$ is a steep function of the number of principal components; this holds for all of our slices and results in a range of 10 orders of magnitude in the number of cells across the uncertainty in $n_{\max}$ for all of the five slices, shown in Figure \[fig:samplesncells\]. Modelling the $N_{\mathrm{cells}}$ for each slice as a power law in the number of principal components yields the following relation when median parameters are taken across the five slices $N_{\mathrm{cells}} \approx 10^{9\pm2} \times (5\pm 2)^{n-10}$. This is strongly determined by our choice to assume constant cell size approximately given by the measurements uncertainties, and is very sensitive to that cell size. Scaling the cell size by a factor of $k>1$ reduces $N_{\mathrm{cells}}$ by a factor of $k^n$, with $n$ the number of principal components. Letting $k=5$ brings $h$ to $\approx 0.035$ and $N_{\mathrm{cells}}$ to about 50 at $n=10$, with an increase by a factor of just 1.1 with each additional principal component. We can make a similarly conservative choice for constant $h$ by letting it be $\lambda_{\max}$, the squareroot of eigenvalue corresponding to the $n_{\max}$ principal component for that sample. For this choice of $h$, $N_{\mathrm{cells}}$ is approximately 1000 with $n=10$, increasing by a factor of about 1.3 with each additional principal component.
It is worth noting that implicit in this analysis is that we have already fit out \[Fe/H\] for each slice. For our samples, \[Fe/H\] has a MAD-based deviation of about 0.4 dex, with a measurement uncertainty of about $\lesssim 0.05$ dex. This corresponds to a factor of $\sim$10 more cells for the values shown in Figure \[fig:samplesncells\]. When this additional spread is factored into $N_{\mathrm{cells}}$, we find that the total number of chemical space cells inhabited by our sample is $$N_{\mathrm{cells,\,total}} \approx 10^{10\pm2} \times (5\pm 2)^{n-10}$$ These values for $N_{\mathrm{cells,\,total}}$ may seem high, but they are less dramatic when considered in a high dimensional space. In such a space, the chemical space cells are distributed so that each axis is divided into $\left(N_{\mathrm{cells,\,total}}\right)^{1/n}$ bins within which stars cannot be distinguished. For the fiducial choice for $h$ there are approximately 10 such bins per axis. For more conservative choices of $h$, this number dips to just over 1 bin per axis. This further reinforces the need for small measurement uncertainties if we are to distinguish stars in this high dimensional space.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
The work presented here has very promising implications for performing chemical tagging in spectral space, an approach so far unexplored by other chemical tagging studies. These studies have enjoyed some success, particularly the blind abundance space recovery of known clusters in APOGEE data by @Hogg2016. However, this success in the strong limit of chemical tagging runs counter to the results of numerous other experiments. Recent work by @Blanco-Cuaresma2015 combined abundances from several surveys to show significant overlap between the chemical signatures of open clusters, which persists even after a larger number of abundances are considered [@Blanco-Cuaresma2016]. An earlier blind tagging experiment by @Mitschang2014 also combined several surveys and also found that there is likely significant overlap between birth clusters. This view is further supported by the high rate of abundance space *doppelganger* reported in the APOGEE data by @Ness2017. These results are much more aligned with theoretical predictions like @Ting2015a, who used a model of star formation and migration to show that overlap between birth cluster chemical signatures would make identification of individual birth clusters quite challenging. This outlook can be improved by increasing the survey size, but the precision of the abundance measurements is also crucial.
Each of these chemical tagging experiments, regardless of the success they report, relies on model derived abundances, and assumes a corresponding uncertainty in these abundances based on uncertainties in the measured spectra and the model used to reproduce them. The uncertainty in chemical abundances is typically $\lesssim 0.1$ dex for current surveys (e.g., @Smiljanic2014, @Holtzman2015). The magnitude of this uncertainty has a strong influence on the possibility of distinguishing clusters of stars in abundance space. The increased precision we find by using spectra directly provides greater confidence in our discriminatory power in chemical space, although this is not without its own limitations.
The high number of relevant principal components we find is an upper limit on the dimensionality of the space accessible in the $H$-band, and as such is not inconsistent with previous predictions by @Ting2015a of about 4-5 chemical space dimensions for APOGEE. Our higher bound may indicate that fully using the spectral space allows for a more nuanced approach to strong chemical tagging. However, we must interpret our results with caution, as they rely on a few crucial assumptions.
Critical assessment of assumptions
----------------------------------
*Reliance on ASPCAP:* Despite our general concerns about using model-derived parameters to describe stars, we do rely on the ASPCAP pipeline for radial velocity corrections, visit combination, continuum normalization, and for our fit parameters ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$, $\log g$ and \[Fe/H\], for which we assume the uncertainties are negligible compared to the measurement uncertainties when doing polynomial fits. We have tested the effects of performing our own continuum renormalization using a polynomial model with continuum pixels identified by the Cannon [@Ness2015], but found our results to be nearly identical to those found prior to the renormalization. However, an approach that analyzes spectra at the individual visit level and/or makes use of stellar parameters derived from more accurate techniques like asteroseismology may offer a stronger limit on the number of principal components needed to describe chemical space.
*Non-chemical effects on spectra:* In addition, we have made a few other assumptions as part of our process. We have assumed that ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$, $\log g$ and \[Fe/H\] adequately model non-chemical difference between stars, and we now discuss some possible sources of difference not accounted for by this model. We expect a polynomial in these properties to be a valid model for the impact of convective mixing or atomic diffusion on surface abundances, since these effects are largely deterministic functions of mass, age and metallicity. However, many stellar properties cannot be described with such a simple model; in particular, rapid rotation (which some red giants have exhibited, see: @DeMedeiros1999, @Massarotti2008 for examples) or strong surface activity would affect the shape of absorption features. We expect general photospheric properties like micro- and macro-turbulence to correlate with the properties we chose to fit, but given that these serve as broad descriptions of a detailed velocity field, nuances in that field would also influence a spectrum on the narrow wavelength scales we would like to associate with chemistry. There are also many effects that would modify spectra in non-trivial ways independent of intrinsic stellar properties. Binary or multiple systems may result in superimposed stellar spectra, or undergo mass transfer scenarios that could modify surface abundances. Intervening material could also play a role in shaping a spectrum, whether it be incompletely masked atmosphere or diffuse interstellar bands [@Zasowski2014]. Instrumental effects also influence the spectra; persistence has already been highlighted as troublesome in the APOGEE detectors, and is sufficiently complex that it is likely not completely removed even by our most aggressive approach to masking it. Changes in line spread function as a function of observing fiber or varying spectral resolution could also introduce small variations in spectral features not due to intrinsic abundance differences. While we make cuts in the fibers we use, the results we have presented do not explicitly account for the variations between fibers. Including the full-width half-maximum of the line spread function associated with each fiber in our polynomial fits does not change the number of principal components above the level of our jackknife-derived confidence regions and overfits our cluster data. A future approach might attempt to account for fiber LSF in individual visit spectra before combining them, but this would not account for other contaminating effects, many of which could produce both chemistry mimicking narrow features as well as large scale structure in the observed spectra.
*Quadratic model for non-chemical effects:* We have also assumed that a quadratic function in ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$, $\log g$, and \[Fe/H\] is a good model for how these properties change based on the results of previous work; it is possible that this over-fits the actual data variations. Our preliminary tests on cluster data give the expected number of principal components, which indicates that the quadratic model is sound. However, if it were over-fitting our polynomial parameters would still be imprinted on the spectrum, and we would expect a relationship between any of the three polynomial parameters and the model coefficients used to create a linear combination of principal components for each star. We tested for such a relationship by computing the correlation coefficient between the model coefficients and each of ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$, $\log g$, and \[Fe/H\], and found that these coefficients were low, especially when compared to the correlation coefficients that result from comparing the model coefficients with the stellar abundances from ASPCAP. Given this and the nature of our principal components shown in Figures \[fig:zoomeigvec\] and \[fig:zoomPC1\] and discussed below, we feel confident that our quadratic fit does not excessively remove chemical information.
*Neglecting non-linear cross terms in quadratic models:* Our choice to fit quadratically in just three parameters has included neglecting the cross-terms between those parameters and the derived abundances for each star, which might seem invalid when considering that they are necessary in the polynomial spectral models created by the Cannon [@Casey2016a]. We have tested the validity of neglected the cross-terms using the polynomial spectral model developed in [@Rix2016] to accurately model APOGEE red giant spectra. We compared the spectra created using their full quadratic model with those from a reduced model that had only the ${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$, $\log g$, and \[Fe/H\] quadratic terms (removing the non-linear cross terms with other abundances) and found that in the narrow range of parameters that define our sample, the variance introduced by neglecting those cross terms was two orders of magnitude less than the overall variance in our dataset. This small correction to the variance does not significantly change $R^2$ and so makes no difference to the number of principal components derived for each of our slices. While our assumption to neglect the abundance cross-terms holds for the region of parameter space occupied by our sample, future applications of our algorithm would need to account for this assumption.
*Reliance on APOGEE noise model:* Our final assumption was that the noise model provided by APOGEE accurately represents the measurement uncertainties, and that these measurement uncertainties are independent between pixels. It is likely that this is not the case, and future work will look for changes in our result when a full uncertainty covariance matrix is incorporated into both the EMPCA algorithm and the $R^2_{\rm noise}$ statistic.
Interpretation of the principal components
------------------------------------------
Although our assumptions seem validated given current data by our cluster results and additional tests, some evidence of such large scale structure remains in the principal components we derived from our example slice, shown in Figure \[fig:eigvec\]. These components have been scaled by the median coefficient with which they were multiplied to model the data and thus represent their typical contribution to observed spectra. The components have also been ranked in order of their importance for explaining the variance in the data, with the top component (PC1) being the most important. Since these form a basis for the data, the locations and relative magnitudes of features inform us about the importance of particular wavelengths. Features with the same sign change together in spectra while features with opposite signs anti-correlate in spectra. The signs themselves can be folded into coefficients for individual stars and are therefore less important. Without aggressive masking and fiber cuts, the first few principal components were dominated by large scale structure, a strong indicator that persistence was influencing the analysis. However applying more rigorous masking results in the mostly narrow features of Figure \[fig:eigvec\] with larger structure beginning to appear in the fifth-most important component. In the sixth, this large scale structure dominates the blue part of the APOGEE detector, and appearing again in the seventh. The sixth component also exhibits are broad feature near $1.635\,\mu$m, while components 6, 7, and 8 show another broad feature near $1.605\,\mu$m. These remaining large scale features betray the presence of residual non-chemical effects in spectra that are not adequately downweighted by measurement uncertainty. We tested multiple methods of continuum removal on the original ASPCAP spectra in an attempt to mitigate these large scale effects, but applying these methods resulted in similar principal components, and larger scale variations were not fully removed. However, these large scale variations are relegated to principal components less important for explaining variance in the data
Despite these residual large scale structures and possible sources of contamination listed above, our results are promising. The first (and therefore most important) principal component in Figure \[fig:eigvec\] strongly resembles an absorption spectrum, and the other components also exhibit narrow absorption-like features. At least some of these are not intrinsic chemistry: for example the narrow feature at 1.5273 $\mu$m is a diffuse interstellar band already known in APOGEE [@Zasowski2014]. However, to understand the other narrow features we compare them with a synthetic spectrum created with Turbospectrum [@Turbospectrum] from an ATLAS9 atmosphere [@atlas9] having properties that the median values of the example slice (${{T_{\mathrm{eff}}}}= 4809$ K, $\log g = 2.62$, \[M/H\]=-0.11, \[$\alpha$/Fe\]=0.06). Figure \[fig:zoomeigvec\] shows this comparison for the first three principal components in three different wavelength regions (including one containing the DIB mentioned above). The synthetic spectrum has been arbitrarily rescaled for the sake of comparison, so the y-axis scale is similarly somewhat arbitrary. However it is clear that there is strong agreement between the *locations* of features in the principal components and the locations of absorption lines in the synthetic spectra. The different wavelength regions were chosen to highlight the fact that areas with strong absorption lines in the synthetic spectrum (rightmost column) do not always correspond to significant magnitude in the principal component (although the scales are arbitrary, they are consistent for each line).
To demonstrate the general quality of this agreement, we show the comparison for the first principal component in its entirety in Figure \[fig:zoomPC1\]. To quantify the level of agreement, we used a simple root-finding algorithm to identify peaks in the principal component and in the synthetic spectrum, then matched peaks that agreed within 1.5 pixels. Peaks found in the first principal components that had no counterpart in the synthetic spectrum are marked with vertical gray lines in Figure \[fig:zoomPC1\]. In total, 84% of the peaks in the first PC above a magnitude threshold have corresponding absorption features in the synthetic spectrum. Similar analysis on the other principal components reveals 55% agreement in peak locations for the second PC, with roughly 30% agreement for subsequent principal components. Supplementing this compelling comparison are the results from our open cluster tests. Finding the expected zero principal components for the open clusters and two principal components for M13 indicates that many of the potential non-chemical effects we listed above must be relatively unimportant for APOGEE data.
Directions for future work
--------------------------
Although we offer some comparisons in Figures \[fig:zoomeigvec\] and \[fig:zoomPC1\], it is beyond the scope of this paper to perform the detailed analysis required to fully understand the principal components in Figure \[fig:eigvec\]. However, pursuit of this knowledge is worthwhile, as it is possible that these components highlight absorption features from elements not yet identified in APOGEE spectra. Even if this is not the case, it may be useful to use the principal components to find the abundances that are most important for distinguishing stars, facilitating future abundance-based chemical tagging studies.
Other directions of future work would involve streamlining and improving our algorithm. One primary goal is to further improve the quality of the input spectra. To do this with APOGEE data, a better approach to modelling instrumental effects is needed. One way to remove large-scale effects is to add components $\alpha\,\mathbf{BB}^T$ to the covariance matrix $\mathbf{V}$ in Equation with a large prefactor $\alpha$ and $\mathbf{B}$ a smooth function of the wavelength to be removed. For large $\alpha$, $\textbf{B}$ is then an approximate eigenvector of the data covariance matrix that the EMPCA algorithm will therefore attribute to noise rather than intrinsic variation. By using multiple such components that together describe a large fraction of possible large-scale signals, this approach would effectively remove large-scale wavelength trends from the data. Similarly, we have assumed that pixel-to-pixel correlations within each spectrum are negligible, but using the full pixel covariance version of the EMPCA algorithm, while resulting in slower computations, would take these correlations into account. We may also be able to reduce some of this structure by using spectra before they have been normalized by the ASPCAP, performing our own visit combination and continuum normalization. Slightly simpler to implement would be taking an iterative approach to modelling and subtracting out the large scale structure observed in the principal components, either with median filtering or a more involved technique like independent component analysis.
Applying the algorithm to other data sets would sidestep some of the challenges of modelling APOGEE instrumental noise (although this would undoubtedly introduce new sources of contamination). This could also provide access to wavelength regions which may contain features due to elements not represented in the $H$-band. Comparing derived principal components for similar samples in different surveys may help identify structure due to instrument noise or local atmospheric conditions rather than intervening interstellar medium or stellar properties. Increasing sample size would also further populate the chemical space, and aid in cluster finding. The GALAH survey alone plans to observe $\sim 10^6$ stars, increasing from the full APOGEE DR12 data set by almost an order of magnitude. Making full use of these larger samples will require refinement of our algorithm to speed up matrix operations.
Improving our algorithm by relaxing some of our assumptions would likely result in a correspondingly improved set of principal components, but the primary goal of this work was to lay the groundwork for performing chemical tagging by directly using stellar spectra. To that end, we also highlight the possibility of using the principal components found here to test chemical tagging in spectral space. Projecting spectra along these principal components locates those stars in chemical space, after which cluster finding algorithms can be applied to identify overdensities. Successfully recovering open clusters after mixing them with the larger slices will be necessary to determine whether tagged overdensities can be associated with birth clusters. Another way to test whether chemical space over densities can be safely interpreted as birth clusters is to make use of synthetic spectra with well defined properties. Creating synthetic open clusters and attempting to recover them from a larger synthetic sample will place constraints on the chemical properties of birth clusters that can be accurately chemically tagged. This will also help determine the properties of the clusters represented in the APOGEE datasets presented here.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusion}
===========
Using a sample of spectroscopic observations of red-clump and red-giant stars taken with APOGEE, we investigate chemical space using the full spectrum. Our tests on open clusters confirm that these clusters are chemically homogeneous with current measurement precision. We investigate our primary red clump/red giant sample by making slices in the most populated parts of the HR diagram. Using an aggressive mask to mitigate the effects of detector persistence and polynomial fit to remove non-chemical stellar properties, we employ EMPCA to show that about 10 principal components are needed to explain the variance in our chosen datasets. For our fiducial choice of chemical space cell size, we can describe the number of chemical space cells as approximately $$N_{\mathrm{cells,\,total}} \approx 10^{10\pm2} \times (5\pm 2)^{n-10}$$ where one factor of 10 is due to the spread in iron abundance removed by our initial polynomial fit, and $n$ is the number of principal components. This quantity could further increase by a factor of $\approx$(SNR/100)$^n$ with improved signal to noise in future surveys. From the simulations of @Ting2015a, this high number of chemical space cells implies that a high-resolution survey of $\gtrsim 10^6$ stars in the $H$-band could detect a large number of individual birth clusters that are dominated by real members.
Making a larger and thus more conservative choices for cell size reduces the total number of cells in 10-dimensional space to be of order 100-1000, increasing by a factor just greater than 1 with additional principal components. This swift decrease in $N_{\mathrm{cells}}$ highlights the importance of small uncertainties if using chemical tagging to identify over-densities in chemical space is ever to be successful in the strong limit of finding birth clusters. However the high number of principal components we consistently find across HR diagram slices indicates that stars do populate a high dimensional chemical space, which is promising for distinguishing chemical signatures associated with individual birth clusters.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
NPJ and JB received support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. JB also received partial support from an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship and from the Simons Foundation. The authors thank the Flatiron Institute for hospitality during part of the period during which this research was performed.
Funding for the Sloan Digital Sky Survey III has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, and the Participating Institutions. SDSS-IV acknowledges support and resources from the Center for High-Performance Computing at the University of Utah. The SDSS web site is [www.sdss.org](www.sdss.org).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We investigate the Hermitian and the non-Hermitian dynamics of the mode entanglement in two identical optical cavities coupled by a chiral mirror. By employing the non-Hermitian quantum evolution, we calculate the logarithmic negativity measure of entanglement for initially Fock, coherent and squeezed states, separately. We verify the non-conservation of mean spin for the initially coherent and squeezed states when the coupling is non-reciprocal and report the associated spin noise for each case. We examine the effects of non-conserved symmetries on the mode correlations and determine the degree of non-reciprocal coupling to establish robust quantum entanglement.'
author:
- 'Ali Ü. C. Hardal'
bibliography:
- 'non\_her.bib'
title: |
Dynamics of mode entanglement in a system of cavities\
coupled with a chiral mirror
---
Introduction
============
The interest in the systems which exhibits non-Hermitian quantum mechanical interactions [@bender1998real; @bender1999pt; @mostafazadeh2002pseudo; @mostafazadeh2003exact; @bender2007making] has been intensified particularly in the last decade. They have been reported in many research fields including soliton-plasmon systems [@karakaya; @milian2012soliton; @ferrando2013variational], hybridized metamaterials [@PhysRevA.87.053824], coupled microcavities [@peng2014parity], waveguides [@PhysRevLett.101.080402; @PhysRevA.87.013816], optical lattices [@PhysRevLett.110.223902; @longhi2014pt] and Bose-Einstein condensates [@graefe2008non; @graefe2008mean; @dast2013eigenvalue]. $\mathcal{PT}$-symmetric lasers and anti-lasers [@PhysRevA.82.031801; @PhysRevLett.105.053901; @PhysRevLett.108.173901; @PhysRevA.84.063833], cloaking devices [@PhysRevA.82.043803] and unidirectional invisibility [@mostafazadeh2013invisibility; @PhysRevLett.106.213901] constitute some of the intriguing implementations of such quantum mechanical systems.
Along a similar direction, a generic quantum optical model of coupled resonators which exhibits non-Hermiticity has been proposed very recently [@santos2012non]. In the model, two independent quantum oscillators are weakly coupled with a chiral mirror. The dynamical analysis by the usual Heisenberg approach has revealed the asymmetric photon exchange between the resonators. In addition, the non-conservation of the total photon number was reported for the same model by employing the non-Hermitian quantum evolution [@karakaya]. The non-conservation of the mean number of photons is an interplay between the quantum coherence and the non-Hermitian dynamics. Here, we aim to reveal whether there is relation between the mean spin and the entanglement dynamics as well.
In the present contribution, we consider the model system proposed in Ref. [@santos2012non]. We investigate the non-Hermitian dynamics of the mode entanglement by the means of the logarithmic negativity measure [@plenio2005logarithmic]. Mode entanglement occurs in the second quantization picture [@PhysRevA.72.064306; @cunha2007entanglement] and can be witnessed via the covariances of the two distinct modes [@PhysRevLett.96.050503; @PhysRevA.74.032333]. Furthermore, the relations between mode correlations and the spin noise in coupled cavity systems have been revealed only recently [@hardal2013spin]. The absence of bipartite mode entanglement due to the lack of nonlinearity in the model system under consideration has also been verified [@karakaya]. Here, we report the existence of genuine mode entanglement in the generic model that are robust and controllable via the asymmetry in the coupling of the two modes.
In our numerical analysis, we assume that one cavity is in its vacuum while the other in a Fock, coherent and squeezed state, separately. The non-conservation of the mean spin is verified for the initially coherent and squeezed states when the coupling between the cavities is non-reciprocal. The associated spin noise measured by the variances of the corresponding spin operators of the coupled resonators is reported. We find that the mode entanglement is more robust if the system is in a coherent state and non-Hermitian, though it displays high amplitude oscillations in comply with the noise dynamics. We, then, consider an initially single-mode squeezed state to compensate spin noise and clarify the interference between population, spin and entanglement dynamics.
In a recent contribution [@hardal2013spin], we investigated a more general set up consists of two nonlinear cavities coupled either with single- or two-photon exchange interactions. Quantum entanglement and field coherence were investigated in the steady state in a comparative manner. The focus of the work was to reveal profound relations between coherence, localization (delocalization) of photons and quantum correlations. Here, we consider a more fundamental model which exhibits non-Hermitian dynamics. Our motivation is to dynamically investigate the modal entanglement and its response to the broken symmetries due to the asymmetric coupling between the cavities.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \[sec:model\], we briefly review the model system and the governing non-Hermitian quantum dynamics. In Sec. \[sec:results\], we present our results and we finally conclude in Sec. \[sec:conc\].
The Model System and The Non-Hermitian Dynamics {#sec:model}
===============================================
We consider two identical optical cavities, $A$ and $B$, which are coupled by a chiral mirror. The dynamics of the system is governed by the Hamiltonian [@santos2012non] $$\label{eq:model1}
H = \omega_0(a^\dagger a+b^\dagger b)+g_{AB}ab^\dagger+g_{BA}a^\dagger b.$$ Here, $a$ and $b$ are the annihilation operators of the cavity modes, $\omega_0$ is the resonant transition frequency for each cavity and $g_{AB}$ and $g_{BA}$ denote the coupling strengths.
The Hamiltonian (\[eq:model1\]) can equivalently be written as $$\label{eq:model2}
H = \omega_0N+g_{AB}S_{+}+g_{BA}S_{-},$$ where we made use of the pseudo-spin operators for the two-resonator system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:spins}
\nonumber S_x &:=&\frac{1}{2}(a^{\dagger}b+b^{\dagger}a),\\
S_y &:=&\frac{-i}{2}(a^{\dagger}b-b^{\dagger}a),\\
\nonumber S_z &:=&\frac{1}{2}(a^{\dagger}a-b^{\dagger}b),\end{aligned}$$ with $S_{+} :=S_x+iS_y$, $S_{-}:=S_x-iS_y$ and $N=a^{\dagger}a+b^{\dagger}b$. The operators given in Eq. (\[eq:spins\]) satisfy the usual spin algebra $[S_{\alpha},S_{\beta}]=\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}S_{\gamma}$ with $\alpha,\beta,\gamma\in{x,y,z}$ and $\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ is Levi-Civita tensor. In the case that $g_{AB}=g_{BA}$, the model describes a reciprocal, single-photon exchange type coupling between two resonant cavities. The latter type of coupling generally induces genuine mode correlations which can be expressed with the covariances of the two modes [@PhysRevLett.96.050503; @PhysRevA.74.032333] and can further be related to the spin noise [@hardal2013spin].
When $g_{AB}\neq g_{BA}$ the system becomes non-Hermitian even if the coupling coefficients are real as it can easily be seen from Eq. (\[eq:model2\]). The asymmetric coupling between the cavities behaves as a dissipation or an amplification channel depending on which direction that the symmetry is broken, as a result the system does not conserve the mean number of photons $\langle N\rangle$ [@karakaya]. However, the non-conservation of the mean number of excitations do result from the applied dynamical approach as well as the initial preparation of the system [@santos2014asymmetrical; @santos2012non; @karakaya]. Here, we adopt the approach for which the total number of photons $\langle N\rangle$ is not conserved. We also verify that if the initial state of the system is a coherent or a squeezed state, the non-reciprocal dynamics does not conserve the mean spin $\langle S^2\rangle=\langle S_x^2+S_y^2+S_z^2\rangle$ as well.
The dynamics of the system may be investigated with the usual Heisenberg approach [@santos2012non], however it has been recently shown [@karakaya] that to capture the effects of non-reciprocal dynamics one should consider a more general formalism [@sergi2013non; @graefe2008mean; @PhysRevA.42.1467; @PhysRevLett.109.230405]. To that end, we first write the Hamiltonian (\[eq:model1\]) as the sum of its Hermitian $H_+$ and anti-Hermitian $H_-$ parts $$\label{eq:parts}
H=H_+ + H_-,$$ where $H_{\pm}:=1/2(H\pm H^\dagger)$ with $H_{\pm}=\pm H_{\pm}^{\dagger}$. The time evolution of a state $\rho(t)$ of the system can be determined by the modified Liouville-von Neumann master equation [@karakaya] $$\label{eq:master}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\rho(t)=-i[H_+,\rho(t)]_+-i[H_-,\rho(t)]_-,$$ where $[,]_+$ and $[,]_-$ represent the commutator and the anti-commutator of the corresponding operators. Due to the non-unitary character of the Eq. (\[eq:master\]), we renormalize the density operator as $$\label{eq:density}
\rho(t)^\prime:=\frac{\rho(t)}{Tr(\rho(t))}.$$ It follows that the expectation value of a given observable $Q$ is calculated via the relation $$\label{eq:expect}
\langle Q\rangle:=\frac{Tr(\rho(t)Q)}{Tr(\rho(t))}.$$ In the following section, we shall first define the measure of quantum entanglement and the parameters that are going to be used in our analysis. We, then, present our results for initially fock, coherent and squeezed states, separately.
Results and Discussions {#sec:results}
=======================
Here, we shall discuss the non-Hermitian quantum dynamics of mode entanglement between the two cavity modes. In our numerical analysis, we use the QuTiP: Quantum Toolbox in Python software [@johansson2013qutip]. We set the Hilbert space dimensions of the modes $N_A=N_B=N=25$ which we concluded that is sufficient for the analysis of quantum entanglement. We repeated our calculations up to $N=30$ and obtained the same results. In particular, for the dimensions $N<15$, we found that the results are not stable. We note that the latter bounds on the Hilbert space dimensions are not physical and can be differ with respect to the preferred numerical algorithm and method.
We make our calculations for $g_{AB}=g.r$, $g_{BA}=g$ with $r=0.5,1,2$ [@karakaya]. Here, $r=1$ corresponds to the Hermitian whereas $r=0.5,2$ corresponds to non-Hermitian cases, respectively.
We calculate the logarithmic negativity $E_N(\rho)$ to make quantitative discussions on mode entanglement. The logarithmic negativity is a computable and a non-convex entanglement monotone and it is defined as [@plenio2005logarithmic] $$\label{eq:neg}
E_N(\rho):=log_2||\rho^{T_A}||,$$ where $\rho^{T_A}$ stands for the partial transpose with respect to the first subsystem and $||\rho^{T_A}||$ is the trace norm of $\rho^{T_A}$. One important property of the logarithmic negativity is that it does not reduce to the von Neumann entanglement entropy for pure states. It follows that it can detect and measure mode correlations which are not bipartite. Indeed, the absence of bipartite entanglement between cavity modes for Hermitian as well as non-Hermitian cases has been reported [@karakaya].
There are subtle relations between quantum coherence, correlations, photon localization and delocalization [@hardal2013spin; @ferretti2010photon; @PhysRevA.83.023805; @hardal2014einstein]. If the initial state of the system is a coherent one, then such an interference between non-conservation of the mean number of photons and non-Hermitian dynamics has been also verified [@karakaya]. Here, we shall discuss whether there is an interplay between non-Hermitian dynamics, spin conservation with the associated spin noise and mode correlations as well.
![ Dependence of $E_N(\rho)$ for $r=1$ (black-solid), $r = 0.5$ (red-dashed) and $r=2$ (blue-dot-dashed) with respect to the scaled time $\omega_0t$ for an initially squeezed state $|\psi(0)\rangle=|\alpha,\epsilon\rangle|0\rangle$ with $\alpha=1$, $\epsilon=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig:fig4"}](fig4.eps){width="8cm"}
Initially Fock state {#sec:fock}
--------------------
We first consider an initial state in which the cavity $A$ is in a Fock state with a single photon whereas the cavity $B$ is in its vacuum $$\label{eq:in_fock}
|\psi(0)\rangle=|1\rangle|0\rangle.$$ The mean $\langle N\rangle$ is conserved in both Hermitian and non-Hermitian dynamics [@karakaya]. We numerically verified that the mean of the total spin operator $\langle S^2\rangle=\langle S_x^2+S_y^2+S_z^2\rangle$ is also conserved. Therefore, we can discriminate the effects of non-Hermitian dynamics on the mode correlations with conserved symmetries.
In Figs. \[fig:fig1a\]-\[fig:fig1c\] we plot the dynamics of the variances $(\Delta S_y)^2$, $(\Delta S_z)^2$ and the logarithmic negativity $E_N(\rho)$ with respect to the scaled time $\omega_0t$, respectively. We calculated that $(\Delta S_x)^2=0.25$ for Hermitian as well as non-Hermitian cases. Fig. \[fig:fig1a\] depicts the dynamics of $(\Delta S_y)^2$. When $g_{AB}> g_{BA}$, the photon excitation rate in the empty cavity is faster than the case of $g_{AB}< g_{BA}$, for which the period of the oscillations is bigger than that of the Hermitian case $g_{AB}= g_{BA}$. The variance $(\Delta S_z)^2$ behaves similarly as shown in Fig. \[fig:fig1b\].
Fig. \[fig:fig1c\] shows the dynamics of the logarithmic negativity with respect to the scaled time $\omega_0t$. The mode entanglement oscillates between near death $E_N(\rho)\sim0$ and its maximum $E_N(\rho)\sim1$ for all cases. The degree of entanglement mimics the localization-delocalization rate of the photons which depends on the degree of the asymmetry in the coupling strength even if the mean photon number in the system is conserved.
The model Hamiltonian (\[eq:model1\]) can be mapped to that of a two-mode Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) trapped in a double well [@graefe2008non]. In general, such a system exhibits nonlinear on-site interactions. While the linear tunnelling term between the wells leads to the Josephson oscillations (JO), the nonlinear interactions are responsible for coherent population self-trapping (ST) of particles. In the present generic model, the absence of the nonlinear interactions leaves the system in the JO regime which results from the single-photon exchange coupling between the cavities. In the JO regime the population imbalance $\langle S_z\rangle$ oscillates around zero with equal amplitudes and never collapses due to the lack of nonlinearity in the system. As expected, these oscillations have residual effects on the dynamics of spin noise as well as the mode entanglement [@choi2005quantum] as reported in Fig. \[fig:fig1\]. The large-amplitude oscillations have the period $T$ which is inversely proportional to the non-Hermiticity parameter $r$, i.e., $T\propto1/r$ which shall later be inherited by initially coherent and squeezed state cases as well.
Initially coherent state
------------------------
Next, we consider an initial state in which the cavity $A$ is in a coherent state with an amplitude of $\alpha=1$ and the cavity $B$ is in its vacuum $$\label{eq:in_coh}
|\psi(0)\rangle=|\alpha\rangle|0\rangle.$$ If $g_{AB}\neq g_{BA}$, the mean number of photons $\langle N\rangle$ is not conserved for an initially coherent state [@karakaya].
In Figs. \[fig:fig2a\]-\[fig:fig2c\], we plot the dynamics of the mean of the total spin $\langle S^2\rangle$, the variance $(\Delta S_z)^2$ and the logarithmic negativity $E_N(\rho)$ with respect to the scaled time $\omega_0t$, respectively. The variances $(\Delta S_x)^2$ and $(\Delta S_y)^2$ show identical behaviour to that of $(\Delta S_z)^2$ and thus are not presented here. Figure \[fig:fig2a\] shows the Hermitian dynamics conserves the mean spin $\langle S^2\rangle$. If $g_{AB}>g_{BA}$, the deviation from the steady value $\langle S^2\rangle=1$ is greater in accordance with the photon number dynamics [@karakaya]. The associated spin noise behaves similarly and makes negligible oscillations around $(\Delta S_z)^2\sim0.25$ if $g_{AB}=g_{BA}$ as it is expected from a coherent state.
Figure \[fig:fig2c\] shows if $g_{AB}=g_{BA}$, the mode entanglement first increase and then starts to oscillate with low amplitudes around $E_N(\rho)\sim0.6$. The coherent trapping of mode entanglement in the JO regime has been also reported for the two-mode BECs [@huang2012fisher]. The non-Hermitian interactions in the cases $g_{AB}>g_{BA}$ and $g_{AB}<g_{BA}$ amplify the mode correlations and have constructive effects in this regard. The number of photons created in the empty cavity differs by the chosen asymmetry in the coupling strengths. On the other hand, the amplification of the mode correlations is mainly a reaction to the broken symmetries as the value of $E_N(\rho)$ is greater than the Hermitian case and almost equal to each other if $g_{AB}<g_{BA}$ or $g_{AB}>g_{BA}$.
Initially squeezed state
------------------------
We consider an initially squeezed state of the form $$\label{eq:in_sq}
|\psi(0)\rangle=|\alpha, \epsilon\rangle|0\rangle,$$ where $\alpha=1$ is the coherent state amplitude and $\epsilon=0.1$ is the squeezing parameter. We numerically verify that the mean $\langle N\rangle$ as well as the number of photons in each cavity shows similar behaviours under Hermitian and non-Hermitian dynamics as reported for initially coherent state [@karakaya]. The only difference is that for a squeezed state we have $$\label{eq:sq_num}
\langle N\rangle=|\alpha|^2+\sinh^2{\epsilon}.$$ In Figs. \[fig:fig3a\]-\[fig:fig3c\], we plot the dynamics of the mean of the total spin $\langle S^2\rangle$ and the variances $(\Delta S_y)^2$, $(\Delta S_z)^2$ with respect to the scaled time $\omega_0t$, respectively. The variance $(\Delta S_x)^2$ shows identical behaviour as in Fig. \[fig:fig2b\] with relatively small amplitudes due to the squeezing and is not presented here. Figure \[fig:fig3\] shows that the squeezing leads to the reduction of quantum fluctuations in mean spin $\langle S^2\rangle$ as well as in the variances $(\Delta S_y)^2$ and $(\Delta S_z)^2$.
Figures \[fig:fig3b\] and \[fig:fig3c\] depicts that if $g_{AB}<g_{BA}$, for which the empty cavity is weakly excited [@karakaya], small plateaus occur where the spin noise is stabilized. If $g_{AB}>g_{BA}$, the empty cavity is strongly exited. In that case, single mode squeezing is not enough to create time intervals in which the noise is rather steady, though it reduces the amplitudes of the fluctuations.
In Fig. \[fig:fig4\], we plot the dynamics of logarithmic negativity with respect to the scaled time $\omega_0t$. If $g_{AB}=g_{BA}$, mode entanglement resembles the dynamics as in the initially coherent state, however it oscillates with relatively higher amplitudes in comply with the spin noise dynamics. If $g_{AB}>g_{BA}$, mode entanglement is blighted by the squeezing. The high amplitude oscillations persist and the maximum value of the logarithmic negativity $E_N(\rho)$ shrinks in comparison with that of the cases of initially coherent and Fock states. Squeezing serves well to the cause in the case of $g_{AB}<g_{BA}$. The amplitude of the oscillations scale down to a pliable level and the coherent entanglement trapping is achieved as in the case of $g_{AB}=g_{BA}$, though the degree of entanglement reduces.
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
In summary, we studied the Hermitian and the non-Hermitian dynamics of the mode entanglement in a system of cavities coupled with a chiral mirror. The mode entanglement, characterized by the logarithmic negativity measure, was investigated for initially Fock, coherent and squeezed states.
For an initially Fock state both the total number of photons [@karakaya] and the mean of the total spin are conserved regardless of the type of the dynamics. The single photon exchange is a delocalizing and mode correlating interaction [@hardal2013spin]. As a result, the period of oscillations in the time evolution of the mode entanglement mimics that of the photon exchange but keeps the degree of entanglement constant. The former is also inherited by the initially coherent and squeezed state cases as well.
The interplay between coherence, correlations and the non-conservation of mean spin as well as mean number of photons is revealed in the case of an initially coherent state. The degree of mode entanglement is amplified if the coupling between the two cavity is non-reciprocal. The amplification is nearly equal whether $g_{AB}>g_{BA}$ or $g_{AB}<g_{BA}$ whereas the number of photons are quite different depending on the asymmetries.
Lastly, we considered an initially squeezed state to diminish the amplitudes of the oscillations in the dynamics of the mode entanglement. We found that if the empty cavity is weakly excited squeezing leads to the desired reduction with the expense in the magnitude of the entanglement.
Our results demonstrate that the non-reciprocal exchange interactions may be used to ensure an effective control over the dynamics as well as the degree of the quantum entanglement which could be desirable from the perspective of quantum information technologies. We are grateful to Özgür E. Müstecapl[i]{}oğlu for his encouragement and illuminating discussions. We thank Hakan E. Türeci for fruitful discussions and Princeton University for their hospitality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study the latitudinal distribution of sunspots observed from 1874 to 2009 using the center-of-latitude (COL). We calculate COL by taking the area-weighted mean latitude of sunspots for each calendar month. We then form the latitudinal distribution of COL for the sunspots appearing in the northern and southern hemispheres separately, and in both hemispheres with unsigned and signed latitudes, respectively. We repeat the analysis with subsets which are divided based on the criterion of which hemisphere is dominant for a given solar cycle. Our primary findings are as follows: (1) COL is not monotonically decreasing with time in each cycle. Small humps can be seen (or short plateaus) around every solar maxima. (2) The distribution of COL resulting from each hemisphere is bimodal, which can well be represented by the double Gaussian function. (3) As far as the primary component of the double Gaussian function is concerned, for a given data subset, the distributions due to the sunspots appearing in two different hemispheres are alike. Regardless of which hemisphere is magnetically dominant, the primary component of the double Gaussian function seems relatively unchanged. (4) When the northern (southern) hemisphere is dominant the width of the secondary component of the double Gaussian function in the northern (southern) hemisphere case is about twice as wide as that in the southern (northern) hemisphere. (5) For the distribution of the COL averaged with signed latitude, whose distribution is basically described by a single Gaussian function, it is shifted to the positive (negative) side when the northern (southern) hemisphere is dominant. Finally, we conclude by briefly discussing the implications of these findings on the variations in the solar activity.'
address: |
Department of Astronomy and Atmospheric Sciences,\
Kyungpook National University,\
1370 Sankyuk-dong, Buk-gu, Daegu 702-701, Korea
author:
- 'Heon-Young Chang'
title: 'Bimodal Distribution of Area-Weighted Latitude of Sunspots And Solar North-South Asymmetry'
---
,
Sun: sunspots, Sun: activity, Methods: data analysis
Introduction
============
Since sunspots can be considered as tracers of freshly emerged magnetic flux, any models attempting to predict the magnetic flux large-scale distribution should be able to explain the temporal and spatial distributions of the sunspots (e.g., Parker 1955; Babcock 1961; Leighton 1969). The cyclic behavior of sunspot number (area) in time has been well-known for a long time. The variation of the sunspot number (area) with time, or solar cycle, could be studied on the basis of the variation of the latitudinal position of the sunspots with time frequently described by the ’butterfly diagram’. For, sunspot latitude is an indication of the phase of the sunspot cycle: within a cycle, the higher the latitude, the earlier the phase in the cycle. The first version of such a diagram displaying the sunspot group distribution in latitude for each synodic rotation of the Sun was presented by Maunder (1904). One aspect which complicates the comparison of a theoretical model with the observed butterfly diagram is that the diagram takes no account of the sunspot lifetime, or the spatial size. Since all sunspot groups are given equal weight, regardless of their temporal and spatial extention, the diagram is dominated by small sunspots which scatter over wider ranges than the larger ones. For instance, the smallest 65% of the sunspots contribute only up to $\approx 10 \%$ of the total spotted area (Ternullo 2007b). In addition to this, another difficulty is that the mean latitude of sunspot groups, provided that each group is assigned a weight equal to its area, does not steadily drift toward the equator (Ternullo 1997, 2001, 2007a, 2010; Norton & Gilman 2004), at variance with the picture commonly assumed in theoretical calculations.
There are some efforts on finding the sunspot formation latitude zone to make the butterfly diagram more sensible. For instance, it has been reported that spots are not uniformly distributed in the spot zone, but repeatedly appear in some special, relatively small photospheric portions (active regions), tightly limited in latitude. The emergence of new active regions mimics an abrupt shift - either equatorward or poleward - of the spot occurrence site (Li et al. 2003; Solanki, Wenzler, & Schmitt 2008; Ternullo 2010). The drift of the centroid of the sunspot area toward the equator in each hemisphere has also been examined (Li, Yun, & Gu 2001; Li et al. 2002a; Hathaway et al. 2003). It is found that the drift rate slows as the centroid approaches the equator. A correlation between the solar-activity level and some characteristics of the latitude distribution of the sunspots has been studied and exercised to predict the solar activity level (e.g., Kane 2007; Javaraiah 2008; Miletskii & Ivanov 2009). Furthermore, there is also some theoretical research employing such a latitudinal distribution in developing their model (e.g., Pelt et al. 2000; Solanki, Wenzler, & Schmitt 2008; Goel & Choudhuri 2009).
Since it is found that there is a systematic time lag or lead of a few years between the northern- and southern-hemispheric solar activity in a cycle, the North-South asymmetry of solar activity has been related to phase shifts between a pair of wings in the butterfly diagram (Waldmeier 1957, 1971; Pulkkinen et al. 1999; Li et al. 2002b; Temmer, Veronig, & Hanslmeier 2002; Temmer et al. 2006; Zolotova & Ponyavin 2006, 2007; Donner & Thiel 2007; Li et al. 2008; Zolotova et al. 2009; Li, Gao, & Zhan 2009a,b; Li, Liang, & Feng 2010; Li et al. 2010). The solar North-South asymmetry is considered as one of the most interesting properties of solar activity. Asymmetries between the northern and southern hemispheres have been found in various solar indices (Roy 1977; White & Trotter 1977; Swinson, Koyama, & Saito 1986; Vizoso & Ballester 1990; Schlamminger 1991; Carbonell, Oliver, & Ballester 1993; Verma 1993; Oliver & Ballester 1994; Krivova & Solanki 2002; Temmer, Veronig, & Hanslmeier 2002; Ballester, Oliver, & Carbonell 2005; Berdyugina & Usoskin 2003; Verma 1987; Ataç & Özgüç 1996, 2001; Özgüç & Ücer 1987; Tritakis, Petropoulos, & Mavromichalaki 1988; Vizoso & Ballester 1989; Gigolashvili et al. 2005; Antonucci, Hoeksema, & Scherrer 1990; Mouradian & Soru-Escaut 1991; Knaack, Stenflo, & Berdyugina 2004, 2005; Javaraiah & Gokhale 1997; Gigolashvili, Japaridze, & Kukhianidze 2005; Javaraiah & Ulrich 2006; Zaatri et al. 2006; Chang 2007, 2008, 2009).
In this paper, we investigate the distribution of the area-weighted latitude of sunspots. Earlier studies on the butterfly diagram have been carried out with daily values and mainly focused on either the time evolution in a cycle (e.g., Solanki et al. 2000) or the variations of characteristics of the latitudinal distribution over solar cycles (Solanki et al. 2000; Solanki, Wenzler, & Schmitt 2008). Instead, we take the monthly average from the data set over a much longer period than one solar cycle to increase the statistical significance. Study for the bimodality and its statistical characteristics in the case when the monthly average has been carried out over each individual cycle has been carried out and discussed in elsewhere (e.g., Chang 2011). We employ the double Gaussian function rather than a single function to describe the distribution of the area-weighted latitudes where sunspots form (cf. Li et al. 2003). We address a question of whether two distributions resulted from sunspots in the northern and southern hemispheres are compatible. Upon answering to this question we are further led to address another interesting issue which is related to the solar North-South asymmetry. In other words, we further compare the distributions resulting from the subsets divided by the criterion of which hemisphere dominates in that particular solar cycle. That is, by using the double Gaussian function, we explore in details the characteristics of the solar North-South asymmetry in terms of the latitudinal distribution of sunspots.
In §2, we begin with brief descriptions of data and how the center-of-latitude is defined. In §3, we present results of the distribution of the center-of-latitude and discuss its implications on the North-South asymmetry of solar activity. In §4, we conclude with a summary and discussion of our results.
Data
====
We have used for the present analysis the Greenwich sunspot group data during the period from 1874 to 1976, and the sunspot group data from the Solar Optical Observing Network (SOON) of the US Air Force (USAF)/ US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) during the period from 1977 to 2009. The daily sunspot area and its latitude have been taken from the NASA website[^1]. These derived data include the correction factor of 1.4 for data after 1976 (e.g., Javaraiah, 2007).
Center-of-Latitude of Sunspots
==============================
In Figure 1 we show the ’center-of-latitude (COL)’ as a function of time during the period from 1874 to 2009, which is defined by $${\rm COL}= \sum_i (a_i \times L_i)/\sum_i a_i,$$ where $a_i$ is the $i$-th sunspot group area and $L_i$ is its latitude (Cho & Chang 2011). The summation is carried out over a calendar year and a calendar month, instead of the Carrington month. Thick and thin curves represent the yearly averaged COL and the monthly averaged COL, respectively. In the upper panel, we separately calculate and plot the COL for sunspots appearing in the northern and southern hemispheres. The positive and negative signs represent the northern and southern hemisphere, respectively. Obviously, the solar cycle begins when COL is high in general and that COL essentially decreases as the solar cycle proceeds. We stress, however, that COL is not monotonically decreasing as commonly assumed, which can be clearly seen with the yearly averaged COL (cf. Ternullo 2007a). Small humps (or short plateaus) between solar minima are seen commonly at a latitude of $\sim \pm 10^\circ$, which can be found in plots of similar works (Antalova & Gnevushev 1983; Li et al. 2003; Ternullo 2007a). Humps appear in fact around every solar maxima over time. They may well be related to the latitudes of higher activity, or ’active latitude’ (cf. Solanki, Wenzler, & Schmitt 2008). In the middle panel, the averaged COL for sunspots appearing in both hemispheres is plotted taking into account the sign of the latitudes. If sunspots are randomly distributed along the mean latitude of the butterfly diagram, which is also assumed as symmetrical with respect to the equator, COL should be in a form of random noise. What is seen, however, is that the difference is large at around the solar minima and far from the random distribution. Consequently, the wings of the butterfly diagram are not symmetrical, or steadily drifts to the equator. In the bottom panel, we plot the averaged COL for sunspots appearing in two hemispheres, but the latitude is considered as unsigned, which is thus defined by $${\rm COL}= \sum_i(a_i \times |L_i|)/\sum_i a_i,$$ such that the absolute value of the latitudes is used rather than the signed latitudes itself. Small humps seen in the upper panel are seen more definitely. It should be pointed out, therefore, that COL is not described by a second order polynomial curve. It may require a higher order polynomial curve to fit the mean latitude of the sunspot activity as adopted to describe the latitude migration of the solar filaments (Li 2010). It may also be interesting to ask whether it should be regarded as the essential features of the 11-year cycle.
Latitudinal Distribution of Sunspots
====================================
In Figure 2, we show histograms of COL and their best fits using the double Gaussian function, which is given by $A_1 \exp(-[x-x_1]^2/2\sigma_1^2)+A_2 \exp(-[x-x_2]^2/2\sigma_2^2)$, where $A_1$ and $A_2$, $x_1$ and $x_2$, $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2$, represent the amplitude of each component, the central value, the width, respectively. All the histograms in the following result from monthly averaged COLs. We count the number of COL into bins with a width of $1^\circ$ for the period from 1874 to 2009, in order to be independent of a particular solar cycle and to increase the statistical significance. We then fit a double Gaussian function to the histogram by adjusting 6 parameters (two amplitudes, two central values, and two widths) at the same time. Solid, dashed, and dotted curves represent the observed histogram, the best fit of the double Gaussian function, and the individual Gaussian function, respectively. In the upper left and right panels, results of the histograms from the sunspots in the northern and southern hemispheres are shown, respectively. In the lower left panel, histograms are obtained by sunspots in both hemispheres using unsigned latitudes of the sunspots. In the lower right panel, on the other hand, histograms are obtained by sunspots in both hemispheres using the signed latitudes of the sunspots. In other words, histograms in the bottom row from left to right are a result of the last and middle panels in Figure 1, respectively.
As shown in Figure 2, the distribution of COL as a result from each hemisphere is bimodal, which is well represented by the double Gaussian function having maxima of $\sim 11^\circ$ and $\sim 20^\circ$. Of interest is that the profiles are skewed such that the main component is closer to the equator with the secondary component towards the higher latitudes. Apparently, the width of the fitting function is somewhat wider for the northern hemisphere. We perform the Student’s t-test with the assumption that two data sets have different variances (see Press, Teukolsky, & Vetterling 2007). We have calculated the probability that the distributions of COL from the two hemispheres have significantly different means and found it insignificant. That is, the probability we obtain is 19.21 %. Hence, one cannot accept the hypothesis that the COL distributions from the two hemispheres have different means. Not surprisingly, the unsigned average of the COL from the two hemispheres is bimodal too, whose best fit is peaked at $\sim 11^\circ$ and $\sim 20^\circ$. On the other hand, the signed average of COL from two hemispheres basically results in a single Gaussian function peaked at $\sim 0^\circ$. The obtained fitting parameters are listed in Table 1.
In Figures 3 and 4, we show histograms of COL from two subsets and their best fits using the double Gaussian function. Here we divide the whole data set into two subsets according to which hemisphere is dominant in the solar North-South asymmetry for a given solar cycle. Figures 3 and 4 are a result of the sunspots during the period that the northern and southern hemispheres are magnetically dominant, respectively. The northern hemisphere has been dominant during the cycles from 14 to 20, and the southern hemisphere in cycles 12, 13, 21, 22, and 23 (e.g., Li et al. 2003; Chang 2008). Line types in Figures 3 and 4 are same as in Figure 2. Here one may find similar key features as seen in Figure 2, such as, bimodality. When comparing Figures 3 and 4, however, several interesting points can be noted, and they are as follows:
\(1) As long as the main component of the double Gaussian function at lower latitude is concerned, regardless of which hemisphere is magnetically dominant, the main component of the double Gaussian function seems relatively unchanged in the central position and in the full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM), except for the amplitude. The amplitude is affected by the number of solar cycles simply because the number of solar cycles when the northern hemisphere is dominant is 7, yet the number of solar cycles when the southern-hemisphere is dominant is 5. They are all centered at $\sim 12^\circ$ with FWHM of $\sim 6^\circ$. Naturally, the distribution of COL of the sunspots appearing in both hemispheres with unsigned latitudes is also quite similar from one hemispheric dominance to another.
\(2) On the other hand, the secondary component of the double Gaussian function at higher latitudes seems to have a role in the sense that even though their central position remains fixed at $\sim 21^\circ$ or $\sim 22^\circ$, their width varies systematically. That is, when the northern (southern) hemisphere is dominant the width of the secondary component in the northern (southern) hemisphere case is about twice as wide as that in the southern (northern) hemisphere, as shown in Tables 2 and 3. It may imply that when a particular hemisphere is dominant sunspots in that hemisphere emerge at higher latitude than the other hemisphere. In addition to this, the total width of the double Gaussian function (for example, $\sigma_1+\sigma_2$) due to the northern (southern) hemisphere is a little bit wider when the northern (southern) hemisphere is dominant, even though it is less obvious than what we mentioned previously. This also may tell us that the sunspots not only emerges at higher latitudes but also ends at somewhat lower latitudes in the hemisphere than in the other one when a particular hemisphere is dominant.
\(3) For the distribution of COL averaged with the signed latitudes, a little population can be found in the higher latitudes in the north (south) of the equator rather than in the south (north) of the equator when the northern (southern) hemisphere is dominant. This may reflect the fact that the secondary component in the distribution of a hemisphere is wider than that of the other hemisphere when that particular hemisphere is dominant. Nonetheless, regardless of which hemisphere is magnetically dominant, the distribution is basically described by a single Gaussian function as seen in Figure 2. Another interesting point to make here is that the distribution is shifted to the positive (negative) side when the northern (southern) hemisphere is dominant (see Tables 2 and 3).
Summary And Conclusion
======================
The distribution of area-weighted latitude of the sunspots appearing during the period from 1874 to 2009 has been studied. We first determine the center-of-latitude (COL) by averaging the latitude with the weight function in area. Then the latitudinal distribution of COL was formed for sunspots appearing in the northern and southern hemispheres separately, and in both hemispheres with unsigned and signed latitudes, respectively. We further obtain the best fit of the observed distribution with the double Gaussian function and compare results. We repeat the same analysis with sunspots appearing either when the northern hemisphere is dominant or when the southern hemisphere is dominant. The most interesting result of our analysis concerns the north-south asymmetry of the solar activity. The solar North-South asymmetry can be traced in the distributions of COL.
Our main findings are as follows:
\(1) COL is not monotonically decreasing as commonly assumed. Small humps (or short plateaus) between solar minima can commonly be seen at latitudes of $\sim 10^\circ$. Humps appear in fact around every solar maxima. A higher order polynomial curve may be required to fit the mean latitude of the sunspot activity.
\(2) The distribution of COL resulted from each hemisphere is bimodal, which is well represented by the double Gaussian function having maxima at $\sim 11^\circ$ and $\sim 20^\circ$. One cannot rule out that the hypothesis that the COL distributions from the two hemispheres have same means. The signed average of the COL from the two hemispheres basically results in a single Gaussian function peaked at $\sim 0^\circ$.
\(3) As far as the main component of the double Gaussian function is concerned, for a given data subset, the distributions due to the sunspots appearing in two different hemispheres are alike. Regardless of which hemisphere is magnetically dominant, the main component of the double Gaussian function seems relatively unchanged in the central position and in the FWHM, except for the amplitude.
\(4) On the other hand, when the northern (southern) hemisphere is dominant the width of the secondary component in the case of the northern (southern) hemisphere is about twice as wide as that in the southern (northern) hemisphere. Thus, one may wish to determine which hemisphere is dominant by measuring the width of the secondary component at higher latitudes, which is indeed a result of the sunspots appearing in an earlier phase of the solar cycle.
\(5) For the distribution of COL averaged with signed latitude, a little population can be found in the higher latitudes in the north (south) of the equator rather than in the south (north) of the equator when the northern (southern) hemisphere is dominant. Regardless of which hemisphere is magnetically dominant, the distribution is described by a single Gaussian function, which is shifted to the positive (negative) side when the northern (southern) hemisphere is dominant.
We conclude by pointing out that links between what we have found here and shorter periodic phenomena than $sim$ 11 years, e.g., those of $sim$ 2 year periods, should be worth further exploration. Examples of related issues are as follows: First, the non-monotonic behavior of the COL may be related to shorter-periodic oscillations of the sunspot cycles rather than 11 years (e.g., Ternullo 2007a). On the basis of the reasonable assumption that, the faster the tachocline rotation is, the more efficient the magnetic flux production is, it seems reasonable that the tachocline rotation-rate oscillations may affect the photospheric activity, or sunspot formation. In fact, Krivova & Solanki (2002) attempted to demonstrate that the photospheric activity can trace the tachocline rotation-rate oscillations that helioseismic data have revealed (Howe et al. 2000). Secondly, the latitude of greatest activity is found to be associated with the boundary zone between high and low rotation rates, where the shear is at its maximum (e.g., Howard & LaBonte 1980). This pattern, referred to as torsional oscillations, is so far known as symmetric about the equator (Howe 2009 and references therein). The asymmetric behavior of COL may be the first signature that torsional oscillations and thus deep-seated circulation patterns are not symmetrical with respect to the equator.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author is grateful to Sasha Kosovichev and Philip Scherrer for useful discussions and hospitality while visiting the Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory at Stanford University where this work has been done, and sincerely thanks to anonymous reviewers for critical comments which greatly improve the original version of the manuscript. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government(NRF-2010-013-C00017).
Antalova, A., & Gnevyshev, M. N. 1983, CoSka, 11, 63 Antonucci, E., Hoeksema, J. T., & Scherrer, P. H. 1990, ApJ, 360, 296 Ataç, T., & Özgüç, A. 1996, SoPh, 166, 201 Ataç, T., & Özgüç, A. 2001, SoPh, 198, 399 Babcock, H. W. 1961, ApJ, 133, 572 Ballester, J. L., Oliver, R., & Carbonell, M. 2005, A&A, 431, L5 Berdyugina, S. V., & Usoskin, I. G. 2003, A&A, 405, 1121 Carbonell, M., Oliver, R., & Ballester, J. L. 1993, A&A, 274, 497 Chang, H.-Y. 2007, JASS, 24, 91 Chang, H.-Y. 2008, NewA, 13, 195 Chang, H.-Y. 2009, NewA, 14, 133 Chang, H.-Y. 2011, NewA, 16, 456 Cho, I.-H., & Chang, H.-Y. 2011, JASS, 28, 1 Donner, R., & Thiel, M. 2007, A&A, 475, L33 Gigolashvili, M. Sh., Japaridze, D. R., & Kukhianidze, V. J. 2005, SoPh, 231, 23 Gigolashvili, M. Sh., Japaridze, D. R., Mdzinarishvili, T. G., & Chargeishvili, B. B. 2005, SoPh, 227, 27 Goel, A., & Choudhuri, A. R. 2009, RAA, 9, 115 Hathaway, D. H., Nandy, D., Wilson, R. M., Reichmann, E. J. 2003, ApJ, 589, 665 Howard, R., & Labonte, B. J. 1980, ApJ, 239, L33 Howe, R. 2009, LRSP, 6, 1 Howe, R., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Hill, F., Komm, R. W., Larsen, R. M., Schou, J., Thompson, M. J., & Toomre, J. 2000, Sci, 287, 2456 Javaraiah, J. 2007, MNRAS, 377, L34 Javaraiah, J. 2008, SoPh, 252, 419 Javaraiah, J., & Gokhale, M. H. 1997, SoPh, 170, 389 Javaraiah, J., & Ulrich, R. K. 2006, SoPh, 237, 245 Kane, R. P. 2007, SoPh, 246, 471 Knaack, R., Stenflo, J. O., & Berdyugina, S. V. 2004, A&A, 418, L17 Knaack, R., Stenflo, J. O., & Berdyugina, S. V. 2005, A&A, 438, 1067 Krivova, N. A., & Solanki, S. K. 2002, A&A, 394, 701 Leighton, R. B. 1969, ApJ, 156, 1 Li, K. J. 2010, MNRAS, 405, 1040 Li, K. J., Yun, H. S., & Gu, X. M. 2001, AJ, 122, 2115 Li, K. J., Liang, H. F., Yun, H. S., & Gu, X. M. 2002a, SoPh, 205, 361 Li, K. J., Liu, X.-H., Yun, H.-S., Xiong, S.-Y., Liang, H.-F., Zhao, H.-Z., Zhan, L.-S., & Gu, X.-M. 2002b, PASJ, 54, 629 Li, K. J., Wang, J. X., Zhan, L. S., Yun, H. S., Liang, H. F., Zhao, H. J., & Gu, X. M. 2003, SoPh, 215, 99 Li, K. J., Gao, P. X., Zhan, L. S., Shi, X. J., & Zhu, W. W. 2008, MNRAS, 391, L34 Li, K. J., Gao, P. X., & Zhan, L. S. 2009a, ApJ, 691, L537 Li, K. J., Gao, P. X., & Zhan, L. S. 2009b, SoPh, 255, 289 Li, K. J., Liang, H.-F., & Feng, W. 2010, RAA, 10, 1177 Li, K. J., Liu, X. H., Gao, P. X., & Zhan, L. S. 2010, NewA, 15, 346 Miletskii, E. V., & Ivanov, V. G. 2009, ARep, 53, 857 Maunder, E. W. 1904, MNRAS, 64, 747 Mouradian, Z., & Soru-Escaut, I. 1991, A&A, 251, 649 Norton, A. A., & Gilman, P. A. 2004, ApJ, 603, 348 Oliver, R., & Ballester, J. L. 1994, SoPh, 152, 481 Özgüç, A., & & Ücer, C. 1987, SoPh, 114, 141 Parker, E. N. 1955, ApJ, 122, 293 Pelt, J., Brooke, J., Pulkkinen, P. J., & Tuominen, I. 2000, A&A, 362, 1143 Press W. H., Teukolsky S. A., & Vetterling W. T., 2007, Numerical Recipes, The Art of Scientific Computing (Fortran Version), Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Pulkkinen, P. J.., Brooke, J., Pelt, J., & Tuominen, I. 1999, A&A, 341, L43 Roy, J. R. 1977, SoPh, 52, 53 Schlamminger, L. 1991, SoPh, 135, 407 Solanki, S. K., Wenzler, T., & Schmitt, D. 2008, A&A, 483, 623 Solanki, S. K., Fligge, M., Pulkkinen, P., & Hoyng, P. 2000, JApA, 21, 163 Swinson, D. B., Koyama, H., & Saito, T., 1986, SoPh, 106, 35 Temmer, M., Veronig, A., & Hanslmeier, A. 2002, A&A, 390, 707 Temmer, M., Rybák, J., Bendik, P., Veronig, A., Vogler, F., Otruba, W., Pötzi, W., & Hanslmeier, A. 2006, A&A, 447, 735 Ternullo, M. 2001, Mem. S.A.It. 72, 565 Ternullo, M. 2007a, SoPh, 240, 153 Ternullo, M. 2007b, AN, 328, 1023 Ternullo, M. 2010, Ap&SS, 328, 301 Ternullo, M. 1997, SoPh, 172, 37 Tritakis, V. P., Petropoulos, B., & Mavromichalaki, H. 1988, SoPh, 115, 367 Verma, V. K. 1987, SoPh, 114, 185 Verma, V. K. 1993, ApJ, 403, 797 Vizoso, G., & Ballester, J. L. 1989, SoPh, 119, 411 Vizoso, G., & Ballester, J. L. 1990, A&A, 229, 540 Waldmeier, M. 1957, ZA, 43, 149 Waldmeier, M. 1971, SoPh, 20, 332 White, O. R., & Trotter, D. E. 1977, ApJS, 33, 391 Zaatri, A., Komm, R., Gonzalez Hernandez, I., Howe, R., & Corbard, T. 2006, SoPh, 236, 227 Zolotova, N. V., & Ponyavin, D. I. 2006, A&A, 449, L1 Zolotova, N. V., & Ponyavin, D. I. 2007, A&A, 470, L17 Zolotova, N. V., Ponyavin, D. I., Marwan, N., & Kurths, J. 2009, A&A, 503, 197
${\rm A_1}$ $ \overline{{\rm COL}}_1$ $\sigma_1$ ${\rm A_2}$ $ \overline{{\rm COL}}_2$ $\sigma_2$
----------- ------------- --------------------------- ------------ ------------- --------------------------- ------------
Nor. Hem. 114.8 11.8 6.4 32.5 21.0 7.6
Sou. Hem. 105.2 10.9 5.3 46.0 20.0 6.2
Unsigned 129.6 11.2 4.9 50.9 20.4 5.2
Signed 87.02 -0.1 10.0 4.6 23.1 7.4
: The 6 parameters obtained from fitting the double Gaussian function to the distributions of the COL as a result from the data set of sunspots observed from 1874 to 2009. ${\rm A_k}$, $ \overline{{\rm COL}}_k$, and $\sigma_k$ are the amplitude, the central position, and FWHM of the individual Gaussian profile, respectively, and subscripts 1 and 2 stand for the primary and the secondary components of the double Gaussian function. In the first and second rows, we show fitting results from the distributions of COL of sunspots appearing in the northern and southern hemispheres, respectively. In the third and fourth rows, we show fitting results from the distributions of COL of the sunspots appearing in both hemispheres with unsigned and signed latitudes, respectively.
${\rm A_1}$ $ \overline{{\rm COL}}_1$ $\sigma_1$ ${\rm A_2}$ $ \overline{{\rm COL}}_2$ $\sigma_2$
----------- ------------- --------------------------- ------------ ------------- --------------------------- ------------
Nor. Hem. 62.2 11.7 5.8 20.8 21.5 5.9
Sou. Hem. 63.6 11.8 6.0 28.8 22.1 3.0
Unsigned 71.4 11.6 5.1 25.5 20.9 5.0
Signed 49.0 1.1 9.6 -0.1 -3.4 1.5
: Similar to Table 1, but obtained from the distributions of COL as a result from the data subset of sunspots appearing in the solar cycles when the northern hemisphere is dominant.
${\rm A_1}$ $ \overline{{\rm COL}}_1$ $\sigma_1$ ${\rm A_2}$ $ \overline{{\rm COL}}_2$ $\sigma_2$
----------- ------------- --------------------------- ------------ ------------- --------------------------- ------------
Nor. Hem. 43.4 12.0 6.8 17.5 21.0 2.8
Sou. Hem. 42.9 11.6 6.0 17.5 21.2 6.1
Unsigned 51.6 11.6 5.3 22.6 20.8 3.9
Signed 37.5 -1.8 9.1 0.5 21.3 14.2
: Similar to Table 1, but obtained from the distributions of COL as a result from the data subset of sunspots appearing in the solar cycles when the southern hemisphere is dominant.
[^1]: ${\rm http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml}$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This publication presents the combination of the one-loop matrix-element generator with the multipurpose Monte Carlo program . Since both programs are highly automated, the resulting +framework allows for the computation of—in principle—any Standard Model process at both NLO QCD and EW accuracy. To illustrate this, three representative LHC processes have been computed at NLO QCD and EW: vector-boson production in association with jets, off-shell ${\rm Z}$-boson pair production, and the production of a top-quark pair in association with a Higgs boson. In addition to fixed-order computations, when considering QCD corrections, all functionalities of , *i.e.* particle decays, QCD parton showers, hadronisation, underlying events, etc. can be used in combination with . This is demonstrated by the merging and matching of one-loop QCD matrix elements for Drell–Yan production in association with jets to the parton shower. The implementation is fully automatised, thus making it a perfect tool for both experimentalists and theorists who want to use state-of-the-art predictions at NLO accuracy.'
author:
- |
Benedikt Biedermann$^{1\,}$[^1], Stephan Bräuer$^{2\,}$[^2], Ansgar Denner$^{1\,}$[^3],\
Mathieu Pellen$^{1\,}$[^4], Steffen Schumann$^{2\,}$[^5], Jennifer M. Thompson$^{3\,}$[^6]\
[*$^1$Universität Würzburg, Institut für Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik,*]{}\
[*Emil-Hilb-Weg 22, 97074 Würzburg, Germany*]{}\
[*$^2$Georg-August Universität Göttingen, II. Physikalisches Institut,*]{}\
[*Friedrich-Hund-Platz 1, 37077 Göttingen, Germany*]{}\
[*$^3$Universität Heidelberg, Institut für Theoretische Physik,*]{}\
[*Philosophenweg 16, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany*]{}\
bibliography:
- 'sherpa\_recola.bib'
title: |
\
\
**Automation of NLO QCD and EW corrections\
with and**
---
Introduction
============
With Run II, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has fully entered the precision era. An unprecedented amount of data is being collected, which allows the experimental collaborations to perform very precise measurements. In order to match this precision on the theory side, appropriate and accurate predictions need to be available. To that end, Monte Carlo programs are the perfect tool to provide a bridge between theoretical predictions and experimental measurements. The implementation of state-of-the-art theoretical calculations in public Monte Carlo programs is, therefore, of prime importance for the analysis and interpretation of the wealth of LHC data.
In recent years, there has been enormous progresses towards the automated computation of next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD and electroweak (EW) corrections for Standard Model processes. In particular, several one-loop matrix-element generators have been developed [@Hahn:1998yk; @Berger:2008sj; @Cascioli:2011va; @Bevilacqua:2011xh; @Hirschi:2011pa; @Badger:2012pg; @Cullen:2014yla; @Actis:2016mpe] and used in various multipurpose Monte Carlo programs [@Cafarella:2007pc; @Kilian:2007gr; @Bahr:2008pv; @Gleisberg:2008ta; @Alwall:2014hca].
This article describes and validates the interface between the one-loop matrix-element generator [@Actis:2016mpe; @Actis:2012qn] and the Monte Carlo generator [@Gleisberg:2008ta; @Gleisberg:2003xi], which allows NLO QCD and EW corrections to arbitrary Standard Model processes to be computed. The calculational scheme relies on the use of the Catani–Seymour dipole subtraction method for dealing with QCD [@Catani:1996vz; @Catani:2002hc] and QED [@Dittmaier:1999mb; @Dittmaier:2008md] infrared singularities. Furthermore, this framework can be employed to calculate loop-induced processes. The program is a state-of-the-art multipurpose event generator that allows for a complete description of LHC processes, from calculating the hard matrix element to modelling the hadronisation. On the other side, has been demonstrated to be a reliable and efficient one-loop matrix-element generator for several non-trivial processes [@Denner:2014wka; @Denner:2015yca; @Denner:2014ina; @Biedermann:2016guo; @Biedermann:2016yvs; @Denner:2016jyo; @Biedermann:2016yds; @Biedermann:2016lvg; @Denner:2016wet] at both NLO QCD and EW.
To illustrate the possibilities offered by the combination of these tools, three phenomenologically significant LHC processes have been computed at both NLO QCD and NLO EW accuracy in a fully automatic way. These comprise the off-shell production of a vector boson in association with jets, the production of two off-shell ${\rm Z}$ bosons, and the on-shell production of a top-quark pair in association with a Higgs boson. Because these processes have been evaluated recently by other groups at both NLO QCD and EW, they provide crucial benchmarks for the assessment of the current implementation. In addition to fixed-order computations, all functionalities of (parton shower, hadronisation etc.) can be used in association with . This is demonstrated by the merging and matching of NLO QCD matrix elements for Drell–Yan production in association with multiple jets to the QCD parton shower. These predictions are then compared to experimental data.
Both the [^7] and [^8] programs can be downloaded and readily used to compute NLO QCD corrections. The implementation of NLO EW corrections used in this work and as well as in Refs. [@Kallweit:2014xda; @Kallweit:2015dum; @Kallweit:2017khh; @Chiesa:2017gqx] will soon be publically released. As the implementation is fully automatised and publicly available, +is an ideal tool for both experimentalists and theorists who want to have state-of-the-art predictions at NLO accuracy.
This article is organised as follows: in Section \[sec:implementation\], a brief review of the methods used in and is provided, as well as a description of the interface. Section \[sec:QCDvalidation\] describes the tests performed to fully validate the interface for NLO QCD calculations based on several challenging physics cases involving massive coloured particles and high final-state multiplicity across a large phase space. These tests comprise comparisons of squared matrix elements for individual phase-space points, fixed-order cross-section computations, and the matching and merging to the parton shower. Section \[sec:processes\] then begins with the validation of the NLO EW computations of these benchmark processes before presenting combined predictions for NLO QCD and EW corrections to all of the process classes considered. After the conclusions in Section \[sec:conclusion\], details on the installation procedures and run-card commands are given in the Appendix.
Details of the implementation {#sec:implementation}
=============================
This section presents some details of the techniques and algorithms used in both and , as well as information on the interface between them. For a detailed description of the methods employed by these programs, the reader is invited to explore the references given below.
The framework
-------------
[@Gleisberg:2008ta; @Gleisberg:2003xi] is a multipurpose event generator, which aims to simulate the entirety of exclusive scattering events in high-energy particle collisions. In order to achieve this, contains several modules and algorithms to cope with the many different physics challenges of collider physics. These include methods for the generation and integration of hard-scattering matrix elements, QCD parton-shower simulations, and the modelling of the parton-to-hadron fragmentation process and the underlying-event activity.
Leading-order matrix elements are provided by the built-in generators [@Krauss:2001iv] and [@Gleisberg:2008fv]. For virtual matrix elements contributing at one-loop order, relies on interfaces to dedicated tools. In particular, for the evaluation of QCD corrections, has interfaces to [@Berger:2008sj], [@Cullen:2014yla], [@Badger:2012pg], [@Cascioli:2011va] as well as the BLHA interface [@Binoth:2010xt]. Infrared divergences appearing in the QCD virtual and real-emission amplitudes are treated by the Catani–Seymour dipole-subtraction method [@Catani:1996vz; @Catani:2002hc] that has been automated in the framework [@Gleisberg:2007md]. The default parton-shower algorithm in is based on Catani–Seymour factorisation [@Schumann:2007mg; @Hoeche:2009xc].
can also correctly combine the matrix elements for multijet-production processes at both LO and NLO QCD with the parton shower. There are several techniques available on the market for this task. The method employed in for the merging of varying parton-multiplicity tree-level processes, called MEPS@LO, is based on shower truncation and is presented in Ref. [@Hoeche:2009rj]. Its generalisation to NLO QCD matrix elements, dubbed MEPS@NLO, is discussed in Ref. [@Hoeche:2012yf]. The latter is based on the MC@NLO-style matching of NLO QCD matrix elements to the Catani–Seymour dipole shower [@Hoeche:2011fd]. In Ref. [@Krauss:2016orf] the inclusion of finite-mass effects in particular for bottom-quark-initiated processes has been discussed. To efficiently provide matrix-element and parton-shower computations with theoretical uncertainties, usually estimated by renormalisation and factorisation scale variations, or modified input parameters such as the strong coupling $\alphas$ or the parton-density functions (PDFs), an event-wise reweighting approach has recently been implemented [@Bothmann:2016nao].
The present article contributes to the recent efforts to extend the framework to the automated computation of NLO EW corrections, thus further improving the perturbative accuracy of the predictions. To this end, based on the results presented in Refs. [@Dittmaier:1999mb; @Dittmaier:2008md], the implementation of the Catani–Seymour dipole-subtraction formalism has been extended to account for QED corrections [@Kallweit:2014xda; @Schonherr:2017]. Furthermore, the interfaces to the available one-loop amplitude generators had to be generalised to account for the variable orders in the strong and EW coupling parameters. In Refs. [@Kallweit:2014xda; @Kallweit:2015dum] this has been presented for the generator and applied to the production of on- and off-shell gauge-boson production in association with jets. Here, the corresponding developments for the program are presented, along with the validation of the NLO QCD and EW corrections for a variety of phenomenologically important processes.
The matrix-element generator
-----------------------------
[@Actis:2016mpe; @Actis:2012qn] is a public matrix-element generator that is able to compute all tree and one-loop contributions to matrix elements squared in the Standard Model. For a detailed description of the code, the interested reader is referred to the manual of the program [@Actis:2016mpe] as only the features relevant for the interface are discussed here. All amplitude computations are performed in the ’t Hooft–Feynman gauge, and ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) divergences are treated by dimensional regularisation. All tree and one-loop matrix elements squared are summed over spin and colour. In everything is generated dynamically, and no process-specific libraries are needed to compute arbitrary processes at NLO QCD and EW accuracy in the Standard Model. Several schemes for the renormalisation of the electromagnetic coupling are available and are briefly discussed below. Furthermore, allows for a flexible and generic treatment of the flavour scheme used for the running of the strong coupling constant as detailed in the following. An important feature of the code is its general implementation of the complex-mass scheme [@Denner:1999gp; @Denner:2005fg; @Denner:2006ic], which allows for the consistent computation of processes featuring resonant massive particles.
The computation of both the tree and one-loop amplitudes is performed in a recursive fashion [@Actis:2012qn]. For the tree-level amplitudes, the algorithm employed is inspired by the Dyson–Schwinger equation. At one-loop level, the amplitude can be written as the sum of tensor integrals $T^{\hat{\mu}_1\cdots\hat{\mu}_{r_t}}_{(t)}$ multiplied with tensor coefficients $c^{(t)}_{\hat{\mu}_1\cdots\hat{\mu}_{r_t}}$, $$\mathcal{A}_1 = \sum_t c^{(t)}_{\hat{\mu}_1\cdots\hat{\mu}_{r_t}} T^{\hat{\mu}_1\cdots\hat{\mu}_{r_t}}_{(t)} + \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{CT}} + \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{R2}},$$ where $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{CT}}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{R2}}$ denote the counter terms and the rational terms [@Ossola:2008xq], respectively. The former cancel the UV divergences present in the tensor integrals, the latter provide additional finite terms originating from dimensional regularisation. The core algorithm [@Actis:2012qn] used for the recursive computation of the tensor coefficients numerically is based on an idea of van Hameren [@vanHameren:2009vq]. To numerically evaluate the one-loop scalar [@'tHooft:1978xw; @Beenakker:1988jr; @Dittmaier:2003bc; @Denner:2010tr] and tensor integrals [@Passarino:1978jh; @Denner:2002ii; @Denner:2005nn], relies on the library [@Denner:2014gla; @Denner:2016kdg]. Finally, we note that the implementation of the interface is valid for -1.2 and subsequent releases.
The interface {#sec:interface}
-------------
The purpose of the interface is to provide arbitrary Standard Model one-loop matrix elements, generated with , to . This section outlines the choices made for the implementation of in in order to compute the virtual piece of NLO QCD and EW corrections. The other tools and ingredients needed for NLO computations, such as tree-level matrix elements or the subtraction method, are not addressed here. Indeed, the tree-level, integrated subtraction term and the real-subtracted parts are all computed by without the help of . The details of these implementations can be found in the related publications cited above.
In , the generation of the matrix elements is done on the fly, and once is installed and linked to , any processes can be computed readily.[^9] In the initialisation phase of a integration run, all necessary partonic one-loop processes are registered in and automatically generated as soon as the actual integration starts. No extra process-specific libraries are needed. The combination +allows thus to compute—in principle—any tree-level-induced Standard Model process at NLO QCD and EW accuracy and any one-loop-induced process at LO.
As for any computation in , the processes, event selection, parameters, etc. are defined in a run card. The masses and widths issued in the run card are by default the on-shell masses, apart from the ${\rm Z}$ and ${\rm W}$ masses which are assumed to be the pole masses. Switching to on-shell masses also for the latter is possible through specific keywords (see Appendix \[sec:commands\]).
For the renormalisation of the electromagnetic coupling constant, three schemes are available [@Actis:2016mpe]. In the $G_\mu$ scheme, the electromagnetic coupling $\alpha$ is derived from the Fermi constant $G_\mu$. In the $\alpha(0)$ scheme, $\alpha$ is fixed from the value measured in Thomson scattering at $p^2 = 0$, while in the $\alpha(M_{\rm Z})$ scheme, $\alpha$ is renormalised at the ${\rm Z}$ pole and thus implicitly takes into account the running from $p^2 = 0$ to $p^2 = M^2_{\rm Z}$. Due to the ambiguity in defining a real value of $\alpha$ in the complex-mass scheme, the numerical value of $\alpha$ computed by is taken as an input by to ensure compatibility.
Concerning the strong coupling, $\alphas$, the computation of the corresponding counter term is done consistently according to the PDF set used. The strong coupling constant is extracted from the PDF set as well as the flavour scheme and the quark masses used for the PDF evolution. These parameters are then used for the computation of the strong-coupling counter term $\delta Z_{g_\mathrm{s}}$ which reads [@Actis:2016mpe] $$\label{eq:gsct}
\delta Z_{g_\mathrm{s}} = - \frac{\alphas \left( Q^2 \right)}{4
\pi} \left[ \left( \frac{11}{2} - \frac{N_{\rm l}}{3} \right) \left( \Delta_{\rm UV} + \ln \frac{\mu^2_{\rm UV}}{Q^2} \right) - \frac13 \sum_q \left(\Delta_{\rm UV} + \ln \frac{\mu^2_{\rm UV}}{m_q^2} \right) \right] ,$$ where $N_l$ is the number of light quark flavours and the index $q$ runs over the heavy flavours. The parameter $\Delta_{\rm UV}$ contains the poles in $D-4$ as described in Ref. [@Actis:2016mpe]. In variable-flavour schemes, all quarks lighter than the scale $Q$ are considered light while the remaining ones are treated as heavy. In fixed $N_f$-flavour schemes, the $N_f$ lightest quarks are considered light while the others are treated as heavy. As emphasised above, the flavour schemes and quarks masses used to compute $\delta Z_{g_s}$ are set consistently in according to the PDF set. Nevertheless, specific commands described in Appendix \[sec:commands\] allow the user to choose all possible flavour schemes in combination with arbitrary quark masses. Finally, note that the quark masses used to compute $\delta Z_{g_s}$ can, in principle, differ from the ones used in the rest of the matrix element. Ensuring consistent mass values between the run card and the PDF set used is left to the user.
Finally, the IR and UV renormalisation scales are fixed to $100\GeV$ by default in the +interface. Thus in general, the virtual part calculated with +cannot be directly compared to the virtual part from a +[@Kallweit:2014xda] calculation. However, the sum of the virtual and integrated subtraction-term contributions is independent of the regulators. It is also possible to set the IR scale in equal to a fixed renormalisation scale, in which case a direct comparison of the virtual corrections of and is possible (see Appendix \[sec:commands\]).
NLO QCD validation {#sec:QCDvalidation}
==================
This section is devoted to the validation of the +interface for NLO QCD computations. This is accomplished by direct comparisons to results obtained from public[^10] and private codes as well as published work at three different levels. First, for a broad range of processes, squared matrix elements for individual phase-space points are compared with +. Next, a comparison of cross sections and differential distributions with NLO QCD accuracy is presented where the results are compared with those obtained from public codes, private codes, and the literature. Finally, to illustrate the applicability of the +framework for NLO QCD calculations matched to parton-shower simulations, results for Drell–Yan lepton-pair production in association with jets at MEPS@NLO QCD accuracy are presented. Furthermore, information on the memory consumption and run times are provided.
Phase-space point comparison {#sec:phase_space_points}
----------------------------
As a first validation, the sum of the virtual and integrated dipole part of the NLO QCD corrections to a wide variety of processes, calculated with both +and +, are compared at the level of individual phase-space points. Using identical set-ups, this provides a stringent test of the implementation of the two one-loop generators in . ’s Python interface [@Hoche:2014kca] has been extended for this purpose. For each process, individual partonic channel, $1000$ randomly chosen phase-space points are considered. These correspond to the parton momenta in proton–proton collisions with a hadronic centre-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$. Both for the factorisation and renormalisation scales, we choose $\mu_{\rm R}=\mu_{\rm F}=\sqrt{\hat s}$. We employ the NNPDF-3.0 NNLO set [@Ball:2014uwa; @Ball:2013hta], featuring $\alphas(M_{\rm Z})=0.118$ with a variable number of active flavours up to $N_\text{F}=5$ and two-loop running of $\alphas$. Electroweak input parameters are defined in the $G_\mu$ scheme. For all considered phase-space points all final-state particles have to pass the following set of cuts: $$\begin{aligned}
&p_{\rm T} > 25 \GeV, \qquad M_{\ell^+ \ell^-} > 60 \GeV, \notag\\
&\Delta R_{ij} > 0.4, \qquad
\Delta R_{i\gamma} > 0.2, \qquad
\Delta R_{\gamma\gamma} > 0.2, \end{aligned}$$ where $i,j$ are any particles apart from a photon. These cuts regulate any potential soft or collinear singularities at the Born level. For on-shell massive particles, ${\rm Z}$, ${\rm W}$, Higgs bosons and top quarks, vanishing widths are assumed. However, for intermediate resonances finite-width effects are included, using the complex-mass scheme. We have used version 1.3.1 in the default configuration with [@Ossola:2007ax] (version 1.9.5) and the library [@vanHameren:2010cp] (version 3.6.1) in this comparison.
In the logarithmically averaged relative deviation, $\Delta_{\text{VI}}$, of the sum of the virtual corrections and integrated dipoles between +and +is presented for 62 partonic processes. The logarithmically averaged relative deviation $\Delta_{\text{VI}}$ is defined as $$\label{eq:logavr}
\log_{10}\Delta_{\text{VI}} = \frac{1}{N_p} \sum_{i=1}^{N_p} \log_{10}{\left| \frac{{\rm d}\sigma^i_{\text{VI, \OpenLoops}} - {\rm d}\sigma^i_{\text{VI, \Recola}}}{{\rm d}\sigma^i_{\text{VI, \OpenLoops}}} \right|},$$ where ${\rm d}\sigma^i_{\text{VI}}$ is the sum of virtual and integrated-dipole contributions at the phase-space point $i$, and $N_p$ is the number of phase-space points. In the squared one-loop amplitudes for 13 loop-induced processes are compared. The logarithmically averaged relative deviation $\Delta_{\text{LI}}$ is defined similarly as in Eq. with ${\rm d}\sigma^i_{\text{VI}}$ replaced by the loop-induced cross section ${\rm d}\sigma^i_{\text{LI}}$.
[|l|c|]{} process & $\Delta_{\text{VI}}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $1.338\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pd \Pg \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- \Pd $ & $5.664\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \bar \Pu \Pg \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- \bar \Pu $ & $5.676\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- \Pg $ & $3.260\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- \Pd \bar \Pd $ & $2.861\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- \Pu \bar \Pu $ & $1.735\cdot 10^{-09}$\
$ \Pd \Pg \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- \Pg \Pd $ & $1.719\cdot 10^{-09}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- \Pg \Pg $ & $4.518\cdot 10^{-09}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pe^+ \nu_{\Pe} $ & $1.158\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Ps \bar \Pc \rightarrow \mu^- \bar \nu_{\mu} $ & $3.723\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pe^+ \nu_{\Pe} \Pg $ & $7.207\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Ps \bar \Pc \rightarrow \mu^- \bar \nu_{\mu} \Pg $ & $7.327\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pe^+ \nu_{\Pe} \Ps \bar \Ps $ & $5.971\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Ps \bar \Pc \rightarrow \mu^- \bar \nu_{\mu} \Pg \Pg $ & $3.068\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- \mu^+ \mu^-$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $7.652\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pd \bar \Pd $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $9.650\cdot 10^{-13}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \Pu \bar \Pu $ & $9.413\cdot 10^{-13}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \Ps \bar \Ps $ & $2.115\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \Pg \Pg $ & $2.410\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pg \Pd \bar \Pd $ & $6.223\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pg \Pg \Pd \bar \Pd $ & $2.857\cdot 10^{-09}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \Pg \Pg \Pu \bar \Pu $ & $3.751\cdot 10^{-09}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pt \bar \Pt $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $1.861\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \Pt \bar \Pt \Pg $ & $1.854\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \Pt \bar \Pt $ & $1.682\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \Pt \bar \Pt \Pg $ & $5.363\cdot 10^{-09}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \gamma \Pg $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $1.784\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \gamma \Pd \bar \Pd $ & $3.455\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $ & $2.577\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \gamma \gamma \Pg $ & $1.845\cdot 10^{-07}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \gamma \gamma \gamma $ & $4.193\cdot 10^{-11}$\
[|l|c|]{} process & $\Delta_{\text{VI}}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- \PH \Pd \bar \Pd $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $3.745\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \Pe^+ \nu_{\Pe} \PH \Pg $ & $9.927\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PH \PZ $ & $1.415\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PH \PZ \Pg $ & $1.147\cdot 10^{-10}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PH \PZ \Pg \Pg $ & $7.334\cdot 10^{-07}$\
$ \Pc \bar \Ps \rightarrow \PH \PW^+ $ & $1.173\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PH \PW^+ \Pd \bar \Pd $ & $3.577\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PZ \Pg $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $1.787\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PZ \Pg \Pg $ & $7.399\cdot 10^{-09}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PZ \Pd \bar \Pd $ & $3.285\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PZ \gamma $ & $2.795\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PZ \gamma \gamma $ & $2.231\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PW^+ \Pg $ & $1.903\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PW^+ \Pg \Pg $ & $3.203\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PW^+ \gamma \Pg $ & $1.287\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Ps \bar \Pc \rightarrow \PW^- \gamma \gamma $ & $4.306\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PZ \PZ $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $3.127\cdot 10^{-12}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PZ \PZ \Pg $ & $2.244\cdot 10^{-08}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PZ \PZ \Pg \Pg $ & $3.256\cdot 10^{-07}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PZ \PZ \gamma $ & $2.423\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PW^+ \PW^- $ & $2.499\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PW^+ \PW^- \Pg $ & $2.473\cdot 10^{-08}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PW^+ \PW^- \Pg \Pg $ & $7.163\cdot 10^{-07}$\
$ \Ps \bar \Ps \rightarrow \PW^+ \PW^- \gamma $ & $7.727\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PZ \PW^+ \Pg $ & $6.724\cdot 10^{-11}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PZ \PW^+ \gamma $ & $1.431\cdot 10^{-10}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PZ \PW^- \gamma $ & $1.570\cdot 10^{-10}$\
$ \Pd \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PZ \PZ \PZ $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $1.689\cdot 10^{-10}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PZ \PZ \PW^+ $ & $2.622\cdot 10^{-10}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pu \rightarrow \PZ \PW^+ \PW^- $ & $1.458\cdot 10^{-10}$\
$ \Pu \bar \Pd \rightarrow \PW^+ \PW^+ \PW^- $ & $1.150\cdot 10^{-10}$\
[|l|c|]{} process & $\Delta_{\text{LI}}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- \gamma $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $1.825\cdot 10^{-07}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \Pe^+ \Pe^- \mu^+ \mu^- \Pg $ & $4.570\cdot 10^{-06}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \mu^+ \mu^- \mu^+ \mu^- $ & $4.853\cdot 10^{-07}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \nu_{\Pe} \bar \nu_{\Pe} \gamma \Pg $ & $4.960\cdot 10^{-06}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \gamma \Pg $ & $2.169\cdot 10^{-07}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \gamma \Pg \Pg $ & $1.145\cdot 10^{-06}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \gamma \gamma $ & $1.522\cdot 10^{-07}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \PH \PZ $ & $3.541\cdot 10^{-10}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \PH \PZ \Pg $ & $3.013\cdot 10^{-07}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \PH \PH $ & $4.023\cdot 10^{-10}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \PH \PH \Pg $ & $1.420\cdot 10^{-09}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \PZ \PZ $ & $5.576\cdot 10^{-08}$\
$ \Pg \Pg \rightarrow \PW^+ \PW^- $ & $6.350\cdot 10^{-08}$\
For all processes considered, good agreement is found between the results of + and those of the public +. For most processes the average relative deviation lies between $\mathcal{O}(10^{-9})$ and $\mathcal{O}(10^{-12})$, corresponding to an agreement to 9–12 digits on average.
As one can expect, the agreement decreases for processes with higher final-state particle multiplicity as well as for the loop-induced processes. This originates from the increase in complexity with the number of external particles and the fact that one-loop amplitudes appear squared in loop-induced processes. In addition, the presence of external gauge bosons, in particular gluons, worsens the agreement due to the additional spin and colour degrees of freedom.
In addition to the one-loop results presented here, the squared tree-level matrix elements of have further been compared against the ones provided by , through the matrix-element generators [@Krauss:2001iv] and [@Gleisberg:2008fv]. For all the processes listed in the logarithmically averaged relative differences per phase-space point are well below $\mathcal{O}(10^{-11})$. The number of phase-space points with differences above $\mathcal{O}(10^{-8})$ amounts to at most a few per cent in the worst channels and for the vast majority of processes all 1000 phase-space points have differences below $\mathcal{O}(10^{-8})$.
Regarding the time spend on the evaluation of the one-loop matrix elements, the performances of the generators are overall very similar. We have compared against in the default configuration with , as well as against in combination with the tensor reduction of the library (albeit using version 1.0 instead of version 1.1 which is used by ). While with is slightly slower, especially for the loop-induced processes, the performance of both generators with the library is comparable. features a longer initialisation time as it does not rely on pre-compiled process libraries as does. However, this initialisation phase becomes negligible compared to the overall run time in realistic applications. Overall, no significant differences in the run times have been observed. In Section \[sec:mepsnlo\], the performance and memory usage for both one-loop providers for a full-fledged matrix-element plus parton-shower simulation is presented.
NLO QCD fixed-order calculations {#sec:NLOQCDfixedorder}
--------------------------------
Next, we present results for cross sections and differential distributions at NLO QCD accuracy. Using the +framework, four process classes are considered, namely off-shell ${\rm Z}$-boson production in association with up to two additional jets (a full MEPS@NLO set-up of this process is presented in Section \[sec:mepsnlo\]), off-shell ${\rm Z}$-boson pair production, on-shell top-quark pair production in association with a Higgs boson, and Higgs-boson production in association with an on-shell ${\rm Z}$ boson.
### ${\rm Z}$-boson production in association with jets {#DYJets:sec}
#### Input parameters:
Proton–proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$ are considered, and the analysis package [@Buckley:2010ar] is used to analyse events. As before, the NNPDF-3.0 NNLO PDF set with up to five active flavours $\alphas(M_{\PZ})=0.118$ and two-loop running is employed. EW input parameters are defined in the $G_\mu$ scheme.
In the Drell–Yan plus jets processes, the QCD jets are reconstructed by means of the anti-$k_\text{T}$ jet algorithm [@Cacciari:2008gp; @Cacciari:2011ma] with radius parameter $R = 0.4$, $p_\text{T,j} > 25\GeV$, and $\left| \eta_\text{j} \right| < 3.5$. The ${\rm Z}$ boson is assumed to decay into an electron–positron pair with a dilepton invariant mass in the range $66\GeV < M_{\Pe^- \Pe^+} < 116\GeV$. The renormalisation and factorisation scales are event-wise set to $M_{\Pe^- \Pe^+}$.
#### NLO QCD validation: {#nlo-qcd-validation}
The Drell–Yan-plus-jets processes are considered at the orders $\order{\alpha^2}$, $\order{\alphas \alpha^2}$, and $\order{\alphas^2 \alpha^2}$ for the LO cross sections for 0, 1, and 2 jets, respectively. The corresponding NLO QCD cross sections contribute at the orders $\order{\alphas \alpha^2}, \order{\alphas^2 \alpha^2}$, and $\order{\alphas^3 \alpha^2}$. The total cross sections calculated with +and +presented in turn out to be identical within the given accuracy as they have been obtained using the very same phase-space points and and agree to more than 9 digits.
[|l|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{QCD}}$ & +& +\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ \Pp \Pp \to \Pe^+ \Pe^- $ & $1976.0(3)$ & $1976.0(3)$\
$ \Pp \Pp \to \Pe^+ \Pe^- \Pj $ & $414.3(4)$ & $414.3(4)$\
$ \Pp \Pp \to \Pe^+ \Pe^- \Pj \Pj $ & $123.5(5)$ & $123.5(5)$\
In Fig. \[fig:ZPT\], the resulting transverse-momentum distribution for the Drell–Yan pair is shown, considering the production processes with zero, one and two additional jets evaluated at NLO QCD accuracy. Evidently, the low-$p_{\rm T}$ region is dominated by the pure Drell–Yan process, without additional final-state jets at the Born level, where the finite recoil originates solely from the real radiative corrections. On the other hand, the tail of the transverse-momentum distribution is dominated by Drell–Yan-plus-one-jet processes, where the ${\rm Z}$ transverse momentum results from the recoil against the Born-level jet and the real radiation. {width="50.00000%"}
Here only the results obtained with +are displayed. All results have been cross-checked against +, using the identical phase-space points, and no significant deviations have been observed. In fact, for each observable bin the relative difference of the two predictions is well below $10^{-5}$.
### ${\rm Z}$-boson pair production {#sec:ZZQCDvalidation}
#### Input parameters:
The set-up employed is the one of Ref. [@Biedermann:2016lvg] which is, for completeness, repeated in the following. The predictions are for the LHC operating at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$. The NNPDF-2.3QED NLO PDF set [@Ball:2013hta] with a variable flavour-number scheme and $\alphas(M_{\PZ})=0.118$ has been used for all computations both at LO and NLO. Furthermore, a fixed factorisation and renormalisation scale at the ${\rm Z}$-boson pole mass $\mu_{\rm R}= \mu_{\rm F} = M_{\rm Z}$ is employed. The strong coupling $\alphas$ is extracted from the PDF set at the renormalisation scale $\mu_{\rm R}$, and the electromagnetic coupling $\alpha$ is calculated in the $G_\mu$ scheme according to
$$\label{eqn:FermiConstant}
\alpha = \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi} G_\mu \MW^2 \left( 1 - \frac{\MW^2}{\MZ^2} \right),
\qquad \text{with} \qquad \GF = 1.16637\times 10^{-5}\GeV^{-2}$$
denoting the Fermi constant. The on-shell (OS) values for the masses and widths of the massive vector bosons read $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\MZOS &= 91.1876\GeV, \qquad & \GZOS &= 2.4952\GeV, \nonumber \\
\MWOS &= 80.385\GeV, \qquad & \GWOS &= 2.085\GeV. \end{aligned}$$ They are converted into pole masses and pole widths according to , $$M_V = \MVOS/\sqrt{1+(\GVOS/\MVOS)^2}, \qquad \Gamma_V = \GVOS/\sqrt{1+(\GVOS/\MVOS)^2} \qquad \text{with} \quad V=\PW,\PZ.$$ Since the top quark and the Higgs boson do not appear as internal resonances, their widths are set equal to zero. The corresponding masses read $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\Mt &= 173\GeV, \qquad & M_{\rm H} &= 125 \GeV.\end{aligned}$$ The masses and widths of all other quarks and leptons have been neglected. As in Ref. [@Biedermann:2016lvg], the following acceptance cuts are imposed on the charged leptons $\ell^\pm$: $$p_{{\rm T}, \ell}> 15 \GeV, \qquad |y_{\ell}| < 2.5,\qquad\Delta R_{\ell\ell} > 0.2.$$ The jets from real QCD radiation are treated fully inclusively.
#### NLO QCD validation: {#nlo-qcd-validation-1}
The +interface has been cross-checked for this process against the independent private Monte Carlo program that had been used for the computations in Refs. [@Biedermann:2016guo; @Biedermann:2016yvs; @Biedermann:2016yds; @Biedermann:2016lvg].
[|l|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Pp\Pp\to\mu^+\mu^-\Pe^+\Pe^-$ & +& private MC+& std. dev. \[$\sigma$\]\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma^{\rm LO}$ & $11.498(1)$ & $11.4964(1)$ & $1.6$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma^{\rm NLO}_{\rm QCD}$ & $15.79(1)$ & $15.801(2)$ & $1.0$\
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
The comparison for the total cross section is shown in . Agreement to four digits is found between the two independent calculations within the statistical uncertainty. Figure \[fig:ZZQCDvalidation\], shows a comparison at the level of differential distributions between the two Monte Carlo integrations, once for the distribution in the di-muon mass $m_{\mu^+\mu^-}$ (left plot) and once for the four-lepton invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ (right plot). The upper panels plot the absolute predictions of the two integrations on top of each other, the differences being almost invisible. The lower panels show the bin-wise ratio between the two calculations. The fluctuations in the four-lepton invariant mass are almost everywhere below 0.5%, from the far off-shell region over the on-shell production threshold at $m_{4\ell}=2M_\PZ$ up to $1\TeV$. A similar pattern is observed for the di-muon mass in the left plot with slightly larger fluctuations.
### Higgs production in association with a top-quark pair {#sec:tthQCD}
#### Input parameters:
In Ref. [@Badger:2016bpw], a comparison between and +for various cross sections at LO, NLO QCD, and NLO EW has been presented for the process ${\rm p} {\rm p} \to {\rm t} {\rm \bar t} {\rm H}$. In particular, five different cross sections have been reported. The first one is fully inclusive, and no event selections are applied. Two of them are computed when applying a cut on the transverse momentum of the three massive final-state particles at $200\GeV$ and $400\GeV$, respectively. Furthermore, a cross section with a higher transverse-momentum cut ($500\GeV$) on the Higgs boson only is presented and finally the cross section obtained by excluding events with a top quark with absolute rapidity lower than $2.5$. The computations are done for a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ at the LHC. The masses of the involved particles read $$M_{\rm Z}=91.188\GeV,\qquad M_{\rm W}=80.385\GeV,\qquad M_{\rm
H}=125\GeV,\qquad m_{\rm t}=173.3\GeV ,$$ and the corresponding widths are all set to zero. The bottom quark is considered massless and its PDF contribution is included. The NNPDF-2.3QED PDF set with a variable flavour-number scheme and $\alphas(M_{\rm Z})=0.118$ [@Ball:2013hta; @Carrazza:2013bra; @Carrazza:2013wua] has been used. The renormalisation as well as the factorisation scales are set to a common scale $\hat{H}_{\rm T} / 2$, defined as $$\label{eq:tthscale}
\hat{H}_{\rm T} = \sum_i \sqrt{p^2_{{\rm T},i} +m^2_i} ,$$ where the index $i$ runs over all the final-state particles. The considered LO production cross section is at the order $\order{\alphas^2\alpha}$.
#### NLO QCD validation: {#nlo-qcd-validation-2}
The obtained LO cross sections listed in show a generally good agreement.
[|c|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma^\mathrm{LO}$ \[pb\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& +& & +\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
inclusive & $3.612(4) \cdot 10^{-1}$ & $3.617 \cdot 10^{-1}$ & $3.617 \cdot 10^{-1}$\
$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm t/\bar t/H}}>200\GeV$ & $1.338(2) \cdot 10^{-2}$ & $1.338 \cdot 10^{-2}$ & $1.338 \cdot 10^{-2}$\
$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm t/\bar t/H}}>400\GeV$ & $4.001(4) \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $3.977 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $3.995 \cdot 10^{-4}$\
$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm H}}>500\GeV$ & $2.015(3) \cdot 10^{-3}$ & $2.013 \cdot 10^{-3}$ & $2.014 \cdot 10^{-3}$\
$\left| y_{\rm t} \right| > 2.5$ & $5.017(5) \cdot 10^{-3}$ & $4.961 \cdot 10^{-3}$ & $5.006 \cdot 10^{-3}$\
The corresponding NLO QCD predictions of order $\order{\alphas^3\alpha}$ are reproduced in .
[|c|c|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& & & +\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $\sigma^\mathrm{NLO}_{\rm QCD}$ \[pb\] & $\delta_{\rm QCD} [\%]$ & [$\delta_{\rm QCD} [\%]$]{} & $\delta_{\rm QCD} [\%]$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
inclusive & $4.6407(9)\cdot 10^{-1}$ & $28.5(2)$ & $28.9$ & $28.3$\
$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm t/\bar t/H}}>200\GeV$ & $1.630(2)\cdot 10^{-2}$ & $21.9(2)$ & $23.4$ & $22.5$\
$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm t/\bar t/H}}>400\GeV$ & $4.289(5)\cdot 10^{-4}$ & $7.2(2)$ & $9.6$ & $10.4$\
$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm H}}>500\GeV$ & $2.747(3)\cdot 10^{-3}$ & $36.3(2)$ & $37.8$ & 3$7.3$\
$\left| y_{\rm t} \right| > 2.5$ & $6.840(7)\cdot 10^{-3}$ & $36.3(2)$ & $37.5$ & $36.9$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
The agreement is reasonable but a definite statement is not possible as the predictions made by and +do not have statistical errors. In addition we have cross-checked the fully inclusive set-up at the level of distributions against the public +implementation, finding perfect agreement in each bin. The distributions for +are shown in the plots of Fig. \[fig:ttHQCD\].
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
### Higgs-boson production in association with a ${\rm Z}$ boson
As last example, Higgs-boson production in association with an on-shell ${\rm Z}$ boson is considered. This channel is particularly interesting, as it receives sizeable contributions from the loop-induced $\Pg\Pg\to\PH\PZ$ channel.
#### Input parameters:
The set-up used is similar to the one of the Drell–Yan example described in Section \[DYJets:sec\]. However, here we use the partonic centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{\hat s}$ as the renormalisation and factorisation scale. For the Higgs boson we assume the decay into a pair of bottom quarks, that is, however, fully factorised from the production process. The mass of the bottom quark is thereby taken to be $m_{\Pb}=4.8\GeV$.
#### NLO QCD validation: {#nlo-qcd-validation-3}
The LO contribution appears at order $\order{\alpha^2}$ for the quark-initiated channel, hence the NLO QCD cross section is of order $\order{\alphas
\alpha^2}$. The loop-induced $\Pg\Pg\to\PH\PZ$ process contributes at order $\order{\alphas^2
\alpha^2}$ but is enhanced by the gluon PDF. The comparison for the total cross sections calculated with +and +can be found in . Again, perfect agreement is found, originating from the fact that both cross sections have been evaluated using the same phase-space points such that there is no statistical difference, and the deviations per point are below $10^{-9}$ (cf. Section \[sec:phase\_space\_points\]).
[|l|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{QCD}}$ & +& +\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ \Pq \bar \Pq \to \PH \PZ $ & $0.41012(9)$ & $0.41012(9)$\
$ \Pg \Pg \to \PH \PZ $ & $0.029482(2)$ & $0.029482(2)$\
In Fig. \[fig:HPTPLOT\] the transverse-momentum distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson is presented, where the quark- and the gluon-initiated channels are shown separately. Though much smaller than the quark-induced contribution, the loop-induced gluon-initiated channel still contributes around $10\%$ to the total cross section for Higgs transverse momenta in the range $100$–$200\GeV$. This nicely illustrates the importance of precise predictions of this phenomenologically important Higgs-production process. Considering even larger values of $p_\text{T,H}$ the gluon contribution falls off more steeply, due to the different slope of the quark and gluon parton-density functions. Let us note that the results for the differential distributions have explicitly been checked against +, and using identical phase-space points perfect agreement has been found.
{width="50.00000%"}
Matching to parton shower {#sec:mepsnlo}
-------------------------
To illustrate and validate the use of virtual QCD matrix elements from for full particle-level simulations, a state-of-the-art QCD calculation is presented where NLO QCD matrix elements of varying final-state parton multiplicity get matched to the QCD parton shower of [@Schumann:2007mg] and subsequently hadronised. In particular, the Drell–Yan process is investigated, $\Pp\Pp \to \gamma^*/{\rm Z}^* \to \Pe^+\Pe^-/\mu^+\mu^-$, in association with jets in the MEPS@NLO scheme [@Hoeche:2012yf]. To this end, NLO QCD matrix elements are considered for up to two additional jets and the tree-level contribution for three final-state partons. The phase-space slicing parameter of the merging scheme is set to $Q_{\rm{cut}}=20\GeV$. The NNPDF-3.0 NNLO PDF set is employed with $\alphas(M_{\rm Z})=0.118$ and five active flavours. For the electromagnetic coupling constant $\alpha$, the $\alpha(\MZ)$ scheme is used with a numerical value of $\alpha(\MZ) = 0.007764$. In the MEPS@NLO approach the renormalisation and factorisation scales are chosen dynamically, based on the determination of an event-wise $2\to 2$ core process and an associated sequence of nodal splitting scales, obtained through a clustering of the matrix-element partons that effectively inverts the parton shower [@Hoeche:2009xc; @Hoeche:2009rj; @Carli:2010cg]. To estimate the scale uncertainties, a 7-point scale variation is considered for $\mu_{\rm{R}}$ and $\mu_{\rm{F}}$, computed by reweighting the central prediction [@Bothmann:2016nao]. Both scales are varied independently by factors of $1/2$ and $2$, thereby omitting the variations with ratios of 4 between the two scales. The corresponding uncertainty is then taken as the envelope of all variations considered.
The +MEPS@NLO results are compared against corresponding data from the ATLAS and CMS experiments taken at $\sqrt{s}=7\TeV$. The CMS analysis of jet-associated Drell–Yan production presented in assumes pairs of electrons or muons with an invariant mass between $71$ and $111\GeV$. Furthermore, the leptons have to exhibit a transverse momentum of $p_{{\rm T},{\ell}}>20\GeV$. Jets are reconstructed according to the anti-$k_{\rm T}$ algorithm with a radius parameter of $R=0.5$. A transverse-momentum threshold for jets of $p_{{\rm T},{\rm j}}>30\GeV$ is assumed, and only jets with $|\eta_{\rm j}|<2.4$ are considered. In addition, all jets are required to be separated from the leptons by $\Delta R_{{\rm j}{\ell}}\geq 0.5$. Similarly, in the ATLAS analysis presented in electron and muon pairs within a mass range of $66\GeV \leq m_{\ell\ell} \leq 116\GeV$ are selected and the leptons must have $p_{{\rm T},{\ell}}>20\GeV$. Anti-$k_{\rm T}$ jets with a radius parameter of $R=0.4$, $p_{{\rm T},{\rm j}}>30\GeV$ and $|y_{\rm j}|<4.4$ are considered. Each jet candidate needs to be separated from the reconstructed leptons by $\Delta R_{{\rm j}{\ell}}\geq 0.5$. For the study presented here, the public implementations of the two analyses were used, allowing for a direct comparison to particle-level results. Further details on the selections can be found in the respective publications.
Figures \[fig:MATCHMERGEMULTIZ\] and \[fig:MATCHMERGEJETPT\] provide examples for the comparison of particle-level MEPS@NLO simulations based on +against data. In the left panel of Fig. \[fig:MATCHMERGEMULTIZ\] the inclusive transverse-momentum distribution of the reconstructed ${\rm Z}$ bosons is compared to the ATLAS data from . The inclusion of the ${\rm Z}+{\Pj}$ and ${\rm Z}+{\Pj\Pj}$ matrix elements at NLO QCD accuracy provides a good description of events with sizeable recoil of the Drell–Yan pair. The parton-shower component, on the other hand, dominates the low-$p_{{\rm T},{\rm Z}}$ region. Notably, the theoretical scale uncertainties are of order $\pm 20\%$ and well overlap with the experimental uncertainty band, indicated in yellow. The right panel of Fig. \[fig:MATCHMERGEMULTIZ\] presents the comparison of the jet-multiplicity distribution against the data from CMS [@Khachatryan:2014zya]. By construction of the MEPS@NLO algorithm, in the given set-up, the first two bins have NLO QCD accuracy, while the third has LO QCD precision. All higher jet multiplicities solely originate from the QCD parton-shower component. The central theoretical predictions agree well with the data though there is a tendency to overestimate higher jet counts. However, taking into account theoretical and experimental uncertainties, simulation and data agree well.
Finally, Fig. \[fig:MATCHMERGEJETPT\] presents the transverse-momentum distributions of the two leading jets. The set-up provides NLO QCD accuracy for both observables. The predictions are compared to the respective LHC data from CMS [@Khachatryan:2014zya]. Very good agreement of data and theoretical prediction is found. For the latter the theoretical uncertainty estimates from variations around the central scale choice increase for larger jet transverse momenta, exceeding the $\pm 20\%$ range seen in the more inclusive boson transverse momentum distribution.
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
The results for the jet-associated Drell–Yan process based on +presented here confirm related comparisons of simulations based on NLO QCD matrix elements matched with QCD parton showers with data, see . This nicely illustrates the usability of the loop-amplitude generator in these highly non-trivial multi-scale calculations. To this end, the same set-up has been explicitly compared, but using the generator for the one-loop amplitudes. For all distributions considered, embracing many more than presented here, full agreement between +and +has been observed. Besides, in this “real-life” application no significant run-time differences have been observed. However, when using instead of the allocated memory increases by about $50\%$ for the process set-up considered.
NLO EW validation and combined predictions {#sec:processes}
==========================================
To illustrate the capabilities of the combination of with , three processes have been computed at both NLO QCD and EW accuracy. These comprise off-shell vector-boson production in association with jets, the production of two off-shell ${\rm Z}$ bosons, and the on-shell production of a top-quark pair in association with a Higgs boson. These three channels represent phenomenologically very important LHC processes. Furthermore, they are highly non-trivial, and each process features different technical challenges regarding their evaluation to NLO QCD and EW accuracy, thus demonstrating the generality of our implementation. Since up to now there is no public code that allows the computation of arbitrary processes at NLO EW accuracy, the number of processes that have been checked is smaller than for QCD.
For each process, a short introduction is given followed by the description of the calculational set-up and the actual NLO EW validation. Finally, the cross sections and differential distributions for combined NLO QCD and EW accuracy are presented. The cross sections including NLO QCD or EW corrections read $$\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{QCD}} = \sigma^{\mathrm{LO}} + \delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{QCD}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad
\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{EW}} = \sigma^{\mathrm{LO}} + \delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{EW}},$$ respectively. The additive combination of the two types of corrections is straight-forward, $$\label{additionNLO}
\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{QCD+EW}} = \sigma^{\mathrm{LO}} + \delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{QCD}} + \delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{EW}},$$ while a multiplicative combination can be defined as $$\label{productNLO}
\sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{QCD}\times\mathrm{EW}} = \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{QCD}} \left( 1 + \frac{\delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{EW}}}{\sigma^{\mathrm{LO}}} \right)
= \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{EW}} \left( 1 + \frac{\delta \sigma^{\mathrm{NLO}}_{\mathrm{QCD}}}{\sigma^{\mathrm{LO}}} \right) .$$ The difference between these two ways of combining NLO QCD and EW corrections provides an estimate of the missing higher orders resulting from mixed QCD–EW contributions. The NLO QCD$\times$EW combination can be understood as an improved prediction when the typical scales of the QCD and EW corrections are well separated.
Vector-boson production in association with jets
------------------------------------------------
As a first process, the production of a vector boson plus jets is considered. This process has already been computed for the LHC running at a centre-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$ for both on- and off-shell vector bosons at NLO QCD and EW [@Denner:2014ina; @Kallweit:2014xda; @Kallweit:2015dum], and therefore allows a comparison to existing results. From the technical point of view, the process is a mixture of QCD and EW contributions. In particular, for vector-boson production in association with more than one jet at NLO EW, interferences appear between QCD and EW production channels. This makes vector-boson-plus-jets production a good testing ground of the interface, although it is also an important process in its own right.
#### Input parameters:
The input parameters for this process class are taken from Ref. [@Kallweit:2015fta] to allow a tuned comparison. For completeness, these parameters as well as the analysis cuts are detailed here. The renormalisation and factorisation scale for off-shell W-boson production is $\hat{H}'_{{\rm T},{\rm W}}/2$, defined via $$\hat{H}'_{{\rm T},{\rm W}}=\sum_{i=\Pq,\Pg}p_{{\rm T}, i}+p_{{\rm T},\gamma}+\sqrt{p_{{\rm T},\ell\nu}^2+m_{\ell\nu}^2}.$$ The scales used in off-shell ${\rm Z}$-boson production, $\hat{H}'_{{\rm T},{\rm Z}}/2$, are similarly given by $$\hat{H}'_{{\rm T},{\rm Z}}=\sum_{i=\Pq,\Pg}p_{{\rm T},i}+p_{{\rm T},\gamma}+\sqrt{p_{{\rm T},\ell\ell}^2+m_{\ell \ell}^2}.$$ For on-shell weak-boson production, a slightly different scale, $\hat{H}_{{\rm T}}/2$, is used, defined via $$\hat{H}_{\rm T}=\sum_{i=\Pq,\Pg} p_{{\rm T}, i}+p_{{\rm T}, \gamma}+\sqrt{p_{{\rm T}, { V}}^2+M_{ V}^2},$$ where ${ V}$=${\rm W}, {\rm Z}$ for ${\rm W}$+jets and ${\rm Z}$+jets production, respectively. No scale variations have been considered for this validation, although a variation of a factor of $1/2$ and $2$ on the central scale was considered in the original article.
For on-shell vector-boson production, the bosons are decayed to leptons in a factorised approach, thereby preserving the spin correlations [@Hoche:2014kca]. For ${\rm W}$-boson production, the leptonic decay channels ${\rm W}^\pm\to {\rm e}^{\pm(}\overline{\nu}^{)}_e$ and ${\rm W}^\pm\to \mu^{\pm(}\overline{\nu}^{)}_\mu$ are considered. Similarly, for ${\rm Z}$-boson production, the allowed leptonic decay channels are ${\rm Z}\to{\rm e}^+{\rm e}^-$ and ${\rm Z}\to\mu^+\mu^-$. For all processes in this section, the masses for the ${\rm Z}$ boson, ${\rm W^\pm}$ bosons, ${\rm H}$ boson and top quark read $$M_{\rm Z}=91.1876 \GeV,\qquad M_{\rm W}=80.385\GeV,\qquad M_{\rm
H}=126\GeV,\qquad m_{\rm t}=173.2\GeV.$$ The Fermi constant is taken to be $G_\mu=1.1667\times 10^{-5}\GeV^{-2}$, and the $G_\mu$ scheme is used to consistently define the EW parameters. The NNPDF-2.3QED NLO PDF set with a variable flavour-number scheme, QED corrections and $\alpha_s(M_{\rm Z})=0.118$ [@Ball:2013hta; @Carrazza:2013bra; @Carrazza:2013wua] has been used for both LO and NLO calculations.
For on-shell vector-boson production, the widths of the external bosons are set to zero in general. An exception to this rule is in the QCD–EW interference term introduced in the EW real-subtracted contribution which includes electroweakly produced jets leading to a poorly converging phase-space integration. Because this enters only as an interference term, it does not give rise to a true resonance and maintaining a width of zero is theoretically acceptable. Following Ref. [@Kallweit:2014xda], a small, artificial width for the ${\rm W}$ and ${\rm Z}$ bosons is introduced in this case in order to control the phase-space integration. In this publication we use $0.3\GeV$.
For the off-shell vector-boson production processes, physical values of the vector-boson widths are used, as well as for other unstable particles such as the Higgs boson and the top quark, $$\Gamma_{\rm Z}=2.4955\GeV, \qquad \Gamma_{\rm W}=2.0897\GeV, \qquad
\Gamma_{\rm H}=4.07\MeV, \qquad \Gamma_{\rm t}=1.339\GeV.$$ Furthermore, the complex-mass scheme is employed for the unstable particles in this case, and a unit CKM matrix is assumed.
Photons within a rapidity–azimuthal-angle distance of $R_{\gamma \Pq/\ell}=0.1$ from a quark or lepton are recombined with a simple cone-like algorithm with the closest charged particle. Jets are defined with the anti-$k_\mathrm{T}$ algorithm using $R=0.4$ and $$\label{eq:Vj_incl_cuts}
p_{{\rm T}, {\rm j}}>30 \GeV,\qquad |\eta_{\rm j}|<4.5\,.$$ Any jet with more than $50\%$ of its energy originating from a photonic contribution is removed from the jet list.
For the cross section validation for on-shell ${\rm W+j}$ production, two phase-space regions, other than the inclusive cross section subject to the cuts , are considered, defined by the additional cuts $$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm W}}>1\TeV, \qquad p_{{\rm T}, {\rm j}}>1\TeV .$$
Distributions have been analysed with following Ref. [@Kallweit:2015dum] and using the cuts shown in .
[|c|c|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cut variable & $\ell^{\pm(}\overline{\nu}^{)}$ & $\ell^+\ell^-$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$p_{\rm{T},\ell^\pm}/\GeV>$ & $25$ & $25$\
$E_{{\rm T}}^{\rm miss}/\GeV>$ & $25$ & –\
$m_{\rm T}^{\rm W}/\GeV>$ & $40$ & –\
$|\eta_{\ell^\pm}|<$ & $2.5$ & $2.5$\
$\Delta R_{\ell^\pm {\rm j}}>$ & $0.5$ & $0.5$\
$\Delta R_{\ell^+\ell^-}>$ & – & $0.2$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$m_{\ell^+\ell^-}/\GeV\in$ & – & $[66,116]$\
#### NLO EW validation:
Next, we present the validation of the +interface against published cross sections obtained with + [@Kallweit:2014xda; @Kallweit:2015fta; @Kallweit:2015dum]. First, on-shell ${\rm W+j}$ production at a centre-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$ at the LHC is considered.
[|c|c|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD+EW}}$ & +& +& $\delta [\%$\]\
inclusive & $15621$ & $15592(30)$ & $0.19$\
$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm W}}>1\TeV$ & $0.040$ & $0.0400(2)$ & $0$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm j}}>1\TeV$ & $0.195$ & $0.194(1)$ & $0.51$\
Table \[TABLE:WjValidation\] shows the relative difference between total cross-section calculations, with different phase-space cuts, for the +interface against the published numbers from +. The errors quoted on the +cross sections are statistical in origin. While for the +results scale uncertainties were presented, the comparably negligible statistical uncertainties were not listed. However, for the validation of the codes, it is necessary to demonstrate close statistical agreement with the published numbers for the central scale choice. Taking the statistical errors of +as benchmark, good agreement between the two calculations for the NLO QCD and EW total cross sections is observed in all cases.
Besides the integrated cross sections, Ref. [@Kallweit:2014xda] also provides distributions, which can be used for a more qualitative validation over a large phase space. Figure \[FIG:WjNLOEW\] displays the $p_{\rm T}$ distribution of the hardest jet in on-shell $\PW^++\Pj$ production. The left-hand side of Fig. \[FIG:WjNLOEW\] shows the inclusive prediction, and the right-hand side the effect of a phase-space cut $\Delta\Phi({\rm j},{\rm j})<3\pi/4$. This effect is very large, in line with the findings in Ref. [@Kallweit:2014xda]. The Sudakov behaviour in the large-$p_{\rm T}$ region is clearly recovered once this $\Delta\Phi({\rm j},{\rm j})$ cut is included, because it removes the contributions from dijet-like structures with a soft W boson emitted. At NLO EW, these types of contributions can be better viewed as a real EW correction to dijet production.
{width="50.00000%"} {width="50.00000%"}
Secondly, ${\rm Z}$+jets production is considered. Distributions have been published for off-shell ${\rm Z}$+jets processes in Ref. [@Kallweit:2015dum]. Although this is not such a rigorous validation as the total cross section or phase-space point comparisons for other processes, it allows a qualitative assessment of the agreement between the calculations across a large phase space. From the wide range of distributions presented in Ref. [@Kallweit:2015dum], we select here the distributions in the transverse momenta of the leading lepton, $p_{{\rm T}, {\ell}_1}$, and leading jet, $p_{{\rm T}, {\rm j}_1}$, (according to $p_{{\rm T}}$ ordering) (Fig. \[FIG:pTslljj\]). The $\Pp\Pp\to\ell^+\ell^-{\rm jj}$ process provides a particularly good test of the +interface, because it includes interference terms between EW and QCD produced jets contributing at NLO EW. This makes the process a lot more challenging than the $\ell^+\ell^-{\rm j}$ or $\ell\nu {\rm j}$ final state. For both plots in Fig. \[FIG:pTslljj\], the behaviour across the full $p_{\rm T}$ range is in agreement with the observations in Ref. [@Kallweit:2015dum].
![\[FIG:pTslljj\] Differential distributions at $13\TeV$ for $\Pp\Pp\to\ell^+\ell^-{\rm j}{\rm j}$ at the LHC. The left-hand plot shows the $p_{\rm T}$ of the hardest lepton and the right-hand plot the $p_{\rm T}$ of the hardest jet. The LO and NLO QCD distributions are plotted along with both the additive (NLO QCD + EW) and multiplicative (NLO QCD $\times$ EW) prescriptions for combining the NLO corrections. The ratio of the distributions with respect to NLO QCD is presented in the lower panels.](figures/pTl1_lljj.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![\[FIG:pTslljj\] Differential distributions at $13\TeV$ for $\Pp\Pp\to\ell^+\ell^-{\rm j}{\rm j}$ at the LHC. The left-hand plot shows the $p_{\rm T}$ of the hardest lepton and the right-hand plot the $p_{\rm T}$ of the hardest jet. The LO and NLO QCD distributions are plotted along with both the additive (NLO QCD + EW) and multiplicative (NLO QCD $\times$ EW) prescriptions for combining the NLO corrections. The ratio of the distributions with respect to NLO QCD is presented in the lower panels.](figures/pTj1_lljj.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
#### Combined predictions:
Table \[TABLE:VjetsPredictions\] presents combined predictions for NLO QCD and EW corrections to the integrated cross sections for ${\rm Z}/\ell^+\ell^-+{\rm jets}$ processes. These cross sections include all of the cuts from the analyses, and correspond to the distributions presented in this section. The on-shell calculation of $\PZ+{\rm jets}$ includes the branching ratios to $\Pe^+\Pe^-/\mu^+\mu^-$. The large NLO corrections are dominated, in all cases, by the NLO QCD contribution.
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
inclusive & $\sigma^\mathrm{LO}$ \[pb\] & $\sigma^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}+\mathrm{EW}}$ \[pb\] & $\delta^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}+\mathrm{EW}}$ \[%\] & $\sigma^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}\times\mathrm{EW}}$ \[pb\] & $\delta^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}\times\mathrm{EW}}$ \[%\]\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Pp \Pp \to \PZ {\rm j}$ & $1.97 \cdot 10^{2}$ & $2.68 \cdot 10^{2}$ & $36.2$ & $2.72 \cdot 10^{2}$ & $38.3$\
$\Pp \Pp \to \PZ {\rm jj}$ & $6.66 \cdot 10^{1}$ & $7.70 \cdot 10^{1}$ & $15.6$ & $7.68 \cdot 10^{1}$ & $15.3$\
$\Pp \Pp \to \ell^+\ell^-{\rm j}$ & $1.93 \cdot 10^{2}$ & $2.34 \cdot 10^{2}$ & $21.6$ & $2.31 \cdot 10^{2}$ & $19.7$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Pp \Pp \to \ell^+\ell^- {\rm jj}$ & $5.53 \cdot 10^{1}$ & $6.93 \cdot 10^{1}$ & $0.04$ & $6.88 \cdot 10^{1}$ & $0.03$\
![\[FIG:offshellWpt\] Differential distributions at $13\TeV$ for off-shell ${\rm W}+{\rm j}$ production at the LHC. The left-hand plot shows the $p_{\rm T}$ of the reconstructed ${\rm W}$ boson with minimal cuts and the right-hand plot the result with a cut of $\Delta\Phi({\rm j},{\rm j})<3\pi/4$.](figures/pTW_lnuj.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![\[FIG:offshellWpt\] Differential distributions at $13\TeV$ for off-shell ${\rm W}+{\rm j}$ production at the LHC. The left-hand plot shows the $p_{\rm T}$ of the reconstructed ${\rm W}$ boson with minimal cuts and the right-hand plot the result with a cut of $\Delta\Phi({\rm j},{\rm j})<3\pi/4$.](figures/pTW_dPhi_lnuj.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
![\[FIG:onshellWpt\] Differential distributions at $13\TeV$ for on-shell ${\rm W}+{\rm j}$ production at the LHC. The left-hand plot shows the $p_{\rm T}$ of the ${\rm W}$ boson with minimal cuts and the right-hand plot the result with a cut of $\Delta\Phi({\rm j},{\rm j})<3\pi/4$, as in Fig. \[FIG:offshellWpt\].](figures/pTW_Wj.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![\[FIG:onshellWpt\] Differential distributions at $13\TeV$ for on-shell ${\rm W}+{\rm j}$ production at the LHC. The left-hand plot shows the $p_{\rm T}$ of the ${\rm W}$ boson with minimal cuts and the right-hand plot the result with a cut of $\Delta\Phi({\rm j},{\rm j})<3\pi/4$, as in Fig. \[FIG:offshellWpt\].](figures/pTW_dPhi_Wj.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Beginning again with ${\rm W+j}$ production, distributions at a centre-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$ at the LHC are presented for both on-shell and off-shell ${\rm W+j}$ production. Figure \[FIG:offshellWpt\] shows the transverse momentum $p_{\rm T,\PW}$ of the reconstructed W boson for both additive and multiplicative combination of NLO QCD and EW effects. The prescription used to combine the NLO corrections clearly has a large effect in the high-$p_{\rm T}$ region of the plot, which is indicative of large higher-order corrections. The right-hand plot shows the effect of imposing a cut $\Delta\Phi({\rm j},{\rm j})<3\pi/4$ on the two jets in the NLO case. This removes the contribution from the production of two hard jets and a soft ${\rm W}$ boson. At NLO EW, such cuts are useful in order to differentiate processes which should more correctly be considered as an EW real correction to dijet production.
Similarly, Fig. \[FIG:onshellWpt\] shows the distributions for on-shell ${\rm W}+\Pj$ production. The decays to leptons are treated in a factorised approach, and the NLO QCD and NLO EW corrections are applied only to the on-shell ${\rm W+j}$ final state. The NLO QCD and NLO EW corrections show very similar behaviour, whether on-shell or off-shell ${\rm W}$-boson production is considered.
Results are also presented for ${\rm Z}$+jets production in Figs. \[FIG:ZptNLOEWZj\] and \[FIG:ZptNLOEWZjj\], but this time considering both the $1$-jet and $2$-jet channels as well as the on-shell vs. off-shell effects. The off-shell process naturally includes the effects from $\gamma^*\to\ell^+\ell^-$ interference. As was mentioned in the validation section for this process, the ${\rm Z}+2\,$jets final state introduces interference terms between NLO QCD and NLO EW, which are taken into account automatically. These plots display the (reconstructed) $p_{\rm T}$ of the ${\rm Z}$ boson. The distribution for $\ell^+\ell^-{\rm jj}$ shown in Fig. \[FIG:ZptNLOEWZjj\], was also presented in Ref. [@Kallweit:2015dum], and can therefore be additionally viewed as a further validation of the +interface.
![\[FIG:ZptNLOEWZj\] Differential distributions at $13\TeV$ for ${\rm Z}+{\rm j}$ production at the LHC. The left-hand plot shows the $p_{\rm T}$ of the ${\rm Z}$ boson for on-shell ${\rm Z}$ production and the right-hand plot the same observable for the reconstructed ${\rm Z}$ boson for off-shell ${\rm Z}$ production. The lower panels display the ratio of the distributions to the NLO QCD result.](figures/pTV_Zj.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![\[FIG:ZptNLOEWZj\] Differential distributions at $13\TeV$ for ${\rm Z}+{\rm j}$ production at the LHC. The left-hand plot shows the $p_{\rm T}$ of the ${\rm Z}$ boson for on-shell ${\rm Z}$ production and the right-hand plot the same observable for the reconstructed ${\rm Z}$ boson for off-shell ${\rm Z}$ production. The lower panels display the ratio of the distributions to the NLO QCD result.](figures/pTV_llj.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
![\[FIG:ZptNLOEWZjj\] Differential distributions at $13\TeV$ for ${\rm Z}+{\rm jj}$ production at the LHC. The left-hand plot shows the $p_{\rm T}$ of the reconstructed ${\rm Z}$ boson for on-shell ${\rm Z}$ production and the right-hand plot the same observable for off-shell ${\rm Z}$ production. The lower panels display the ratio of the distributions to the NLO QCD result.](figures/pTV_Zjj.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![\[FIG:ZptNLOEWZjj\] Differential distributions at $13\TeV$ for ${\rm Z}+{\rm jj}$ production at the LHC. The left-hand plot shows the $p_{\rm T}$ of the reconstructed ${\rm Z}$ boson for on-shell ${\rm Z}$ production and the right-hand plot the same observable for off-shell ${\rm Z}$ production. The lower panels display the ratio of the distributions to the NLO QCD result.](figures/pTV_lljj.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}
Figure \[FIG:ZptNLOEWZj\] presents the ${\rm Z}$-boson $p_{\rm T}$ in ${\rm Z+j}$ production at a $13\TeV$ LHC. Here, there is a larger impact from the NLO EW corrections in the low-$p_{\rm T}$ region for $\ell^+\ell^-{\rm j}$ production than for on-shell ${\rm Z+j}$ production. This effect is smaller for the $\ell^+\ell^-{\rm jj}$ final state shown in Fig. \[FIG:ZptNLOEWZjj\], where little difference is observed between on-shell and off-shell ${\rm Z}$-boson production across the entire phase space. In all cases, the Sudakov behaviour in the large-$p_{\rm T}$ region is clearly observed. Also, the NLO QCD + EW and NLO QCD $\times$ EW curves for ${\rm Z+jj}$ in Fig. \[FIG:ZptNLOEWZjj\] show a very good agreement with each other, indicating that the higher-order corrections in this case are a lot smaller than for the distributions of ${\rm Z+j}$ production, where a large difference is observed in the high-$p_{\rm T}$ Sudakov region. It is reassuring that these differences are largely removed for both the on-shell and off-shell ${\rm Z}$+jets processes once higher jet multiplicities are included. This implies that a merged NLO QCD and EW sample would give an accurate picture of both NLO QCD and NLO EW corrections to this process.
${\rm Z}$-boson pair production {#sec:zzvalidation}
-------------------------------
As second process we consider the production of two off-shell Z bosons with subsequent decays into pairs of different-flavour charged leptons. At leading order (LO), this is a purely EW process implying that interferences in different orders of the strong and EW coupling first occur at NNLO. As a consequence, the NLO QCD corrections at ${\cal{O}}(\alphas$) and the NLO EW corrections at ${\cal{O}}(\alpha)$ may be computed independently. The NLO QCD corrections are known [@Ohnemus:1990za; @Mele:1990bq; @Dixon:1999di; @Campbell:1999ah], and the complete NLO EW computations have recently been published [@Biedermann:2016yvs; @Biedermann:2016lvg].
#### Input parameters:
We use the same set-up as for the QCD validation of Z-boson pair production in Section \[sec:NLOQCDfixedorder\]. In addition, real photons from QED bremsstrahlung and charged leptons are recombined to dressed leptons if their separation in the rapidity–azimuthal-angle plane fulfils $\Delta R_{\ell\gamma} < 0.2$, following the prescription of . In contrast to Ref. [@Biedermann:2016lvg], we refrain from including photon-induced contributions.
#### NLO EW validation:
In , a comparison of the NLO EW total cross section is shown once obtained from +and once by combining with an independent private multi-channel Monte Carlo integrator, with the results from Ref. [@Biedermann:2016lvg]. Perfect agreement is found between the two calculations within the statistical uncertainty at (sub-)permille level.
[|l|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Pp\Pp\to\mu^+\mu^-\Pe^+\Pe^-$ & +& private MC+& std. dev. \[$\sigma$\]\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma^{\rm LO}$ & $11.498(1)$ & $11.4964(1)$ & $1.6$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\sigma^{\rm NLO}_{\rm EW}$ & $10.890(1)$ & $10.8888(2)$ & $1.2$\
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
In Fig. \[FIG:SHERPAVSINHOUSEMC\], a comparison of the two independent calculations at the level of NLO EW differential distributions via the di-muon mass $m_{\mu^+\mu^-}$ and the four-lepton invariant mass $m_{4\ell}$ is presented. Like in the corresponding QCD validation in Section \[sec:NLOQCDfixedorder\], the difference in the absolute prediction in the upper panel is almost invisible. The ratio of individual histogram bins in the lower panel shows statistical percent-level fluctuations which illustrate again the excellent agreement. This is a highly non-trivial check, since the benchmark calculation of has been cross-checked internally by two independent calculations both at the level of the employed matrix elements and at the level of the phase-space integration. Furthermore, the results from were generated in mass regularisation and slightly different conventions of the dipole subtraction terms.
#### Combined predictions:
The combined predictions for the total cross section including the QCD corrections from Section \[sec:ZZQCDvalidation\] and the EW corrections from this section are stated in Tab. \[TABLE:ZZPredictions\].
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
${\rm pp} \to {\mu^+\mu^-\Pe^+\Pe^-}$ & $\sigma^\mathrm{LO}$ & $\sigma^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}+\mathrm{EW}}$ & $\delta^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}+\mathrm{EW}}$ & $\sigma^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}\times\mathrm{EW}}$ & $\delta^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}\times\mathrm{EW}}$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
inclusive & $11.498(1)\,$fb & $15.18(1)\,$fb & $32.0(1)\,$% & $14.96(1)\,$fb & $30.1(1)\,$%\
In Fig. \[FIG:ZZNLOEW\], different NLO predictions are presented for distributions in the di-muon and four-lepton invariant mass. In the four-lepton invariant-mass distribution, we observe the typical pattern of large negative EW corrections of around $-20\%$ in the high-energy regime at around $1\TeV$. The radiative tail below the pair-production threshold at $m_{4\ell}=2M_\PZ$ with corrections around $+30\%$ is due to the fact that resonant contributions are shifted to lower values by real photon radiation. Since the LO cross section is falling off steeply in this region, the photonic corrections become large. A similar radiative tail is observed also in the di-muon prediction that amounts to positive corrections of up to $+60\%$. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
While the QCD corrections are positive over the whole range of both the di-muon and the four-lepton invariant-mass distribution at the order of $+30\%$, the EW corrections exhibit a non-trivial sign change at the Z-boson resonance $m_{\mu^+\mu^-}=M_\PZ$ and at the pair-production threshold $m_{4\ell}=2M_\PZ$, respectively. Further discussion of this issue can be found in Ref. [@Biedermann:2016lvg].
Higgs production in association with a top-quark pair {#higgs-production-in-association-with-a-top-quark-pair}
-----------------------------------------------------
As last example, we consider the on-shell production of a pair of top quarks in association with a Higgs boson. The LO cross section is of order $\order{\alphas^2\alpha}$. Hence the NLO QCD and EW corrections contribute at order $\order{\alphas^3\alpha}$ and $\order{\alphas^2\alpha^2}$, respectively. At NLO EW, this computation features QCD–EW interferences. In addition to computing the EW corrections to the QCD-mediated production of the top-quark pairs, one must also consider the QCD corrections to the interference of the QCD and electroweakly produced top-quark pairs. Moreover, the final state consists exclusively of massive particles which is not the case for any of the previously presented processes. This process constitutes thus a non-trivial validation of the implementation. Concerning on-shell top quarks, the process has already been computed at NLO QCD [@Beenakker:2001rj; @Beenakker:2002nc; @Reina:2001sf; @Dawson:2002tg; @Dawson:2003zu] and at NLO EW [@Frixione:2014qaa; @Yu:2014cka; @Frixione:2015zaa]. It has also been matched to a parton shower [@Frederix:2011zi; @Garzelli:2011vp; @Hartanto:2015uka]. On the other hand, for off-shell top quarks, the NLO QCD [@Denner:2015yca] and EW [@Denner:2016wet] corrections have been computed only recently.
#### Input parameters:
We use the set-up of Ref. [@Badger:2016bpw] which has been described in Section \[sec:tthQCD\]. Concerning the electromagnetic coupling $\alpha$, the $\alpha(M_{\rm
Z})$ scheme is employed. Note that contributions originating from initial-state photons are neglected in order to match one of the set-ups of Ref. [@Badger:2016bpw].
#### NLO EW validation:
As for the QCD validation, we compare five NLO EW cross sections that have been computed by and +in Ref. [@Badger:2016bpw]. The obtained cross sections are reported in .
[|c|c|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& & & +\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $\sigma^\mathrm{NLO}_{\rm EW}$ \[fb\] & $\delta_{\rm EW} [\%]$ & [$\delta_{\rm EW} [\%]$]{} & $\delta_{\rm EW} [\%]$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
inclusive & $356.7(2)$ & $-1.2(2)$ & $-1.4$ & $-1.4$\
$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm t/\bar t/H}}>200\GeV$ & $12.244(3)$ & $-8.5(1)$ & $-8.5$ & $-8.4$\
$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm t/\bar t/H}}>400\GeV$ & $0.3435(3)$ & $-14.1(2)$ & $-13.9$ & $-14.0$\
$p_{{\rm T}, {\rm H}}>500\GeV$ & $1.7798(9)$ & $-11.7(1)$ & $-11.6$ & $-11.7$\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\left| y_{\rm t} \right| > 2.5$ & $5.035(3)$ & $0.3(2)$ & $0.5$ & $0.5$\
Generally good agreement has been found with the results presented in Ref. [@Badger:2016bpw]. Nonetheless, as no statistical errors are stated in the aforementioned reference, an exact comparison has not been possible.
#### Combined predictions:
Next, combined NLO QCD and EW predictions for the inclusive cross section as well as for a few distributions are presented. No event selection is applied to the final state, meaning that we consider the fully-inclusive production process. The total cross sections at LO and NLO for an additive and multiplicative combination of NLO QCD and EW corrections as defined in Eqs. (\[additionNLO\]) and (\[productNLO\]), respectively, are listed in .
[|c|c|c|c|c|c|]{}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
${\rm pp} \to {\rm t \bar t H}$ & $\sigma^\mathrm{LO}$ \[fb\] & $\sigma^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}+\mathrm{EW}}$ \[fb\] & $\delta^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}+\mathrm{EW}}$ \[%\] & $\sigma^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}\times\mathrm{EW}}$ \[fb\] & $\delta^\mathrm{NLO}_{\mathrm{QCD}\times\mathrm{EW}}$ \[%\]\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
inclusive & $361.2(4)$ & $459.8(4)$ & $27.3(2)$ & $458.6(4) $ & $27.0(2)$\
As the EW corrections are moderate, there are no big differences between the two combinations. This seems to indicate that the missing higher orders of mixed QCD–EW type are small in this case.
In Fig. \[FIG:HFIGURES\], the transverse momentum as well as the rapidity distribution of the Higgs boson are displayed. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
The effects of the NLO QCD corrections are dominant over the whole transverse-momentum range and are typically of the order of $25\%$. The EW corrections vary from about $1.2\%$ at zero transverse momentum to $-8.9\%$ at $700\GeV$. This behaviour is characteristic for Sudakov logarithms that grow large when all invariants involved in the process become large. In Fig. \[FIG:TTFIGURES\], the distribution of the transverse momentum as well as the rapidity of the top quark are shown. {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
Again, the QCD corrections are large over the whole transverse momentum range and amount to at $35\%$ at low transverse momentum to go down to $22\%$ at $p_{{\rm T},\Pt}=600\GeV$. The relative EW corrections also decrease from about $2.6\%$ to reach $-6.7\%$ at $600\GeV$.
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
After the very successful Run I, culminating in the discovery of the Higgs boson, the LHC is now operating in the Run II phase. This phase at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ might ultimately lead to the discovery of New Physics or confirm, to an even higher degree of accuracy, the theory of the Standard Model of particle physics. In either case, precise (including at least NLO QCD and electroweak corrections) and appropriate (with event selections reproducing the experimental set-ups) predictions for a plethora of Standard Model processes are needed. Such state-of-the-art predictions are, on the one hand, required for precision measurements in the Standard Model. On the other hand, in New Physics searches, they are compulsory to obtain realistic estimates of the Standard Model expectations in order to discriminate possible New Physics contributions. To provide such predictions, public Monte Carlo programs are the ideal tools as they can be used by both the experimental collaborations and the theory community.
In this publication, the combination of the one-loop matrix-element generator with the multipurpose Monte Carlo program has been presented. In particular, a short presentation of both codes as well as the main features of the interface have been given. The +framework is designed for Standard Model predictions and offers the possibility to compute—in principle—any process at NLO QCD and electroweak accuracy. A large fraction of this article is devoted to the validation of the implementation of in . This entails comparisons of squared matrix elements for individual phase-space points, fixed-order cross sections, and differential distributions, as well as the merging/matching of NLO QCD matrix elements with ’s QCD parton shower. These comparisons are performed against public and private codes as well as results presented in the literature.
Following this validation, predictions have been presented at NLO QCD and electroweak accuracy for three specific processes: both on- and off-shell vector-boson production in association with jets, off-shell ${\rm Z}$-boson pair production, and on-shell production of a top-quark pair in association with a Higgs boson. In addition to their distinguished physical relevance, these processes constitute a good testing ground for this fully automatised implementation. They feature both massive and massless final states, as well as strongly and electroweakly interacting final-state objects. In addition to fixed-order computations, all other functionalities of (the QCD parton shower, hadronisation etc.) can be used along with . To demonstrate this, NLO QCD matrix elements for Drell–Yan production in association with multiple QCD jets have been merged and matched to the parton shower. For illustrative purposes, some resulting predictions have been compared to actual LHC data.
The +combination is readily publicly available for NLO QCD predictions. The required methods to perform NLO electroweak calculations on the side will be made public soon. This ultimately makes it an ideal tool for both experimentalists and theorists to obtain NLO QCD and electroweak accurate predictions for Standard Model processes. It opens the possibility to perform systematic studies on the impact of electroweak corrections for a multitude of LHC production processes.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Jean-Nicolas Lang and Sandro Uccirati for developing and supporting the code . This work has benefited from useful interactions with them. We thank our colleagues from the collaboration for fruitful discussions and technical support. In particular, we are grateful to Silvan Kuttimalai and Marek Sch[ö]{}nherr for their assistance. Moreover, we would also like to thank Jonas Lindert for his help.
BB, AD and MP acknowledge financial support from BMBF under contract 05H15WWCA1. SB, SS and JT acknowledge financial support from the EU research network MCnetITN funded by the Research Executive Agency (REA) of the European Union under Grant Agreement PITN-GA-2012-315877 and from BMBF under contract 05H15MGCAA.
Installation procedures {#sec:installation}
=======================
-1.2 and subsequent versions are compatible with the interface to described above. in association with can be downloaded from\
<http://recola.hepforge.org>.\
Once downloaded, the following command lines have to be issued:
tar -zxvf recola-collier-1.2.tar.gz
cd recola-collier-1.2
cd build
cmake ..
make
is then installed in association with . Various compilation options can be found in the respective manuals [@Actis:2016mpe; @Denner:2016kdg]. We note that the library has to be compiled dynamically (this is the default setting) to be used with .
The first version of compatible with is -v2.2.3. It can be downloaded from <http://sherpa.hepforge.org>.\
The installation commands read
tar -zxvf SHERPA-MC-2.2.3.tar.gz
cd SHERPA-MC-2.2.3
autoreconf -i
./configure --enable-recola=/PATH_TO_RECOLA/recola-collier-1.2/recola-1.2 \
[other Sherpa configure options]
make
make install
Extra configuration options can be found in the manual of available on the website. After this installation procedure, NLO computations can be readily performed.
Specific run-card commands {#sec:commands}
==========================
As mentioned in Section \[sec:interface\], some commands allow the user to deviate from the default settings. This appendix is thus devoted to the description of these commands.
On-shell masses for W and Z boson {#on-shell-masses-for-w-and-z-boson .unnumbered}
---------------------------------
By default, the input masses for the W and Z bosons are the pole masses. Nonetheless, it is possible to set the on-shell masses instead by including the line
RECOLA_ONSHELLZW=1
in the input run card.
Flavour scheme and quark masses {#flavour-scheme-and-quark-masses .unnumbered}
-------------------------------
In order to allow all possible combinations of masses and flavour schemes, a few flags for the run card exist. The first one is
RECOLA_FIXED_FLAVS.
The values 4, 5, and 6 correspond to the corresponding fixed-flavour schemes. Setting the flag to 14, 15, 16 allows for a dynamical scheme up to the number of flavours (4, 5 or 6). Finally, the value $-2$ sets a fixed-flavour scheme according to the masses set in the run card.
It is also possible to set explicitly the masses used in the renormalisation \[see Eq. \] of the strong coupling using
RECOLA_AS_REN_MASS_C/B/T,
corresponding to the charm, bottom, and top-quark mass, respectively. On the other hand, the quark masses used for the hard matrix element are read out only from the run card. This means that the user has to take care of the consistency of her/his computation between the matrix element computed and the PDF set used.
UV and IR scales {#uv-and-ir-scales .unnumbered}
----------------
The UV and IR scales are both set, by default, to a fixed value of $100\GeV$. These technical parameters do not impact physical results. However, the choice of the IR scale does change the individual contributions of the virtual corrections and the integrated subtraction terms. In the +interface, it is possible to set these scales in the run card, to directly compare the virtual and real subtraction contributions separately to independent code. These UV and IR scales are set with the keywords
UV_SCALE
and
IR_SCALE,
respectively.
[^1]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^2]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^3]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^4]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^5]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^6]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^7]: is publicly available at <https://sherpa.hepforge.org>.
[^8]: is publicly available at <https://recola.hepforge.org>.
[^9]: The installation procedures are described in Appendix \[sec:installation\].
[^10]: Even if not explicitly reported in this article, several NLO QCD checks have been performed against the code [@Alwall:2014hca].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The success of pretrained contextual encoders, such as ELMo and BERT, has brought a great deal of interest in what these models learn: do they, without explicit supervision, learn to encode meaningful notions of linguistic structure? If so, how is this structure encoded? To investigate this, we introduce *latent subclass learning* (LSL): a modification to existing classifier-based probing methods that induces a latent categorization (or *ontology*) of the probe’s inputs. Without access to fine-grained gold labels, LSL extracts *emergent* structure from input representations in an interpretable and quantifiable form. In experiments, we find strong evidence of familiar categories, such as a notion of personhood in ELMo, as well as novel ontological distinctions, such as a preference for fine-grained semantic roles on core arguments. Our results provide unique new evidence of emergent structure in pretrained encoders, including departures from existing annotations which are inaccessible to earlier methods.'
author:
- 'Julian Michael[^1]'
- 'Jan A. Botha'
- Ian Tenney
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: |
Asking without Telling: Exploring Latent Ontologies\
in Contextual Representations
---
Introduction
============
The success of self-supervised pretrained models in NLP [@devlin2019bert; @peters2018deep; @radford2019language; @lan2020albert] has stimulated interest in how these models work, and—motivated by their strong performance on many tasks [@wang2018glue; @wang2019superglue]—what they learn about language. Recent work on model analysis [@belinkov2019analysis] indicates that they may learn a lot about linguistic structure, including part of speech [@belinkov2017neural], syntax [@blevins2018hierarchical; @marvin2018targeted], word sense [@peters2018deep; @reif2019bertviz], and more [@tenney2019what; @liu2019linguistic].
![LSL overview. A probing classifier over contextual embeddings produces multi-class *latent logits*, which are marginalized into a single logit trained on binary classification. In this example, “Pierre Vinken” is identified as a named entity and assigned to latent class 2, which aligns well with the PERSON label. We treat the classes as clusters representing a latent ontology that describes the underlying representation space. visualizes latent logits in more detail.[]{data-label="fig:schematic"}](images/small_intro_fig.png){width="\columnwidth"}
Many of these results are based on *predictive methods*, such as probing, which measure how well a linguistic variable can be predicted from intermediate representations. However, the ability of supervised probes to fit weak features makes it difficult to find unbiased answers about how those representations are structured [@saphra-lopez-2019-understanding; @voita2019bottom]. *Descriptive methods* like clustering and visualization explore this structure directly, but provide limited control and often regress to dominant categories such as lexical features [@singh2019bert] or word sense [@reif2019bertviz]. This leaves open many questions: *how* are linguistic features like entity types, syntactic dependencies, or semantic roles represented by an encoder like ELMo [@peters2018deep] or BERT [@devlin2019bert]? To what extent do familiar categories like PropBank roles or Universal Dependencies appear naturally? Do these unsupervised encoders learn their own categorization of language?
To tackle these questions, we propose a systematic method for extracting *latent ontologies*, or discrete categorizations of a representation space, which we call *latent subclass learning*; see for an overview. In LSL, we use a binary classification task (such as detecting entity mentions or syntactic dependency arcs) as weak supervision to induce a set of latent clusters relevant to that task (i.e., entity or dependency types). As with *predictive* methods, the choice of targets allows us to explore different phenomena, and the induced clusters can be quantified and measured against gold annotations. But also, as with *descriptive* methods, our clusters can be inspected and qualified directly, and observations have high specificity: agreement with external (e.g., gold) categories can be taken as strong evidence that those categories are salient in the representation space.
We describe the LSL classifier in , and apply it to the edge probing paradigm [@tenney2019what] in . In we evaluate LSL on multiple encoders, including ELMo and BERT. We find that LSL induces stable and consistent ontologies, which include both striking rediscoveries of gold categories—for example, ELMo discovers *personhood* of named entities and BERT similarly has a notion of *dates*—as well as novel ontological distinctions—such as fine-grained semantic roles for core arguments—which are not easily observed by fully supervised probes. Overall, we find unique new evidence of emergent latent structure in our encoders, while also revealing new properties of their representations which are inaccessible to earlier methods.
{width=".9\textwidth"}
Background {#sec:background}
==========
#### Predictive analysis
A common form of model analysis is *predictive*: assessing how well a linguistic variable can be predicted from a model, whether in intrinsic behavioral tests [@goldberg2019assessing; @marvin2018targeted] or extrinsic *probing tasks*.
*Probing* involves training lightweight classifiers over features produced by a pretrained model, and assessing the model’s knowledge by the probe’s performance. Probing has been used for low-level properties such as word order and sentence length [@adi2016fine; @conneau2018cram], as well as phenomena at the level of syntax [@hewitt-manning-2019-structural], semantics [@tenney2019what; @liu2019multi; @clark2019what], and discourse structure [@chen-etal-2019-evaluation]. Error analysis on probes has been used to argue that BERT may simulate sequential decision making across layers [@tenney2019bert], or that it encodes its own, soft notion of syntactic distance [@reif2019bertviz].
Predictive methods such as probing are *flexible*: Any task with data can be assessed. However, they only track predictability of pre-defined categories, limiting their descriptive power. In addition, a powerful enough probe, given enough data, may be insensitive to differences between encoders, making it difficult to interpret results based on accuracy [@saphra-lopez-2019-understanding; @zhang2018]. So, many probing experiments appeal to the *ease of extraction* of a linguistic variable [@pimentel2020informationtheoretic]. Existing work has measured this by controlling for the capacity of the probe, either by making relative claims between layers and encoders [@belinkov2017evaluating; @blevins2018hierarchical; @tenney2019what; @liu2019linguistic] or using explicit measures to estimate and trade off probe capacity with accuracy [@hewitt-liang-2019-designing; @voita2020informationtheoretic]. An alternative is to control *amount of supervision*, whether by restricting training set size [@zhang2018], comparing learning curves [@talmor2019olmpics], or using description length with online coding [@voita2020informationtheoretic].
We extend this further by removing the distinction between gold categories in the training data and reducing the supervision to binary classification, as explained in . This extreme measure makes our test *high specificity*, in the sense that positive results—i.e., when comprehensible categories are recovered by our probe—are much stronger, since a category must be essentially *invented* without direct supervision.
#### Descriptive analysis
In contrast to predictive methods, which assess an encoder against particular data, *descriptive* methods analyze models on their own terms, and include clustering, visualization [@reif2019bertviz], and correlation analysis techniques [@voita2019bottom; @saphra-lopez-2019-understanding; @abnar2019blackbox; @chrupala2019correlating]. Descriptive methods produce high-specificity tests of what structure is present in the model, and facilitate discovery of new patterns that weren’t hypothesized prior to testing. However, they lack the flexibility of predictive methods. Clustering results tend to be dominated by principal components of the embedding space, which correspond to only some salient aspects of linguistic knowledge, such as lexical features [@singh2019bert] and word sense [@reif2019bertviz]. Alternatively, more targeted latent variable analysis techniques generally have a restricted inventory of inputs, such as layer mixing weights [@peters2018dissecting] or transformer attention distributions [@clark2019what]. As a result of these issues, it is more difficult to discover the underlying structure corresponding to rich, layered ontologies. Our approach retains the advantages of descriptive methods, while admitting more control as the choice of binary classification targets can guide the LSL model to discover structure relevant to a particular linguistic task.
#### Linguistic ontologies
Questions of what encoders learn about language require well-defined *linguistic ontologies*, or meaningful categorizations of inputs, to evaluate against. Most analysis work uses formalisms from the classical NLP pipeline, such as part-of-speech and syntax from the Penn Treebank [@marcus1993building] or Universal Dependencies [@nivre2015universal], semantic roles from PropBank [@palmer2005proposition] or @dowty1991thematic’s Proto-Roles [@reisinger2015semantic], and named entities, which have a variety of available ontologies [@pradhan2007ontonotes; @ling2012finegrained; @choi2018ultra]. Work on ontology-free, or *open*, representations suggests that the linguistic structure captured by traditional ontologies may be encoded in a variety of possible ways [@banko2007open; @he2015question; @michael2018crowdsourcing] while being annotatable at large scale [@fitzgerald2018large]. This raises the question: when looking for linguistic knowledge in pretrained encoders, what exactly should we expect to find? Predictive methods are useful for fitting an encoder to an existing ontology; but do our encoders latently hold their own ontologies as well? If so, what do they look like? That is the question we investigate in this work.
Approach {#sec:approach}
========
We propose a way to extract latent linguistic ontologies from pretrained encoders and systematically compare them to existing gold ontologies. We use a classifier based on *latent subclass learning* (), which is applicable in any binary classification setting.[^2] We propose several quantitative metrics to evaluate the induced ontologies (), providing a starting point for qualitative analysis () and future research.
Latent Subclass Learning {#sec:latent-subclass-learning}
------------------------
Consider a logistic regression classifier over inputs $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^d $. It outputs probabilities according to the following formula: $$\operatorname{P}(y \mid \mathbf{x}) = \sigma(\mathbf{w}^\top \mathbf{x}),$$ where $ \mathbf{w} \in \mathbb{R}^d $ is a learned parameter. Instead, we propose the *latent subclass learning* classifier: $$\operatorname{P}_{\mathrm{LSL}}(y \mid \mathbf{x}) = \sigma\left(\log \sum_i^N e^{\mathbf{W}_i\mathbf{x}} \right),$$ where $ \mathbf{W} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times d} $ is a parameter matrix, and $ N $ is a hyperparameter corresponding to the number of latent classes.
This corresponds to $N$+1-way multiclass logistic regression with a fixed 0 baseline for a null class, but trained on binary classification by marginalizing over the $N$ non-null classes (). The vector $\mathbf{Wx} \in \mathbb{R}^N $ may then be treated as a set of *latent logits* for a random variable $C(\mathbf{x}) \in \{1, \dots, N \}$ defined by the softmax distribution. Taking the hard maximum of $\mathbf{Wx}$ assigns a latent class $\hat{C}({\mathbf{x}})$ to each input, which may be viewed as a *weakly supervised clustering*, learned on the basis of external supervision but not explicitly optimized to match prior gold categories.
For the loss $\mathcal{L}_\textrm{LSL}$, we use the cross-entropy loss on $\operatorname{P}_{\mathrm{LSL}}$. However, this does not necessarily encourage a diverse, coherent set of clusters; an LSL classifier may simply choose to collapse all examples into a single category, producing an uninteresting ontology. To mitigate this, we propose two *clustering regularizers*.
#### Adjusted batch-level negative entropy
We wish for the model to induce a diverse ontology. One way to express this is that the expectation of $C$ has high entropy, i.e., we wish to maximize $$\operatorname*{H}(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\mathbf{x} C(\mathbf{x})).$$ In practice, we use the expectation over a batch. The maximum value this can take is the entropy of the uniform distribution over $ N $ items, or $ \log N $. Therefore, we wish to minimize the *adjusted batch-level negative entropy loss*: $${\mathcal{L}_{\text{be}}}= \log N - \operatorname*{H}(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\mathbf{x} C(\mathbf{x})),$$ which takes values in $[0, \log N]$.
#### Instance-level entropy
In addition to using all latent classes in the expected case, we also wish for the model to assign a single coherent class label to each input example. This can be done by minimizing the *instance-level entropy loss*: $${\mathcal{L}_{\text{ie}}}= \operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\mathbf{x} \operatorname*{H}(C(\mathbf{x})).$$ This also takes values in $[0, \log N]$, and we compute the expectation over a batch.
#### Loss
We optimize the regularized LSL loss $$\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{LSL}} + \alpha {\mathcal{L}_{\text{be}}}+ \beta {\mathcal{L}_{\text{ie}}},$$ where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are hyperparameters, via gradient descent. Together, the regularizers encourage a balanced solution where the model uses many clusters yet gives each input a distinct assignment.
------------- --------------------- ---------- ------------------------ -------------------------- --------------------- ---------- ------------------------ -------------------------- --
**P / R / F1** **Acc.** **[Div.]{}$\uparrow$** **[Unc.]{}$\downarrow$** **P / R / F1** **Acc.** **[Div.]{}$\uparrow$** **[Unc.]{}$\downarrow$**
**Gold** 1.0 / 1.0 / 1.0 1.0 9.71 1.00 1.0 / 1.0 / 1.0 1.0 22.91 1.00
**Multi** .86 / .88 / .87 .94 8.58 1.88 .86 / .83 / .84 .93 21.94 1.77
**LSL** .28 / .80 / .41 .96 2.85 1.45 .10 / .60 / .18 .94 3.50 2.07
**+be** .20 / .43 / .27 .96 4.78 31.23 .18 / .13 / .15 .94 **29.83** 12.33
**+ie** .13 / 1.0 / .23 .93 1.00 **1.00** .09 / .79 / .15 .94 2.00 **1.01**
**+be +ie** .43 / .54 / **.48** .88 **7.00** 1.10 .18 / .27 / **.22** .86 14.96 1.35
**Single** .13 / 1.0 / .23 - 1.00 1.00 .06 / 1.0 / .11 - 1.00 1.00
------------- --------------------- ---------- ------------------------ -------------------------- --------------------- ---------- ------------------------ -------------------------- --
Metrics {#sec:metrics}
-------
For the following metrics, we consider only points in the gold positive class.
#### [B^3^]{}
We compare induced ontologies to gold using the standard B-cubed (or [B^3^]{}) clustering metrics [@bagga-baldwin-1998-bcubed]. For each input point, this calculates the precision and recall of its predicted cluster against its gold cluster. These values are averaged over all points for aggregate scoring. [B^3^]{} is argued to have favorable properties [@amigo2009comparison] and allows for label-wise scoring by restricting to points with specific gold labels.
#### Normalized PMI
Pointwise mutual information (PMI) is commonly used as an association measure reflecting how likely two items (such as tokens in a corpus) are to occur together relative to chance [@church1990word]. *Normalized* PMI [[nPMI]{}; @bouma2009normalized] is a way of factoring out the effect of item frequency on PMI. Formally, the [nPMI]{} of two items $x$ and $y$ is $$\left. \left(\log \frac{\operatorname{P}(x,y)}{\operatorname{P}(x)\operatorname{P}(y)} \right) \middle/ -\log(\operatorname{P}(x,y)) \right.,$$ taking the limit value of -1 when they never occur together, 1 when they only occur together, and 0 when they occur independently. We use [nPMI]{} to analyze the co-occurrence of *gold labels* in *predicted clusters*: high [nPMI]{} pairs are preferentially grouped together by the induced ontology, whereas low [nPMI]{} pairs are preferentially distinguished.
#### [Diversity]{}
We desire fine-grained ontologies with many meaningful classes. Number of attested classes may not be a good measure of this, since it could include classes with very few members and no broad meaning. So we propose *[diversity]{}*: $$\exp(\operatorname*{H}(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_\mathbf{x} \hat{C}(\mathbf{x}))).$$ This increases as the clustering becomes more fine-grained and evenly distributed, with a maximum of $N$ when $\operatorname{P}(\hat{C})$ is uniform. More generally, exponentiated entropy is sometimes referred to as the *perplexity* of a distribution, and corresponds (softly) to the number of classes required for a uniform distribution of the same entropy. In that sense, it may be regarded as the effective number of classes in an ontology. We use the predicted class $\hat{C}$ rather than its distribution $C$ because we care about the diversity of the model’s clustering, and not just uncertainty in the model.
#### [Uncertainty]{}
In order for our learned classes to be meaningful, we desire distinct and coherent clusters. To measure this, we propose *[uncertainty]{}*: $$\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbf{x}} \exp(\operatorname*{H}(C(\mathbf{x}))).$$ This is also related to perplexity, but unlike [diversity]{}, it takes the expectation over the input after calculating the perplexity of the distribution. This reflects how many classes, on average, the model is confused between when provided with an input. Low values correspond to coherent clusters, with a minimum of 1 when every latent class is assigned with full confidence. As with [diversity]{}, we take the expectation over the evaluation set.
-------------------- --------------------- ---------- --------------------- ----------- --------------------- ----------- ----------
**Task** P / R / F1 [Div.]{} P / R / F1 [Div.]{} P / R / F1 [Div.]{} [Div.]{}
**Dependencies** .06 / .86 / .11 1.33 .23 / .42 / **.29** 11.11 .14 / .33 / .19 **11.22** 22.91
**Named Entities** .19 / .39 / .26 4.33 .40 / .66 / **.50** 5.07 .47 / .53 / **.50** **7.50** 9.71
**Nonterminals** .22 / .80 / .34 1.47 .36 / .25 / .30 **10.16** .35 / .34 / **.35** 7.80 7.15
**Semantic Roles** .19 / .39 / **.26** 2.81 .40 / .17 / .24 **22.35** .37 / .17 / .24 18.70 8.73
-------------------- --------------------- ---------- --------------------- ----------- --------------------- ----------- ----------
Experimental Setup {#sec:experimental-setup}
==================
We adopt a similar setup to @tenney2019what and @liu2019linguistic, training probing models over several contextualizing encoders on a variety of linguistic tasks. While our interest is in linguistic structure, our model can be used in any binary classification setting, and our analysis methods apply in any case that finer-grained labels are present to compare against.
Tasks
-----
We cast several structure labeling tasks from @tenney2019what as binary classification by adding negative examples, bringing the positive to negative ratio to 1:1 where possible.
**Named entity labeling** requires labeling noun phrases with entity types, such as person, location, date, or time. We randomly sample non-entity noun phrases as negatives.
**Nonterminal labeling** requires labeling phrase structure constituents with syntactic types, such as noun phrases and verb phrases. We randomly sample non-constituent spans as negatives.
**Syntactic dependency labeling** requires labeling token pairs with their syntactic relationship, such as a subject, direct object, or modifier. We randomly sample non-attached token pairs as negatives.
**Semantic role labeling** requires labeling predicates (usually verbs) and their arguments (usually syntactic constituents) with labels that abstract over syntactic relationships in favor of more semantic notions such as *agent*, *patient*, modifier roles involving e.g. time and place, or predicate-specific roles. We draw the closest non-attached predicate-argument pairs as negatives.
We use the English Web Treebank portion of Universal Dependencies 2.2 [@silveira14gold] for syntactic dependencies, and the English portion of Ontonotes 5.0 [@weischedel2013ontonotes] for all other tasks.
Encoders
--------
We run experiments on the following encoders: **ELMo** encodes input tokens with 2-layer LSTMs [@hochreiter1997long] run forward and backward over the text, trained with a language modeling objective [@peters2018deep]. We use the publicly available instance[^3] trained on the One Billion Word Benchmark [@chelba2014one].
**BERT** uses a deep Transformer stack [@vaswani2017attention] trained on masked language modeling and next sentence prediction tasks [@devlin2019bert]. We use the 24-layer BERT-large instance trained on about 2.3B tokens from English Wikipedia and BooksCorpus [@zhu2015aligning].[^4]
**BERT-lex** is a lexical baseline, encoding inputs with BERT-large’s context-independent wordpiece embedding layer.
Probing Model
-------------
We use the model architecture of @tenney2019what, which classifies arbitrary spans or pairs of spans by leveraging pretrained encoders in the following way: 1) construct token representations by pooling across encoder layers with a learned scalar mix [@peters2018deep], 2) construct span representations from these token representations using self-attentive pooling [@lee2017end], and 3) concatenate those span representations and feed the result into a multi-layer perceptron to produce input features for the classification layer. This architecture allows for a unified model for all probing tasks and simplifies our experiments. For the classification layer, we use the LSL classifier ().
Model selection {#sec:model-selection}
---------------
We run initial studies to determine hidden layer sizes and regularization coefficients. For all LSL probes, we use $N = 32$ latent classes.[^5]
#### Probe capacity
@hewitt-liang-2019-designing suggest that results with expressive probes may reflect the probe’s learning capacity rather than structure encoded in the inputs. To mitigate this, we follow their advice and use a single hidden layer with the smallest dimensionality that does not sacrifice performance. For each task, we train binary logistic regression probes with a range of hidden sizes and select the smallest yielding at least 97% of the best model’s performance. Details are in Appendix A.
#### Mitigating variance
To mitigate variance across random restarts, we use a consistency-based model selection criterion: train 5 separate models, compute their pairwise [B^3^]{} F1-scores, and choose the model with the highest F1 score on average.
#### Regularization coefficients
We run preliminary experiments using BERT-large on Universal Dependencies and Named Entity Labeling with ablations on our clustering regularizers. For each ablation, we choose the hyperparameter setting which yields the best F1 against gold.
#### Results
Results, shown in , validate our intuitions about the clustering regularizers. The batch-level entropy loss drives up both diversity and uncertainty, while the instance-level entropy loss drives them down. In combination, however, they produce the right balance, with uncertainty close to 1 while retaining diversity.
Notably, the Named Entity labeling model has lower diversity without the instance-level loss than with it. Intuitively, this may happen because the batch-level entropy can be increased by driving up instance-level entropy, without changing the entropy of the expected distribution of predictions $\operatorname*{H}(\operatorname{\mathbb{E}}_{\mathbf{x}}\operatorname{P}(\hat{C}({\mathbf{x}})))$. So by keeping the uncertainty down on each input, the instance-level entropy loss helps the batch-level entropy loss promote diversity in the induced ontology.
Based on these results, we set $\alpha = \beta = 1.5$ for $\mathcal{L}_{be}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{ie}$ for the main experiments.
Results and Analysis {#sec:results}
====================
We train and evaluate our final probing model on all combinations of task and encoder described in . Aggregate results are shown in .[^6] Taking all metrics into account, contextualized encodings produce richer ontologies that agree more with gold than the lexical baseline does. In fact, BERT-lex has normalized PMI scores very close to zero across the board, encoding virtually no information about gold categories. For this reason, we omit it from the rest of the analysis.
Gold Label BERT F1 ELMo F1
------------ --------- --------- -- -- --
DATE **.70** .38
PERCENT **.60** .28
ORG **.54** .35
PERSON .48 **.81**
$\dots$
EVENT .03 .02
LAW .02 .01
LANGUAGE .01 .01
: Label-wise [B^3^]{} F1 scores for Named Entities, sorted by decreasing BERT-large F1. Induced ontologies capture some labels surprisingly well, but are indifferent to more specialized categories which may require more world knowledge to distinguish. []{data-label="tab:ner-f1-results"}
It may be surprising that our induced ontologies have any relationship at all to gold classes, since the only extra supervision is in binary classification that collapses them together. Indeed, many tasks addressed here have multiple human-written ontologies, as discussed in . In our case, we let the model choose its own ontology. The resulting matches and mismatches with human-labeled ontologies provide a new lens with which to analyze both pretrained encoders and linguistic ontologies.
#### Named entities
As shown in , neither BERT nor ELMo are sensitive to categories that are related to specialized world knowledge, such as languages, laws, and events. However, they are in tune with other types: ELMo discovers a clear PERSON category, whereas BERT has distinguished DATEs. Visualization of the clusters () corroborates this, furthermore showing that the models have a sense of scalar values and measurement; indeed, instead of the gold distinction between ORDINAL and CARDINAL numbers, both models distinguish between *small* and *large* (roughly, seven or greater) numbers. See Appendix C for detailed [nPMI]{} scores.
Gold Label P / R / F1
------------ -----------------
ARGM-MOD .62 / .41 / .49
ARG0 .52 / .17 / .26
ARG1 .50 / .09 / .15
ARGM-NEG .36 / .60 / .45
ARG2 .28 / .13 / .18
: Top semantic role labels by BERT-large [B^3^]{} precision. Core arguments ARG0–2 are most preferentially split, with high precision but low recall.[]{data-label="tab:srl-split-categories"}
#### Nonterminals
Patterns in [nPMI]{} () suggest basic syntactic notions: complete clauses (S, TOP, SINV) form a group, as do phrase types which take subjects (SBAR, VP, PP), and wh-phrases (WHADVP, WHPP, WHNP).
#### Dependencies
Patterns in [nPMI]{} () indicate several salient groups: verb arguments (nsubj, obj, obl, xcomp), left-heads (det, nmod:poss, compound, amod, case), right-heads (acl, acl:relcl, nmod[^7]), and punct.
#### Semantic roles
Patterns in [nPMI]{} () roughly match intuition: primary core arguments (ARG0, ARG1) are distinguished, as well as modals (ARGM-MOD) and negation (ARGM-NEG), while trailing arguments (ARG2–5) and modifiers (ARGM-TMP, LOC, etc.) form a large group. On one hand, this reflects surface patterns: primary core arguments tend to be close to the verb, with ARG0 on the left and ARG1 on the right; trailing arguments and modifiers tend to be prepositional phrases or subordinate clauses; and modals and negation are identified by lexical and positional cues. On the other hand, this also reflects error patterns in state-of-the-art systems, where label errors can sometimes be traced to ontological choices in PropBank, which distinguish between arguments and adjuncts that have very similar meaning [@he2017deep; @kingsbury2002adding].
While number of induced classes roughly matches gold for most tasks, induced ontologies for semantic roles are considerably more diverse (). Among high-precision labels (), core arguments ARG0–2 are split apart most by the model. This follows intuition for PropBank core argument labels, which have predicate-specific meanings. Other approaches based on Frame Semantics [@baker1998berkeley; @fillmore2006frame], Proto-Roles [@dowty1991thematic; @reisinger2015semantic], or Levin classes [@levin1993english; @schuler2005verbnet] have more explicit fine-grained roles. Comparison with these frameworks and investigation of learned clusters could be informative for future work on ontology design or unsupervised learning.
![Pairwise gold label [nPMI]{}s on selected categories for ontologies induced from BERT-large on selected tasks. Blue is positive [nPMI]{}, representing that gold labels are preferentially grouped together; Red is negative [nPMI]{}, representing that gold labels are preferentially separated. Counts are summed over all 5 runs to better reflect the underlying representations, though variance was low and our observed trends hold across all runs. []{data-label="fig:npmi-megafigure"}](images/nonterminal_bert_npmi_bigtext.png){height="0.255\textheight"}
![Pairwise gold label [nPMI]{}s on selected categories for ontologies induced from BERT-large on selected tasks. Blue is positive [nPMI]{}, representing that gold labels are preferentially grouped together; Red is negative [nPMI]{}, representing that gold labels are preferentially separated. Counts are summed over all 5 runs to better reflect the underlying representations, though variance was low and our observed trends hold across all runs. []{data-label="fig:npmi-megafigure"}](images/ud_bert_npmi_bigtext.png){height="0.255\textheight"}
![Pairwise gold label [nPMI]{}s on selected categories for ontologies induced from BERT-large on selected tasks. Blue is positive [nPMI]{}, representing that gold labels are preferentially grouped together; Red is negative [nPMI]{}, representing that gold labels are preferentially separated. Counts are summed over all 5 runs to better reflect the underlying representations, though variance was low and our observed trends hold across all runs. []{data-label="fig:npmi-megafigure"}](images/srl_bert_npmi_bigtext.png){height="0.255\textheight"}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Our exploration of latent ontologies has yielded some surprising results: ELMo knows people, BERT knows dates, and both sense scalar and measurable values, while distinguishing between small and large numbers. Both models preferentially split core semantic roles into many fine-grained categories, and seem to encode broad notions of syntactic and semantic structure. These findings contrast with those from fully-supervised probes, which produce strong agreement with existing annotations [@tenney2019what] but can also report false positives by fitting to weak patterns in large feature spaces [@zhang2018; @voita2020informationtheoretic]. Instead, agreement of latent categories with known concepts can be taken as strong evidence that these concepts are present as important, salient features in the representation space.
This issue is particularly important when looking for *deep, inherent understanding* of linguistic structure, which by nature must generalize. For supervised systems, generalization is often measured by out-of-distribution objectives like out-of-domain performance [@ganin2016domain], transferability [@wang2018glue], or robustness to adversarial inputs [@jia2017adversarial]. Recent work also advocates for counterfactual learning and evaluation [@qin2019counterfactual; @kaushik2020learning] to mitigate confounds, or contrastive evaluation sets [@gardner2020evaluating] to rigorously test local decision boundaries. Overall, these techniques target discrepancies between salient features in a model and causal relationships in a task. In this work, we extract such features directly and investigate them by comparing induced and gold ontologies. This identifies some very strong cases of transferability from the binary detection task to detection tasks over gold subcategories, such as ELMo’s *people* and BERT’s *dates* (). Future work may investigate *cross-task* ontology matching to identify further cases of transferable features, or perhaps the emergence of categories signifying pipelined reasoning [@tenney2019bert], surface patterns, or new, perhaps unexpected distinctions which can appear when going beyond existing schemas [@michael2018crowdsourcing].
Our results point to a general paradigm of **probing with latent variables**, for which LSL is just one potential technique. We have only scratched the surface of what may emerge with such methods: while our probing test is high specificity, it is low power; plenty of extant latent structure may still be missed. LSL probing may produce different ontologies due to many factors, such as tokenization [@singh2019bert], encoder architecture [@peters2018dissecting], probe architecture [@hewitt-manning-2019-structural], data distribution [@gururangan2018annotation], pretraining task [@liu2019linguistic; @wang2019tell], or pretraining checkpoint. Any of these factors may be at work in the differences we observe between ELMo and BERT: for example, BERT’s tokenization method may not as readily induce *personhood* features due to splitting of rare words (like names) in byte-pair encoding. Furthermore, concurrent work [@chi2020finding] has already found qualitative evidence of syntactic dependency types emergent in the special case of multilingual structural probes [@hewitt-manning-2019-structural]. With LSL, we provide a method that can be adapted to a variety of probing settings to both quantify and qualify this kind of structure.
Conclusion
==========
We introduced a new classifier and model analysis method based on *latent subclass learning*: By factoring a binary classifier through a forced choice of latent subclasses, latent ontologies can be coaxed out of input features. Using this approach, we found that encoders such as BERT and ELMo can be found to hold stable, consistent latent ontologies on a variety of linguistic tasks. In these ontologies, we found clear connections to existing categories, such as *personhood* of named entities. We also found evidence of ontological distinctions beyond traditional gold categories, such as distinguishing large and small numbers, or preferring fine-grained semantic roles for core arguments. With latent subclass learning, we have shown a general technique to uncover some of these features discretely, providing a starting point for descriptive analysis of our models’ latent ontologies. Potential future work may include investigating how LSL results vary with probe architecture, developing intrinsic quality measures on latent ontologies, or applying the technique to discover new patterns in settings where gold annotations are not present.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Tim Dozat, Kenton Lee, Emily Pitler, Kellie Webster, other members of the Google AI Language team, and Sewon Min, who all provided valuable feedback on this paper. We also thank Rafael Müller, Simon Kornblith, and Geoffrey Hinton for discussion on the LSL classifier.
Probe capacity tuning {#app:hdim-tuning}
=====================
Results from hidden size tuning experiments are shown in .
{width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"} {width="\columnwidth"}
Full Experimental Results
=========================
We ran on several additional encoders and tasks. Extra tasks include undirected Universal Dependencies [@nivre2015universal], TAC relation classification [@zhang2017tacred], and coreference on OntoNotes [@pradhan2007ontonotes]. Extra encoders include BERT-base, mBERT[^8] and ALBERT [@lan2020albert]. Full results are shown in Tables 1–7.
More Analysis Results
=====================
We show expanded comparative nPMI plots in and . These use co-occurrence counts summed over 5 runs, and exhibit the same overall trends as each run.
P R F1 Acc. [Diversity]{} [Uncertainty]{}
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ --------------- -----------------
**Gold** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9.71 1.00
**ELMo** 0.40 0.66 0.50 0.83 5.07 1.08
**BERT-base** 0.43 0.57 0.49 0.88 6.09 1.11
**BERT-large** 0.47 0.53 0.50 0.86 7.50 1.10
**mBERT** 0.25 0.67 0.37 0.84 3.29 1.06
**ALBERT-large** 0.38 0.53 0.44 0.89 6.00 1.15
**BERT-large (lex)** 0.19 0.39 0.26 0.74 4.33 1.13
P R F1 Acc. [Diversity]{} [Uncertainty]{}
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ --------------- -----------------
**Gold** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.15 1.00
**ELMo** 0.36 0.25 0.30 0.58 10.16 1.12
**BERT-base** 0.36 0.41 0.38 0.60 5.76 1.06
**BERT-large** 0.35 0.34 0.35 0.61 7.80 1.06
**mBERT** 0.36 0.34 0.35 0.59 7.38 1.06
**ALBERT-large** 0.38 0.28 0.32 0.59 9.07 1.08
**BERT-large (lex)** 0.22 0.80 0.34 0.50 1.47 1.26
P R F1 Acc. [Diversity]{} [Uncertainty]{}
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ --------------- -----------------
**Gold** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22.91 1.00
**ELMo** 0.23 0.42 0.29 0.67 11.11 1.22
**BERT-base** 0.13 0.34 0.19 0.76 9.69 1.23
**BERT-large** 0.14 0.33 0.19 0.77 11.22 1.23
**mBERT** 0.27 0.51 0.35 0.73 9.40 1.22
**ALBERT-large** 0.23 0.41 0.29 0.72 9.84 1.20
**BERT-large (lex)** 0.06 0.86 0.11 0.50 1.33 1.02
P R F1 Acc. [Diversity]{} [Uncertainty]{}
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ --------------- -----------------
**Gold** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 22.91 1.00
**ELMo** 0.19 0.23 0.21 0.71 19.12 1.14
**BERT-base** 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.85 22.79 1.20
**BERT-large** 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.82 18.51 1.17
**mBERT** 0.24 0.20 0.21 0.83 20.31 1.19
**ALBERT-large** 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.81 20.53 1.14
**BERT-large (lex)** 0.09 0.54 0.16 0.50 3.39 1.00
P R F1 Acc. [Diversity]{} [Uncertainty]{}
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ --------------- -----------------
**Gold** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 8.73 1.00
**ELMo** 0.40 0.17 0.24 0.76 22.35 1.08
**BERT-base** 0.39 0.18 0.25 0.86 21.95 1.15
**BERT-large** 0.37 0.17 0.24 0.88 18.70 1.15
**mBERT** 0.41 0.21 0.28 0.88 19.05 1.12
**ALBERT-large** 0.43 0.21 0.28 0.87 19.90 1.12
**BERT-large (lex)** 0.19 0.39 0.26 0.46 2.81 1.01
P R F1 Acc. [Diversity]{} [Uncertainty]{}
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ --------------- -----------------
**Gold** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
**ELMo** 1.00 0.09 0.16 0.80 14.22 1.18
**BERT-base** 1.00 0.09 0.16 0.86 14.67 1.24
**BERT-large** 1.00 0.09 0.17 0.87 15.57 1.27
**mBERT** 1.00 0.09 0.16 0.83 13.86 1.24
**ALBERT-large** 1.00 0.09 0.16 0.86 13.56 1.26
**BERT-large (lex)** 1.00 0.78 0.87 0.78 1.60 1.03
P R F1 Acc. [Diversity]{} [Uncertainty]{}
---------------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ --------------- -----------------
**Gold** 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 24.78 1.00
**ELMo** 0.11 0.78 0.20 0.77 2.38 1.05
**BERT-base** 0.11 0.90 0.20 0.76 1.94 1.05
**BERT-large** 0.16 0.63 0.25 0.80 3.87 1.11
**mBERT** 0.15 0.87 0.26 0.76 2.21 1.05
**BERT-large (lex)** 0.07 0.97 0.13 0.76 1.11 1.02
{height="0.31\textheight"} {height="0.31\textheight"}
{height="0.31\textheight"} {height="0.31\textheight"}
{height="0.31\textheight"} {height="0.31\textheight"}
{height="0.31\textheight"} {height="0.31\textheight"}
[^1]: $^*$Work performed while at Google.
[^2]: A similar classifier was concurrently developed and presented for use in model distillation by @muller2020subclass.
[^3]: [tfhub.dev/google/elmo/2](tfhub.dev/google/elmo/2)
[^4]: [github.com/google-research/bert](github.com/google-research/bert); `uncased_L-24_H-1024_A-16`
[^5]: Preliminary experiments found similar results for larger $N$, with similar diversity in the full setting.
[^6]: Results for more tasks and encoders are in Appendix B.
[^7]: Often the object in a prepositional phrase modifying a noun.
[^8]: <https://github.com/google-research/bert/blob/master/multilingual.md>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'D. Burgarella, A. Nanni, H. Hirashita, P. Theulé, A. K. Inoue,'
- 'T. T. Takeuchi'
bibliography:
- 'FirstDust\_arXiv2.bib'
date: 'Received November , 2019; accepted February 4, 2020'
title: Observational and theoretical constraints on the formation and early evolution of the first dust grains in galaxies at 5 $<$ z $<$ 10
---
[The first generation of stars were born a few hundred million years after the big bang. These stars synthesized elements heavier than H and He, that are later expelled into the interstellar medium, initiating the rise of metals. Within this enriched medium, the first dust grains formed. This event is cosmological crucial for molecule formation as dust plays a major role by cooling low-metallicity star-forming clouds which can fragment to create lower mass stars. Collecting information on these first dust grains is difficult because of the negative alliance of large distances and low dust masses.]{} [We combine the observational information from galaxies at redshifts 5 $\lesssim$ z $\lesssim$ 10 to constrain their dust emission and theoretically understand the first evolutionary phases of the dust cycle.]{} [Spectral energy distributions (SEDs) are fitted with CIGALE and the physical parameters and their evolution are modelled. From this SED fitting, we build a dust emission template for this population of galaxies in the epoch of reionization.]{} [Our new models explain why some early galaxies are observed and others are not. We follow in time the formation of the first grains by supernovae later destroyed by other supernova blasts and expelled in the circumgalactic and intergalactic media.]{} [We have found evidence for the first dust grains formed in the universe. But, above all, this paper underlines the need to collect more data and to develop new facilities to further constrain the dust cycle in galaxies in the epoch of reionization.]{}
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
Understanding the characteristics of the dust cycle is still an issue. This statement is even truer for Lyman break galaxies at all redshifts (LBGs, e.g. @Burgarella2007) and at redshifts z $>$ 5 (@Bouwens2011, @Finkelstein2010) at the epoch of reionization (EoR). This is due to the severe limits due to sub-millimetre (submm) and millimetre (mm) observations but also because we have a poor idea on the chemical conditions, the dust grain characteristics and even the stellar populations.
Fundamentally, as in the local universe, dust grains in high-redshift (Hi-z) galaxies absorb far ultraviolet (FUV) photons from young and massive stars. By doing so, these grains warm up to dust temperatures of a few tens of degrees and emit far-infrared (FIR) photons. This paper re-evaluates the roles of the relevant physical processes in the formation and early evolution of dust grains in these LBGs: formation in supernovae (SNe) explosion and galactic outflows from lower-mass stars (e.g., @Todini2001, @Matsuura2015, @Ventura2012, @Nanni2013, @Nanni2014, @Marassi2019), destruction by SNe shocks, growth by accretion (e.g., @Hirashita2009, @Dwek2011, @Asano2013) and galactic outflows (e.g., @Jones2018, @Ohyama2019).
What is the dust cycle in high redshift objects?
------------------------------------------------
Two types of stellar sources form and eject dust grains in the interstellar medium (ISM) of galaxies: stars with an initial mass in the range 1 - 8 M$_\odot$ during the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) phase and stars with an initial mass in the range 8 - 40 M$_\odot$ during the core-collapse SNe phase. Dust grains also form seeds that grow in the ISM (e.g., @Dwek1998, @Draine2009, @Jones2011, @Asano2013). AGB dominate dust production in galaxies old enough to allow low-mass stars to evolve to the AGB phase (@Valiante2009). The AGB contribution to the global dust production in metal-poor environments reach at most 30% after about 2 Gyr (@DellAgli2019). This is confirmed in other works (e.g. @Dwek2011, @Dweketal2011). However, SNe blasts produce a reverse shock wave able to destroy dust grains in the ISM (e.g., @Slavin2015, @Matsuura2019, @Nozawa2003, @Dwek2011).
There are numerous works (e.g. review by @Rupke2018) that show that galactic winds are ubiquitous at low redshifts. These multiphase winds carries neutral and ionised gas and dust grains outside the galaxies. For instance, In M82, dust is found well beyond the radius where gas is thought to be outflowing from the galaxy. This suggests that dust escapes from the gravitational potential of galaxies into the intergalactic space (e.g., @Engelbracht2006, @Yoshida2019). Dust is also observed in the outflows from other local star-forming galaxies and strong evidence for dust in the outflowing neutral clouds is also found at z = 3 (@Shapley2003). Very recently, in a very detailed analysis, @Jones2018 find that their measurements favour a picture where the majority of heavy elements are ejected in a predominantly low ionization outflow, which regulates galactic chemical evolution.
The origin and the evolution of dust at high redshift has become a prominent issue since the early works of @Watson2015. At z $>$ 5, large amounts of dust ($\sim$10$^8$ M$_\odot$) are found in galaxies (e.g., @Riechers2013, @Mortlock2011, @Venemans2012, @Michalowski2015) or quasars (e.g., @Bertoldi2003, @Priddey2003, @Robson2004, @Beelen2006, @Michalowski2010, @Cullen2017, @Lesniewska2019). Recently, we started to collect new and interesting data on the galaxy host of $\gamma$-ray bursts that will be very useful to study the properties of dust and the comparison of dust extinction and dust attenuation laws in these objects (e.g., @Stratta2011, @Hjorth2013, @Bolmer2018).
What explains the rest-frame UV colour properties and detectability of Hi-z LBGs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Hi-z LBGs observed in FIR are not detected (e.g. @Capak2015, @Bouwens2016, @Hirashita2017). Explanations are proposed to understand the non-detections. @Ferrara2017 propose that these objects can contain a large molecular gas mass. While dust in the diffuse ISM attains relatively high temperatures (T $\approx$ 70 - 80K), dust embedded in dense gas remains cold (T $\approx$ 30 - 40K). @Faisst2017 suggest that radiation pressure causes a spatial offset between dust clouds and young star-forming regions within the lifetime of O/B stars. These offsets modify the radiation balance and create viewing-angle effects that can change UV colours at fixed IRX (IRX = log (L$_{dust}$ / L$_{FUV}$)).
We use a 7-year WMAP7 cosmology (@Komatsu2011) as adopted by Astropy, of $\Omega_M$ = 0.273, $\Omega_\Lambda$ = 0.727 and H$_0$ = 70.4. We assume a Chabrier initial mass function (IMF, @Chabrier2003) for the SED fitting because top-heavy IMF (m$^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha$ = -1.5, -1.35, -1.0 , @Dabringhausen2010, @Gall2011) single stellar populations (SSPs) models are not available in CIGALE. The Chabrier IMF for the SED fitting is fixed in the one assumed by [@Bruzual2003], i.e., the lower and upper mass cut-offs m$_{Low} = 0.1 M_{\odot}$ and m$_{Up} = 100 M_{\odot}$. A Chabrier and a top-heavy IMFs are assumed for the dust modelling lower and upper mass cut-offs m$_{Low} = 1.3 M_{\odot}$ and m$_{Up} = 30 M_{\odot}$.
Building spectral energy distributions {#Building_SEDs}
======================================
The Hi-z LBG sample is inhomogeneous and collected from several papers listed in Tab. \[Table\_Data\]. It corresponds to a FUV selection. The criteria are the following ones: we selected all LBGs to have spectroscopic redshifts in the range 5 $\lesssim$ z $\lesssim$ 10 for which a mm detection was attempted (successful or not) in the rest-frame far-infrared (Tab. \[Table\_Data\]). Practically, this means that we focused on LBGs observed in ALMA’s Band 6 and 7. This redshift range (at EoR) provides constraints in rest-frame FIR, i.e., observed in the mm range. As an additional criteria, we only use LBGs with at least 5 data points in the rest-frame UV and optical. We collected photometric data to build SEDs and derive stellar masses (M$_{star}$), dust masses (M$_{dust}$), star formation rates (SFR), FUV and dust luminosities (L$_{FUV}$ and L$_{dust}$), the age of the dominant stellar population (Age$_{main}$) and the UV slope $\beta$ (@Calzetti1994). The set of data is consistently fit with the same code CIGALE (@Burgarella2005, @Noll2009, @Boquien2019), using the same dust models (@Draine2007, @Draine2014). The CIGALE modules and input parameters used for all the fits are described in Tab. \[Table\_CIGALE\]. To model the dust emission, we also tried a modified, single dust temperature grey body plus a mid-IR power law which approximates the hot-dust emission from AGN (Active Galactic Nuclei) heating or clumpy, hot star bursting regions [@Casey2012]. The impact is negligible and we base this paper on the former to constrain our models. The dust models are calibrated with a sub sample of dwarf (compact with sizes ranging from 0.08’ to 1.2’, @Madden2013) low-metallicity galaxies (Low-zZ) with $12+\log(O/H) \le 8.4$ in the Dwarf Galaxy Survey (DGS, @Madden2013, @Remy-Ruyer2015). The DGS has been originally selected from the Herschel Dwarf Galaxy Survey. It is a compilation of a SPIRE SAG2 guaranteed time (GT) key program plus SPIRE GT2 observations, using the PACS and SPIRE instruments inboard the Herschel Space Observatory to obtain 55–500$\mu$m photometry and spectroscopy of 48 dwarf galaxies in our local Universe, chosen to cover a broad range of physical conditions. We add data from the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED) in the UV (GALEX) and in the optical (B and R bands). When selecting the FUV, NUV, B and R data in NED, we have kept the data that provide total fluxes for our galaxies and when several total fluxes were available we preferred new or newly reprocessed ones. If these criteria are not respected, no data were added for the corresponding objects, which finally meant that we did not keep them in the Low-zZ sample.
[|>p[2.7cm]{}|>p[2.6cm]{}|>p[1.5cm]{}|>p[1.6cm]{}|p[8.0cm]{}|]{}
& [**Number of objects**]{} & [**Selection**]{} & [**redshift**]{} &[**Note**]{}\
@Bouwens2016) & 3 & UV & $5 \lesssim z \lesssim 10$ & \* ALMA 6 upper limits SNR$_{HST}$ $>$ 1.5. LBGs with $>\ 5$ data points in UV-optical only\
@Capak2015 & @Faisst2017 & 9 (HZ1 - HZ4 & HZ6 - HZ10) & UV & z $\sim$ 5.6 & \* \[CII\]158$\mu$ m for all Hi-z LBGs ALMA 7 detections: HZ4, HZ6 (3) HZ9 & HZ10 (5) ALMA 7 upper limits for the others HZ5 detected in Chandra and not included in the sample Additional data from @Pavesi2016\
@Scoville2016 & 1 (566428) & UV & z = 5.89 & \* ALMA 6 detection \[CII\]158$\mu$ m measurement\
@Willott2015 & 2 (CLM1 & WMH5) & UV & z $\sim$ 6.1 & \* ALMA 6 detections \[CII\]158$\mu$ m measurement\
@Aravena2016 & 2 (ID27, ID31) & UV & z $\sim$ 7.5 & \* ALMA 6 detections \[CII\]158$\mu$ m measurement\
@Hashimoto2018 & 1 (MACSJD1149) & UV & z = 9.1 & \* ALMA 7 upper limit \[OIII\]88$\mu$ m measurement\
@Remy-Ruyer2015 & 31 & DGS &Z < 0.1Z$_\odot$ & z $\sim$ 0 & \* GALEX FUV and NUV data from NED B and R data from NED IR data (including Herschel) from @Remy-Ruyer2013 and @Remy-Ruyer2015\
\[Table\_Data\]
The IR information on these Hi-z LBGs is limited. Our approach relies on the assumption that the physical conditions for dust grains are shared by these LBGs, which means that these LBGs share the same FIR SED shape within uncertainties. Here, we have used luminosity-weighted SEDs normalized at $\lambda = 200 \mu$m, where the dust is optically thin (e.g. @Casey2012). Our LBG sample presents different FIR-to-FUV ratios and the dust attenuations are different. We leverage the redshift range to combine and build the IR SEDs of our ALMA-detected LBGs and thus gain access to a better spectral information for these objects (Fig. 1). However, we have no observational information on the dust emission, below the peak, i.e. near- and mid-IR. From the assumption that these Hi-z LBGs are metal-poor (@Castellano2014, @Yuan2019), we use the minimum value for q$_{PAH}$ (fraction of the dust mass in the PAH) because q$_{PAH}$ is correlated with the metallicity (e.g., @Ciesla2014). From our SEDs, $\gamma$, the fraction of the dust heated by starlight above the lower cutoff U$_{min}$ (the minimum of the distribution of starlight intensity relative to the local interstellar radiation field), in Draine and Li’s models cannot be constrained. We assume that the best value for the DGS sample is valid for the Hi-z LBGs (but the impact of this parameter on our result is limited to $\pm$8%, estimated using the range found by [@Alvarez-Marquez2019] on a sample of 22000 LBGs at z $\sim$ 3.0). In addition to the dust continuum information, we use the emission in the rest-frame FUV and optical range to model the stellar populations. Whenever available, \[CII\]158$\mu$m and \[OIII\]88.3$\mu$m are used to constrain the SED fitting. The nebular module in CIGALE uses nebular templates based on [@Inoue2011], which have been generated using CLOUDY 08.00 (@Ferland1998). Each line has a Gaussian shape with a user–defined line width to take rotation into account, which can be especially important for narrowband filters and high–redshift objects due to the apparent line broadening with redshift in the observed frame. This normalised nebular emission line spectrum is rescaled to the appropriate level by multiplying by the ionizing photon luminosity which was computed along with the composite stellar population.
[|>p[3.0cm]{}|>p[3.0cm]{}|>p[2.1cm]{}|>p[2.1cm]{}|>p[2.1cm]{}|>p[2.1cm]{}|]{}
& [**Symbol**]{} & [**Range (Ph. 1, Hi-z LBGs)**]{} & [**Range (Ph. 2, Low-zZ)**]{} & [**Range (Ph. 3, Hi-z LBGs)**]{} & [**Range (Ph. 4, Hi-z LBGs)**]{}\
Target sample & & Individual Hi-z LBGs & Individual Low-zZ & Combined Hi-z LBGs & Individual Hi-z LBGs\
\
\
e-folding time-scale of the delayed SFH & $\tau_{main}$ \[Myr\] & 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000 & 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000 & 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000 & 25, 50, 100, 250\
Age of the main population & Age$_{main}$\[Myr\] & 61 log values in \[2 - 1000\] & 61 log values in \[2 - 1500\] & 17 log values in \[1, 800\] & 101 log values in \[50, 1260\]\
Burst & f$_{burst}$ & No burst & No burst & No burst & No burst\
\
\
SSP & & BC03 & BC03 & BC03 & BC03\
Initial Mass Function & IMF & Chabrier & Chabrier & Chabrier & Chabrier\
Metallicity & Z & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.004 & 0.004\
\
\
Ionisation parameter & logU & -1.5 & -1.5 & -1.5 & -1.5\
Line Width \[km/s\] & — & 100 & 100 & 100 & 100\
\
\
Colour excess for both the old and young stellar populations & E\_BV\_lines & 61 log values in \[0.001, 0.3\] & 61 log values in \[0.001, 1.0\] & 11 log values in \[1e-3, 1e0\] & 101 log values in \[1e-3, 1e0\]\
Bump amplitude & uv\_bump\_amplitude & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0\
Power law slope & power law\_slope & -0.7, -0.35, 0.0, 0.35, 0.7 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0\
\
\
Mass fraction of PAH & $q_{PAH}$ & 0.47,1.12, 1.77, 2.50, 3.19 & 0.47,1.12, 1.77, 2.50, 3.19 & 0.47 & 0.47\
Minimum radiation field & U$_{min}$ & 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0, 50.0 & 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0, 50.0 & 4.0 & 4.0\
Power law slope dU/dM $\approx$ U$^\alpha$ & $\alpha$ & 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 3.0 & 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 2.8, 3.0 & 2.2 & 2.2\
Dust fraction in PDRs & $\gamma$ & 0.00, 0.01, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0 & 0.00, 0.01, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0 & 0.75 & 0.75\
\
\
\[Table\_CIGALE\]
Methodology to derive the physical parameters
=============================================
The SED analysis is performed in five phases.
1. [Phase 0:]{} A necessary preliminary phase was to perform a lot of initial fits on individual Low-zZ and Hi-z LBGs to understand the limits of the physical parameters to be explored (star formation history (SFH), dust attenuation, AGN fraction, etc.) in the CIGALE fits. Because of the exploration nature of these fits, these initial fits are not reported in Tab. \[Table\_CIGALE\].
2. [Phase 1:]{} CIGALE fits individual Hi-z LBGs with a large distribution of priors for the dust parameters and SFH (delayed[^1], delayed + burst, and constant SFHs are assumed). Constant SFHs provide very close results. Fits with a delayed + burst SFH are less good. Because none of the stellar models available in CIGALE feature a top-heavy IMF, we use a Chabrier IMF[^2] These initial fits provide an estimated rest-frame flux$_{200 \mu m}$ to normalize the SEDs (with FIR detections) at $\lambda = 200 \mu$m where the dust is optically thin (e.g. @Casey2012). Detected LBGs at 5 $\lesssim$ z $\lesssim$ 10 allow to sample the spectrum of dust emission (Fig. \[Fig\_Template\_Tdust\]). Although only the Rayleigh-Jeans range is covered, dust temperatures in the range 40K to 70K fit the data better.
3. [Phase 2:]{} Local Low-zZ galaxies are often said to be analogues to early galaxies (@Madden2013, @Capak2015, @Hou2019), We compile a sample of Low-zZ galaxies from @Remy-Ruyer2013 and @Remy-Ruyer2015. We only keep DGS galaxies with 12 + log(O/H) $<$ 8.0. With the same assumptions on the priors than for the LBGs, these galaxies are fit with CIGALE. We check that the main dust physical parameters found for the Low-zZ sample are in agreement with the ones from the Hi-z LBG sample (which confirms the partial analogy) and we leverage the former fits to set the value of the $\gamma$ parameter in the models from @Draine2007 and @Draine2014. We also check that the value estimated for q$_{PAH}$ is consistent with our assumption of a low metallicity (Fig. \[Fig\_gamma\_PAH\_Low-zZ\]).
4. [Phase 3:]{} q$_{PAH}$ and $\gamma$ are fixed and we fit the IR-combined SEDs of the Hi-z LBGs (Fig. \[Fig\_Template-fit\]). This Phase 3 provides physical parameters for the average combined SEDs of the Hi-z LBGs used to build the Hi-z IR template. The fit with a modified black body gives: $\beta_{submm}$ = 1.51 (slope on rest-frame submm side of the dust emission) and T$_{dust}$ = 56.6K.
5. [Phase 4:]{} We re-fit all the Hi-z LBGs over the FUV-to-FIR range with this Hi-z IR template (Tabs. \[Table1\_Hi-z\] and \[Table2\_Hi-z\] ). As a safety check, we also fit the low-zZ galaxies with the same IR template. The quality of the fit is shown in the Annex.
{width="2\columnwidth"}
![Distribution of the $\gamma_{Low-zZ}$ (left panel) and q$_{PAH\_Low-zZ}$ (right panel) dust parameters from Draine & Li’s models for the Low-zZ galaxy sample. The $\gamma_{Low-zZ}$ distribution peaks at 0.75 $\pm$ 0.07 and most of the q$_{PAH}$ = 0.47 which is the lowest value in Draine & Li’s models. $\gamma_{Low-zZ}$ is assumed to be valid for the Hi-z LBG sample and q$_{PAH\_Low-zZ}$ is fully consistent with our assumed q$_{PAH\_Hi-z}$.[]{data-label="Fig_gamma_PAH_Low-zZ"}](Fig_gamma_Low-zZ.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"} ![Distribution of the $\gamma_{Low-zZ}$ (left panel) and q$_{PAH\_Low-zZ}$ (right panel) dust parameters from Draine & Li’s models for the Low-zZ galaxy sample. The $\gamma_{Low-zZ}$ distribution peaks at 0.75 $\pm$ 0.07 and most of the q$_{PAH}$ = 0.47 which is the lowest value in Draine & Li’s models. $\gamma_{Low-zZ}$ is assumed to be valid for the Hi-z LBG sample and q$_{PAH\_Low-zZ}$ is fully consistent with our assumed q$_{PAH\_Hi-z}$.[]{data-label="Fig_gamma_PAH_Low-zZ"}](Fig_qPAH_Low-zZ.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
![Fit of the IR template SED built from individual ones normalised at 200 $\mu$m and combined. We used Draine and Li’s and a modified black body a-la-Casey (2012).[]{data-label="Fig_Template-fit"}](Fig_Template-fit_dl2014.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Fit of the IR template SED built from individual ones normalised at 200 $\mu$m and combined. We used Draine and Li’s and a modified black body a-la-Casey (2012).[]{data-label="Fig_Template-fit"}](Fig_Template-fit_casey2012.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}
![Probability distribution functions for the dust temperature and the emissivity derived from the fit of the IR dust template built from the Hi-z LBGs with CIGALE and a modified black body a-la-Casey (2012).[]{data-label="Fig_dust_PDF"}](LBG_dust-temperature_casey2012.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"} ![Probability distribution functions for the dust temperature and the emissivity derived from the fit of the IR dust template built from the Hi-z LBGs with CIGALE and a modified black body a-la-Casey (2012).[]{data-label="Fig_dust_PDF"}](LBG_dust-beta_casey2012.pdf "fig:"){width="0.45\columnwidth"}
Results {#Results}
=======
From Tab. \[Table1\_Hi-z\] and Tab. \[Table2\_Hi-z\] we compute the specific SFR (sSFR = SFR/M$_{star}$), the specific dust mass (sM$_{dust}$ = M$_{dust}$/M$_{star}$) and IRX = L$_{dust}$ / L$_{FUV}$. In Figs. \[Fig\_DFRD\_Age\] and \[Fig\_DFRD\_IRX\], we define the dust formation rate diagram (DFRD): sM$_{dust}$ vs. sSFR. The x-axis provides an information on the stellar population and the y-axis on dust grains. For some of the galaxies, the fit is not good, e.g., SBS 0335-052 (see Sect. \[Results\]). Two possible origins for these bad fits are the quality of the data and/or that our template do not match the dust properties of these objects. They are not used in our analysis.
The physical parameters derived for the Hi-z LBG and the Low-zZ DGS samples by CIGALE are listed in Tab. \[Table1\_Hi-z\], Tab. \[Table2\_Hi-z\] and Tab. \[Table\_Low-zZ\].
By definition, CIGALE checks that the observed SED is consistent with the assumed SFH and we have tried several SFHs before selecting the delayed one. A first result from the SED fitting, both for the Hiz-LBGs and the Low-zZ DGS objects is that both $\tau_{SFH}$ and the range of ages are quite short (Tabs. \[Table1\_Hi-z\] and \[Table2\_Hi-z\] and Tab. \[Table\_Low-zZ\]) with ages in the range 100 - 500 Myrs for the Hiz-LBGs and 35 - 1300 Myrs for the Low-zZ sample. From this result, two important points should be noted: i) we know that some young and even very young stellar populations are present in some of these objects. The most extreme one is the galaxy at z = 9.1 (@Hashimoto2018) and observational evidences (\[OIII\]88.3$\mu$m line for instance) suggest the presence of a very young stellar population (a few Myrs). However, this paper deals with dust characteristics and any dust produced/destroyed over so short time-scales do not impact on the dust budget. This is why we assume a delayed (no final bursts) star formation history in the SED fitting. ii) this age range is in agreement with the properties of this sample as they are dwarf, low-metallicity star-forming galaxies (@Maiolino2008, @Madden2013, @Cormier2019) This is the reason why they are often cited as being high-redshift LBG analogues.
Fig. \[Fig\_DFRD\_Age\] is colour-coded by age of the stellar population, assuming a delayed SFH. Both panels of Fig. \[Fig\_DFRD\_Age\] exhibit an age evolutionary sequence with younger objects at higher sSFR. To the right-hand side of both panels, sM$_{dust}$ presents (or reaches) an apparent maximum at sSFR $\sim$ 10$^{-8}$ yr$^{-1}$ with a decline at lower sSFRs. Fig. \[Fig\_DFRD\_IRX\] is colour-coded by IRX. Galaxies have low IRX to the right-hand side, i.e. at large sSFR but also to the left-hand side, i.e., to low sSFRs. In between, objects have larger IRX values.
Combining the information from Figs. \[Fig\_DFRD\_Age\] and \[Fig\_DFRD\_IRX\], a qualitative scenario seems to emerge. We first focus on the Hi-z LBG sample which is the core objective of this work: Hi-z LBGs with low IRX, low sM$_{dust}$ and low ages are found at high sSFR. We also find Hi-z LBGs with low IRX and even lower sM$_{dust}$ but large ages are found at low sSFR. In between, we see an apparent maximum observed in IRX and sM$_{dust}$ for the present Hi-z LBG sample at sSFR $\sim$10$^{-8}$yr$^{-1}$ that needs to be confirmed by future observational data. Both IRX and sM$_{dust}$ decline and age increases to a locus at sSFR$\sim$10$^{-10}$ - 10$^{-9}$ yr$^{-1}$ where we find the LBGs with upper limits as those discussed in @Capak2015, @Ferrara2017 and @Faisst2017. This seems to define an evolutionary sequence from the right of the DFRD where the first dust grains form to the left where they are removed/destroyed. In Fig. \[Fig\_sMdust\_Age\], we confirm the trends observed in Figs. \[Fig\_DFRD\_Age\] and \[Fig\_DFRD\_IRX\] by plotting sM$_{dust}$ vs. age$_{main}$. The decline of sM$_{dust}$ is interpreted as an efficient dust removal (destruction or outflow) with a time-scale of $\sim$500Myrs. A word of caution, though: if the dust grains are carried away into the wider ISM, they could cool down or warm up from the injection of kinetic energy and therefore could be more difficult to detect given our wavelength coverage (Fig. \[Fig\_Template\_Tdust\]). We can try to quantify the removal trends: the distribution of Bayesian values $t/\tau$ found by the CIGALE SED fitting are in the range $0.5 \le t/\tau \le 7.5$. The galaxies with the maximum sM$_{dust}$ are in the range 0.4 - 2.9 corresponding to an integrated SFR = 12% and 80%, respectively. The maximum SFR occurs at $t/\tau = 1.0$ where about 26% of the stars have formed. This means (and it is not unexpected) that sM$_{dust}$ correlates with SFR and therefore to the dust production by stars and not in the ISM.
If we now focus on the Low-zZ sample, our interpretation is that separate parallel sM$_{dust}$ vs sSFR sequences could be stratified from bottom to top in addition to a right-to-left one. Accounting for the age sequence for these low-zZ galaxies from Fig. \[Fig\_DFRD\_Age\], it could there be possible that these local galaxies undergo an increase of sM$_{dust}$ when getting older. However, this interpretation is not valid for the Hi-z sample where we do not see low-IRX objects at intermediate sSFR and no high-IRX objects on the left-hand side of the plot, at low sSFR, while we still observe the evolutionary sequence from right to left. Under this hypothesis, we can suggest that the low-zZ and Hi-z LBG sample are not perfect analogues: it is possible that we observe for the Low-zZ galaxies the effect of another parameter, the metallicity (Fig. \[Fig\_DFRD\_IRX\], lower panel) because these galaxies formed at much later cosmic time than the Hi-z LBGs. Indeed, we knew that the metallicity and IRX of Low-zZ galaxies (black filled dots) are correlated (e.g. Heckman et al. 1998, Boissier et al. 2004). In Fig. \[Fig\_12logOH\], the linear fit we estimate for the Low-zZ sample is close to but above the starburst galaxy relation found by Heckman et al. (1998) and passes through the average of the two data points corresponding to galaxies at z = 3.3 by Pannella et al. (2015). Using the updated derived relation between IRX and 12+$\log_{10}$(O/H) for the Low-zZ sample ($\log_{10}$ (IRX) = 1.856 $\times$ (12+$\log_{10}$ (O/H)), we can estimate the metallicity of the Hi-z LBG sample. The normalized distribution of the latter shown in Fig. \[Fig\_12logOH\] is offset to lower metallicities by about 0.3 as compared to the former. So, the origin of the difference between the two samples in Figs. \[Fig\_DFRD\_Age\] and \[Fig\_DFRD\_IRX\] might be due to the higher metallicity of the Low-zZ galaxies sample where dust growth in the ISM could contribute to the dust formation, especially in the highest metallicity of these Low-zZ galaxies as suggested by several papers for the DGS sample (e.g. @Asano2013). [@Asano2013] define a metallicity as the critical metallicity Z$_{cr}$, which is the switching metallicity point at which the increasing rate of dust mass by the dust mass growth exceeds the dust production rate by stars. This Z$_{cr} \sim 0.1 - 0.5$ which approximately corresponds to 12+$\log_{10}$ (O/H)) = 8.0 - 8.6, in agreement with the Fig. 5 in [@Ma2016]. In other words, the Low-zZ sample might not be as clean and homogeneous sample than the Hi-z LBG one and are not complete analogues to galaxies in the early universe.
{width="2\columnwidth"} {width="2\columnwidth"}
{width="2\columnwidth"} {width="2\columnwidth"} {width="1.9\columnwidth"}
![Top: We estimate the relation (dashed red line) between the metallicity and IRX of our Low-zZ galaxies (black filled dots) 12+$\log_{10}$ (O/H) = 0.2829 $\times$ $\log_{10}$ (IRX) + 7.8155. We find that our fit resembles the starburst galaxy relation found by Heckman et al. (1998). However, our fit is less steep and closer to the average of the two data points corresponding to galaxies at z = 3.3 by Pannella et al. (2015). Bottom: from the derived relation between IRX and 12+$\log_{10}$(O/H) for the Low-zZ sample (dashed red line), we estimate the metallicity of the Hi-z LBG sample (blue continuous line). The distribution (normalized to the area) of the latter is lower than the Low-zZ one by about 0.5. This difference between the two samples could explain the upturn for Low-zZ objects not observed for Hi-z LBGs in Figs. \[Fig\_DFRD\_Age\] and \[Fig\_DFRD\_IRX\] because the dust growth in the ISM could contribute to the dust formation, especially in the highest metallicity of these Low-zZ galaxies.[]{data-label="Fig_12logOH"}](Fig_logIRX_12logOH_28dec.pdf "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"} ![Top: We estimate the relation (dashed red line) between the metallicity and IRX of our Low-zZ galaxies (black filled dots) 12+$\log_{10}$ (O/H) = 0.2829 $\times$ $\log_{10}$ (IRX) + 7.8155. We find that our fit resembles the starburst galaxy relation found by Heckman et al. (1998). However, our fit is less steep and closer to the average of the two data points corresponding to galaxies at z = 3.3 by Pannella et al. (2015). Bottom: from the derived relation between IRX and 12+$\log_{10}$(O/H) for the Low-zZ sample (dashed red line), we estimate the metallicity of the Hi-z LBG sample (blue continuous line). The distribution (normalized to the area) of the latter is lower than the Low-zZ one by about 0.5. This difference between the two samples could explain the upturn for Low-zZ objects not observed for Hi-z LBGs in Figs. \[Fig\_DFRD\_Age\] and \[Fig\_DFRD\_IRX\] because the dust growth in the ISM could contribute to the dust formation, especially in the highest metallicity of these Low-zZ galaxies.[]{data-label="Fig_12logOH"}](Fig_Histo_12logOH_28dec.pdf "fig:"){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
{width="2\columnwidth"}
In Fig. \[Fig\_IRX\_beta\], we see that Hi-z LBGs with young stellar ages are found to the left and above Meurer’s law (the local starburst law linking IRX and $\beta$, @Meurer1999) while older and lower sM$_{dust}$ LBGs are found below this law, in the region previously identified from ALMA-undetected LBGs by @Capak2015. Therefore, the origin of the position of these Hi-z LBGs is consistent with having both low-IRX values and red UV slopes $\beta$.
{width="1.9\columnwidth"} {width="2\columnwidth"}
Modelling the dust evolutionary sequence
========================================
It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe the models in detail. They will be fully explained in an associated paper (Nanni et al. 2020, in prep.). In brief, we perform the calculations for the metal evolution using the OMEGA code (One-zone Model for the Evolution of GAlaxies, @Cote2017). We assume the metal yields for type II SNe from @Kobayashi2006 computed up to 40 M$_{\odot}$, and from the FRUITY database for low-mass stars with M > 1.3 M$_{\odot}$ evolving through the thermally pulsing AGB phase and developing stellar winds (@Cristallo2011, @Piersanti2013, @Cristallo2015). The yields for population III stars are from @Heger2010 and are limited to the mass range 10 < M/M$_{\odot}$ < 30 in OMEGA.
Dust removal from the galaxy through galactic outflow follows a rate proportional to the SFR through the “mass-loading factor”: ML $\times$ SFR. This assumes that the galactic outflow is generated by the feedback of stars on the gas in the ISM (e.g., @Murray2005). The SFH is a delayed one with $\tau$ assumed to be 83Myrs (in agreement with the average value found from the SED fitting). Two kind of IMFs are tested: top-heavy IMFs: m$^{\alpha}$ with $\alpha$ = -1.5, -1.35, -1.0 defined above in this paper and a Chabrier IMF.
We assume that a fraction of silicates (olivine and pyroxene), iron and carbon grains ejected in the ISM are condensed. In different works (@Ventura2012, @Nanni2013, @Nanni2014) it has been shown that for low-mass stars, the condensation fraction[^3] ($f_i$) of silicate and carbon dust can be up to 50-60% or slightly more during the super wind phase, when most of the mass is lost by the stars through stellar winds.
In a recent work in which dust dust condensation in SNe remnants is modelled @Marassi2019), a fair estimate of the mass of dust over the mass of metals is found to be 0.3 $<$ $f_i$ $<$ 0.6. In this calculations, however the effect of the reverse shock on dust destruction is not taken into account. There is not yet a common agreement on the amount of dust produced by SNe, also on the observational viewpoint. @Bocchio2016 argued that a only a small fraction (a few per cent) of the dust produced initially condensed in SNe remnants would survive the reverse shock, while @Gall2014 found evidence of large dust grains ($>\ 1\mu m$) in SNe remnants might survive the passage of the reverse shock. @Matsuura2019 have also found that dust might be reformed after the passage of a shock.
In this work, we define the condensation fraction at each time-step as the ratio between the number of atoms locked into dust grains over the maximum that can condense according to its stoichiometric formula and to the chemical composition of the gas. On the basis of theoretical calculations we assume for TP-AGB stars: $f_{Si}$ = 0.6 for silicates, $f_{Fe\_iron}$ = 0.01 for solid iron and $f_{C\_car}$ = 0.5 for carbon dust grains. For SNe we consider two cases: a very high value of the condensation fraction: $f_{Si}$= 1.0 for silicates, $f_{Fe\_iron}$ = 1.0 and $f_{C\_car}$ = 0.5 for carbon to carbon dust grains, and an additional test case with half of the previously assumed condensation fraction and IMF with $\alpha$ = 1. These assumptions correspond to two very favourable scenarios for dust condensation in SNe remnants.
For each dust species the destruction rate by SNe is computed as: SNe$_{destr}$ = M$_{dust,i}$ / $\tau_{destr}$ where M$_{dust, i}$ is the dust mass of each dust species, $\tau_{destr}$ is the destruction time-scale evaluated as: $\tau_{destr}$ = M$_{gas}$ / ($\tau_{destr}$ R$_{SNe}$ M$_{swept}$) where M$_{gas}$ is the gas mass in the galaxy that changes as a function of the outflow and star formation, $\epsilon_{destr}$ is the efficiency of the destruction. Here $\epsilon_{destr}$ = 0.1 (@Hirashita2019) R$_{SNe}$ is the SNe rate and M$_{swept}$ is the mass of gas swept by the SNe blast wave. We explore values for M$_{swept}$ = 1000 and 6800 M$_{\odot}$. The latter case represents the typical value assumed in the literature (e.g. @Dwek2007), while the former assumption considers that much lower values for M$_{swept}$ are also possible (@Nozawa2006).
In the dust removal budget, outflows are dominant ($\gtrsim$ 70 – 80%) over SN destruction ($\lesssim$ 20 – 30%).
The best models selected by computed the $\chi^2$ with respect to sM$_{dust}$, sSFR and age are presented in Fig. \[Fig\_Models\]. The blue models show that we can explain the structure of the DFRD diagram. However, even though the models are consistent with the data if we account for the uncertainties, we cannot reach the top data points. This might or might not mean that we are still missing some important physics about the dust cycle in these early galaxies. The fact that the models are low in the DFRD could be relevant given the uncertainties in the theoretical metal yields presently available in the literature and quoted earlier in this paper. Further observational constraints and deeper theoretical studies need to be devoted to the understanding of the dust cycle in the first galaxies.
The average $\tau_{SFH}\ 83Myrs$ found by fitting individual LBGs is used for the SFH in our modelling. The calculations have been performed by normalizing the total stellar mass formed in the galaxy after 13 Gyr to 1 M$_\odot$. We adopted different initial total baryonic mass of the galaxy between M$_{gas}$ = 20 M$_\odot$ and 100 M$_\odot$. The larger the mass of the gas the lower the dust destruction efficiency of SNe. Different values of the mass loading factor (ML) have also been tested, ranging from 0.5 to 0.98 $\times$ M$_{gas}$.
For the best models shown in blue in Fig. \[Fig\_Models\], we have computed the mean and standard deviation values: M$_{gas}$ = 57.9 $\pm$ 26.7, $\alpha$ = -1.14 $\pm$ 0.18, ML = 38.3 $\pm$ 18.2 and M$_{swept}$ = 3951 $\pm$ 2900.
{width="2\columnwidth"}
Conclusions
===========
The major result from this work is a consistent model that explains the (sub-)mm detections (or non-detections) of Hi-z LBGs in the EoR. The non-detections are explained by dust destruction by shocks produced by SNe plus removal in the circum- and intergalactic media by outflows (Fig. \[Fig\_Models\]). Such large-scale outflows of interstellar material are a generic feature of LBGs (@Shapley2003, @Pettini2002). The models here presented do not include grain growth in the ISM of these galaxies since the efficiency of such a process can be highly inhibited at the very low temperature characterizing the ISM (@Ferrara2016, @Ceccarelli2018). Our modelling suggests that a Chabrier IMF cannot produce enough dust mass to reach the upper part of the sequence close. For these LBGs, a top-heavy IMF is preferred.
The possible rise, suggested from data, and decline of sM$_{dust}$ with sSFR would be the formation and removal (dust destruction and outflow) of the first dust grains in the universe. If a coeval and massive burst of star formation occurred in the early universe (pop.III), we could predict an [*earlier bump*]{} at higher redshift in the evolution of the cosmic average dust attenuation [@Burgarella2013]. However, this bump is likely to be blurred by a non-coeval galaxy formation.
There are still large uncertainties in our modelling because of a poor knowledge of the physical conditions in the early universe. It is crucial to further constrain the models by securing new observational data and invest in works on dust modelling to fully explain the dust cycle in Hi-z LBGs (and in other objects).
Part of this work was supported by the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiale (CNES) through a post-doctoral fellowship for AN.
Individual fits
===============
Individual fits are shown in Fig.s \[Fig1\_individual\_fits\], \[Fig2\_individual\_fits\] and \[Fig3\_individual\_fits\].
{width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
{width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
{width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"} {width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Quality of the fits
===================
{width="1.\columnwidth"} {width="1.\columnwidth"} {width="1.\columnwidth"}
{width="1.\columnwidth"} {width="1.\columnwidth"} {width="1.\columnwidth"}
{width="1.0\columnwidth"}
Physical parameters derived for the final individual fits of the Low-zZ sample
==============================================================================
[^1]: $SFR\ = \frac{t}{\tau^2}e^{-\frac{t}{\tau}}$
[^2]: Using a top-heavy IMF in the SED fitting instead of a Chabrier one could change the results of the SED fitting in the UV-optical range but less on the IR range. Future development of CIGALE will address this issue. In a similar way, stellar models that include binaries (e.g., BPASS @Stanway2018) would change the UV-optical emission of these galaxies. We will address this possibility in a future paper.
[^3]: the condensation fraction is the number of atoms of the least abundant elements forming a certain dust species divided by the total number of atoms initially available.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
---
DESY 19-235
[**Precise prediction for the mass of the light MSSM\
Higgs boson for the case of a heavy gluino** ]{}\
\
[*Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Notkestra[ß]{}e 85, D-22607 Hamburg, Germany*]{}
Introduction {#sec:01_intro}
============
Treatment of contributions enhanced by the gluino mass {#sec:02_MGl_resummation}
======================================================
Numerical results {#sec:03_results}
=================
Conclusions {#sec:04_conclusions}
===========
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
From the scheme to the resummation of gluino contributions {#app}
==========================================================
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Given a Henselian and Japanese discrete valuation ring $A$ and a flat and projective $A$-scheme $X$, we follow the approach of [@biswas-dos_santos11] to introduce a [*full subcategory*]{} of coherent modules on $X$ which is then shown to be Tannakian. We then prove that, under normality of the generic fibre, the associated affine and flat group is pro-finite in a strong sense (so that its ring of functions is a Mittag-Leffler $A$-module) and that it classifies finite torsors $Q\to X$. This establishes an analogy to Nori’s theory of the essentially finite fundamental group. In addition, we compare our theory with the ones recently developed by Mehta-Subramanian and Antei-Emsalem-Gasbarri. Using the comparison with the former, we show that any quasi-finite torsor $Q\to X$ has a reduction of structure group to a finite one.'
address:
- 'Institute of Mathematics, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam'
- 'Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu – Paris Rive Gauche, 4 place Jussieu, Case 247, 75252 Paris Cedex 5, France'
author:
- Phùng Hô Hai
- João Pedro dos Santos
title: Finite torsors on projective schemes defined over a discrete valuation ring
---
\[section\]
\[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Proposition]{}
\[thm\][Remark]{} \[thm\][Example]{}
\[thm\][Definition]{} \[thm\][Notation]{} \[thm\][Question]{} \[thm\][Convention]{}
Introduction
============
Let $A$ be a discrete valuation ring and $X$ a projective flat $A$-scheme carrying an $A$-point $x_0$. In recent times, a certain number of mathematicians has proposed constructions of an affine and flat group scheme $\Pi(X,x_0)$ over $A$ with the distinctive property that morphisms to finite and flat group schemes $\Pi(X,x_0)\to G$ should canonically correspond to pointed $G$-torsors over $X$. See [@gasbarri03], [@antei-emsalem-gasbarri18] and [@mehta-subramanian13]. These theories are of course the analogues of Nori’s [@nori]—developed in the case of a base [*field*]{}—and as such, might be treated by similar mechanisms. Let us recall that Nori’s theory can be developed through
1. a Tannakian category of semi-stable vector bundles on $X$ [@nori], through
2. the construction of fibre products of torsors [@nori82 Chapter 2], or through
3. a Tannakian category of vector bundles which are trivialized by proper and surjective morphisms [@biswas-dos_santos11].
The works [@gasbarri03] and [@antei-emsalem-gasbarri18] adopt point of view $({\bf F})$, whereas [@mehta-subramanian13] opts for a variant of ([**SS**]{}). In the present paper we focus on ([**T**]{}) to construct the affine and flat group scheme $\Pi(X,x_0)$. The advantage of this approach is that we can realise ${{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(\Pi(X,x_0))}$ as a [*full*]{} abelian subcategory of ${\mathbf{coh}}(X)$ so that, not only we can construct the affine group scheme parametrising torsors, but we can naturally regard its category of representations in geometric terms. This facet is missing in [@antei-emsalem-gasbarri18] (since it is not understood what coherent modules are obtained by twisting representations via the fundamental torsor) as well as in [@mehta-subramanian13] (since the authors there focus solely on representations on free $A$-modules). On the downside, it is true that if no condition on the singularities of $X$ is imposed, then our approach ends up containing [*too much*]{} geometric information in the sense that it may account for torsors which are not necessarily finite over $X$; this is well understood in the case of non-normal schemes [@biswas-dos_santos12 Example 6]. Let us now review the remaining sections of the paper. Section \[subsidiary\_material\] serves to gather some simple facts from algebraic geometry (Lemmas \[03.07.2018–1\], \[03.07.2018–2\] and \[03.05.2018–1\]), to fix notation for a class of morphisms which is used allover in the paper (see Definition \[26.06.2018–1\]) and to put forward criteria allowing to decide when a morphism of group schemes is faithfully flat (Lemma \[29.11.2018–1\] and Lemma \[21.03.2019–1\]).
It is in Section \[14.04.2018–3\] where our theory starts to take form. In it, we introduce the central notion of modules which are [*relatively trivial*]{} (Definition \[20.02.2019–3\]) and the category of modules which are relatively trivialized by a proper and surjective morphism (Definition \[05.09.2018–3\]). The first useful properties of the category of such modules are also developed in Section \[14.04.2018–3\]: we show how to find more convenient trivializations (see Lemma \[20.02.2019–4\]) and how to make the first steps towards controlling kernels and cokernels of morphisms between relatively trivial modules (Proposition \[05.04.2018–3\]).
In Section \[04.07.2018–1\], the work initiated in Section \[14.04.2018–3\] is taken further ahead and we show that—under mild assumptions on the base scheme $X$—the category of modules which become relatively trivial after being pulled back along a suitable morphism ${\varphi}:Y\to X$, call it ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$, is in fact abelian, see Theorem \[06.04.2018–1\]. In addition, concentrating on the objects in ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ which can be “dominated” by locally free ones and using the fibre at an $A$-point $x_0$ of $X$, we construct a neutral Tannakian category (terminology is that of [@duong-hai18 Definition 1.2.5]) over $A$. We consequently obtain an affine and flat group scheme $\Pi(X,{\varphi},x_0)$ whose category of representations is naturally a full subcategory of ${\mathbf{coh}}(X)$, see Definition \[14.01.2019–2\].
If $K$ stands for the field of fractions of $A$ and $X{\otimes}_AK$ is normal, Section \[11.04.2019–4\] explains how to obtain information about $\Pi(X,{\varphi},x_0){\otimes}_AK$ from the category of essentially finite vector bundles (as defined [@nori]) on $X{\otimes}_AK$. See Theorem \[11.04.2019–2\] and Corollary \[16.04.2019–1\].
Section \[14.03.2019–1\] studies ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ by means of an idea introduced in [@hai-dos_santos18]. In this work, we found a property of representations of a flat and affine group scheme $G$ over a complete $A$, called prudence, which allows us to verify when the $A$-module of functions $A[G]$ is free. This is particularly pleasing for the present theory since, on the geometric side, prudence is roughly Grothendieck’s algebraization. This fact allows us to show that the full Galois groups constructed from ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ are in many cases [*finite*]{} group schemes, see Corollary \[25.06.2018–2\]. In doing so, we provide an argument to substantiate a claim made in Lemma 3.1 and Theorem 4.1 of [@mehta-subramanian13]. (See also our summary of Section \[06.03.2019–1\] below.)
Section \[RFT\] recalls the reduced fibre theorem and puts it in a way which can conveniently be employed in the rest of the work, see Theorem \[reduced\_fibre\_theorem\]. Note that, this powerful theorem comes with the (mild) hypothesis that a certain generic fibre should be geometrically reduced; since we wish to profit from this result even in the absence of such an assumption, we benefit from this accessory section to explain how to get rid of schemes which fail to be geometrically reduced, see Lemma \[25.10.2018–1\]. It is perhaps worth pointing out that it is at this point that additional properties of $A$—that it be Henselian and Japanese—start being required.
Recall that in Section \[04.07.2018–1\] we associated to a morphism ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ (satisfying certain assumptions) tensor categories ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ which, once polished, become neutral Tannakian ones. In Section \[FGS\] we put these categories together by employing the results of Section \[RFT\], this is made precise by Theorem \[05.11.2018–1\]. We are then able to construct a neutral Tannakian category ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$ which is a full subcategory of ${\mathbf{coh}}(X)$, see Definition \[30.10.2018–1\]. The group scheme associated to ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$ via the fibre functor $\bullet|_{x_0}:{\mathfrak{T}}_X\to{A\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$, call it $\Pi(X,x_0)$, has the distinctive property that its category of representations ${{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(\Pi(X,x_0))}$ is equivalent to the full subcategory ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$ of ${\mathbf{coh}}(X)$. Under the assumption of normality, we are then able to show that $\Pi(X,x_0)$ is pro-quasi-finite (in the sense of Definition \[25.02.2019–1\]), see Theorem \[15.03.2019–1\]. If $A$ is in addition complete, the results of Section \[14.03.2019–1\] apply directly and we obtain that $\Pi(X,x_0)$ is [*strictly*]{} pro-finite (Theorem \[15.03.2019–1\]). Finally, an indirect argument allows us to deduce from this that $\Pi(X,x_0)$ is [*strictly*]{} pro-finite even if $A$ fails to be complete: see Theorem \[25.03.2019–1\]. As a consequence, the ring of functions of $\Pi(X,x_0)$ is a Mittag-Leffler $A$-module (Corollary \[16.04.2019–2\]).
In Section \[20.03.2019–1\] we make a brief digression to exhibit examples and applications of the preceding theory to the case of invertible sheaves, see Proposition \[11.01.2019–1\]. These examples were a constant source of guidance while elaborating our rhetoric and we believe they shall be useful to the reader.
Section \[15.03.2019–2\] sets out to give conditions for a finite group scheme—appearing as the structure group of a torsor over $X$—to be a quotient of $\Pi(X,x_0)$, see Proposition \[29.11.2018–2\] and Corollary \[27.03.2019–1\].
In Section \[06.03.2019–1\] we review parts of [@mehta-subramanian13]. Let us explain the reason for offering such a revision before summarising the contents of Section \[06.03.2019–1\]. If $X_0$ stands for the special fibre of $X$, one of the main points of [@mehta-subramanian13] is to use a technique in [@deninger-werner05], see pages 574 to 576 there, to show, speaking colloquially, how to trivialise a vector bundle $E\in{\mathbf{VB}}(X_0)$ on the special fibre of a [*flat*]{} $A$-scheme $Y$ endowed with a finite morphism to $X$, see the [*proof*]{} of Lemma 3.1 in [@mehta-subramanian13]. In our opinion, [@mehta-subramanian13] only offers a sketch of how to implement this beautiful idea: in the proof of [@mehta-subramanian13 Lemma 3.1] the necessary “base-change” to an extension of $A$ is not mentioned, neither is [@deninger-werner05 Theorem 17]. In addition, as far as we can see, the proof of Theorem 4.1 in [@mehta-subramanian13]—which should extend Lemma 3.1 of op. cit.—offers solely a construction of a smooth curve inside a projective and smooth $A$-scheme. Given all these considerations, we set out to put the method of Deninger and Werner in a more robust form. In doing so we are able to circumvent Liu’s theorem on the existence of semi-stable models of relative curves (a crucial point in [@deninger-werner05] and hence in [@mehta-subramanian13 Lemma 3.1]) by means of the reduced fibre theorem (Theorem \[reduced\_fibre\_theorem\]). The advantage is that the latter result holds for more general schemes than just curves. This allows us to show Theorem \[14.05.2018–1\] saying that an $F$-trivial vector bundle $E$ (see the introduction of Section \[06.03.2019–1\] for the definition) on $X_0$ becomes relatively trivial (Definition \[20.02.2019–3\]) after pull back by a finite morphism $Y\to X$ from a flat $A$-scheme. In the same vein, we offer Theorem \[MS\_theorem\] explaining how to trivialize any vector bundle ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathbf{VB}}(X)$ with essentially finite fibres by a finite morphism $Y\to X$ from a flat $A$-scheme. (It should be noted that the proof of this result is technically intricate, but the main idea comes straight from Theorem \[14.05.2018–1\].) The section then ends with a direct comparison between the category ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$ and the one studied by [@mehta-subramanian13], see Corollary \[23.11.2018–2\], where it is shown that vector bundles on ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$ agree with those introduced in op. cit.
Section \[14.01.2019–3\] gives further applications to the theory of torsors and shows that torsors under quasi-finite group schemes actually come from finite ones, see Theorem \[25.06.2018–1\]. Another salient point developed in this section is the comparison to the theory of [@antei-emsalem-gasbarri18]: By demonstrating that $\Pi(X,x_0)$ “classifies” pointed quasi-finite torsors over $X$ (Theorem \[13.03.2019–2\]) we prove that $\Pi(X,x_0)$ agrees with the group denoted $\pi_1(X,x_0)^{\rm qf}$ in op.cit., see Theorem \[13.03.2019–1\].
Notations and conventions {#notations_conventions .unnumbered}
=========================
[On the base ring.]{} {#on-the-base-ring. .unnumbered}
---------------------
(1) We let $A$ be a discrete valuation ring with uniformizer $\pi$, field of fractions $K$ and residual field $k$. The quotient ring $A/(\pi^{n+1})$ is denoted by $A_n$.
(2) Given an object $W$ over $A$ (a scheme, a module, etc) and an $A$-algebra $B$, we find useful to write $W_B$ instead of $W{\otimes}_AB$. If context prevents any misunderstanding, we also employ $W_n$ instead of $W_{A_n}$.
(3) The characteristic of a discrete valuation ring is the couple $(r,p)$, where $r$ is the characteristic of the field of fractions and $p$ that of the residue field.
On general algebraic geometry {#on-general-algebraic-geometry .unnumbered}
------------------------------
(1) A [*vector bundle*]{} over a scheme is a locally free sheaf of finite rank. A vector bundle is said to be trivial if it is isomorphic to a direct sum of a copies of the structure sheaf (in particular the rank is constant).
(2) Let $R$ be a noetherian ring and $Y$ a proper $R$-scheme. We shall say that $Y$ is [*$H^0$-flat over $R$*]{} if it is flat and cohomologically flat [@bosch-lutkebohmert-raynaud90 p.206] in degree zero over ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$. In this work we shall employ constantly that if $Y$ is $R$-flat, then (a) $H^0$-flatness amounts to exactness of $M\mapsto H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AM)$ [@hartshorne77 III.12.5 and III.12.6] and (b) if $Y$ the fibres of $Y$ are geometrically reduced [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 4.6.2, p.68\]]{}, then $Y$ is $H^0$-flat over $R$ [\[EGA $\textsc{III}_{2}$, 7.8.6, p.206\]]{}.
(3) If $R$, respectively $T$, is an ${\mathds{F}}_p$-algebra, respectively ${\mathds{F}}_p$-scheme, we write $F_R:R\to R$, respectively $F_T:T\to T$, to denote the [*Frobenius morphism*]{}. If $T$ is in addition a scheme over a perfect field, we adopt the notations of [@jantzen87 Part I, 9.1] with the exception that we write ${\rm Fr}^s:M^{(t)}\to M^{(s+t)}$ while Jantzen uses $F_{M^{(t)}}^s:M^{(t)}\to M^{(t+s)}$.
(4) If $R$ is a discrete valuation ring and $y:{\mathrm{Spec}\,}R\to Y$ is an $R$-point of a scheme $Y$, we shall write $y_{\rm gen}$ for the image of the generic point of ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}R$ in $Y$.
(5) Let $X\to S$ be a morphisms of schemes possessing in addition a section $x:S\to X$. Given morphisms ${\varphi}:X'\to X$ and $f:S'\to S$, any morphism of $S$-schemes $x':S'\to X'$ such that ${\varphi}x'=x f$ shall be called an $S'$-point of $X'$ above $x$. (That is, for the sake of economy we choose not to make base-changes to $S'$.)
On group schemes {#on-group-schemes .unnumbered}
-----------------
(1) To avoid repetitions, “*group scheme*” is a synonym for “*affine group scheme*.” If $G$ is a group scheme over a ring $R$, and $R'$ is an $R$-algebra, we write $R'[G]$ instead of ${{\mathscr{O}}}(R'{\otimes}_RG)$.
(2) The category of flat group schemes over a ring $R$ is denoted by $(\mathbf{FGSch}/R)$.
(3) Let $G$ be a flat group scheme over the noetherian ring $R$. When dealing with representations of $G$ we follow the conventions of [@jantzen87 Part I, Ch. 2] with the exception that the word “representation” is reserved for $G$-modules which are of finite type over $R$. The category of representations is denoted by ${{\mathrm{Rep}}_{R}(G)}$. The full subcategory of representations which underlie locally free $R$-modules is denoted by ${\rm Rep}_R^\circ(G)$.
(4) The [*right-regular*]{}, respectively [*left-regular*]{}, $G$-module [@jantzen87 2.7] shall be denoted by $R[G]_{\rm right}$, respectively $R[G]_{\rm left}$.
(5) If $f:G\to H$ is an arrow of $({\mathbf{FGSch}}/R)$, we let $f^\#:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{R}(H)}\to{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{R}(G)}$ be the restriction functor.
On torsors {#on-torsors .unnumbered}
------------
(1) Let $R$ be a ring, $X$ an $R$-scheme, $G$ and $H$ group schemes over $R$, $P
\to X$ a $G$-torsor and $Q\to X$ an $H$-torsor. A [*generalized morphism*]{} from $P$ to $Q$ is a couple $(f,\rho)$ consisting of an arrow of $X$-schemes $f:P\to Q$ and a morphism of group schemes $\rho:G\to H$ such that, for points with value on arbitrary $R$-algebras, we have $f(yg)=f(y)\rho(g)$. In this case, we say that the generalized morphism [*covers*]{} the morphism $\rho$. If $G=H$, then a morphism of torsors from $P$ to $Q$ is simply a $G$-equivariant morphism of $X$-schemes or a generalized morphism covering the identity.
(2) If $R$ is a ring, $\rho:G\to H$ is an arrow of $({\mathbf{FGSch}}/R)$ and $P\to X$ is a $G$-torsor, we let $P{\times}^GH$ or $P{\times}^\rho H$ be the associated $H$-torsor (see [@demazure-gabriel70 III.4.3.2, p.368] or [@jantzen87 Part I, 5.14]).
(3) If $G$ is a flat group scheme over a ring $R$, $P\to X$ is a $G$-torsor and $M$ is a representation of $G$, then we let ${\theta}_P(M)$ stand for the coherent sheaf constructed by twisting $P$ by $M$, see [@jantzen87 Part 1, 5.8–9], where it is denoted by ${{\mathscr{L}}}_{P/G}(M)$.
Miscellaneous {#miscellaneous .unnumbered}
-------------
(1) All tensor categories and functors are to be taken in the sense of [@deligne-milne82 §1]. Let $({\mathfrak{C}},{\otimes})$ be a rigid tensor category [@deligne-milne82 Definition 1.7]. If ${\mathfrak{C}}$ is additive, then, for $a=(a_1,\ldots,a_m)$ and $b=(b_1,\ldots,b_m)$ in ${\mathds{N}}^m$, and $E\in{\mathfrak{C}}$, we write ${\mathbf{T}}^{a,b}E$ to denote the object $\bigoplus_iE^{{\otimes}a_i}{\otimes}\check{E}^{{\otimes}b_i}$. If ${\mathfrak{C}}$ is in addition abelian, we let $\langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{C}}\rangle_{\otimes}$ stand for the full subcategory of ${\mathfrak{C}}$ whose objects are subquotients of some ${\mathbf{T}}^{a,b}E$.
(2) If $X$ is a proper and reduced scheme over a field, we let ${\mathbf{EF}}(X)$ denote the category of essentially finite vector bundles on $X$. See [@nori Definition, p.37-8].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
The research of PHH is supported by the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (Nafosted) grant number 101.04-2016.19. Parts of his research on this work were carried out during several visits to France supported by the project “International Associated Laboratory FORMATH VIETNAM” of VAST, grant number QTFR01.04/18-19., the Institute Henri Poincaré, Paris, and a “Poste Rouge” grant from the CNRS, France. JPdS thanks A. Ducros for pointing out [@temkin10] and for useful discussions, Q. Liu for replying conscientiously to his e-mails concerning cohomological flatness, and I. Biswas as well as M. Romagny for answering some of his questions.
Subsidiary material {#subsidiary_material}
===================
We collect here some simple facts which are useful in developing our arguments.
\[03.07.2018–1\]Let $Y$ be a proper, reduced and connected scheme over the field $K$. If $Y$ has a $K$-point then $K=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$.
We know that $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)=R_1{\times}\cdots{\times}R_m$, where each $R_i$ is a local Artin algebra. Since $Y$ is connected, we must have $m=1$. So $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$ is a local Artin algebra. Since $Y$ is reduced, $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$ is reduced, so $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$ is a finite field extension of $K$. The existence of a $K$-rational point determines a morphism of $K$-algebras $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)\to K$, and this forces $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$ to be $K$.
\[03.07.2018–2\]Let $Y$ be a flat and proper $A$-scheme. If $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y{\otimes}_AK})=K$, then $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)=A$. In particular, if $Y{\otimes}_AK$ is reduced and connected, and has a $K$-point, then $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)=A$.
We know that $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$ is a finite $A$-algebra and that $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y){\otimes}K=K$ by flat base-change [@hartshorne77 III.9.3, p. 255] together with the assumption. Then, $A\subset H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)\subset K$. Since $A$ is normal, we must have $A=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$. The verification of the last claim follows immediately from Lemma \[03.07.2018–1\].
\[03.05.2018–1\]Let $Y$ be a proper and $H^0$-flat $A$-scheme. Let ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ be a vector bundle on $Y$ whose base-changes ${{\mathscr{F}}}_K$ and ${{\mathscr{F}}}_k$ are trivial. Then ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ is trivial.
It is not difficult to see that the function $y\mapsto{\mathrm{rank}}\,{{\mathscr{F}}}_y$ has to be constant and equal to $n$, say. From the equalities $$\begin{split}
\dim_kH^0(Y_k,{{\mathscr{F}}}_k)&=\dim_kH^0(Y_k,{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y_k})^{{\oplus}n}\\
&=\dim_KH^0(Y_K,{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y_K})^{{\oplus}n}\\
&=\dim_KH^0(Y_K,{{\mathscr{F}}}_K),
\end{split}$$ and Corollary 2 of [@mumford70 §5], we conclude that the canonical morphism $$H^0(Y,{{\mathscr{F}}}){\longrightarrow}H^0(Y_k,{{\mathscr{F}}}_k)$$ is surjective. Pick sections $s_1,\ldots,s_n\in H^0(Y,{{\mathscr{F}}})$ such that $\{s_{i}|_{Y_k}\}_{i=1}^n$ is a basis of ${{\mathscr{F}}}_k$. Then, for each point $y$ of the closed fibre, Nakayama’s Lemma shows that $\{s_{i,y}\}_{i=1}^n$ is a basis of the free ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{y}$-module ${{\mathscr{F}}}_y$ so that ${\mathrm{Supp}}({{\mathscr{F}}}/\sum{{\mathscr{O}}}_Ys_i)$ is a closed subset of $Y$ disjoint from the special fibre. Such a property is only possible if ${{\mathscr{F}}}=\sum{{\mathscr{O}}}_Ys_i$. The proof is then complete once we note that, for a $y\in Y$, the $n$ generators $\{s_{i,y}\}_{i=1}^n$ of ${{\mathscr{F}}}_y\simeq{{\mathscr{O}}}_y^{{\oplus}n}$ do not admit any non-trivial relation.
In organising our findings, we shall make repeated use of a certain class of morphisms of proper schemes. In order to avoid repetitions and to serve as a reference for the reader, we put forward:
\[26.06.2018–1\]Let $X$ be a connected, proper and flat $A$-scheme carrying an $A$-point $x_0$. Let ${\mathfrak{S}}(X,x_0)$ (or simply ${\mathfrak{S}}$ if context prevents any misunderstanding) be the set of all $X$-schemes ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ such that:
1. ${\varphi}$ is proper and surjective.
2. $Y$ is $H^0$-flat over $A$.
3. The canonical arrow $Y\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}{H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)}$ admits a section $y_0$ such that ${\varphi}y_0$ extends $x_0$. (There exists an $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$-point in $Y$ above $x_0$.)
We shall denote by ${\mathfrak{S}}^+(X,x_0)$ (or simply ${\mathfrak{S}}^+$) the subset of morphisms ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ in ${\mathfrak{S}}$ which, in addition, satisfy
1. The canonical morphism $Y\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$ is flat.
\[05.02.2019–1\]Let ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ belong to ${\mathfrak{S}}(X,x_0)$ as in Definition \[26.06.2018–1\]; it turns out that in this case, connectedness of $X$ is automatic because of ${\mathfrak{S}}3$. Indeed, let $y_0$ be the alluded $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$-point of $Y$ above $x_0$. Suppose that $e\in H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_X)$ is idempotent and that $x_0^\#(e)=0$. Then, ${\varphi}^\#(e)\in H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$ is such that $y_0^\#({\varphi}^\#(e))=0$ and this implies that ${\varphi}^\#(e)=0$. Since ${\varphi}$ is surjective, we conclude that $e=0$ (since $e$ has to vanish on each local ring of $X$). Hence, the only connected component of $X$ must be the one containing the image of $x_0$.
We should now gather material on affine group schemes.
\[22.03.2019–1\]Let $G\in({\mathbf{FGSch}}/A)$. We say that $G$ is pseudo-finite if both its fibres are finite group schemes over the respective residue fields.
We have no examples of pseudo-finite group schemes which are not quasi-finite to offer.
As Lemma \[29.11.2018–1\] below recalls, one advantage of finite group schemes over a field is that the standard criterion for verifying when a morphism is faithfully flat in terms of representation categories [@deligne-milne82 Proposition 2.21, p.139] admits a considerable simplification. This is then transmitted to pseudo-finite group schemes as argued by Lemma \[21.03.2019–1\].
\[29.11.2018–1\] Let $u:H\to G$ be a morphism of group schemes over a field and let $$H\stackrel q{\longrightarrow}I\stackrel i{\longrightarrow}G$$ be its factorisation into a faithfully flat morphism $q$ and a closed immersion $i$. Assuming that $I$ is finite (which is the case if either $G$ or $H$ is finite) then a necessary and sufficient condition for $u$ to be faithfully flat is that $\dim{{\mathscr{O}}}(G)^H=1$.
We leave the proof of necessity in the statement to the reader and from now on assume that $\dim{{\mathscr{O}}}(G)^H=1$. Clearly, the equality $I=G$ is equivalent to faithful flatness of $u$. Since ${{\mathscr{O}}}(G)^H={{\mathscr{O}}}(G)^I$, the assumptions translate into $\dim{{\mathscr{O}}}(G)^I=1$. Now, we know that ${{\mathscr{O}}}(G)$ is a projective ${{\mathscr{O}}}(G)^I$-module whose rank equals $\dim{{\mathscr{O}}}(I)$ (see [@mumford70 §11, Theorem 1(B), p.111] or III.2.4 of [@demazure-gabriel70]). Then, since $\dim{{\mathscr{O}}}(G)^I=1$, we conclude that $\dim{{\mathscr{O}}}(I)=\dim{{\mathscr{O}}}(G)$, which means that $I= G$.
\[21.03.2019–1\] Let $u:H\to G$ be an arrow in $({\mathbf{FGSch}}/A)$ and assume that $G$ is pseudo-finite. Then the following conditions are equivalent.
(1) Both equalities $$A{\cdot}1= \left(A[G]_{\rm right}\right)^H \quad \text{and}\quad k{\cdot}1= \left(k[G]_{\rm right}\right)^H,$$ are true.
(2) The morphism $u$ is faithfully flat.
(3) Let $${\mathfrak{s}}(G)=
\left\{ \begin{array}{c} \text{$V\subset A[G]_{\rm right}$ is $G$-invariant, is finitely generated }
\\
\text{ as an $A$-module and contains the constants}
\end{array}
\right\}$$ and $${\mathfrak{s}}_0(G)=
\left\{ \begin{array}{c} \text{$M\subset k[G]_{\rm right}$ is $G$-invariant, is finitely generated }
\\
\text{ as a $k$-space and contains the constants}
\end{array}
\right\}.$$ Then, for each $V\in{\mathfrak{s}}(G)$ and $M\in{\mathfrak{s}}_0(G)$ we have $$A{\cdot}1= V^H \quad \text{and}\quad k{\cdot}1= M^H.$$
\(1) $\Rightarrow$ (2). The assumptions show that $$\left(K[G]_{\rm right} \right)^{H_K} = K\quad\text{and}\quad \left(k[G]_{\rm right} \right)^{H_k}=k.$$ By Lemma \[29.11.2018–1\] we conclude that $u_K:H_K\to G_K$ and $u_k:H_k\to G_k$ are faithfully flat. Because of [@duong-hai18 Theorem 4.1.1], $u$ is faithfully flat.
(2)$\Rightarrow$(3). This is trivial.
(3)$\Rightarrow$(1). Any $a\in A[G]_{\rm right}$, respectively $b\in k[G]_{\rm right}$, belongs to a certain $V\in{\mathfrak{s}}(G)$, respectively $M\in{\mathfrak{s}}_0(G)$ because of “local finiteness” [@serre68 1.5, Corollary, p.40]. The conclusion then follows.
Modules trivialized by a proper and $H^0$-flat scheme {#14.04.2018--3}
=====================================================
In this section we introduce the category of coherent sheaves on which all further developments hinge: the category of sheaves which became “trivial” after a pull-back by a proper morphisms. Since we wish to work with schemes over a d.v.r., the notion of triviality of a coherent module becomes more subtle than the one over a field, and we need to account for modules coming from the base-ring. This is a source of difficulty specially because the “base” of the scheme effectuating the trivialisation might grow.
\[20.02.2019–3\]Let $Y$ be any $A$-scheme. We say that ${{\mathscr{F}}}\in{\mathbf{coh}}(Y)$ is trivial relatively to $A$ if there exists a coherent sheaf (a finite $A$-module) $F$ such that ${{\mathscr{F}}}={{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AF$.
Note that, if $A$ is a field, then a coherent sheaf on $Y$ is trivial relatively to $A$ if and only if it is trivial in according to our conventions in Section \[notations\_conventions\].
In the above definition, it is to be expected that several different choices concerning the “descended” module are possible. The next lemma, which we state here for future use, explains how to be more canonical.
\[29.03.2018–1\]Let $Y$ be proper and $H^0$-flat over $A$. Write $B=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$ and let $F$ be a finite $A$-module. Then the canonical morphism $${{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\underset{B}{\otimes}}H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AF){\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AF$$ is an isomorphism.
By definition of $H^0$-flatness, the canonical arrow $${\sigma}:B{\otimes}_AF{\longrightarrow}H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AF)$$ is bijective. We then consider the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\underset{B}{\otimes}}H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AF)\ar[rr]&&{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AF\\{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\underset{B}{\otimes}}(B{\otimes}_AF)\ar[rru]_\sim\ar[u]^-{\sim}_-{{\rm id}{\otimes}{\sigma}}}$$ where the horizontal arrow is the one of the statement.
Here is the central definition of this section.
\[05.09.2018–3\]If ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ is a morphism of $A$-schemes, we let ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ stand for the *full* subcategory of ${\mathbf{coh}}(X)$ consisting of those coherent sheaves ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ such that the coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Y$-module ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ is trivial relatively to $A$.
Let $X$ be a connected, proper and flat $A$-scheme, and $x_0$ be an $A$-point of $X$. Let ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ an object of ${\mathfrak{S}}(X,x_0)$ (see Definition \[26.06.2018–1\]). If $B=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$, we let $y_0$ stand for the $B$-point of $Y$ above $x_0$. We note that the $A$-module $B$ is finite and torsion-free, hence free. The following will be useful further ahead.
\[21.02.2019–1\] In the above notation, a coherent module ${{\mathscr{F}}}\in{\mathbf{coh}}(X)$ belongs to ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ if and only if ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ is trivial relatively to $B$.
We only show the “if” clause. In this case, ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{F}}})\simeq{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_BF$ and using the point $y_0$, we conclude that $F\simeq {\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{F}}})|_{y_0}$. Now, since $y_0$ is taken to the $A$-point $x_0$, we have that ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{F}}})|_{y_0}\simeq B{\otimes}_A({{\mathscr{F}}}|_{x_0})$ so that ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{F}}})\simeq {{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_A({{\mathscr{F}}}|_{x_0})$.
We now give ourselves an object ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ of ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$: this means that ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ is isomorphic to the pull-back of a certain $A$-module to $Y$. In what follows we wish to find more propitious candidates for the latter isomorphism and module so to achieve a proof of Proposition \[05.04.2018–3\] below. This Proposition is a key step in endowing the category ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ with kernels and cokernels (see Section \[04.07.2018–1\]). To have a better hold of the subtlety behind Proposition \[05.04.2018–3\], the reader is asked to read Remark \[01.02.2019–1\] below.
As the category of finite $A$-modules is rather simple, we have:
\[20.02.2019–4\] Let $E={{\mathscr{E}}}|_{x_0}$. Then the ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}$-modules ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE$ and ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ are (non-canonically) isomorphic.
We already know that ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})\simeq{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_A{\overline{E}}$ for [*some*]{} $A$-module ${\overline{E}}$, and all we are required to show is that ${\overline{E}}\simeq E$. Using the $B$-point $y_0$, we can say that $B{\otimes}_A
{\overline{E}}\simeq B{\otimes}_AE$ as $B$-modules. Now, agreeing to write $A(\ell)=A/(\pi^\ell)$, we have $$E\simeq A^r{\oplus}A({\delta}_1){\oplus}\cdots{\oplus}A({\delta}_m)\quad\text{and}\quad {\overline{E}}\simeq A^{{\overline{r}}}{\oplus}A({\overline{{\delta}}}_1){\oplus}\cdots{\oplus}A({\overline{{\delta}}}_{{\overline{m}}});$$ here $m$ is either a positive integer, in which case ${\delta}_1\ge\cdots\ge{\delta}_m$ are also positive integers, or $m=0$ and the factors $A({\delta}_i)$ are to be dropped, and analogous considerations are in force for ${\overline{E}}$. As $B$ is free over $A$, of rank $s\ge1$ say, we have, as $A$-modules, $$B{\otimes}_AE\simeq A^{rs}{\oplus}\underbrace{A({\delta}_1){\oplus}\cdots{\oplus}A({\delta}_1)}_{s}{\oplus}\cdots{\oplus}\underbrace{A({\delta}_m){\oplus}\cdots{\oplus}A({\delta}_m)}_{s}$$ and $$B{\otimes}_A{\overline{E}}\simeq A^{{\overline{r}}s}{\oplus}\underbrace{A({\overline{{\delta}}}_1){\oplus}\cdots{\oplus}A({\overline{{\delta}}}_1)}_{s}{\oplus}\cdots{\oplus}\underbrace{A({\overline{{\delta}}}_{{\overline{m}}}){\oplus}\cdots{\oplus}A({\overline{{\delta}}}_{{\overline{m}}})}_{s},$$ so that the isomorphism $B{\otimes}_AE\simeq B{\otimes}_A{\overline{E}}$ implies that $r={\overline{r}}$, $m={{\overline{m}}}$ and ${\delta}_i={\overline{{\delta}}}_i$.
From now on we write $$\boxed{E:={{\mathscr{E}}}|_{x_0}}$$ and let $$\boxed{
\tau:B{\otimes}_AE{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AE)
}$$ be the canonical isomorphism of $B$-modules.
Of course one can find many isomorphisms ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AE\simeq{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ and we now single out a special class of such. Using $y_0$ and the fact that it “extends” $x_0$, we arrive at a canonical isomorphism $${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{y_0} \xymatrix{\ar[rr]^{\iota}_\sim&&}B{\otimes}_AE$$ which, denoting by ${\rm ev}_{y_0}$ the “evaluation” $H^0({\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}}))\to{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{y_0}$, allows us to introduce the arrow of $B$-modules $$\xymatrix{ H^0({\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})) \ar[rr]^{\iota{{\rm ev}}_{y_0}}&& B{\otimes}_AE.}$$ Because $B{\otimes}_AE\simeq H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AE)$, the reader should note that *${{\rm ev}}_{y_0}$ is an isomorphism*. Hence, if ${\alpha}:{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AE\to{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ is an isomorphism, we arrive at a commutative diagram $$\label{22.03.2018--1}
\xymatrix{H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AE)\ar[rr]^-{H^0({\alpha})}&& H^0({\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}}))\ar[d]^{\iota {\rm ev}_{y_0}} \\
B{\otimes}_AE\ar[u]^\tau\ar[rr] && B{\otimes}_AE.
}$$
\[06.09.2018–1\]
1. A global section $s\in H^0({\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}}))$ is said to be *conservative at $y_0$* if it is taken to $1{\otimes}E$ under $$\xymatrix{ H^0({\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})) \ar[rr]^{\iota{\rm ev}_{y_0}} && B{\otimes}_AE. }$$
2. An isomorphism ${\alpha}:{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AE\to{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ is called [*adapted to $y_0$*]{} if the lower horizontal arrow in diagram is the identity.
Note that the canonical arrow $E\to 1{\otimes}E$ is injective by faithful flatness of $A\to B$ and [@matsumura 7.5(i), p.49].
\[23.03.2018–1\]Isomorphisms adapted to $y_0$ always exist.
We first show that for an automorphism of $B$-modules $$\xymatrix{H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE)\ar[rr]^c_\sim&&H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE)},$$ it is possible to find an automorphism of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Y$-modules $$\xymatrix{{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AE\ar[rr]^{{\gamma}}_\sim&& {{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE}$$ such that $H^0({\gamma})=c$. Write $\tilde c=\tau^{-1}c\tau$; this is an automorphism of $B{\otimes}_AE$. Pulling $\tilde c$ back to $Y$ via the structure morphism, we find an automorphism ${\gamma}:{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE\stackrel\sim\to{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE$ such that $H^0({\gamma})(\tau(1{\otimes}e))=\tau(\tilde c(1{\otimes}e))$. This implies that $H^0({\gamma})(\tau(1{\otimes}e))= c\tau(1{\otimes}e)$. Since $\{\tau(1{\otimes}e)\,:\,e\in E\}$ is a set of generators of $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE)$, we see that $H^0({\gamma})=c$.
We now choose any isomorphism ${\alpha}:{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AE\stackrel\sim\to{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ and let $b$ be the composition $$\xymatrix{H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE)\ar[rrr]^{\tau\circ \iota{\rm ev}_{y_0}\circ H^0({\alpha})}&&& H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE)}.$$ Let ${\beta}:{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE\stackrel\sim\to{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE$ induce $b^{-1}$ on global sections; it follows that ${\alpha}{\beta}$ is adapted to $y_0$.
\[26.03.2018–1\] If ${\alpha}:{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE\stackrel\sim\to{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ is adapted to $y_0$, then $H^0({\alpha})\tau$ defines a bijection between $1{\otimes}_AE$ and the conservative sections of $H^0({\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}}))$.
Because ${\alpha}$ is adapted to $y_0$, we see that $\iota{{\rm ev}}_{y_0}\left(H^0({\alpha})\tau(1{\otimes}e)\right)=1{\otimes}e$, which means that $H^0({\alpha})\tau$ sends $1{\otimes}E$ into the conservative sections, so that we only need to show that *any* conservative section $s$ is of the form $H^0({\alpha})\tau(1{\otimes}e)$. We write $s=H^0({\alpha})\tau(v)$ with $v\in B{\otimes}_AE$. As $s$ is conservative $\iota{{\rm ev}}_{y_0}(s)= 1{\otimes}e$ for some $e\in E$; as ${\alpha}$ is adapted, $\iota{{\rm ev}}_{y_0}\big(H^0({\alpha})\tau(v)\big)=v$, and hence $v=1{\otimes}e$.
Granted these preparations, we can now have a better control on kernels and cokernels in ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$.
\[05.04.2018–3\] Let ${\overline{{{\mathscr{E}}}}}$ be another object of ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ and $u:{{\mathscr{E}}}\to{\overline{{{\mathscr{E}}}}}$ a morphism of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-modules. Write ${\overline{E}}$ for the $A$-module ${\overline{{{\mathscr{E}}}}}|_{x_0}$, ${\overline{\tau}}$ and ${\overline{\iota}}$ for the the canonical morphisms $B{\otimes}_A{\overline{E}}\to H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_A{\overline{E}})$ and ${\varphi}^*({\overline{{{\mathscr{E}}}}})|_{y_0}\to B{\otimes}_A{\overline{E}}$. Let ${\alpha}:{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE\stackrel\sim\to{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ and ${\overline{{\alpha}}}:{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_A{\overline{E}}\stackrel\sim\to{\varphi}^*({\overline{{{\mathscr{E}}}}})$ be adapted to the point $y_0$. The following claims hold true.
1. The arrow $H^0({\varphi}^*u)$ takes conservative sections to conservative sections.
2. There exists a morphism of $A$-modules $u_0:E\to {\overline{E}}$ such that $$\xymatrix{{\varphi}^*{{\mathscr{E}}}\ar[rr]^{{\varphi}^*u}&& {\varphi}^*{\overline{{{\mathscr{E}}}}}
\\
\ar[u]^{\alpha}{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE\ar[rr]_-{{\mathrm{id}}{\underset{A}{\otimes}} u_0}&&{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_A{\overline{E}}\ar[u]_{{\overline{{\alpha}}}}.
}$$ commutes. Put differently, ${\varphi}^*(u)$ “descends” to $A$.
3. The coherent sheaves ${\rm Ker}({\varphi}^*u)$ and ${\rm Coker}({\varphi}^*u)$ are trivial relatively to $A$.
\(1) Let $s\in H^0({\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}}))$ be conservative at $y_0$, so that $\iota{\rm ev}_{y_0}(s)=1{\otimes}e$ for some $e\in E$. Now $${{\rm ev}}_{y_0}\left\{H^0({\varphi}^*u)(s)\right\}=({\varphi}^*u)|_{y_0}\left\{{{\rm ev}}_{y_0}(s)\right\}.$$ But, $${\overline{\iota}}\circ \left(({\varphi}^*u)|_{y_0}\right)=\left({\mathrm{id}}_B{\otimes}_Au|_{x_0}\right)\circ\iota,$$ which shows that ${\overline{\iota}}{{\rm ev}}_{y_0}\left\{H^0({\varphi}^*(u))(s)\right\}=\left({\mathrm{id}}_B{\otimes}_Au|_{x_0}\right)\circ\iota({{\rm ev}}_{y_0}(s))=\left({\mathrm{id}}_B{\otimes}_Au|_{x_0}\right)(1{\otimes}e)$.
\(2) Let $e\in E$. We know that $s_e:=H^0({\alpha})\tau(1{\otimes}e)$ is conservative at $y_0$ (Lemma \[26.03.2018–1\]), so that $
H^0\left( {\varphi}^*(u)\right) (s_e)$ is equally conservative (by part (1)). Employing again Lemma \[26.03.2018–1\], we guarantee that $$\label{05.09.2018--1}
H^0({\varphi}^*(u))(s_e)=H^0({\overline{{\alpha}}}){\overline{\tau}}(1{\otimes}u_0(e))$$ for some $u_0(e)\in {\overline{E}}$. Since ${\overline{E}}\to B{\otimes}_A{\overline{E}}$ is injective, $u_0(e)$ is uniquely determined. This allows us to define a map $u_0:E\to {\overline{E}}$ which is easily seen to be $A$-linear. Now, $$\xymatrix{{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_AE\ar[rr]^{{\mathrm{id}}{\otimes}_Au_0}&&{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y}{\otimes}_A{\overline{E}}}$$ sends $\tau(1{\otimes}e)$ to ${\overline{\tau}}(1{\otimes}u_0(e))$, and hence $$\xymatrix{ {\varphi}^*{{\mathscr{E}}}\ar[rrr]^{{\overline{{\alpha}}}\circ ({\mathrm{id}}{\otimes}_Au_0)\circ {\alpha}^{-1}}&&& {\varphi}^*{\overline{{{\mathscr{E}}}}}}$$ sends $s_e=H^0({\alpha})\tau(1{\otimes}e)$ to $H^0({\overline{{\alpha}}}){\overline{\tau}}(1{\otimes}u_0(e))$. In conclusion, replacing ${\varphi}^*(u)$ by ${\overline{{\alpha}}}\circ({\rm id}{\otimes}_Au_0)\circ{\alpha}^{-1}$ in eq. still produces a true statement. Therefore ${\overline{{\alpha}}}\circ ({\mathrm{id}}{\otimes}_Au_0)\circ {\alpha}^{-1}={\varphi}^*(u)$.
\(3) This follows from the fact that both kernel and cokernel of ${\mathrm{id}}{\otimes}_Au_0$ are trivial relative to $A$ since $Y$ is flat over $A$.
\[01.02.2019–1\]Let $X={\mathrm{Spec}\,}{{{\mathds{C}}\llbrackett\rrbracket}}$ and $Y={\mathrm{Spec}\,}B$, where $B={{\mathds{C}}\llbracket\sqrt t\rrbracket}$. Let ${{\mathscr{E}}}={{\mathscr{O}}}_X$ and define $v:{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y\to{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y$ as multiplication by $\sqrt t$. Clearly ${\rm Coker}(v)$ cannot be trivial relatively to $A$; of course this does not contradict Proposition \[05.04.2018–3\] since $v$ is not induced by any morphism ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X\to{{\mathscr{O}}}_X$.
Further properties of the category of coherent modules trivialized by a proper morphism {#04.07.2018--1}
=======================================================================================
In this section, we let $X$ be a proper and flat $A$-scheme with [*reduced fibres*]{}, and $x_0$ an $A$-point of $X$. Let ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ an object of ${\mathfrak{S}}(X,x_0)$. (Recall that in such a situation $X$ is connected, see Remark \[05.02.2019–1\].) If $B=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$, we let $y_0$ stand for the $B$-point of $Y$ above $x_0$. Let us gather some simple properties concerning the category ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ of Definition \[05.09.2018–3\].
\[27.04.2017–3\]Let $u:{{\mathscr{E}}}\to{{\mathscr{F}}}$ be arrow of ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$. Then ${{\mathscr{C}}}={\rm Coker}(u)$ belongs to ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$.
As ${\rm Coker}({\varphi}^*u)\simeq {\varphi}^*({\rm Coker}(u))$ this is a straightforward consequence of Proposition \[05.04.2018–3\]-(3).
\[26.04.2017–1\] If ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ is $A$-flat, then ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is a vector bundle.
By assumption, $X_k$ and $X_K$ are reduced schemes. It follows from [@biswas-dos_santos11 Remarks (a), p.226] that ${{\mathscr{E}}}_k$ and ${{\mathscr{E}}}_K$ are *vector bundles*. (We note that the context in op.cit. presupposes the ground field to be algebraically closed, but this is not necessary for the proof to work.) Using the “fibre-by-fibre” flatness criterion \[EGA ${\rm IV}_3$, 11.3.10, p.138\], we are done.
We are now ready to state the main structure theorem concerning ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$.
\[06.04.2018–1\]The category ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ is abelian, and the inclusion functor ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\to{\mathbf{Coh}}(X)$ is exact.
The main point of the proof of Theorem \[06.04.2018–1\], given Lemma \[27.04.2017–3\], is to show that the kernel of an arrow of ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ is also in ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ and, by Proposition \[05.04.2018–3\], all we need to do is to relate ${\varphi}^*({\rm Ker}(u))$ and ${\rm Ker}({\varphi}^*(u))$ for an arrow $u$. The argument takes up the ensuing lines.
First, recall that an ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module ${{\mathscr{M}}}$ is sait to be ${\varphi}^*$-acyclic if the left derived functors $L_i{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{M}}})$ vanish for $i>0$. (These functors are obtained by means of resolutions by flat ${{\mathscr{O}}}$-modules, see [@hartshorne66 99ff] . In addition, note that from [@hartshorne66 Proposition 4.4, p.99], if ${{\mathscr{M}}}$ is coherent, then $L_i{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{M}}})$ is also coherent.)
\[27.04.2017–1\] Any ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ in ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ is ${\varphi}^*$-acyclic.
Let us first assume that $\pi{{\mathscr{E}}}=0$ so that ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is by assumption an ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{X_k}$-module which becomes trivial after being pulled-back to $Y_k$. Then, we know that ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is locally isomorphic to ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{X_k}^r$ [@biswas-dos_santos11 Remarks (a), p.226]. Hence, there exists a faithfully flat morphism ${\alpha}:{\overline{X}}\to X$ (given by the disjoint union of open subsets of $X$) such that ${\alpha}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})\simeq{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}_k}^r$.
Employing the notations introduced in the following cartesian diagram $$\xymatrix{{\overline{Y}}\ar[r]^{\beta}\ar[d]_{{\overline{{\varphi}}}}\ar@{}[dr]|{\square}& Y\ar[d]^{\varphi}\\
{\overline{X}}\ar[r]_{\alpha}&X}$$ we now prove that ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}_k}^r$ is ${\overline{{\varphi}}}^*$-acyclic. The exact sequence $$\label{14.04.2018--2}
0{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}}^r{\stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow}}{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}}^r{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}_k}^r{\longrightarrow}0,$$ gives rise to an exact sequence $$0{\longrightarrow}L_1{\overline{{\varphi}}}^*({{\mathscr{O}}}^r_{{\overline{X}}_k}){\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\varphi}}}^*({{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}}^r){\stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow}} {\overline{{\varphi}}}^*({{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}}^r) {\longrightarrow}{\overline{{\varphi}}}^*({{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}_k}^r){\longrightarrow}0,$$ and this proves that $L_1{\overline{{\varphi}}}^*({{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}_k}^r)=0$ as ${\overline{{\varphi}}}^*({{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}}^r)\simeq{{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{Y}}}^r$ is $A$-flat. From sequence , we have, for any $i\ge1$, another exact sequence $$0\,=\,L_{i+1} {\overline{{\varphi}}}^*({{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}}^r){\longrightarrow}L_{i+1}{\overline{{\varphi}}}^*({{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}_k}^r){\longrightarrow}L_{i}{\overline{{\varphi}}}^*({{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}}^r)\,=\,0;$$ this allows us to conclude that ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}_k}^r$ is ${\overline{{\varphi}}}^*$-acyclic. As ${\alpha}^*$ and ${\beta}^*$ are exact, we know that ${\beta}^* \circ L_i{\varphi}^*\simeq L_i{\overline{{\varphi}}}^*\circ {\alpha}^*$, and therefore we can say that, for each $i>0$, $$\begin{split}
{\beta}^*\circ L_i{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})&=L_i{\overline{{\varphi}}}^*\circ {\alpha}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})\\
&\simeq L_i{\overline{{\varphi}}}^* ({{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\overline{X}}_k}^r)
\\&=0.
\end{split}$$ But $L_i{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ is coherent and ${\beta}$ is faithfully flat, so ${\beta}^*( L_i{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}}))=0$ implies $L_i{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})=0$ and we have finished the verification that ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is ${\varphi}^*$-acyclic.
For any ${{\mathscr{M}}}\in{\mathbf{Coh}}(X)$, let us agree to write $${\rm Tors}({{\mathscr{M}}})=\bigcup_{m\ge1}{\rm Ker}\,\pi^m:{{\mathscr{M}}}\to{{\mathscr{M}}}$$ for the sheaf of sections annihilated by some power of $\pi$ and define $$t({{\mathscr{M}}}):=\min\{m\in{\mathds{N}}\,:\,\pi^m{\cdot}{\rm Tors}({{\mathscr{M}}})=0\}.$$ We shall show by induction on $t({{\mathscr{E}}})$ that ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is ${\varphi}^*$-acyclic. If $t({{\mathscr{M}}})=0$, then ${\rm Tors}({{\mathscr{M}}})=0$, so that, due to Lemma \[26.04.2017–1\], ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is a vector bundle and a fortiori ${\varphi}^*$-acyclic.
Now, suppose that $t({{\mathscr{E}}})\ge1$ and that for all ${{\mathscr{F}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ with $t({{\mathscr{F}}})<t({{\mathscr{E}}})$, the ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ is ${\varphi}^*$-acyclic.
Write ${{\mathscr{E}}}':=\pi{{\mathscr{E}}}$. Then, if $e'\in{\rm Tors}({{\mathscr{E}}}')(U)$ over some affine $U$, it follows that $e'=\pi e$ where $e\in{\rm Tors}({{\mathscr{E}}})(U)$. This being so, we conclude that $\pi^{t({{\mathscr{E}}})-1}e'=0$ and hence that $t({{\mathscr{E}}}')<t({{\mathscr{E}}})$. Next, we consider the exact sequence $$\label{05.04.2018--4a}0{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}'{\stackrel{\rho}{\longrightarrow}}{{\mathscr{E}}}{\stackrel{{\sigma}}{\longrightarrow}}{{\mathscr{E}}}''{\longrightarrow}0,$$ where ${{\mathscr{E}}}''={{\mathscr{E}}}/\pi{{\mathscr{E}}}$. Since, $${{\mathscr{E}}}''={\rm Coker}\,{{\mathscr{E}}}{\stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow}}{{\mathscr{E}}},$$ it follows that ${{\mathscr{E}}}''\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ (there is no need to apply Lemma \[27.04.2017–3\] here). Note that, $\pi{{\mathscr{E}}}''=0$ and hence ${{\mathscr{E}}}''$ is ${\varphi}^*$-acyclic by the first step in the proof. Consequently, we have the exact sequence $$0{\longrightarrow}{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}}'){\longrightarrow}{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}}){\stackrel{{\varphi}^*({\sigma})}{\longrightarrow}}{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}}''){\longrightarrow}0,$$ which says that ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}}')={\rm Ker}({\varphi}^*({\sigma}))$. But both ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ and ${{\mathscr{E}}}''$ are in ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ so that \[05.04.2018–3\]-(3) guarantees that ${{\mathscr{E}}}'$ lies in ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$. As $t({{\mathscr{E}}}')<t({{\mathscr{E}}})$, we can say that ${{\mathscr{E}}}'$ is ${\varphi}^*$-acyclic and hence, using the exact sequence above, it follows that ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ is equally ${\varphi}^*$-acyclic.
We can now present our
Let $u:{{\mathscr{E}}}\to{{\mathscr{F}}}$ be an arrow of ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$. If ${{\mathscr{K}}}={\mathrm{Ker}}(u)$, ${{\mathscr{C}}}=\mathrm{Coker}(u)$ and ${{\mathscr{I}}}={\rm Im}(u)$, then we have exact sequences $$0{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{K}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{E}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{I}}}{\longrightarrow}0\quad\text{and}\quad0{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{I}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{F}}}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{C}}}{\longrightarrow}0.$$ Note that ${{\mathscr{C}}}\in{{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}}$ by Lemma \[27.04.2017–3\], so that Proposition \[27.04.2017–1\] tells us that ${{\mathscr{C}}}$ is ${\varphi}^*$-acyclic. This implies that the sequence $$0{\longrightarrow}{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{I}}}){\longrightarrow}{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{F}}}){\longrightarrow}{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{C}}}){\longrightarrow}0$$ is exact and Proposition \[05.04.2018–3\] assures that ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{I}}})$ is trivial relatively to $A$. Otherwise said, ${{\mathscr{I}}}$ belongs to ${{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}}$. Proposition \[27.04.2017–1\] then proves that ${{\mathscr{I}}}$ is ${\varphi}^*$-acyclic. Applying the same reasoning, we conclude that ${{\mathscr{K}}}\in{{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}}$.
\[19.07.2018–2\]The functor $\bullet|_{x_0}:{{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}}\to{A\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$ is exact and faithful.
We know that $\bullet|_{x_0}$ is *left* exact, so that we only need to show that $\bullet|_{x_0}$ preserves monomorphisms. Let $u:{{\mathscr{E}}}\to{\overline{{{\mathscr{E}}}}}$ be such a monomorphism in ${{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}}$ and denote ${{\mathscr{E}}}|_{x_0}$, respectively ${\overline{{{\mathscr{E}}}}}|_{x_0}$, by $E$, respectively ${\overline{E}}$. Let ${\alpha}:{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AE\stackrel\sim\to{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ and ${\overline{{\alpha}}}:{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_A {\overline{E}} \to{\varphi}^*({\overline{{{\mathscr{E}}}}})$ be adapted to $y_0$ (see Definition \[06.09.2018–1\] and Lemma \[23.03.2018–1\]). Using Proposition \[05.04.2018–3\], we see that ${\overline{{\alpha}}}^{-1}{\varphi}^*(u){\alpha}={\mathrm{id}}_{{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y}{\otimes}_Au_0$ for some $u_0:E \to{\overline{E}}$. Because ${\varphi}^*u$ is a monomorphism (due to Lemma \[27.04.2017–3\] and Proposition \[27.04.2017–1\]), we conclude that $u_0$ has to be a monomorphism: otherwise the pull-back functor ${A\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}\to{\mathbf{Coh}}(Y)$ would fail to be exact and faithful. This implies that ${\varphi}^*(u)|_{y_0}:{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{y_0}\to{\varphi}^*({\overline{{{\mathscr{E}}}}})|_{y_0}$ is a monomorphism, which shows that $B{\otimes}_Au|_{x_0}$ is a monomorphism. Since $B$ is a faithfully flat $A$-algebra, we conclude that $u|_{x_0}$ is also a monomorphism.
We now verify that $\bullet|_{x_0}$ is faithful by showing that if ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}}$ is such that ${{\mathscr{E}}}|_{x_0}=0$, then ${{\mathscr{E}}}=0$. Under this assumption, we see that ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{y_0}=0$ which, together with an isomorphism ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_AE\simeq{\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$, proves the equality ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})=0$. Now, given any point $\xi\in X$, one easily sees using the surjectivity of ${\varphi}$ that ${{\mathscr{E}}}({\xi})=0$. Because of [@hartshorne77 II, Exercise 5.8(c), p.125] and the fact that $X$ is reduced [@matsumura Corollary 23.9, p.184] we conclude that ${{\mathscr{E}}}=0$.
In possession of Theorem \[06.04.2018–1\] and Corollary \[19.07.2018–2\], we can now apply the theory of Tannakian categories over $A$ to define certain fundamental group schemes.
\[14.01.2019–2\]
i) We shall let ${\mathfrak{T}}^\circ_{\varphi}$ denote the full subcategory of ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ whose objects are vector bundles.
ii) Given ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}^\circ$, we denote by $\langle {{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}$ the full subcategory of ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ having as objects subquotients of $\mathbf T^{a,b}{{\mathscr{E}}}$ for varying multi-indexes $a,b$.
iii) Following [@hai-dos_santos18], by ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}^{\rm tan}$ we mean the full subcategory of ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ whose objects are $$\left\{{{\mathscr{V}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\,\,:\,\,\text{${{\mathscr{V}}}$ is a quotient of some ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}^\circ$}\right\}=\bigcup_{{{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}^\circ_{\varphi}}{\rm Ob}\,\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,,\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}.$$
iv) Given ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}^\circ$, we let ${\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi},x_0)$, or simply ${\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}})$ if context prevents any misunderstanding, stand for the group scheme obtained from $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}$ via Tannakian duality (see [@duong-hai18 Theorem 1.2.6] or [@saavedra72 II.4.1.1]) by the functor $\bullet|_{x_0}:\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}\to{A\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$.
v) We let $\Pi(X,{\varphi},x_0)$ be the flat group scheme obtained from ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}^{\rm tan}$ via Tannakian duality by the functor $\bullet|_{x_0}: {\mathfrak{T}}^{\rm tan}_{\varphi}\to{A\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$
To end, we raise a point which was naturally suggested in the elaboration of the arguments in this section. (It should be compared to Exercise of [@hartshorne77 Exercise 5.8, p.125].)
Let $Z$ be a flat, reduced and noetherian $A$-scheme. Call a dvr-point of $Z$ any morphism $z:{\rm Spec}\,R\to Z$ of $A$-schemes where $R$ is a dvr. Now, for ${{\mathscr{F}}}\in{\mathbf{coh}}(Z)$ and $z:{\rm Spec}\,R\to Z$ a dvr-point of $Z$, define its “type” as the invariants of ${{\mathscr{F}}}|_z$. Assume now that the type of ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ is the same for all $z$. Is it true that ${{\mathscr{F}}}$ trivial relatively to $A$?
The generic fibre of the group scheme $\Pi$ {#11.04.2019--4}
===========================================
In this section, we let $X$ be a proper and flat $A$-scheme with [*reduced fibres*]{}, and $x_0$ an $A$-point of $X$. Let ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ an object of ${\mathfrak{S}}(X,x_0)$.
Let ${\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}$ stand for the full subcategory of ${\mathbf{coh}}(X_K)$ whose set of objects is $$\left\{\begin{array}{c}E\in{\mathbf{coh}}(X_K)\,:\,\text{${\varphi}_K^*E$ is trivial}\end{array}\right\}.$$ We note that ${\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}$ is a Tannakian category over $K$ which is neutralized by the functor $\bullet|_{x_{0K}}:{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}\to{K\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$. (The reader is right to object that we have not proved this last claim since in Section \[04.07.2018–1\] we work with a discrete valuation ring, but the translation is evident and in fact much simpler.)
\[11.04.2019–1\]Suppose that $X_K$ is normal and let $E\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}$. Then, $E$ is essentially finite and $\langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}\rangle_{\otimes}=\langle E\,;\,{\mathbf{EF}}(X_K) \rangle_{\otimes}$. In particular, the $K$-group scheme associated to $\langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}\rangle_{\otimes}$ via the fibre functor $\bullet|_{x_{0K}}$ is finite.
Let ${\mathfrak{C}}$ be the full subcategory of all vector bundles over $X_K$ which become trivial after being pulled back via some proper and surjective morphism. Then [@antei-mehta11 Theorem 1] or [@tonini-zhang17 Theorem I] guarantee that ${\mathfrak{C}}={\mathbf{EF}}(X_K)$ and in particular ${\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}$ is a full subcategory of ${\mathbf{EF}}(X_K)$. Following [@biswas-dos_santos11 Corollary 2.3], let us show that $\langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{C}}\rangle_{\otimes}=\langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}\rangle_{\otimes}$. Clearly, each object in $\langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}\rangle_{\otimes}$ is also an object of $\langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{C}}\rangle_{\otimes}$. Let then $T$ be some tensor power of $E$ and $q:T\to Q$ be a quotient morphism with $Q\in{\mathfrak{C}}$. Then, ${\varphi}_K^*(q)$ is a quotient morphism from ${\varphi}_K^*(T)\simeq {{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y_K}^{{\oplus}r}$ to ${\varphi}_K^*Q$. From Lemma \[24.05.2018–1\], we see that ${\varphi}_K^*Q$ is trivial, which means that $Q\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}$. Using duality of vector bundles, we then conclude that $\langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{C}}\rangle_{\otimes}=\langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}\rangle_{\otimes}$.
The following result was employed in the proof of Theorem \[11.04.2019–1\].
\[24.05.2018–1\]Let $V$ be a proper scheme over a field and ${{\mathscr{O}}}_V^{{\oplus}r}\to{{\mathscr{Q}}}$ a quotient morphisms to a vector bundle ${{\mathscr{Q}}}$ of rank $d$. Suppose that for a certain surjective and proper morphism $f:V'\to V$, the pull-back $f^*(\det{{\mathscr{Q}}})$ is trivial. Then ${{\mathscr{Q}}}$ is trivial.
We let ${\rm Grass}(r,d)$ be the Grassmann scheme as described in [@nitsure05 5.1.5(2), 110ff] and denote by ${{\mathscr{U}}}$ the universal quotient of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\rm Grass}(r,d)}^{{\oplus}r}$. By construction of ${\rm Grass}(r,d)$, there exists a morphism ${\gamma}:V\to{\rm Grass}(r,d)$ such that ${{\mathscr{Q}}}={\gamma}^*({{\mathscr{U}}})$. Consequently, $f^*{\gamma}^*(\det {{\mathscr{U}}})$ is trivial. Let ${\delta}:{\rm Grass}(r,d)\to {\mathds{P}}^n$ be the determinant (Plücker) immersion so that $\det({{\mathscr{U}}})={\delta}^*{{\mathscr{O}}}(1)$ [@nitsure05 p. 114]. We then conclude that $f^*{\gamma}^*{\delta}^*{{\mathscr{O}}}(1)$ is trivial. Using Chow’s lemma [\[EGA $\textsc{II}_{}$, 5.6.1, p.106\]]{}, there is no loss of generality in supposing $V'$ to be projective. Now, Exercise 8.1.7(a) on p. 331 of [@liu02] says that the closed schematic image of ${\delta}{\gamma}f $ in ${\mathds{P}}^n$ is finite over the ground field. Hence, the image of ${\gamma}$ is a closed subset with finitely many points so that ${\gamma}^*({{\mathscr{U}}})$, which is ${{\mathscr{Q}}}$, is trivial.
For $E\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}$, let us denote the group scheme over $K$ associated to $\langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}\rangle_{\otimes}$ via the functor $\bullet|_{x_{0K}}$ by ${\mathrm{Gal}}(E,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K},x_{0,K})$.
\[11.04.2019–2\]Suppose that $X_K$ is normal and let ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}^\circ$. If $E$ stands for ${{\mathscr{E}}}_K$, then ${\mathrm{Gal}}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi},x_0){\otimes}K\simeq {\mathrm{Gal}}(E,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K},x_{0K})$. In particular, ${\mathrm{Gal}}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi},x_0){\otimes}K$ is finite.
Let ${\sigma}:\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}\to \langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}\rangle_{\otimes}$ be the base change functor, $G$ be the group scheme ${\mathrm{Gal}}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi},x_0)$ and $H$ be ${\mathrm{Gal}}(E,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K},x_{0K})$. Let ${\theta}:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}$ be an inverse to $\bullet|_{x_0}:\langle{{\mathscr{E}}};{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}\to{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}$ and denote by $\tau:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{K}(H)}$ the composition $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\ar[r]^{\theta}& \langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}\ar[r]^-{{\sigma}} & \langle E\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K}\rangle_{\otimes}\ar[r]^-{\bullet|_{x_{0K}}} &{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{K}(H)}. }$$
If $V\subset A[G]_{\rm right}$ contains the constants, the fact that ${\theta}$ is fully faithful assures that $H^0(X,{\theta}(V))\simeq A$. Hence, $H^0(X_K,{\sigma}{\theta}(V))\simeq K$, by flat base-change. Consequently, $$\tau(V)^H\simeq K.$$
Let $i:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{K}(G_K)}$ be the extension of scalars. It is not difficult to see that there exists a morphism $\xi:H\to G_K$ of group schemes such that $$\xymatrix{{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)} \ar[d]_i \ar[r]^\tau & {{\mathrm{Rep}}_{K}(H)}
\\
{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{K}(G_K)}\ar[ru]_{\xi^\#},&
}$$ is commutative (up to natural isomorphism of tensor functors).
If $V\subset K[G]_{\rm right}$, there exists $V^\flat\subset A[G]_{\rm right}$ containing the constants and an injection $V\to i(V^\flat)$. Then, $$\begin{split}\xi^\#(V)^{H}&\subset \tau(V^\flat)^{H}\\&\simeq K.
\end{split}$$ This implies that $K\simeq K[G]^H_{\rm right}$, and we conclude, with the help of Lemma \[29.11.2018–1\] and the fact that $H$ is finite (Theorem \[11.04.2019–1\]), that $\xi$ is faithfully flat. On the other hand, since $E|_{x_{0K}}$ is a faithful representation of $H$, the standard criterion [@deligne-milne82 2.21, p.139] immediately shows that $\xi$ is a closed immersion: it follows that $\xi$ is an isomorphism.
As a simple consequence we have
\[16.04.2019–1\]Suppose that $X_K$ is normal. Then $\Pi(X,x_0){\otimes}K$ is pro-finite.
\[11.04.2019–3\]We are unable to show that Theorem \[11.04.2019–2\] holds without the finiteness assumption on ${\mathrm{Gal}}(E,{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}_K},x_0)$. This is because, once this assumption is removed, Lemma \[29.11.2018–1\] cannot be applied so that, in its place, we need the standard criterion guaranteeing faithful flatness [@deligne-milne82 2.21, p.139].
Prudence in the category ${\mathfrak{T}}_*$ {#14.03.2019--1}
===========================================
We shall assume that $A$ is complete. In [@hai-dos_santos18 Section 6] we introduced the notion of [*prudence*]{} of an affine flat group scheme over $A$. As shown in op. cit. this concept turns out to be equivalent to the Mittag-Leffler property (or freeness) of the $A$-module of functions of the group. In this section we show that the $A$-module of functions of a Galois group (see Definition \[14.01.2019–2\]) is free by using prudence.
Here are the hypothesis on the ambient space which are fixed in this section. Let $X$ be a proper and flat $A$-scheme having reduced fibres. We give ourselves an $A$-point $x_0$ and an arrow ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ in ${\mathfrak{S}}^+(X,x_0)$ (see Definition \[26.06.2018–1\]). If $B=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$, we let $y_0$ be the $B$-point of $Y$ above $x_0$ assured by the definition of ${\mathfrak{S}}^+$.
\[25.06.2018–4\]Let ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}^\circ$. Then ${\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi},x_0)$, as introduced in Definition \[14.01.2019–2\], is prudent. In particular, its $A$-module of functions is free.
Before starting the proof, let us obtain the
\[25.06.2018–2\]Suppose that $X_K$ is normal. Then ${\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi},x_0)$ is finite.
We abbreviate $G:={\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi},x_0)$. By Theorem \[11.04.2019–2\], $G{\otimes}K$ is finite over $K$. As $A$ is complete, the $A$-module $A[G]$ is isomorphic to a sum $A^{a}{\oplus}K^b$ by [@kaplansky52 Theorem 12]. But Theorem \[25.06.2018–4\] implies that $b=0$, so $A[G]\simeq A^a$.
Recall that by assumption $Y$ is $H^0$-flat over $A$ and flat over $B=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$. We wish to show that ${\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}})$ is prudent [@hai-dos_santos18 Section 6], and for that we introduce the following setting.
Let ${{\mathscr{V}}}\in\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}$ be a vector bundle and let $$v_n:{{\mathscr{L}}}_n{\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{V}}}_n$$ be a compatible family of monomorphisms of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-modules (as customary, ${{\mathscr{V}}}_n=A_n{\otimes}_A{{\mathscr{V}}}$, $B_n=A_n{\otimes}_AB$, etc.) such that for each $n\in{\mathds{N}}$, the ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-module ${{\mathscr{L}}}_n$ belongs to ${\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi}}$. By Grothendieck’s existence theorem [@illusie06 Theorem 8.4.2], there exists an arrow of coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-modules $v:{{\mathscr{L}}}\to{{\mathscr{V}}}$ such that $v_n$ is none other than $v{\otimes}_AA_n$.
Write ${{\mathscr{M}}}:={\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{L}}})$; our assumption on ${{\mathscr{L}}}_n$ tells us that ${{\mathscr{M}}}_n={\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{L}}}_n)$ is trivial relatively to $A$. Then, since we assume that $Y$ is $H^0$-flat over $A$, Lemma \[29.03.2018–1\] tells us that the canonical arrow $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\underset{B}{\otimes}}H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_n)\ar[rr]^-{{\theta}_n}&& {{\mathscr{M}}}_n}$$ is an *isomorphism*. We now require the
\[14.04.2018–1\]Under the above notations and assumption, the canonical morphism of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Y$-modules $$\tau:{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\underset{B}{\otimes}}H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}){\longrightarrow}{{\mathscr{M}}}$$ is an isomorphism. In particular, ${{\mathscr{M}}}$ is trivial relatively to $B$.
Consider the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathscr{M}}}_{n+1}\ar[rr]^{\pi^{n+1}} && {{\mathscr{M}}}_{n+1}\ar[rr]^{q_n}&& {{\mathscr{M}}}_n\ar[r]&0
\\
\ar[u]^{{\theta}_{n+1}}{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\underset{B}{\otimes}}H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_{n+1})\ar[rr]_{\pi^{n+1}} && {{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\underset{B}{\otimes}}H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_{n+1}) \ar[rr]_{{\mathrm{id}}{\otimes}H^0(q_n)}\ar[u]^{{\theta}_{n+1}}&& {{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\underset{B}{\otimes}}H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_{n})\ar[u]^{{\theta}_{n}}\ar[r]&0,
}$$ where $q_n$ is the canonical arrow. By assumption, the vertical arrows are isomorphisms while the upper row is tautologically an exact sequence of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Y$-modules. We conclude that the bottom row is exact and faithful flatness of $Y$ over $B$ (faithfulness is guaranteed by [\[EGA $\textsc{III}_{1}$, 4.3.1, p.130\]]{}) shows that the sequence $$\xymatrix{
H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_{n+1})\ar[r]^{\pi^{n+1}} & H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_{n+1})\ar[rr]^{H^0(q_n)}& & H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_n)\ar[r]&0
}$$ is equally exact. Hence, if $${\mathfrak{M}}:={\varprojlim}\left( \xymatrix{\cdots\ar[r]&H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_{n+1})\ar[rr]^{H^0(q_n)}& & H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_{n})\ar[r]&\cdots} \right),$$ it follows that ${\mathfrak{M}}$ is a finitely generated $B$-module and that the projection $${\mathfrak{M}}{\longrightarrow}H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_n)$$ induces an isomorphism $$B_{n}{\otimes}_B{\mathfrak{M}}{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_n).$$ (This follows from the the fact that $B$ is $\pi$-adically complete and [\[EGA $\textsc{0}_{\rm I}$, 7.2.9\]]{}.) More importantly, letting $u_n:{{\mathscr{M}}}\to{{\mathscr{M}}}_n$ stand for the natural epimorphism, a direct application of the theorem of formal functions (see [@illusie06 8.2.4, p. 188] or [@hartshorne77 III.11.1, p.277]) guarantees that the obvious arrow $$\xymatrix{ H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}) \ar[rrr]^-{{\varprojlim}_nH^0(u_n)} &&& {\mathfrak{M}} }$$ is a bijection. Consequently, for any given $n\in{\mathds{N}}$, the arrow $H^0(u_n): H^0({{\mathscr{M}}})\to H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_n)$ induces an isomorphism $$U_n: B_{n}{\underset{B}{\otimes}}H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}){\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_n).$$ To show that $\tau:{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_BH^0({{\mathscr{M}}})\to{{\mathscr{M}}}$ is an isomorphism, by Grothendieck’s algebraization theorem [@illusie06 Theorem 8.2.9, p.192], we only need to show that for each $n$, $$B_n{\underset{B}{\otimes}} ({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_BH^0({{\mathscr{M}}}))\xymatrix{\ar[rr]^-{{\mathrm{id}}{\otimes}\tau}&&} B_{n}{\underset{B}{\otimes}} {{\mathscr{M}}}$$ is an isomorphism. Now, we have the commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
B_{n}{\underset{B}{\otimes}} ({{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\otimes}_BH^0({{\mathscr{M}}}))\ar[rr]^-{{\mathrm{id}}{\otimes}\tau}&&B_{n}{\underset{B}{\otimes}} {{\mathscr{M}}}\ar[r]^{{\overline{u}}_n}_\sim & {{\mathscr{M}}}_n \\
\ar[u]^-{\sim}_{\text{canonic}} {{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\underset{B}{\otimes}}(B_{n}{\otimes}_B H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}))\ar[rrr]_-{{\mathrm{id}}{\otimes}U_n} &&& {{\mathscr{O}}}_Y{\underset{B}{\otimes}}H^0({{\mathscr{M}}}_n)\ar[u]^-{{\theta}_n}_-{\sim},
}$$where ${\overline{u}}_n$ is associated to $u_n$, and the conclusion follows.
By virtue of the above Lemma, ${{\mathscr{M}}}$ is trivial relatively to $B$; using Lemma \[21.02.2019–1\] we conclude that ${{\mathscr{M}}}$ is trivial relatively to $A$. This shows that ${{\mathscr{L}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$. As it is not difficult to show that $v$ is a monomorphism by looking at the arrow ${{\mathscr{L}}}|_{x_0}\to{{\mathscr{V}}}|_{x_0}$, we see that ${{\mathscr{L}}}$ does indeed belong to $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,,\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}$.
We have then showed that the group scheme ${\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi})$ is prudent, and hence that its ring of functions is free as an $A$-module [@hai-dos_santos18 Section 6].
Digression on the reduced fibre theorem {#RFT}
=======================================
For future applications, we shall state a version of the reduced fibre theorem (see [@bosch-lutkebohmert-raynaud95 Theorem $2.1'$] and [@temkin10]) suitable for us.
\[reduced\_fibre\_theorem\] Let $A$ be Henselian and $Y$ be a flat $A$-scheme of finite type whose fibre $Y_K$ is geometrically reduced. Then, there exists a finite extension of discrete valuation rings $B\supset A$ and a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{&Z\ar[d]^{\varepsilon}\\
Y\ar[d]&\ar[l]\ar@{}|{\square}[dl] Y_B\ar[d]
\\
{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A &\ar[l] {\mathrm{Spec}\,}B
}$$ where:
1. The $B$-scheme $Z$ is flat and has geometrically reduced fibres.
2. The morphism ${\varepsilon}$ is finite and surjective.
3. If $L={\rm Frac}(B)$, then $${\varepsilon}{\underset{B}{\otimes}}L:Z{\underset{B}{\otimes}}L{\longrightarrow}Y_B{\underset{B}{\otimes}}L$$ is an isomorphism.
In particular, the composition $Z\to Y_B\to Y$ is finite and surjective.
We show how to arrive at the conclusion starting from [@temkin10 Theorem 3.5.5]. By this theorem (see also the notation on p. 619 of op. cit.), we obtain the existence of an integral scheme $S$ and a separable alteration (proper, dominant and inducing a finite and separable extension of function fields) $$S{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A,$$ and a commutative diagram with cartesian square $$\xymatrix{
&{\widetilde}Y\ar[d]^{\delta}\\
Y\ar[d]&Y_S \ar[d]\ar[l]\ar@{}[ld]|\square
\\
{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A& \ar[l]S,
}$$ such that:
- The $S$-scheme ${\widetilde}Y$ is flat and has geometrically reduced fibres.
- The morphism ${\delta}$ is finite.
- The base-change $$\xymatrix{{\widetilde}{Y}{\underset{S}{\times}}S_K\ar[rr]^-{{\delta}{\underset{S}{\times}} S_K}&& Y_S{\underset{S}{\times}}S_K}$$ is an isomorphism.
As $Y_S\to S$ is an open morphism [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 2.4.6\]]{} and $S_K$ is dense in $S$, we can say that $Y_S{\times}_SS_K$ is dense in $Y_S$; consequently,
- The morphism ${\delta}$ is *surjective*.
If $L$ is the function field of $S$ and $B$ is the integral closure of $A$ in $L$ (necessarily a d.v.r. and a finite $A$-module [@matsumuraCA 31.B, p.232]), properness of $S$ gives the existence of a morphism of $A$-schemes ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}B\to S$ extending ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}L\to S$. We then arrive at a commutative diagram with cartesian squares $$\xymatrix{
&{\widetilde}{Y}\ar[d]^{\delta}& Z\ar[d]^{\varepsilon}\ar[l]\ar@{}|\square[dl]
\\
Y\ar[d] & Y_S\ar@{}|\square[dr] \ar[d]\ar[l]\ar@{}[ld]|\square & Y_B\ar[d]\ar[l]
\\
{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A& \ar[l]S & {\mathrm{Spec}\,}B\ar[l]
}$$ where
- The $B$-scheme $Z$ is flat and has geometrically reduced fibres (for the last condition, see [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 4.6.1, p.68\]]{}).
- The morphism ${\varepsilon}$ is finite and surjective (for surjectivity, see [\[EGA $\textsc{I}_{}$, 3.5.2, p.115\]]{}).
- The base-change morphism $${\varepsilon}{\underset{B}{\otimes}}L:Z{\underset{B}{\otimes}}L{\longrightarrow}Y_B{\underset{B}{\otimes}}L$$ is an isomorphism.
The proof of the last claim is quite simple and we omit it.
The ensuing result will prove useful in order to apply Theorem \[reduced\_fibre\_theorem\]. In it, we employ the notion of Japanese discrete valuation ring [\[EGA $\textsc{0}_{{\rm IV}}$, 23.1.1, p.213\]]{}. (The reader should recall that all complete d.v.r.’s are Japanese, as are those whose field of fractions has characteristic zero. See [\[EGA $\textsc{0}_{{\rm IV}}$, 23.1.5\]]{} and [\[EGA $\textsc{0}_{{\rm IV}}$, 23.1.2\]]{}.)
\[25.10.2018–1\] Let $A$ be a Japanese and $S$ a flat $A$-scheme of finite type. There exists a finite purely inseparable extension $\tilde K$ of $K$ such that the following property holds. If $\tilde A$ is the integral closure of $A$ in $\tilde K$, then the $\tilde A$-scheme $\tilde S:=(S{\otimes}_A\tilde A)_{{\rm red}}$ has a geometrically reduced generic fibre and is flat .
Let $\tilde K/K$ be a finite and purely inseparable extension such that $(S{\otimes}_A\tilde K)_{{\rm red}}$ is geometrically reduced over $\tilde K$ [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 4.6.6, p.69\]]{}. Now, in the notation of the statement, $\tilde S[1/\pi]=(S{\otimes}_A\tilde K)_{{\rm red}}$, and we are done. To prove that $\tilde S$ is flat over $\tilde A$, let $\tilde \pi$ be a uniformizer of $\tilde A$. Let $\tilde f$ be a function on some unspecified affine open subset of $S{\otimes}_A\tilde A$ such that $\tilde \pi \tilde f$ is nilpotent, say $\tilde \pi^m \tilde f^{m}=0$. Then, the fact that $S{\otimes}_A\tilde A$ is $\tilde A$-flat says that $\tilde f$ is nilpotent, and this shows that $(S{\otimes}_A\tilde A)_{{\rm red}}$ is $\tilde A$-flat.
The fundamental group scheme {#FGS}
============================
Let $X$ be an irreducible, proper and flat $A$-scheme with geometrically reduced fibres, and $x_0$ an $A$-point of $X$. We now wish to assemble the categories ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$ (see Definition \[05.09.2018–3\] and Theorem \[06.04.2018–1\]) for varying ${\varphi}$ in a single one, and for that we need the following:
\[05.11.2018–1\]We suppose that $A$ is Henselian and Japanese. Let ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ be a proper and surjective morphism. Then, there exists a commutative diagram of schemes $$\xymatrix{Z\ar[r] \ar[dr]_{\psi}&Y\ar[d]^{\varphi}\\&X}$$ enjoying the following properties.
(1) The morphism ${\psi}$ is surjective and proper.
(2) The ring $C:=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Z)$ is a discrete valuation ring and is a finite extension of $A$.
(3) The canonical morphism $Z\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}C$ is flat and has geometrically reduced fibres.
(4) The $C$-scheme $Z$ has a $C$-point above $x_0$.
In particular, ${\psi}:Z\to X$ belongs to the category ${\mathfrak{S}}^+(X,x_0)$ introduced in Definition \[26.06.2018–1\].
The construction requires several steps.
*Step 1.* Because $X$ is [*irreducible*]{}, there exists an irreducible component $Y'$ of $Y$ such that ${\varphi}:Y'\to X$ is surjective.
*Step 2.* Let $j:Y''\to Y$ be reduced closed subscheme underlying $Y'$. Note that $Y''$ is integral and that ${\varphi}'':={\varphi}\circ j:Y''\to X$ is proper and surjective.
*Step 3.* Let now $\nu:Y^\dagger\to Y''$ be the normalization [\[EGA $\textsc{II}_{}$, p.119\]]{}. Since $A$ is universally Japanese [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 7.7.2, p.212\]]{}, we conclude that $\nu$ is finite, and hence ${\varphi}^\dagger:={\varphi}''\circ\nu$ is proper and surjective. In addition, $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y^\dagger})$ is a normal integral domain (see [@liu02 2.4.17, p.65] and [@liu02 4.1.5, p.116]). The morphism $Y^\dagger \to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A$ is surjective and hence flat [@liu02 4.3.10,p.137]; it then follows that $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y^\dagger})$ is a finite and flat $A$-module. As such, it must in addition be a local ring, since $A$ is Henselian. Consequently, $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y^\dagger})$ is a Dedekind domain, and a fortiori a discrete valuation ring. In hindsight, the canonical morphism $Y^\dagger\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y^\dagger})$ is surjective and flat [@liu02 4.3.10,p.137].
*Step 4.* Let $B^\dagger:=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y^\dagger})$ and write $L^\dagger$ for its field of fractions. Let $\tilde L$ be a purely inseparable extension of $L^\dagger$ such that, denoting by $\tilde B$ the integral closure of $B^\dagger$ in $\tilde L$, the generic fibre of $$(Y^\dagger{\otimes}_{B^\dagger}\tilde B)_{{\rm red}}{\longrightarrow}{\mathrm{Spec}\,}{\tilde B}$$ is geometrically reduced (we employ Lemma \[25.10.2018–1\]). Writing $
\tilde Y:=(Y^\dagger{\otimes}_{B^\dagger}\tilde B)_{{\rm red}}$, we note that the composition $$\tilde Y{\longrightarrow}{Y^\dagger{\otimes}_{B^\dagger}\tilde B}{\stackrel{{\mathrm{pr}}}{\longrightarrow}} Y^\dagger$$ induces a homeomorphism between the underlying topological spaces. From this, it follows that $\tilde Y$ is integral and that the obvious morphism $\tilde{\varphi}:\tilde Y\to X$ is surjective. Since $\tilde B$ is a finite $B^\dagger$-module—recall that $A$ is Japanese—, we conclude that $\tilde{\varphi}$ is proper. Since $\tilde B$ is a Dedekind domain, the fact that $\tilde Y\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}\tilde B$ is surjective (note that $Y^\dagger{\otimes}_{B^\dagger}\tilde B\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}\tilde B$ is surjective by [\[EGA $\textsc{I}_{}$, 3.5.2, p.115\]]{}) shows that it is in addition flat.
For future usage, we also remark that $$\begin{aligned}
H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{\tilde Y})&=H^0\left({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y^\dagger{\otimes}_{B^\dagger}\tilde B}\right)_{{\rm red}}& \text{(see \cite[2.4.2(c),p.60]{liu02})}
\\
&=\left(H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y^\dagger}){\otimes}_{B^\dagger}\tilde B\right)_{{\rm red}}&\text{(flat base-change \cite[3.1.24. p.85]{liu02})}
\\
&=\left(B^\dagger{\otimes}_{B^\dagger}\tilde B\right)_{{\rm red}}& \text{(definition of $B^\dagger$)}
\\
&=\tilde B.&\end{aligned}$$
*Step 5.* By the reduced fibre theorem (Theorem \[reduced\_fibre\_theorem\]), there exists a finite extension $B^\natural\supset\tilde B$ of discrete valuation rings and a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{&Y^\natural\ar[d]^{\varepsilon}\\
\tilde Y\ar[d] & \tilde Y{\underset{\tilde B}{\otimes}}B^\natural \ar[d]\ar[l]
\\
{\mathrm{Spec}\,}\tilde B&\ar[l]{\mathrm{Spec}\,}B^\natural}$$ such that
- The $B^\natural$-scheme $Y^\natural$ is flat, proper and has geometrically reduced fibres.
- The morphism ${\varepsilon}$ is finite and surjective.
- If $L^\natural={\rm Frac}(B^\natural)$, then $${\varepsilon}{\underset{B^\natural}{\otimes}} L^\natural: Y^\natural{\underset{B^\natural}{\otimes}}L^\natural{\longrightarrow}(\tilde Y{\otimes}_{\tilde B}B^\natural){\underset{B^\natural}{\otimes}}L^\natural$$ is an isomorphism.
Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
H^0\left({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y^\natural{\underset{B^\natural}{\otimes}}L^\natural}\right)&\simeq H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{\tilde Y{\otimes}_{\tilde B}L^\natural})&\text{(via ${\varepsilon}{\otimes}_{B^\natural}L^\natural$)}
\\
&\simeq H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{\tilde Y}){\underset{\tilde B}{\otimes}}L^\natural&\text{(by flat base-change)}
\\
&\simeq L^\natural&\text{(by Step 4)}.\end{aligned}$$ Let ${\varphi}^\natural:Y^\natural\to X$ be the composition $$Y^\natural{\stackrel{{\varepsilon}}{\longrightarrow}} \tilde Y{\underset{\tilde B}{\otimes}}B^\natural{\stackrel{\rm pr}{\longrightarrow}} \tilde Y{\stackrel{\tilde{\varphi}}{\longrightarrow}}X;$$ as $\tilde{\varphi}$ is surjective and proper, it is clear that ${\varphi}^\natural$ is surjective and proper.
*Step 6.* Let now $C\supset B^\natural$ be a finite extension of d.v.r.’s such that $Y^\natural$ has a $C$-point above the $A$-point $x_{0}$ (here we apply the valuative criterion of properness for the $A$-scheme $Y^\natural|_{x_0}$ to obtain a finite extension $A\subset C$). We then define $Z=Y^\natural{\otimes}_{B^\natural}C$ and note that the following claims hold true:
- The composition $Z\stackrel{\rm pr}\to Y^\natural\stackrel{{\varphi}^\natural}\to X$ is surjective and proper.
- The $C$-scheme $Z$ is flat, proper and has geometrically reduced fibres.
- Let $M={\mathrm{Frac}}(C)$. Then, $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Z{\otimes}_CM})=M$ (because of $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Y^\natural{\otimes}_{B^\natural}L^\natural})=L^\natural$ and flat base-change).
- The ring of global functions of $Z$ is $C$ (because of the previous claims and Lemma \[03.07.2018–2\].)
- There is a $C$-point in $Z$ above the $A$-point $x_0$.
This proves all conclusions in the statement.
\[19.07.2018–1\]We suppose that $A$ is Henselian and Japanese. Let ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ and ${\varphi}':Y'\to X$ be surjective and proper morphisms. Then there exists ${\psi}:Z\to X$ in ${\mathfrak{S}}^+(X,x_0)$ and a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{&Z\ar[dd]^{\psi}\ar[dr]\ar[dl]&
\\
Y\ar[dr]_{\varphi}&&Y'\ar[dl]^{{\varphi}'}
\\
&X.&
}$$ In addition, it is possible to find $Z$ such that the extra conditions hold:
1. The ring $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Z)$ is a d.v.r. which is a finite extension of $A$, and
2. the canonical morphism $Z\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Z)$ is flat with geometrically reduced fibres.
\[30.10.2018–1\]We let ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$, stand for the full subcategory of ${\mathbf{coh}}(X)$ whose objects are $$\bigcup_{{\varphi}\in{\mathfrak{S}}(X,x_0)}{\rm Ob}\, {{\mathfrak{T}}}^{\rm tan}_{\varphi}.$$In addition, ${\mathfrak{T}}_X^\circ$ is the full subcategory of ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$ having objects which are in addition vector bundles.
In the terminology of the definition we can say:
If $A$ is Henselian and Japanese, then the category ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$ is a full abelian subcategory of ${\mathbf{coh}}(X)$ which is in addition stable under tensor products. With this structure and with the functor $\bullet|_{x_0}:{\mathfrak{T}}_X\to{A\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$, ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$ becomes a neutral Tannakian category over $A$ in the sense of [@duong-hai18 Definition 1.2.5, p.1109].
Let ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ and ${\varphi}':Y'\to X$ belong to ${\mathfrak{S}}(X,x_0)$ and ${\psi}:Z\to X$ be as in Corollary \[19.07.2018–1\]. Then, ${\mathfrak{T}}^{\rm tan}_{\varphi}$ and ${\mathfrak{T}}^{\rm tan}_{{\varphi}'}$ are full subcategories of ${\mathfrak{T}}^{\rm tan}_{\psi}$ and all the claims made in the statement follow from Theorem \[06.04.2018–1\] and Corollary \[19.07.2018–2\].
\[19.07.2018–3\]The fundamental group scheme of $X$ at the point $x_0$ is the affine and flat group scheme obtained from ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$ and the functor $\bullet|_{x_0}:{\mathfrak{T}}_X\to{A\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$ via Tannakian duality [@duong-hai18 Theorem 1.2.6]. It shall be denoted by $\Pi (X,x_0)$.
If ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_X^\circ$, we let ${\mathrm{Gal}}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_X,x_0)$ be the flat group scheme over $A$ defined by the category $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\rangle_{\otimes}$ and the functor $\bullet|_{x_0}$.
The next result clarifies the relation between ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$ and its constituents ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}$.
\[07.11.2018–1\] Let ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ be an arrow of ${\mathfrak{S}}(X,x_0)$ and ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}^\circ$. Then, the natural morphism $\nu:\Pi(X,x_0)\to\Pi(X,{\varphi},x_0)$ is faithfully flat, while ${\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_X,x_0)\to{\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi},x_0)$ is an isomorphism.
Let us write $G:=\Pi(X,x_0)$ and $G^{\varphi}:=\Pi(X,{\varphi},x_0)$. In addition, given any $A$-linear category ${\mathfrak{C}}$, we denote by ${\mathfrak{C}}_{(k)}$ the full subcategory of ${\mathfrak{C}}$ whose objects are “annihilated by $\pi$”, meaning that multiplication by $\pi$ coincides with 0. We shall prove that
i) For any $V\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}^\circ_{A}(G^{\varphi})}$ and any quotient morphism $q:\nu^\#(V)\to Q$ with $Q\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}^\circ_{A}(G)}$, there exists $Q^{\varphi}\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}^\circ_{A}(G^{\varphi})}$ such that $\nu^\#(Q^{\varphi})=Q$.
ii) For any $M\in {{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G^{\varphi})}_{(k)}$ and any quotient morphism $q:\nu^\#(M)\to Q$ with $Q\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}_{(k)}$, there exists $Q^{\varphi}\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G^{\varphi})}$ such that $\nu^\#(Q^{\varphi})=Q$.
If these two conditions are verified, then the evident morphisms $A[G^{\varphi}]\to A[G]$ and $k[G^{\varphi}]\to k[G]$ are injective (as follows from the “dual statements” in [@duong-hai18 3.2.1] and [@deligne-milne82 2.21, p.139]) and Theorem 4.1.1 in [@duong-hai18] proves that $\nu$ is faithfully flat.
To verify (i), we give ourselves a morphism ${\psi}:Z\to X$ in ${\mathfrak{S}}(X,x_0)$, an object ${{\mathscr{Q}}}$ from ${\mathfrak{T}}_{{\psi}}^\circ$, an object ${{\mathscr{V}}}$ of ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}^\circ$ and an epimorphism $q:{{\mathscr{V}}}\to{{\mathscr{Q}}}$, and aim at showing that ${{\mathscr{Q}}}$ lies in ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}^\circ$. By Lemma \[03.05.2018–1\], we only need to show that ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{Q}}})|_{Y_k}$ and ${\varphi}^*({{\mathscr{Q}}})|_{Y_K}$ are both trivial. But this is a direct consequence of Lemma \[24.05.2018–1\].
To verify (ii) we give ourselves an object ${{\mathscr{M}}}$ of $({\mathfrak{T}}^{\rm tan}_{{\varphi}})_{(k)}$, a morphism ${\psi}:Z\to X$ in ${\mathfrak{S}}(X,x_0)$, an object ${{\mathscr{Q}}}$ of $({\mathfrak{T}}^{\rm tan}_{{\psi}})_{(k)}$ and an epimorphism $q:{{\mathscr{M}}}\to{{\mathscr{Q}}}$. Since ${{\mathscr{M}}}$ and ${{\mathscr{Q}}}$ are locally free ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{X_k}$-modules [@biswas-dos_santos11 Remarks (a), p.226], the exact same argument as before proves that ${{\mathscr{Q}}}$ lies in ${\mathfrak{T}}_{{\varphi},(k)}$. Being a quotient of ${{\mathscr{M}}}$, which belongs to $({\mathfrak{T}}^{\rm tan}_{{\varphi}})_{(k)}$, ${{\mathscr{Q}}}$ must be in $({\mathfrak{T}}^{\rm tan}_{{\varphi}})_{(k)}$.
The natural arrow ${\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}},x_0)\to{\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi},x_0)$ is induced by the obvious fully faithful functor $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}\to\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}\rangle_{\otimes}$. Now, any ${{\mathscr{V}}}$ in $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}\rangle_{\otimes}$ is of the form ${{\mathscr{V}}}'/{{\mathscr{V}}}''$, where ${{\mathscr{V}}}''\subset{{\mathscr{V}}}'\subset{\mathbf{T}}^{a,b}{{\mathscr{E}}}$. Since $\nu$ is faithfully flat, Theorem 4.1.2 of [@duong-hai18] shows that ${{\mathscr{V}}}'$ and ${{\mathscr{V}}}''$ belong to ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}^\circ$; consequently ${{\mathscr{V}}}$ is an object of $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}$ and the fully faithful functor $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\rangle_{\otimes}\to\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}\rangle_{\otimes}$ is an equivalence.
In order to make some properties of $\Pi(X,x_0)$ conspicuous, let us make the following definitions.
\[25.02.2019–1\]Let $G\in{\mathbf{FGSch}}/A$ be given. Let ${\mathbf{P}}$ be one of the adjectives “finite”, “quasi-finite” or “pseudo-finite”. We say that $G$ is pro-${\mathbf{P}}$ (respectively strictly pro-${\mathbf{P}}$) if there exists a directed set $I$ and a diagram $\{\nu_{ij}:G_j\to G_i\,:\,i\le j\in I\}$ in ${\mathbf{FGSch}}/A$ where each $G_i$ is ${\mathbf{P}}$ (respectively each $G_i$ is ${\mathbf{P}}$ and each $\nu_{ij}$ is faithfully flat) such that $G\simeq {\varprojlim}_iG_i$. (For the definition of quasi-finite, the reader is directed to [\[EGA $\textsc{II}_{}$, 6.2.3, p.115\]]{}.)
\[15.03.2019–1\] We suppose that $A$ is Henselian and Japanese, and moreover assume that $X_K$ is normal.
1. The group scheme $\Pi(X,x_0)$ is pro-quasi-finite.
2. The group scheme $\Pi(X,x_0)$ is strictly pro-pseudo-finite.
3. If in addition $A$ is complete, then, for each ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_X^\circ$, the group scheme ${\mathrm{Gal}}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_X,x_0)$ is finite and $\Pi(X,x_0)$ is strictly pro-finite.
We note that this result shall be improved below—see Theorem \[25.03.2019–1\]—by a careful application of (2) and Lemma \[21.03.2019–1\], but not to make the argument overly involved, we opt for less generality now.
We consider the set of isomorphism classes $I$ of objects in ${\mathfrak{T}}^\circ_X$ and order it by decreeing that ${{\mathscr{E}}}\le{{\mathscr{F}}}$ if and only if ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in\langle{{\mathscr{F}}}\rangle_{\otimes}$. Putting $G_{{\mathscr{E}}}:={\mathrm{Gal}}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}}_X,x_0)$, we obtain a system of group schemes $\{\nu_{ {{\mathscr{E}}}{{\mathscr{F}}}}:G_{{\mathscr{F}}}\to G_{{\mathscr{E}}}\}$ whose limit is $\Pi(X,x_0)$.
\(1) and (1’). We know that for each ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_X^\circ$ the group $G_{{\mathscr{E}}}{\otimes}K$ is finite (by Proposition \[07.11.2018–1\] and Theorem \[11.04.2019–2\]). Hence, the proof follows from the
\[19.03.2019–1\] Let $G\in{\mathbf{FGSch}}/A$ be such that $G{\otimes}K$ is a pro-finite group scheme. Then $G$ is (a) strictly pro-pseudo-finite, and (b) is pro-quasi-finite.
Following [@duong-hai-dos_santos18 Theorem 2.17,p. 989], we write $G={\varprojlim}_{\alpha}G_{\alpha}$ where each $G_{\alpha}$ lies in $({\mathbf{FGSch}}/A)$, the transition morphisms are faithfully flat and each $G_{\alpha}{\otimes}K$ is of finite type over $K$. Since $G{\otimes}K$ is pro-finite, $G_{\alpha}{\otimes}K$ is in fact finite. But for a flat $A$-module $M$, the inequality $\dim_KM{\otimes}K<\infty$ entails $\dim_kM{\otimes}k<\infty$, as we see by lifting a linearly independent set in $M{\otimes}k$ to $M$. We conclude that $G_{\alpha}$ is pseudo-finite. In addition, by the same Theorem in [@duong-hai-dos_santos18], we know that $G_{\alpha}$ is a projective limit ${\varprojlim}_iG_{{\alpha},i}$ where $G_{{\alpha},i}$ is flat and of finite type over $A$, and the transition morphisms $G_{{\alpha},j}\to G_{{\alpha},i}$ induce isomorphisms on the generic fibres. In particular, $G_{{\alpha},i}{\otimes}K\simeq G_{\alpha}{\otimes}K$, and hence $G_{{\alpha},i}{\otimes}K$ is again finite. By the same argument as before $G_{\alpha}$ is, being of finite type, quasi-finite.
\(2) In view of Corollary \[25.06.2018–2\] and Proposition \[07.11.2018–1\], only the final statement needs proof. Due to [@duong-hai18 Theorem 4.1.2] each arrow $\nu_{{{\mathscr{E}}}{{\mathscr{F}}}}:G_{{\mathscr{F}}}\to G_{{{\mathscr{E}}}}$ is faithfully flat, which is enough argument.
We now preset the amplification of Theorem \[15.03.2019–1\] already mentioned before.
\[25.03.2019–1\]We suppose that $A$ is Henselian and Japanese, and moreover assume that $X_K$ is normal. Then $\Pi(X,x_0)$ is strictly pro-finite. In particular, if ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_X^\circ$, then ${\mathrm{Gal}}'({{\mathscr{E}}},{\mathfrak{T}},x_0)$ is finite.
Let $$\Pi(X,x_0){\longrightarrow}G$$ be a faithfully flat morphism to a pseudo-finite flat group scheme over $A$. (The existence of such an arrow is assured by Theorem \[15.03.2019–1\].) Define $${\theta}:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}{\longrightarrow}{\mathfrak{T}}_X$$ as the composition of the natural functor ${{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to
{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(\Pi(X,x_0))}$ with a tensor inverse to $\bullet|_{x_0}:{\mathfrak{T}}_X\to{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(\Pi(X,x_0))}$. (That such an inverse exists is proved in [@saavedra72 I.4.4.2, p.69].) Since $\Pi(X,x_0)\to G$ is faithfully flat, we conclude ${{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(\Pi(X,x_0))}$ is fully faithful (see [@duong-hai18 Proposition 3.2.1(ii)], for example) and hence that ${\theta}$ is fully faithful.
Let ${\widehat}A$ be the completion of $A$ and write ${\widehat}X$ for the base-change $X{\otimes}_A{\widehat}A$; note that ${\widehat}X$ is a flat and proper ${\widehat}A$-scheme with geometrically reduced fibres and that $x_0$ induces an ${\widehat}A$-point ${\widehat}x_0$ on it. In addition, since $A$ is assumed Japanese, we can say that ${\widehat}K$, the field of fractions of ${\widehat}A$, is a separable extension of $K$ [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 7.6.6, p.211\]]{}. Consequently, ${\widehat}X{\otimes}_{{\widehat}A} {\widehat}K$ is also a normal scheme [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 6.7.4, p.146\]]{} and it is then a simple matter to deduce that ${\widehat}X$ is also irreducible so that all properties imposed on the morphism $X\to {\mathrm{Spec}\,}A$ in the beginning of this section are valid for ${\widehat}X\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}{\widehat}A$.
Using the base-change functor ${\sigma}:{\mathfrak{T}}_X\to {\mathfrak{T}}_{{\widehat}X}$ and the equivalence $$\bullet|_{{\widehat}x_0}:{\mathfrak{T}}_{{\widehat}X}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{{\widehat}A}(\Pi({\widehat}X,{\widehat}x_0))},$$ we derive a tensor functor $$\tau:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{{\widehat}A}(\Pi({\widehat}X,{\widehat}x_0))}$$ preserving forgetful functors (up to tensor natural isomorphism). Now, if $i:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to {{\mathrm{Rep}}_{{\widehat}A}(G_{{\widehat}A})}$ stands for the base-extension functor, then $\tau$ can be prolonged to a tensor functor $$\xi:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{{\widehat}A}(G_{{\widehat}A})}{\longrightarrow}{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{{\widehat}A}(\Pi({\widehat}X,{\widehat}x_0))}$$ rendering $$\xymatrix{\ar[d]_{i}{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)} \ar[rr]^-{\tau}&& {{\mathrm{Rep}}_{{\widehat}A}(\Pi({\widehat}X,{\widehat}x_0))}
\\
{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{{\widehat}A}(G_{{\widehat}A})}\ar[rru]_{\xi}&&
}$$ commutative up to natural isomorphism of tensor functors. In addition, $\xi$ preserves the forgetful functors. We contend that the morphism of group schemes induced by $\xi$ is faithfully flat, and for that we rely on Lemma \[21.03.2019–1\], whose notations are from now on in force.
Let $V\in {\mathfrak{s}}(G)$. Since ${\theta}$ is full, we conclude that $H^0(X,{\theta}(V))\simeq A$. Hence, flat base-change gives $H^0({\widehat}X,{\sigma}{\theta}(V))\simeq {\widehat}A$. This implies that $$\tau(V)^{\Pi({\widehat}X,{\widehat}x_0)}
\simeq {\widehat}A.$$ Likewise, if $M\in{\mathfrak{s}}_0(G)$, we conclude that $$\tau(M)^{\Pi({\widehat}X,{\widehat}x_0)}\simeq k.$$ Now, as we learn from 1.4 and Proposition 2 of 1.5 in [@serre68], for any $V\in{\mathfrak{s}}(G_{{\widehat}A})$, respectively $M\in {\mathfrak{s}}_0(G_{{\widehat}A})$, there exists $V^\flat\in {\mathfrak{s}}(G)$, respectively $M^\flat\in {\mathfrak{s}}_0(G)$, and an injection $V\to i(V^\flat)$, respectively an injection $M\to i(M^\flat)$. Then, $$\begin{split} \xi(V)^{\Pi({\widehat}X,{\widehat}x_0)}&\subset\tau(V^\flat)^{\Pi({\widehat}X,{\widehat}x_0)}\\&\simeq {\widehat}A,
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split} \xi(M)^{\Pi({\widehat}X,{\widehat}x_0)}&\subset\tau(M^\flat)^{\Pi({\widehat}X,{\widehat}x_0)}\\&\simeq k. \end{split}$$ Consequently, Lemma \[21.03.2019–1\] guarantees that the morphism $$\Pi(X_{{\widehat}A},{\widehat}x_0){\longrightarrow}G_{{\widehat}A}$$ deduced from $\xi$ is faithfully flat. Now, since $\Pi(X_{{\widehat}A},{\widehat}x_0)$ is strictly pro-finite (Theorem \[15.03.2019–1\]) it is not hard to see that $G_{{\widehat}A}$ is actually finite, so that $G$ must then be finite [@bourbaki-ac I.3.6, Proposition 11, p.52].
Using [@stacks Tag 0AS7], we have:
\[16.04.2019–2\]Let us adopt the hypothesis of Theorem \[25.03.2019–1\]. Then, the ring of functions of $\Pi(X,x_0)$ is a Mittag-Leffler $A$-module.
An application to the theory of torsion points on the Picard scheme {#20.03.2019--1}
===================================================================
We assume that $A$ is Henselian and Japanese. Let $X$ be an irreducible, proper and flat $A$-scheme with geometrically reduced fibres, and $x_0$ an $A$-point of $X$. Assume in addition that $X_K$ is normal. The following result connects Theorem \[25.06.2018–4\] with the theory of torsion points on abelian schemes.
\[11.01.2019–1\]Suppose that $A$ has characteristic $(0,p)$ and absolute ramification index $e$. We give ourselves a positive integer $r$ and an invertible sheaf ${{\mathscr{L}}}$ on $X$.
1. If ${{\mathscr{L}}}\in{\mathrm{Pic}}(X)$ has order $p^r$ and is taken upon reduction to the identity of ${\mathrm{Pic}}(X_k)$, then $p^r-p^{r-1}\le e$.
2. If $Y$ is an abelian scheme over $A$ and $y\in Y(A)$ is a point of order $p^r$ which reduces to the identity in $Y(k)$, then $p^{r}-p^{r-1}\le e$.
The proof requires:
\[15.01.2019–2\]Let $A$ have characteristic $(0,p)$ and absolute ramification index $e$. Let $r$ be a positive integer. Then, the Neron blowup [@waterhouse-weisfeiler80 Section 1] $\tilde\mu_{p^r}$ of $\mu_{p^r}$ at the origin in the special fibre is finite if and only if $$p^r\le er+\min_{0\le i<r}\{p^i-ie\}.$$
Let us write $\mu_{p^r}={\mathrm{Spec}\,}{A[t]/(t^{p^r}-1)}$. Putting $t=1+s$, we have $\mu_{p^r}={\mathrm{Spec}\,}A[s]/({\varphi})$, where ${\varphi}(s)=s^{p^r}+\sum_{n=1}^{p^r-1}\binom{p^r}{n}s^n$. Now, if ${\mathrm{ord}}_p:{\mathds{Z}}\setminus\{0\}\to{\mathds{N}}$ denotes the $p$-adic valuation, then $${\mathrm{ord}}_p\binom{p^r}{n}=r-{\mathrm{ord}}_p(n).$$ Consequently, writing $\tilde s=\pi^{-1}s$, we obtain $$\begin{split}
{\varphi}&=\pi^{p^r}\tilde s^{p^r}+\sum_{n=1}^{p^r-1} \pi^{n+er-e{\cdot}{\mathrm{ord}}_p(n)}u_n\tilde s^n
\\
&=\pi^{p^r}\tilde s^{p^r} +\sum_{n=1}^{p^r-1}\pi^{{\alpha}(n)}u_n\tilde s^n,
\end{split}$$ with $u_n\in A^{\times}$ and ${\alpha}(n):=er+n-e{\cdot}{\mathrm{ord}}_p(n)$. Now, if ${\mathrm{ord}}_p(n)=i$, then ${\alpha}(n)=er+n-ei$ so that ${\alpha}(p^i)\le{\alpha}(n)$ in this case. Consequently, $$\min_{1\le n<p^r} er+n-e{\cdot}{\mathrm{ord}}_p(n)=\min_{0\le i<r}er + p^i-ie.$$
Let us deal first with the case $r=1$. Using the fact that ${{\mathscr{L}}}$ becomes trivial on the $\mu_p$-torsor associated to it and Theorem \[05.11.2018–1\], we see that ${{\mathscr{L}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_X$. Let $G={\mathrm{Gal}}'({{\mathscr{L}}})$ and let ${\lambda}:G\to{\mathds G}_m$ be the associated representation. Then, ${\lambda}$ factors through $\mu_{p}\subset{\mathds G}_m$ and ${\lambda}{\otimes}K$ induces an isomorphism $G{\otimes}K\to\mu_{p}{\otimes}K$. Since ${\lambda}_k$ is trivial, the morphism ${\lambda}$ factors through an arrow $\tilde {\lambda}:G\to\tilde\mu_{p}$, where $\tilde\mu_{p}$ is the Neron blowup of $\mu_{p}$ at the identity of the special fibre. Now, because $G\to \tilde\mu_{p}$ induces an isomorphism between generic fibres and a fortiori an injection among rings of functions, finiteness of $G$ (by Theorem \[25.03.2019–1\]) implies that of $\tilde\mu_{p}$ and Lemma \[15.01.2019–2\] finishes the proof.
Let us now assume that $r\ge2$ and that the claim is true for all $i<r$. Since ${{\mathscr{L}}}^{{\otimes}p^{r-i}}$ has order $p^{i}$, we conclude that $$\label{15.01.2019--1}
p^{i}\le e+p^{i-1}$$ for $i\in\{1,\ldots,r-1\}$. Using the fact that ${{\mathscr{L}}}$ becomes trivial on the $\mu_{p^r}$-torsor associated to it and Theorem \[05.11.2018–1\], we see that ${{\mathscr{L}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_X$. Let $G={\mathrm{Gal}}'({{\mathscr{L}}})$ and let ${\lambda}:G\to{\mathds G}_m$ be the associated representation. Just as for the particular case, we conclude that the blowup of $\mu_{p^r}$ at the identity of the special fibre is finite. Hence, by Lemma \[15.01.2019–2\], $$p^r\le er+\min_{0\le i<r}\{p^i-ei\}.$$ But using , we see that $$1\ge p-e\ge p^2-2e\ge\cdots\ge p^{r-1}-(r-1){\cdot}e.$$ Consequently, $\displaystyle\min_{0\le i<r}\{p^i-ei\}=p^{r-1}-(r-1){\cdot}e$, so that $$p^r\le er+p^{r-1}-(r-1){\cdot}e,$$ and this is what we wanted.
\(2) One takes $X$ to be an abelian scheme such that $Y$ is its dual and applies part (1).
Corollary \[11.01.2019–1\](2) can be deduced from “Cassels’ Theorem” on formal groups. The one dimensional case is classical [@silverman86 IV.6.1, p.123], while the higher dimensional can be found in [@grant13 p.966].
Application to the theory of torsors {#15.03.2019--2}
====================================
We suppose that $A$ is Henselian and Japanese. Let $X$ be an irreducible, proper and flat $A$-scheme with geometrically reduced fibres, and $x_0$ an $A$-point of $X$.
\[14.01.2019–1\] Let $G\in({\mathbf{FGSch}}/A)$ be finite and ${\varphi}:Q\to X$ be a $G$-torsor. Then, there exists a ${\psi}:Z\to X$ in ${\mathfrak{S}}^+(X,x_0)$ such that ${\theta}_Q:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to{\mathbf{coh}}(X)$ takes values in ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\psi}$.
According to Theorem \[05.11.2018–1\], there exists ${\psi}:Z\to X$ in ${\mathfrak{S}}^+(X,x_0)$ and a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{Z\ar[r]\ar[dr]_{\psi}&Q\ar[d]^{\varphi}\\&X.}$$ Hence, for each $M\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}$ we conclude that ${\psi}^*({\theta}_Q(M))$ is trivial relatively to $A$ since ${\varphi}^*{\theta}_Q(M)\simeq{{\mathscr{O}}}_Q{\otimes}_AM$ is trivial relatively to $A$.
In [@nori82 87ff], Nori defines the notion of “reduced torsor” in order to understand which group schemes do come as quotients of his fundamental group. We follow the same idea here, but instead of starting off with Nori’s definition, we prefer to use an equivalent characterization [@nori82 Proposition 3, p.87].
Before reading the definition to come, the reader might profit to recall that, for any $G\in({\mathbf{FGSch}}/A)$ and any $G$-torsor ${\varphi}:Q\to X$ above $X$, the functor ${\theta}_Q:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to {\mathbf{coh}}(X)$ is exact and faithful since ${\varphi}^*{\theta}_Q$ is naturally isomorphic to $M\mapsto {{\mathscr{O}}}_Q{\otimes}_AM$ (see for example the proof of (a) in [@jantzen87 Part 1, Proposition 5.9]).
\[05.07.2018–1\]Let $G\in({\mathbf{FGSch}}/A)$ be finite and $Q\to X$ be a $G$-torsor having an $A$-point $q_0$ above $x_0$. We say that the data $(Q,G,q_0)$ defines a Nori-reduced torsor if ${\theta}_Q:{\rm Rep}_A(G)\to{\mathbf{coh}}(X)$ is a fully faithful functor.
\[29.11.2018–2\]Let $G\in({\mathbf{FGSch}}/A)$ be finite and $Q\to X$ be a $G$-torsor having an $A$-point $q_0$ above $x_0$. Then, the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) The triple $(Q,G,q_0)$ is Nori-reduced.
(ii) The ring of global functions of $Q_k$ is $k$.
(iii) The triple $(Q_k,G_k,q_{0,k})$ is reduced in the sense of [@nori82 Definition 3, p.87].
(iv) The $A$-scheme $Q$ is $H^0$-flat and $A=H^0(Q,{{\mathscr{O}}}_Q)$.
The proof relies on the fact that $A[G]_{\rm left}$ is an algebra in the category ${{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}$, and that the corresponding ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-algebra ${\theta}_Q(A[G]_{\rm left})$ is simply ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Q$.
$(i) \Rightarrow (ii)$. Because the functor ${\theta}_Q$ is fully faithful and ${\theta}_Q(k[G]_{\rm left})\simeq{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Q}{\otimes}k$, we conclude that $k=H^0(X,{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Q}{\otimes}k)$. But $H^0(X,{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Q}{\otimes}k)=H^0(Q,{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Q}{\otimes}k)$, and hence the only regular functions on the $k$-scheme $Q_k$ are the constants.
$(ii)\Leftrightarrow(ii')$. This is [@nori82 II, Proposition 3].
$(ii)\Rightarrow(iii)$. Recall that $Q$ is flat over $X$ and a fortiori over $A$. Now, because $k=H^0(Q,{{\mathscr{O}}}_Q{\otimes}_A k)$, we can employ Proposition 12.10 of Chapter III in [@hartshorne77] to conclude that $Q$ is cohomologically flat of degree zero over $A$. Since $H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Q)$ is a finite and flat $A$-module, the isomorphism $k\simeq k{\otimes}_A H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Q)$ proves that $A\simeq H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Q)$.
$(iii)\Rightarrow (i)$. Let ${\varphi}$ denote the structural morphism $Q\to X$; by assumption it belongs to ${\mathfrak{S}}^+(X,x_0)$. If we agree to write $H:=\Pi(X,{\varphi},x_0)$ (see Definition \[14.01.2019–2\]), the existence of the point $q_0$ gives an isomorphism between $(\bullet|_{x_0})\circ{\theta}_Q$ and the forgetful functor ${{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to{A\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$ and hence a morphism of group schemes $$\rho:H{\longrightarrow}G$$ together with a commutative diagram $$\label{28.11.2018--2}
\xymatrix{
{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\ar[rr]^{{\theta}_Q} \ar[d]_{\rho^\#}&&\ar[dll]_{\sim}^{\bullet|_{x_0}} {\mathfrak{T}}_{\varphi}\\
{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(H)} .&&}$$ Now, $$\begin{split}k&= H^0(X,{{\mathscr{O}}}_{Q_k})\\
&\simeq H^0(X,{\theta}_Q(k[G]_{\rm left}))\\&\simeq \left( k[G]_{\rm left} \right)^{H}\\&\simeq (k[G]_{\rm left})^{H_k}.
\end{split}$$ According to Lemma \[29.11.2018–1\], this is only possible when $\rho_k:H_k\to G_k$ is faithfully flat. Analogously, we have that $(A[G]_{\rm left})^{H}\simeq A$. This implies that $(K[G]_{\rm left})^{H_K}\simeq K$, and hence $\rho_K$ is faithfully flat according to Lemma \[29.11.2018–1\]. In conclusion, $\rho_k$ and $\rho_K$ are faithfully flat, and hence $\rho$ must be faithfully flat [@duong-hai18 4.1.1, p. 1124]. Together with [@duong-hai18 3.2.1(ii), p. 1121], we conclude that $\rho^\#$ is fully faithful, so that diagram secures fully faithfulness of ${\theta}_Q$.
We shall now keep the notation and assumptions of Proposition \[29.11.2018–2\] and offer other properties equivalent to the ones in its statement. This will allow us, in passing, to render the connection with [@mehta-subramanian13 Theorem 7.1] and to [@nori82 Definition 3, p.87] more transparent. First we develop some preliminaries.
\[29.03.2019–5\]Let us abbreviate $\Pi=\Pi(X,x_0)$. Similarly to [@nori] (see §2 and the argument on p.39), there exists a $\Pi$-torsor $${\widetilde}X{\longrightarrow}X$$ with an $A$-point $\tilde x_0$ above $x_0$ such that ${\theta}_{{\widetilde}X}\circ(\bullet|_{x_0})\simeq{\rm id}$ and $(\bullet|_{x_0})\circ{\theta}_{{\widetilde}X}\simeq{\rm id}$ as tensor functors. The quasi-coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$-algebra of ${\widetilde}X$ is a direct limits of coherent modules belonging to ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$ and corresponds, in ${\mathrm{Ind}}\,{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(\Pi)}$, to $A[\Pi]_{\rm left}$, see [@nori Definition, p. 32]. The torsor ${\widetilde}X$ is called the [*universal pointed torsor*]{}.
Let $\rho:G'\to G$ be an arrow of $({\mathbf{FGSch}}/A)$. We say that $Q$ has a [*reduction of structure group to $\rho$, or to $G'$*]{}, if there exists a $G'$-torsor $Q'\to X$ together with an isomorphism $Q'{\times}^{\rho}G\to Q$. In addition, if $Q'$ can be picked to come with an $A$-point $q_0'$ such that $(q_0',e)$ corresponds to $q_0$ under the aforementioned isomorphism, then the reduction is called [*pointed*]{}. Note that, we do not assume $\rho$ to be a closed embedding.
\[27.03.2019–1\] The equivalent properties appearing in Proposition \[29.11.2018–2\] are also equivalent to each one of the following conditions:
(a) If $Q$ has a pointed reduction to $\rho:G'\to G$, then $\rho$ is faithfully flat.
(b) There exists a faithfully flat morphism $\rho:\Pi\to G$ and an isomorphism of pointed $G$-torsors ${\widetilde}X{\times}^\rho G\stackrel\sim\to Q$. (That is, ${\widetilde}X$ defines a pointed reduction of $Q$.)
Proposition \[29.11.2018–2\]-$(i)$ $\Rightarrow$ $(a)$. Let $\rho:G'\to G$ define a pointed reduction $Q'\to X$; it then follows that ${\theta}_{Q'}\circ\rho^\#$ is isomorphic to ${\theta}_Q$. Since ${\theta}_{Q'}$ is faithful, we conclude that $\rho^\#:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G')}$ is full and faithful. By Lemma \[21.03.2019–1\], $\rho$ is faithfully flat.
$(a)$ $\Rightarrow$ $(b)$. According to Theorem \[14.01.2019–1\], ${\theta}_Q$ takes values in ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$; the existence of the point $q_0$ allows us to say that $\bullet|_{x_0}\circ{\theta}_Q$ is isomorphic to the forgetful functor ${{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to{A\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$ which gives us an arrow $\rho:\Pi\to G$ such that $\rho^\#\simeq \bullet|_{x_0}\circ{\theta}_Q$ (as tensor functors). Hence, ${\theta}_{{\widetilde}X}\circ\rho^\#\simeq {\theta}_Q$, and we conclude, as in [@nori Proposition 2.9(c)], that $Q$ has a pointed reduction to $\rho$. But $(a)$ forces $\rho$ to be faithfully flat.
$(b)$ $\Rightarrow$ Proposition \[29.11.2018–2\]-$(i)$. We know that ${\theta}_Q\simeq {\theta}_{{\widetilde}X}\circ\rho^\#$ in this case; but, by construction, ${\theta}_{{\widetilde}X}$ is fully faithful as is $\rho^\#$ (by [@duong-hai18 3.2.1(ii), p.1121], say). Therefore, ${\theta}_Q$ is fully faithful.
Let $Q\to X$ be as in the statement of Proposition \[29.11.2018–2\]. The condition that ${\theta}_Q:{{\mathrm{Rep}}^\circ_{A}(G)}\to{\mathfrak{T}}_X^\circ$ be full is not enough to assure that $G$ is a faithfully flat quotient of $\Pi$ (so that this is missing in [@mehta-subramanian13 Theorem 7.1]).
Essentially finite vector bundles on the fibres: Reviewing a theory of of Mehta and Subramanian {#06.03.2019--1}
================================================================================================
Let $X$ be an irreducible, projective and flat $A$-scheme with geometrically reduced fibres, and $x_0$ an $A$-point of $X$. (Recall that over a perfect field, an algebraic scheme is geometrically reduced if and only if it is reduced [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 4.6.1, p.68\]]{}. Note also that $X$ must be reduced.) The following result, which is one of the main points in [@mehta-subramanian13], is essentially a consequence of the method employed by Deninger and Werner in proving [@deninger-werner05 Theorem 17, p.573] plus Section \[FGS\]. Before putting forth its statement, let us recall the notion of an $F$-trivial vector bundle.
If $M$ is a proper scheme over an unspecified *perfect* field of positive characteristic, a vector bundle $E$ on $M$ is called $F$-trivial [@mehta-subramanian02 Section 2,p. 144] if for a certain $s\in{\mathds{N}}$, the pull-back of $E$ by a geometric Frobenius morphism ${\rm Fr}^s:M^{(-s)}\to M$ is trivial.
\[14.05.2018–1\]Suppose that $A$ is Henselian and Japanese, and that $k$ is perfect of characteristic $p>0$. Let $E$ be an $F$-trivial vector bundle on $X_k$. Then, there exists a proper and surjective morphism ${\psi}:Z\to X$ such that:
(1) The ring $B:=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Z)$ is a discrete valuation ring and is a finite extension of $A$.
(2) The canonical morphism $Z\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}B$ is flat and has geometrically reduced fibres.
(3) The $B$-scheme $Z$ has a $B$-point above $x_0$.
(4) Write $\ell$ for the residue field of $B$ and denote by $${\psi}_0:Z{\underset{B}{\otimes}}\ell{\longrightarrow}X_k$$ the morphism of $k$-schemes naturally induced by ${\psi}$. Then ${\psi}_0^*(E)$ is trivial.
[*The case of characteristic $(0,p)$.*]{} We assume that $E$ is trivialized by ${\rm Fr}^s:X_k^{(-s)}\to X_k$. Let $X\to{\mathds{P}}_A^n$ be a closed immersion. Write ${\Phi}:{\mathds{P}}_A^n\to{\mathds{P}}^n_A$ for the evident $A$-morphism lifting the [*$k$-linear*]{} Frobenius morphisms ${\rm Fr}^s:{\mathds{P}}_k^n\to{\mathds{P}}_k^n$, and consider the cartesian diagram $$\xymatrix{Y\ar[r]^{\varphi}\ar@{^{(}->}[d]\ar@{}[dr]|\square&X\ar@{^{(}->}[d]\\{\mathds{P}}_A^n\ar[r]_{{\Phi}}&{\mathds{P}}_A^n.
}$$ We note that ${\Phi}$ is a finite, flat and surjective morphism, so that ${\varphi}:Y\to X$ is likewise; in particular this implies that $Y$ is $A$-flat. Base-changing by means of $A\to k$ we get the cartesian diagram $$\xymatrix{
Y_k\ar@{}[dr]|\square\ar@{^{(}->}[d]\ar[r]^{{\varphi}_k}&X_k\ar@{^{(}->}[d]
\\
{\mathds{P}}_k^n\ar[r]_{{\rm Fr}^s}&{\mathds{P}}^n_k
}$$ so that, since $X_k^{(-s)}$ is reduced, there exists a closed embedding $$j:X_k^{(-s)}{\longrightarrow}Y_k$$ which [*identifies $X_k^{(-s)}$ with $Y_{k,\,{\rm red}}$*]{} and, in addition, produces a factorisation of ${\rm Fr}^s:X_k^{(-s)}\to X_k$ like so $$\xymatrix{X_k^{(-s)}\ar@{^{(}->}[dr]_j\ar@/^2pc/[drr]^{{\rm Fr}^s}&&\\
&Y_k\ar@{}[dr]|\square\ar@{^{(}->}[d]\ar[r]^{{\varphi}_k}&X_k\ar@{^{(}->}[d]
\\
&{\mathds{P}}_k^n\ar[r]_{{\rm Fr}^s}&{\mathds{P}}^n_k .
}$$ See Lemma 19 in [@deninger-werner05]. Consequently, if $V$ is any *reduced* scheme and ${\alpha}:V\to Y_k$ is a ${\mathds{Z}}$-morphism, we conclude that ${\alpha}^*{\varphi}_k^*E$ is trivial since ${\alpha}$ factors as $$V{\longrightarrow}X_k^{(-s)}{\stackrel{j}{\longrightarrow}} Y_k.$$
A direct application of Theorem \[05.11.2018–1\] now gives us a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{Z\ar[r]\ar[dr]_{\psi}&Y\ar[d]^{\varphi}\\&X
}$$ such that
(i) the morphism ${\psi}$ is surjective and proper.
(ii) The ring $B:=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_Z)$ is a discrete valuation rings and is a finite extension of $A$.
(iii) The canonical morphism $Z\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}B$ is flat and has geometrically reduced fibres.
(iv) The $B$-scheme $Z$ has a $B$-point above $x_0$.
In this situation, the proof is concluded by the observation preceding it. Indeed, if $\ell$ is the residue field of $B$ and ${\psi}_0:Z{\otimes}_B\ell\to X_k$ is the arrow induced by ${\psi}$, we conclude that ${\psi}_0^*(E)$ is trivial because $Z{\otimes}_B\ell$ is reduced so that ${\psi}_0$ factors through $Z{\otimes}_B\ell\to Y_k$.
*Proof in the case of characteristic $(p,p)$.* The idea behind the proof is much simpler, but notation and technicalities hinder its handling.
Suppose that $E\in{\mathbf{VB}}(X_k)$ becomes trivial after being pulled back by $F_{X_k}^s:X_k\to X_k$. Employing the commutative diagram of ${\mathds{F}}_p$-schemes $$\xymatrix{X\ar[r]^{ F_X^s}\ar[d]&X\ar[d]
\\
{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A\ar[r]_{F_A^s}&{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A,
}$$ we see that the morphism $(F^s_X)_0:X_k\to X_k$ induced on special fibres is none other than $F_{X_k}^s$. Hence, if $F_A^s$ is a finite morphism, the choice $Z=X$ and ${\Psi}=F_X^s$ is sufficient to fulfill all but condition (3) of the statement. But finiteness of $F_A$ is not always assured, and we choose to argue as in [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{3}$, §8\]]{}.
Let $${\Lambda}=\left\{\begin{array}{c} \text{$B$ is a d.v.r. dominated by $A$ and dominating $A^{p^s}$, } \\\text{and such that ${\rm Frac}\,B$ is a finite extension of $K^{p^s}$}
\end{array}\right\},$$ and endow it with the partial order defined by domination of d.v.r.’s. As $A$ is Japanese, for any $B\in{\Lambda}$, the $A^{p^s}$-module $B$ is finite, and any element in $A$ belongs to some $B\in{\Lambda}$ (see Theorem 10.2 and Exercise 11.2 in [@matsumura]). Consequently, the limit ${\varprojlim}_{B\in{\Lambda}}{\mathrm{Spec}\,}B$ in the category of $A$-schemes is simply $F_A^s:{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A$. Employing [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{3}$, 8.8.2-ii, p.28\]]{}, there exists ${\mathfrak{o}}\in{\Lambda}$ and a ${\mathfrak{o}}$-scheme of [*finite type*]{} $Y$ fitting into a cartesian commutative diagram $$\label{30.10.2018--2}
\xymatrix{
X\ar[r]^u\ar[d]\ar@{}[dr]|\square & Y\ar[d]
\\
{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A\ar[r]&{\mathrm{Spec}\,}{\mathfrak{o}}.
}$$ In addition, if $u_{B}:X\to Y{\otimes}_{{\mathfrak{o}}}B$ stands for the canonical morphism, an application of [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{3}$, 8.2.5,p.9\]]{} shows that $$(u_B):X{\longrightarrow}{\varprojlim}_{B\ge {\mathfrak{o}}}Y{\underset{{\mathfrak{o}}}{\otimes}}B$$ is in fact an isomorphism of ${\mathfrak{o}}$-schemes. Also by loc.cit., the canonical morphism $$X{\underset{A,F_A^s}{\otimes}}A {\longrightarrow}{\varprojlim}_{B\ge{\mathfrak{o}} } X{\underset{A,F_A^s}{\otimes}}B$$ is also an isomorphism. The relative Frobenius morphism $${\mathfrak{f}}: X{\longrightarrow}X{\underset{ A,F_A^s}{\otimes}} A$$ now gives rise, via [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{3}$, 8.8.2-i,p.28\]]{}, to a $B\ge{\mathfrak{o}}$ and a morphism of $B$-schemes $$f:Y{\underset{{\mathfrak{o}}}{\otimes}} B{\longrightarrow}X{\underset{A,F_A^s}{\otimes}}B,$$ such that $f{\otimes}_{B}A$ corresponds to ${\mathfrak{f}}$. Hence, if ${\psi}$ stands for the composition of $f$ with the projection $X{\otimes}_{A,F_A^s}B\to X$, we arrive at a commutative diagram $$\label{30.10.2018--3}
\xymatrix{
Y{\underset{{\mathfrak{o}}}{\otimes}}B\ar[r]^-{\psi}\ar[d] & X\ar[d]
\\
{\mathrm{Spec}\,}B\ar[r]&{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A.
}$$ In addition, $$\psi\circ u_B={ F}_X^s.$$ Let us agree to write $Z=Y{\otimes}_{{\mathfrak{o}}}B$. Then, paralleling diagram , we have $$\label{30.10.2018--4}
\xymatrix{
X\ar[r]^-{u_B}\ar[d]\ar@{}[dr]|\square & Z\ar[d]
\\
{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A\ar[r]&{\mathrm{Spec}\,}B.}$$
*Claim.* The following statements are true.
(i) The morphism $\psi$ is finite and surjective.
(ii) As a $B$-scheme, $Z$ is flat and proper.
(iii) The geometric fibres of $Z$ over $B$ are reduced.
(iv) The ring of global functions of $Z$ is $B$.
(v) Write $\psi_0$ for the morphism induced from $\psi$ between special fibres. Then $\psi_0^*(E)$ is trivial.
[*Proof.*]{} (i) Surjectivity follows from $F_X^s={\psi}\circ u_B$. Because ${\mathfrak{f}}$ is finite and the inclusion $B\to A$ is faithfully flat, we conclude that $f$ is finite [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 2.7.1, p.29\]]{}. Hence, ${\psi}$ is finite as $F_A^s:A\to B$ is finite.
\(ii) We note that the morphism ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}A\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}B$ in diagram is faithfully flat. Consequently, the claim is proved by employing [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{3}$, 2.5.1, p. 22\]]{}, [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{3}$, 2.7.1, p.29\]]{} and the fact that $X$ is flat and proper over $A$.
\(iii) This is a direct consequence of diagram and the fact that being geometrically reduced is independent of the field extension [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 4.6.10, p.70\]]{}.
\(iv) This is a direct consequence of flat base-change applied to diagram and $A=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_X)$ (which follows from Lemma \[03.07.2018–2\], say).
\(v) Let now $\ell$ be the residue field of $B$; it is clear that $B\to A$ in fact induces an isomorphism $\ell\stackrel\sim\to k$. Since $X=Z{\otimes}_BA$, it follows that $(u_B)_0:X{\otimes}_Ak\to Z{\otimes}_B\ell$ is also an isomorphism. Hence, ${\psi}_0^*(E)$ is trivial because ${\psi}u_B=F_X^s$ so that $(u_B)_0^*({\psi}_0^*(E))$ is trivial. The claim is proved.
To finish the proof, we note that ${\psi}:Z\to X$ satisfies all the conditions in the statement of the Theorem except for the existence of a $B$-point above $x_0$. Now, the inverse image ${\psi}^{-1}(x_0)$ comes with a finite and surjective morphism to ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}A$ (for surjectivity, see [\[EGA $\textsc{I}_{}$, 3.5.2,p.115\]]{}). Hence, it is possible to find a [*finite*]{} extension of d.v.r.’s $B'\supset A$ and a point ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}B'\to{\Psi}^{-1}(x_0)$ which then gives a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
&Z\ar[d]
\\
{\mathrm{Spec}\,}B'\ar[r]\ar[ru]^{z_0'} & {\mathrm{Spec}\,}B}$$ such that $z_0'$ is a $B'$-point of $X$ above $x_0$ and the induced arrow $B\to B'$ is a finite extension. Consequently, letting $Z'$ be $Z{\otimes}_BB'$ and ${\psi}':Z'\to X$ the composition $Z'\stackrel{\rm pr}\to Z\stackrel{\psi}\to X$, we see that ${\psi}':Z'\to X$ now satisfies all properties in the statement of the theorem.
As a consequence of Theorem \[14.05.2018–1\], we can give a simple alternative description of the vector bundles in ${\mathfrak{T}}$ and, in doing so, connect our theory to that of [@mehta-subramanian13]. See Corollary \[23.11.2018–2\].
\[MS\_theorem\]Suppose that $A$ is Henselian and Japanese, that $k$ is perfect, and that $X$ is in addition normal. Let ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\bf VB}(X)$ be such that ${{\mathscr{E}}}_K$ and ${{\mathscr{E}}}_k$ are essentially finite. Then, there exists a proper and surjective morphism $${\zeta}:X'{\longrightarrow}X$$ such that
(1) The ring $A':=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{X'})$ is a discrete valuation ring and a finite extension of $A$.
(2) The canonical morphism $X'\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A'$ is flat and has geometrically reduced fibres.
(3) The $A'$-scheme $X'$ has an $A'$-point above $x_0$.
(4) The vector bundle ${\zeta}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})$ is trivial.
As the vector bundle ${{\mathscr{E}}}_k$ is essentially finite, it is possible to find a torsor under an etale group scheme $f:Y\to X_k$, and a fortiori an etale covering, such that $f^*({{\mathscr{E}}}_k)$ is $F$-trivial see [@nori §3]. In addition, $Y$ can be chosen to posses a $k$-rational point $y_0$ above $x_{0,k}$ (cf. loc.cit) and to satisfy $k=H^0(Y,{{\mathscr{O}}}_Y)$ [@nori82 II, Proposition 3, p. 87]. Now, as $A$ is Henselian, Theorem 3.1 on p.30 of [@artin69] (the remarkable equivalence, Grothendieck’s existence theorem and Artin approximation) allows us to find an etale covering $\tilde f:{\widetilde}Y\to X$ lifting $Y\to X_k$. Looking at the finite and etale $A$-scheme $\tilde f^{-1}(x_0)$, applying one of the main properties of a Henselian local ring [@raynaud70 VII.3, Proposition 3, p.76], and making use of the $k$-point $y_0:{\mathrm{Spec}\,}k\to \tilde f^{-1}(x_0)$, we can find an $A$-point $\tilde y_0$ in ${\widetilde}Y$ above $x_0$. Note that ${\widetilde}Y$ inherits the following properties from $X$: it is flat, proper, and has geometrically reduced fibres over $A$, and it is normal. In addition, ${\widetilde}Y$ is connected and its normality then assures irreducibility. (Irreducibility might fail without normality.) Therefore, ${\widetilde}Y$ satisfies all hypothesis imposed on $X$ in the beginning of the section and in the statement of the theorem. Note that, by construction, the restriction of ${\widetilde}f^*{{\mathscr{E}}}$ to ${{\widetilde}Y_k}$ is $F$-trivial. Because of the previous paragraph, we suppose, so to lighten notation, that ${{\mathscr{E}}}_k$ is $F$-trivial already on $X_k$. Let us apply Theorem \[14.05.2018–1\] to the vector bundle $E={{\mathscr{E}}}_k$. Then, keeping with the notations of this theorem, we conclude that $${\psi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{Z{\underset{B}{\otimes}}\ell}$$ is trivial. Let $L={\rm Frac}(B)$. Since ${\psi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{Z{\otimes}_BL}$ is an essentially finite vector bundle, [@nori §3] assures that we can find a torsor with finite structural group $${\lambda}^\circ:
Q^\circ{\longrightarrow}Z{\underset{B}{\otimes}}L$$ such that $${\lambda}^{\circ*}\left({\psi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{Z{\otimes}_BL}\right)$$ is trivial. In addition, $Q^\circ$ might be chosen to come with two extra properties, which are:
- Letting $z_0:{\mathrm{Spec}\,}B\to Z$ be the point above $x_0$ mentioned in Theorem \[14.05.2018–1\], $Q^\circ$ has an $L$-rational point $q_0^\circ$ above $z_{0,L}$. (This is not used in what follows.)
- The ring of global functions of $Q^\circ$ is $L$, see Proposition 3 of Chapter II, p.87, in [@nori82]. In particular $Q^\circ$ is connected.
Let $Q^\Box\to Q^\circ$ be the associated reduced scheme and write $${\lambda}^\Box:Q^\Box{\longrightarrow}Z{\underset{B}{\otimes}} L$$ for the induced morphism. Clearly $Q^\Box$ is connected, ${\lambda}^\Box$ is surjective, finite and $${\lambda}^{\Box*}\left({\psi}^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{Z{\otimes}_BL}\right)$$ is trivial. Let $\mu:Z{\otimes}_BL\to Z$ be the natural immersion and write $${\lambda}:Q{\longrightarrow}Z$$ for the integral closure of the quasi-coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Z$-algebra $(\mu{\lambda}^\Box)_*({{\mathscr{O}}}_{Q^\Box})$, see [\[EGA $\textsc{II}_{}$, 6.3, 116ff\]]{} or [@stacks Tag 035H]. This means, according to [\[EGA $\textsc{II}_{}$, 6.3.4, p.117\]]{}, that for each affine open subset $V\subset Z$, the ring ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Q({\lambda}^{-1}V)$ is the integral closure of ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{Z}(V)$ inside ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{ Q^\Box}((\mu {\lambda}^{\Box})^{-1}(V))$. In particular, $Q$ is flat as a $B$-scheme and $$Q{\underset{B}{\otimes}} L= Q^\Box.$$ Since $A$ is universally Japanese [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 7.7.2, p. 212\]]{}, for each affine and open subset $V$ of $Z$, the ring ${{\mathscr{O}}}_Z(V)$ is universally Japanese and noetherian, and hence is a Nagata ring [@stacks Tag 032R]. As a consequence of [@stacks Tag 03GH] and the fact that $ Q^\Box$ is reduced, we see that ${\lambda}$ is a *finite* morphism. Because ${\lambda}(Q)$ contains $Z{\otimes}_BL$ (recall that ${\lambda}^\Box$ is surjective), we conclude that ${\lambda}$ is surjective. Finally, both $({\psi}{\lambda})^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{Q{\otimes}_B\ell}$ and $({\psi}{\lambda})^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{Q{\otimes}_BL}$ are trivial.
Theorem \[05.11.2018–1\] can be applied to ${\psi}{\lambda}:Q\to X$, and this allows us to find a commutative diagram of schemes $$\xymatrix{R\ar[r] \ar[dr]_{\theta}& Q\ar[d]^{ {\psi}{\lambda}}
\\
&X, }$$ such that:
- The morphism ${\theta}$ is proper and surjective.
- The ring $C:=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_R)$ is a discrete valuation ring and a finite extension of $A$.
- The canonical morphism $R\to {\mathrm{Spec}\,}C$ is flat and has geometrically reduced fibres.
- The $C$-scheme $R$ has a $C$-point above $x_0$.
As the natural arrow ${\mathrm{Spec}\,}C\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}B$ sends the generic, respectively special, point to the generic, respectively special, point, triviality of $({\psi}{\lambda})^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{Q{\otimes}_B\ell}$ and $( {\psi}{\lambda})^*({{\mathscr{E}}})|_{Q{\otimes}_BL}$ allows us to conclude that the restrictions of ${\theta}^*{{\mathscr{E}}}$ to the generic and special fibres of $R$ over $C$ are trivial. Because $R$ is $H^0$-flat over $C$ (it has reduced fibres), we conclude by employing Lemma \[03.05.2018–1\] that ${\theta}^*{{\mathscr{E}}}$ is trivial.
For the sake of discussion, let us make the following:
\[23.11.2018–3\] The Mehta-Subramanian category of $X$, denote it ${\mathbf{MS}}(X)$, is the full subcategory of ${\mathbf{VB}}(X)$ whose objects are $$\{{{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathbf{VB}}(X)\,:\,\text{${{\mathscr{E}}}_k$ and ${{\mathscr{E}}}_K$ are essentially finite}\}.$$
An immediate consequence of [@antei-mehta11 Theorem 1] (or [@tonini-zhang17 Theorem I]) and Theorem \[MS\_theorem\] is then:
\[23.11.2018–2\] Suppose that $A$ is Henselian and Japanese, that $k$ is perfect, and that in addition to the hypothesis in the beginning of the section, $X_k$ and $X_K$ are normal. Then ${\mathfrak{T}}^\circ={\mathbf{MS}}(X)$.
Let ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathbf{MS}}(X)$. Since $X$ is flat over $A$, normality of $X_k$ [*and*]{} $X_K$ implies normality of $X$ [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 6.5.4, p.143\]]{} and Theorem \[MS\_theorem\] may be applied. Consequently, ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ belongs to ${\mathfrak{T}}^\circ$ as ${\zeta}$ in Theorem \[MS\_theorem\] lies in ${\mathfrak{S}}^+(X,x_0)$. Conversely, let ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ be a vector bundle in ${\mathfrak{T}}$. Since $X_k$ and $X_K$ are normal, we know that ${{\mathscr{E}}}_k$ and ${{\mathscr{E}}}_K$ are essentially finite (due to [@antei-mehta11 Theorem 1] or [@tonini-zhang17 Theorem I]).
\[28.11.2018–1\]Since a point $x\in X$ above the generic fibre specializes to a point on the special fibre, normality of $X$ is equivalent to normality of $X$ [*on the points of $X_k$*]{}. Of course, $X_k$ can easily fail to be normal even when $X$ is regular.
Further applications to the theory of torsors {#14.01.2019--3}
=============================================
We assume that $A$ is Henselian, Japanese and has a perfect residue field. Let $X$ be an irreducible, projective and flat $A$-scheme with geometrically reduced fibres, and $x_0$ an $A$-point of $X$.
\[25.06.2018–1\] Let us add to the assumptions made at the start of this section that $X$ is normal. Let $G\in({\bf FGSch}/A)$ be quasi-finite over $A$, $$Q{\longrightarrow}X$$ be a $G$-torsor, and $q_0$ an $A$-point of $Q$ above $x_0$.
(1) There exists ${\zeta}:X'\to X$ in ${\mathfrak{S}}^+(X,x_0)$ (see Definition \[26.06.2018–1\]) and ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\zeta}^\circ$ such that ${\theta}_Q:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to{\mathbf{coh}}(X)$ takes values in $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\zeta}\rangle_{\otimes}$ (and a fortiori in ${\mathfrak{T}}_X$).
(2) There exists a finite $H\in({\mathbf{FGSch}}/A)$, a morphism $\rho:H\to G$, an $H$-torsor $R\to X$ and an $A$-point $r_0:{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A\to R$ together with an isomorphism of torsors $$R{\times}^{H}G{\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}} Q$$ sending the $A$-point $(r_0,e)$ of $R{\times}^{H}G$ to $q_0$. In addition, it is possible to choose $\rho$ to be a closed immersion. Put differently, $Q$ has a reduction of structure group to a finite group scheme.
(3) If $H^0(Q,{{\mathscr{O}}}_Q)\simeq A$, then $G$ is in fact finite.
As is well-known (by adapting the proofs in [@waterhouse79 3.3]) the facts that $G$ is of finite type and $A$ is a d.v.r. allow us to find $E\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}^\circ_{A}(G)}$ such that the resulting morphism $G\to{\mathbf{GL}}(E)$ is a closed immersion, or, in the terminology of [@duong-hai-dos_santos18 §3], $E$ is a faithful representation. We then write ${{\mathscr{E}}}={\theta}_Q(E)$ and note that since $Q_k\to X_k$ and $Q_K\to X_K$ are [*finite*]{} principal bundles, the vector bundles ${{\mathscr{E}}}_k={\theta}_{Q_k}(E_k)$ and ${{\mathscr{E}}}_K={\theta}_{Q_K}(E_K)$ are in fact essentially finite [@nori Proposition 3.8, p.38]. Let ${\zeta}:X'\to X$, $A'$, and $x_0'$ be as in Theorem \[MS\_theorem\] when applied to ${{\mathscr{E}}}$. Note that ${\zeta}:X'\to X$ is in ${\mathfrak{S}}^+(X,x_0)$ and that ${{\mathscr{E}}}\in{\mathfrak{T}}_{\zeta}$.
(1). We write $Q'$ for the $G$-torsor $X'{\times}_XQ$. We know that for each $M\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}$, the coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{X'}$-module ${\zeta}^*{\theta}_Q(M)$ is isomorphic to ${\theta}_{Q'}(M)$. Because each ${\theta}_Q({\mathbf{T}}^{a,b}E)$ belongs to $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\zeta}\rangle_{\otimes}$, we conclude that each ${\theta}_{Q'}({\mathbf{T}}^{a,b} E)$ is trivial.
Let $T\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}^\circ_{A}(G)}$ be such that ${\theta}_Q(T)$ belongs to $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\zeta}\rangle_{\otimes}$. If $V\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}^\circ_{A}(G)}$ is the target of an epimorphism $T\to V$, exactness of ${\theta}_{Q'}$ produces an epimorphism $${{\mathscr{O}}}_{X'}^{\oplus r}\simeq{\theta}_{Q'}(T){\longrightarrow}{\theta}_{Q'}(V).$$ Since ${\theta}_{Q'}(V){\otimes}_A k$ and ${\theta}_{Q'}(V){\otimes}_A K$ become trivial when pulled back via $Q'{\otimes}_A k\to X'{\otimes}_Ak$ and $Q'{\otimes}_A K\to X'{\otimes}_AK$, we may apply Lemma \[24.05.2018–1\] to conclude that ${\theta}_{Q'}(V){\otimes}k$ and ${\theta}_{Q'}(V){\otimes}K$ are trivial. Because $X'$ is $H^0$-flat over $A$, Lemma \[03.05.2018–1\] says that ${\theta}_{Q'}(V)$ is equally trivial and hence that ${\theta}_Q(V)\in\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\zeta}\rangle_{\otimes}$. By the same argument, now applied to $\check T$, we conclude that ${\theta}_Q(W)$ belongs to $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\zeta}\rangle_{\otimes}$ once $W\to T$ is a special subobject (we employ [@dos_santos09 Definition 10]).
Now we know that for every $U\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}^\circ_{A}(G)}$, there exists a special monomorphism $V\to {\mathbf{T}}^{a,b}E$ and an epimorphism $V\to U$ [@dos_santos09 Proposition 12]. From what was proved above, ${\theta}_Q(U)$ belongs to $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\zeta}\rangle_{\otimes}$.
To end the proof, let $M\in{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}$ be arbitrary. Using [@serre68 Corollary 2.2, p.41], we find an equivariant presentation $$0{\longrightarrow}U_1{\longrightarrow}U_0{\longrightarrow}M{\longrightarrow}0$$ with $U_0$ and $U_1$ in ${{\mathrm{Rep}}^\circ_{A}(G)}$. An application of Lemma \[27.04.2017–3\] (and the exactness of the functor ${\theta}_Q$) assures that ${\theta}_Q(M)$ belongs to ${\mathfrak{T}}_{\zeta}$, and hence to $\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_{\zeta}\rangle_{\otimes}$.
(2). We pick ${\zeta}$ and ${{\mathscr{E}}}$ as in item (1) and define $H={\rm Gal}'({{\mathscr{E}}};{\mathfrak{T}}_X ,x_0)$ so that $\bullet|_{x_0}:\langle{{\mathscr{E}}}\,;\,{\mathfrak{T}}_X \rangle_{\otimes}\to{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(H)}$ is an equivalence of tensor categories. Because of Theorem \[25.03.2019–1\], $H$ is a *finite* group scheme over $A$. Using the $A$-point $q_0$ of $Q$ above $x_0$, the functor $(\bullet|_{x_0})\circ{\theta}_Q:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to{A\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$ is naturally isomorphic to the forgetful functor and hence we derive a morphism of group schemes $$\rho:H{\longrightarrow}G$$ such that $(\bullet|_{x_0})\circ {\theta}_Q\simeq \rho^\#$. Now, similarly to [@nori] (see §2 and the argument on p.39), there exists a $H$-torsor $R\to X$ with an $A$-point $r_0$ above $x_0$ such that ${\theta}_{R}\circ(\bullet|_{x_0})\simeq{\rm id}$ and $(\bullet|_{x_0})\circ{\theta}_{R}\simeq{\rm id}$ as tensor functors. (The quasi-coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_X$- algebra of the torsor $R$ corresponds, in the category ${{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(H)}$, to $A[H]_{\rm left}$, see [@nori Definition, p. 32].) Now $$\begin{split}{\theta}_Q&\simeq{\theta}_{R}\circ(\bullet|_{x_0})\circ{\theta}_Q\\&\simeq {\theta}_R\circ\rho^\#
\end{split}$$ which shows, just as in [@nori Propsoition 2.9(c), p. 34], that $Q\simeq R{\times}^{H}G$.
To verify the last statement, we note $\rho$ can be decomposed into $H\to H'\stackrel{{\sigma}}\to G$, where ${\sigma}$ is a closed immersion and $H'$ is finite. This being so, we have $Q\simeq (R{\times}^{H}H'){\times}^{H'}G$.
(3). Let $H\in({\mathbf{FGSch}}/A)$ be finite, $Q\to X$ be an $H$-torsor, $H\to G$ be a closed immersion, and $R{\times}^HG\simeq Q$ be an isomorphism as in (2). Now, employing the arrow $$R{\times}G{\longrightarrow}G,\quad (r,g)\longmapsto g^{-1}$$ we obtain an injection ${\mathrm{Mor}}(G,\mathds A^1)\to{\mathrm{Mor}}(R{\times}G,\mathds A^1)$ and hence an injection $$\left\{\text{$H$-equivariant $G\to\mathds A^1$}\right\}{\longrightarrow}\left\{\text{$H$-equivariant $R{\times}G\to\mathds A^1$}\right\}.$$ Since the right-hand-side above is simply the ring of functions of $R{\times}^HG\simeq Q$, the hypothesis then forces $A=A[G]^H$. But $A[G]$ is a finite and locally free $A[G]^H$-module whose rank equals that of $A[H]$ (see III.2.4 of [@demazure-gabriel70]). It is then easy to see that the closed immersion $H\to G$ is an isomorphism.
We shall now gather some consequences of Theorem \[25.06.2018–1\] and in doing so connect it to [@nori82 Chapter II] and [@antei-emsalem-gasbarri18]. [*Notations are as in the statement of Theorem \[25.06.2018–1\].*]{}
Let us abbreviate $\Pi=\Pi(X,x_0)$. As already explained in Section \[15.03.2019–2\] (see the discussion preceding Corollary \[27.03.2019–1\]), there exists a $\Pi$-torsor $${\widetilde}X{\longrightarrow}X$$ with an $A$-point $\tilde x_0$ above $x_0$ such that ${\theta}_{{\widetilde}X}\circ(\bullet|_{x_0})\simeq{\rm id}$ and $(\bullet|_{x_0})\circ{\theta}_{{\widetilde}X}\simeq{\rm id}$ as tensor functors. Recall that for each homomorphism $\rho:\Pi\to G$, the fpqc sheaf of the contracted product ${\widetilde}X{\times}^\rho G$ (see [@demazure-gabriel70 III.4.3.2, p.368] or [@jantzen87 Part I, 5.14]) has the following description: it is the quotient of ${\widetilde}X{\times}G$ by the right action of $\Pi$ defined, on the level of points, by $$\label{12.03.2019--2}
(\tilde x,g){\cdot}{\gamma}=(\tilde x{\gamma},\rho({\gamma})^{-1}g).$$ Let us write $$\chi_\rho:{\widetilde}X{\times}G{\longrightarrow}{\widetilde}X{\times}^\rho G$$ for the canonical quotient morphism. Then, the arrow $$({\mathrm{pr}}_{{\widetilde}X}, \chi_\rho ):{\widetilde}X{\times}G{\longrightarrow}{\widetilde}X{\times}_X({\widetilde}X{\times}^\rho G)$$ is an isomorphism of $G$-torsors over ${\widetilde}X$ (see [@demazure-gabriel70 III.4.3.1] or [@jantzen87 Part 1, 5.14(3)]). In addition, if we let $\Pi$ act on (the right of) ${\widetilde}X{\times}G$ as implied by and on ${\widetilde}X{\times}_X({\widetilde}X{\times}^\rho G)$ by the action solely on ${\widetilde}X$, then $({\mathrm{pr}}_{{\widetilde}X}, \chi_\rho )$ is $\Pi$-equivariant, as a simple verification shows.
Now we note that $A=H^0({{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\widetilde}X})$ because $A[\Pi]_{\rm left}$, which corresponds to the quasi-coherent ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{X}$-module ${{\mathscr{O}}}_{{\widetilde}X}$, has only constant invariants and because of [@hartshorne77 Exercise II.1.11, p.67]. Since $G$ is affine, any morphism of schemes ${\widetilde}X\to G$ must factor through the structural morphism ${\widetilde}X\to{\mathrm{Spec}\,}A$ [\[EGA $\textsc{I}_{}$, 2.2.4,p.99\]]{}; we conclude that any arrow ${\beta}: {\widetilde}X{\times}G\to{\widetilde}X{\times}G$ between $G$-torsors must be of the form $(\tilde x,g)\mapsto(\tilde x,cg)$, where $c\in G(A)$. This being so, if ${\beta}$ in addition fixes the $A$-point $(\tilde x_0,e)$, we see that ${\beta}={\mathrm{id}}$. This has the following pleasing consequence (implicit in [@nori Proposition 3.11]):
\[12.03.2019–1\]Let $G\in{\mathbf{FGSch}}/A$ and let $\rho:\Pi\to G$ and ${\sigma}:\Pi\to G$ be arrows of group schemes over $A$. Let ${\alpha}:{\widetilde}X{\times}^\rho G\to{\widetilde}X{\times}^{\sigma}G$ be a morphism of $G$-torsors sending $\chi_\rho(\tilde x_0,e)$ to $\chi_{\sigma}(\tilde x_0,e)$. Then $\rho={\sigma}$ and ${\alpha}={\mathrm{id}}$.
We consider the following commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
{\widetilde}X{\times}G\ar[d]^\sim_{({\mathrm{pr}},\chi_\rho)}\ar[rr]^{{\widetilde}{\alpha}}&& {\widetilde}X{\times}G\ar[d]_\sim^{({\mathrm{pr}},\chi_{\sigma})}
\\
{\widetilde}X{\times}_X({\widetilde}X{\times}^\rho G)\ar[rr]_{{\mathrm{id}}{\times}{\alpha}}&& {\widetilde}X{\times}_X({\widetilde}X{\times}^{\sigma}G).
}$$ Since ${\alpha}$ takes $\chi_\rho(\tilde x_0,e )$ to $\chi_{\sigma}(\tilde x_0,e)$, we conclude that ${\widetilde}{\alpha}(\tilde x_0,e)=(\tilde x_0,e)$ and hence, by the above discussion, ${\widetilde}{\alpha}$ is the identity. Because $({\mathrm{pr}},\chi_\rho)$ is $\Pi$-equivariant (for the actions explained above), we conclude that ${\widetilde}{\alpha}={\rm id}$ is $\Pi$-equivariant, and this is only possible when $\rho={\sigma}$. Since ${\mathrm{id}}{\times}{\alpha}={\mathrm{id}}$, fpqc descent [\[EGA $\textsc{IV}_{2}$, 2.7.1,p.29\]]{} assures that ${\alpha}={\mathrm{id}}$.
Let $G\in({\mathbf{FGSch}}/A)$ be [*quasi-finite*]{} and consider the category ${\mathbf{Tors}}_*(G)$ whose
1. are couples $(Q,q_0)$ consisting of a $G$-torsor over $X$ and an $A$-point $q_0$ of $Q$ above $x_0$, and
2. are isomorphisms of $G$-torsors which preserve the $A$-rational point.
\[13.03.2019–2\]We maintain the above notations.
(1) Write $|{\mathbf{Tors}}_*(G)|$ for the set of isomorphism classes in ${\mathbf{Tors}}_*(G)$ and ${\widetilde}X[\rho]$ for the class of the couple $({\widetilde}X{\times}^\rho G,\chi_\rho(\tilde x_0,e))$. Then the map $${{\mathrm{Hom}}_{}\left(\Pi,G\right)}{\longrightarrow}|{\mathbf{Tors}}_*(G)|,\qquad\rho\longmapsto{\widetilde}X[\rho]$$ is bijective.
(2) The category ${\mathbf{Tors}}_*(G)$ is discrete [@maclane98 p.11].
(3) For each $(Q,q_0)$ in ${\mathbf{Tors}}_*(G)$, there exists a *unique* generalized morphism of torsors $\chi:{\widetilde}X\to Q$ taking $\tilde x_0$ to $q_0$.
\(1) We first establish surjectivity: the argument is identical to the one in [@nori Proposition 3.11]. From Theorem \[25.06.2018–1\]-(1), the functor ${\theta}_Q$ takes values in ${\mathfrak{T}}_X^{\rm tan}$. Using the $A$-point $q_0$ of $Q$ above $x_0$, we see that $(\bullet|_{x_0})\circ{\theta}_Q:{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(G)}\to{A\text{-}\mathbf{mod}}$ is naturally isomorphic to the forgetful functor and, since $\bullet|_{x_0}:{\mathfrak{T}}_X^{\rm tan}\stackrel\sim\to{{\mathrm{Rep}}_{A}(\Pi)}$, we derive a morphism of group schemes $$\rho:\Pi {\longrightarrow}G$$ such that $(\bullet|_{x_0})\circ {\theta}_Q\simeq \rho^\#$. Now $$\begin{split}{\theta}_Q&\simeq{\theta}_{{\widetilde}X}\circ(\bullet|_{x_0})\circ{\theta}_Q\\&\simeq {\theta}_{{\widetilde}X}\circ\rho^\#
\end{split}$$ which shows, just as in [@nori Propsoition 2.9(c), p. 34], that $Q\simeq {{\widetilde}X}{\times}^{\rho}G$. Injectivity is a direct consequence of Lemma \[12.03.2019–1\].
(1’) This is a direct consequence of (1) and Lemma \[12.03.2019–1\].
\(2) This is standard, but we run the argument for the convenience of the reader. Let $\tau:{\widetilde}X\to Q$ and $\tau':{\widetilde}X\to Q$ be morphisms as in the statement covering morphisms $\rho:\Pi\to G$ and $\rho':\Pi\to G$ respectively. We therefore deduce arrows ${\overline{\tau}}:{\widetilde}X{\times}^\rho G\to Q$ and ${\overline{\tau}}':{\widetilde}X{\times}^{\rho'}G\to Q$ in ${\mathbf{Tors}}_*(G)$ such that $${\widetilde}X{\stackrel{({\mathrm{id}},e)}{\longrightarrow}} {\widetilde}X{\times}G{\stackrel{\chi_\rho}{\longrightarrow}}{\widetilde}X{\times}^\rho G{\stackrel{{\overline{\tau}}}{\longrightarrow}} Q$$ and $${\widetilde}X{\stackrel{({\mathrm{id}},e)}{\longrightarrow}} {\widetilde}X{\times}G{\stackrel{\chi_{\rho'}}{\longrightarrow}}{\widetilde}X{\times}^{\rho'} G{\stackrel{{\overline{\tau}}'}{\longrightarrow}} Q$$ are respectively $\tau$ and $\tau'$. This produces an arrow ${\alpha}:{\widetilde}X{\times}^\rho G\to {\widetilde}X{\times}^{\rho'}G$ in ${\mathbf{Tors}}_*(G)$. According to Lemma \[12.03.2019–1\], $\rho=\rho'$ and ${\alpha}={\mathrm{id}}$ so that $\tau=\tau'$.
This allows us to compare $\Pi$ to the fundamental group scheme introduced in [@antei-emsalem-gasbarri18]. Recall that these authors show the existence of a pro-quasi-finite (see Definition \[25.02.2019–1\]) flat group scheme $\Pi^\star$, a $\Pi^\star$-torsor $X^\star\to X$ and an $A$-point $x^\star_0$ above $x_0$ enjoying the following universal property. If $G$ is flat and quasi-finite, $Q\to X$ is a $G$-torsor with a point $q_0$ above $x_0$, then there exists a [*unique*]{} generalized morphism of torsors $X^\star\to Q$ taking $x_0^\star$ to $q_0$. (See the paragraph after the proof of Theorem 5.2 in [@antei-emsalem-gasbarri18].) From Theorem \[13.03.2019–2\] we have:
\[13.03.2019–1\]Under the assumptions of Theorem \[25.06.2018–1\], there exists a unique generalized isomorphism of torsors ${\widetilde}X\to X^\star$ taking $\tilde x_0$ to $x_0^\star$. In particular, $\Pi\simeq \Pi^\star$.
In particular, Theorem \[25.03.2019–1\] says that $\Pi^\star$ is in fact pro-finite.
[99]{}
M. Antei, M. Emsalem and C. Gasbarri, [*Sur l’existence du schéma en groupes fondamental*]{}. Preprint 2018. (arXiv:1504.05082v3.)
M. Antei and V. Mehta, Vector bundles over normal varieties trivialized by finite morphisms. Arch. Math. 97 (2011), 523–527.
M. Artin, [*Algebraic approximation of structures over complete local rings*]{}. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. 36 (1969) 23–58.
I. Biswas and J. P. dos Santos, *Vector bundles trivialized by proper morphisms and the fundamental group scheme II.* Avec I. Biswas. The Arithmetic of Fundamental Groups. PIA 2010. Contributions in Mathematical and Computational Sciences, Vol. 2. J. Stix (editor). Springer 2012.
I. Biswas and J. P. dos Santos, [*Vector bundles trivialized by proper morphisms and the fundamental group scheme*]{}. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu 10(2), (2011), 225–234.
S. Bosch, W. Lütkebohmert and M. Raynaud, [Formal and rigid geometry IV. The reduced fibre theorem]{}. Invent. math 119 (1995), 361–398.
S. Bosch, W. Lütkebohmert, and M. Raynaud, [ *Néron models*]{}. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) 21. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
N. Bourbaki, [*Algèbre commutative*]{}. Masson, Paris, 1985.
P. Deligne and J. Milne, [*Tannakian categories*]{}. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 900, pp. 101–228, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1982.
M. Demazure and P. Gabriel, Groupes algébriques. Tome I Masson & Cie, Éditeur, Paris; North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1970.
C. Deninger and A. Werner, Vector bundles on $p$-adic curves and parallel transport. 2005.
N. D. Duong and P. H. Hai, Tannakian duality over Dedekind rings and applications. Math. Z. (2018) 288:1103–1142.
N. D. Duong, P. H. Hai and J. P. dos Santos, [*On the structure of affine flat group schemes over discrete valuation rings, I*]{}. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) Vol. XVIII (2018), 977–1032.
C. Gasbarri, [*Height of vector bundles and the fundamental group scheme of a curve*]{}. Duke Math. Jour. Vol. 117, No. 2, 2003, 287–311.
D. Grant, [*On an analogue of the Lutz–Nagell Theorem for hyperelliptic curves*]{}. Journal of Number Theory 133 (2013) 963–969.
P. H. Hai and J. P. dos Santos, [*On the structure of affine flat group schemes over discrete valuation rings, II*]{}. Preprint 2018.
R. Hartshorne, Algebraic geometry. Graduate texts in mathematics 52, Springer, 1977.
R. Hartshorne, Residues and duality. Lecture notes in mathematics 20, Springer, 1966.
L. Illusie, [*Grothendieck’s existence theorem in formal geometry*]{}. With a letter (in French) of Jean-Pierre Serre. Math. Surveys Monogr., 123, Fundamental algebraic geometry, 179–233, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005
J. C. Jantzen, [*Representations of algebraic groups*]{}. Pure and Applied Mathematics, 131. Academic Press, Inc., Boston, MA, 1987.
I. Kaplansky, [*Modules over Dedekind rings and valuation rings*]{}. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 72, (1952). 327–340.
Q. Liu, [*Algebraic geometry and arithmetic curves*]{}. Translated from the French by Reinie Erné. Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 6. Oxford Science Publications. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
S. Mac Lane, Categories for the working mathematician, GTM 5, Second edition, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1998.
H. Matsumura,*Commutative ring theory*, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
H. Matsumura. Commutative Algebra. Second edition. Mathematics Lecture Note Series, 56. Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., Inc., Reading, Mass., 1980
V. Mehta and S. Subramanian, [*The fundamental group scheme of a smooth projective variety over a ring of Witt vectors*]{}. J. Ramanujan Math. Soc. 28A (Special Issue-2013) 341–351.
V. Mehta and S. Subramanian, On the fundamental group scheme. Invent. math. 148, 143–150 (2002). DOI 10.1007/s002220100191.
D. Mumford, Abelian varieties. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research Studies in Mathematics, No. 5, Bombay, Oxford University Press, London 1970.
N. Nitsure, Construction of Hilbert and Quot schemes, *in* Fundamental algebraic geometry. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 123. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005.
M. Nori, On the representations of the fundamental group. 1976.
M. V. Nori, [The fundamental group scheme]{}, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Math. Sci. 91 (1982), no. 2, 73–122.
M. Raynaud, Anneaux Locaux Henséliens. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 169, Springer, 1970.
N. Saavedra Rivano, [*Catégories Tannakiennes*]{}. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 265, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1972).
J. P. dos Santos, [*The behaviour of the differential Galois group on the generic and special fibres: A Tannakian approach* ]{}. J. Reine Angew. Math. 637 (2009), 63–98.
J. P. Serre, *Groupe de Grothendieck des schémas en groupes réductifs déployés*, Publ. Math. IHES 34 (1968), pp. 37–52.
J. H. Silverman, [*The arithmetic of elliptic curves*]{}. Second edition. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 106. Springer, Dordrecht, 2009. The Stacks Project Authors, [*Stacks Project*]{}. `http://stacks.math.columbia.edu.`
M. Temkin, [*Stable modifications of relative curves*]{}. J. Algebraic Geometry 19 (2010) 603–677.
F. Tonini and L. Zhang, [*Essentially Finite Vector Bundles on Normal Pseudo-proper Algebraic Stacks* ]{}. Preprint. arXiv:1702.03751v1.
W. C. Waterhouse, *Introduction to affine group schemes*, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 66. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin, 1979.
W. C. Waterhouse and B. Weisfeiler, [*One dimensional affine group schemes*]{}. J. Algebra 66 (1980), no. 2, 550–568.
[*Seminars*]{}
Schémas en groupes. Tome I. Propriétés générales des schémas en groupes. Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique du Bois Marie 1962–64. Directed by M. Demazure and A. Grothendieck with the collaboration of M. Artin, J.-E. Bertin, P. Gabriel, M. Raynaud and J-P. Serre. Revised and annotated edition of the 1970 French original. Edited by Philippe Gille and Patrick Polo. Documents Mathématiques, 7. Soc. Math. France, Paris, 2011
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Pressure-dependent transmittance and reflectance spectra of TiOBr and TiOCl single crystals at room temperature suggest the closure of the Mott-Hubbard gap, i.e., the gap is filled with additional electronic states extending down to the far-infrared range. According to pressure-dependent x-ray powder diffraction data the gap closure coincides with a structural phase transition. The transition in TiOBr occurs at slightly lower pressure ($p$=14 GPa) compared to TiOCl ($p$=16 GPa) under hydrostatic conditions, which is discussed in terms of the chemical pressure effect. The results of pressure-dependent transmittance measurements on TiOBr at low temperatures reveal similar effects at 23 K, where the compound is in the spin-Peierls phase at ambient pressure.'
author:
- 'C. A. Kuntscher'
- 'A. Pashkin'
- 'H. Hoffmann'
- 'S. Frank'
- 'M. Klemm'
- 'S. Horn'
- 'A. Schönleber'
- 'S. van Smaalen'
- 'M. Hanfland'
- 'S. Glawion'
- 'M. Sing'
- 'R. Claessen'
title: 'Mott-Hubbard gap closure and structural phase transition in the oxyhalides TiOBr and TiOCl under pressure'
---
Introduction
============
The layered compounds TiO$X$, where $X$=Br or Cl, are low-dimensional systems which show interesting magnetic and electronic properties. Regarding the spin degree of freedom, at high temperature the system can be well described by a one-dimensional spin-1/2 nearest-neighbor Heisenberg model with a Bonner-Fisher type magnetic susceptibility.[@Seidel03; @Kataev03] Below the transition temperature T$_{c1}$, where T$_{c1}$=27 K for TiOBr and T$_{c1}$=67 K for TiOCl, TiO$X$ undergoes a first-order phase transition to a spin-Peierls state with a dimerization of the chains of Ti atoms along the $b$ axis and a doubling of the unit cell.[@Seidel03; @Caimi04; @Shaz05] Furthermore, an intermediate phase for the temperature range T$_{c1}$$<$T$<$T$_{c2}$ was found (with T$_{c2}$=47 K for TiOBr and T$_{c2}$=91 K for TiOCl), whose nature is now well established as an incommensurately modulated structure with a one-dimensional modulation in monoclinic symmetry. [@Smaalen05] Regarding the charge degree of freedom, the Ti ions have the electronic configuration $3d^1$. The $3d$ electrons are localized due to strong electronic correlations, and hence TiOBr and TiOCl are Mott-Hubbard insulators, with a charge gap of $\approx$2 eV. [@Ruckkamp05; @Kuntscher06; @Kuntscher07] It was predicted that these materials exhibit a resonating valence bond state and high-temperature superconductivity upon doping.[@Beynon93; @Craco06] However, up to now a metallization of TiO$X$ upon doping could not be achieved.[@Klemm08]
Recently it was shown that the optical response of both compounds changes drastically under pressure: Above a critical pressure, the transmittance is suppressed and the reflectance increases in the infrared range. The changes could be attributed to additional electronic states filling the Mott-Hubbard gap and they suggest a closure of the gap at elevated pressures.[@Kuntscher06; @Kuntscher07] Under hydrostatic conditions the transition pressures are 14 and 16 GPa for TiOBr and TiOCl, respectively. Concurrent with the closure of the Mott-Hubbard gap a structural phase transition is observed.[@Kuntscher07]
This paper is a follow-up of the earlier, short publication[@Kuntscher07] and provides details of the changes in the electronic properties and crystal structure of TiOBr and TiOCl induced by external pressure. The manuscript is organized as follows: After describing the experimental details in Sec.\[sectionexperiment\], we present in Sec. \[transmittance\] the experimental results obtained at room temperature, which suggest the closure of the Mott-Hubbard gap under pressure. We also include low-temperature transmittance spectra of TiOBr at ambient and high pressure in Sec. \[low-temperature results\]. Sec. \[x-ray\] focuses on the pressure-induced changes of the crystal structures for TiOBr and TiOCl. In Sec. \[comparisontransitionpressures\] we comment about a possible chemical pressure effect in the system TiO$X$. In Sec. \[gap closure-structure\] the relation between the closure of the Mott-Hubbard gap and the structural phase transition is discussed. Finally, we summarize our results in Sec. \[summary\].
![Crystal structure of TiO$X$ ($X$=Br,Cl), viewed along the $a$, $b$, and $c$ crystal axes, consisting of Ti-O bilayers parallel to the $ab$-plane and separated by layers of $X$ ions stacked along the $c$ direction.[@Schaefer58] The black lines mark the unit cell. Also shown is the main building block of the crystal structure, namely the distorted TiO$_4$$X$$_2$ octahedron.[]{data-label="fig:crystalstructure"}](cryst.eps){width="0.9\columnwidth"}
Experiment {#sectionexperiment}
==========
Single crystals of TiO$X$ ($X$=Br,Cl) were synthesized by chemical vapor transport technique. The TiO$X$ compounds crystallize in the space group $Pmmn$ at ambient conditions and consist of distorted TiO$_4$$X_2$ octahedra.[@Schaefer58; @Schnering72] The octahedra are arranged such that buckled Ti-O bilayers parallel to the $ab$-plane are formed, which are separated by layers of Br/Cl ions stacked along the $c$ direction. Fig. \[fig:crystalstructure\] shows the crystal structure viewed along the crystal axes $a$, $b$, and $c$. TiO$X$ crystals grow in the form of thin platelets with the surface parallel to the $ab$-plane. This is convenient for studies of the optical response of the $ab$-plane.
In the pressure-dependent studies diamond anvil cells (DACs) were used for the generation of pressures. The applied pressures $p$ were determined with the ruby luminescence method.[@Mao86] For the transmittance measurements several pressure transmitting media were used; this leads to small differences in the observed values of the critical pressure of phase transition, as expected.[@Frank06; @Kuntscher06] For the reflectance measurements finely ground CsI powder was chosen as pressure medium to insure direct contact of the sample with the diamond window.
Pressure-dependent transmittance and reflectance experiments were conducted at room temperature using a Bruker IFS 66v/S FT-IR spectrometer with an infrared microscope (Bruker IRscope II). For the generation of pressure we used a Syassen-Holzapfel DAC[@Huber77] equipped with type IIA diamonds suitable for infrared measurements. Part of the measurements were carried out at the infrared beamline of the synchrotron radiation source ANKA, where the same equipment is installed. Further information on the pressure-dependent transmittance and reflectance measurements conducted at room temperature was included in the earlier publication.[@Kuntscher07]
For TiOBr the transmittance measurements under pressure were also conducted at 23 K for the frequency range 3100 - 15000 cm$^{-1}$ (0.38 - 1.9 eV). At 23 K TiOBr is in the spin-Peierls phase at ambient pressure. As pressure medium argon was used. The transmittance measurements on the sample in the DAC placed in the optical cryostat (CryoVac KONTI cryostat) were performed using a home-built infrared microscope with a large working distance. This infrared microscope can be directly coupled to the FT-IR spectrometer and maintained at the same pressure ($\approx$ 3 mbar), i.e., no window between the two devices is needed.
Pressure-dependent x-ray powder diffraction measurements at room temperature were carried out at beamline ID09A of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility at Grenoble. Details about the experiments were described elsewhere (Ref. ).
![Charge gap $\tilde{\Delta}$ (see text for definition) of TiOBr as a function of pressure for [**E**]{}$||$$a$ (full symbols) and [**E**]{}$||$$b$ (open symbols) (pressure medium: CsI). The dashed lines are guides to the eye. Inset: Absorbance spectrum $A$($\omega$) of TiOBr for the lowest pressure (1.5 GPa), calculated according to $A$($\omega$)=log$_{10}$\[1/$T$($\omega$)\], together with the linear extrapolation of the absorption edge (dashed gray line) used to estimate $\tilde{\Delta}$.[]{data-label="fig:gap"}](gap.eps "fig:"){width="0.9\columnwidth"}\
Results and analysis {#sectionresults}
====================
Pressure-dependent transmittance and reflectance at room temperature {#transmittance}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure-dependent transmittance measurements on TiOBr and TiOCl were carried out for several pressure transmitting media. In Refs. we already showed the spectra of TiOBr and TiOCl for argon and CsI as pressure media, respectively. The transmittance spectra reveal the characteristic excitations in the materials, namely the electronic transitions between the lower and upper Hubbard gap, resulting in a strong suppression of the transmittance above $\approx$2 eV. Furthermore, absorptions occur due to excitations across the crystal-field split Ti$3d$ energy levels (called orbital excitations in the following) located for TiOBr (TiOCl) at 0.63 eV (0.66 eV) for [**E**]{}$||$$a$ and at 1.35 eV (1.53 eV) for [**E**]{}$||$$b$ at ambient conditions.
First, one notices that in TiOBr the orbital excitations are slightly redshifted compared to TiOCl. This can be explained by the chemical pressure effect in the system TiO$X$: Based on the g tensors measured by electron spin resonance[@Kato05] the crystal field splittings in TiOBr and TiOCl were obtained. The smaller crystal field splitting in TiOBr could be attributed to the larger size of the Br$^{-}$ ion compared to the Cl$^{-}$ ion, causing a larger volume of the TiO$_4$$X$$_2$ octahedra (see Fig. \[fig:crystalstructure\]) and hence a weaker crystal field.[@Kato05]
![(Color online) Frequency of the orbital excitations in TiOBr as a function of pressure: at room temperature for the polarization (a) [**E**]{}$||$$a$ and (b) [**E**]{}$||$$b$; at 23 K for the polarization (c) [**E**]{}$||$$a$ and (d) [**E**]{}$||$$b$ (pressure medium: argon). The full symbols denote the results with increasing pressure; open symbols denote the results upon pressure release. Lines are guides to the eye. []{data-label="fig:orbital"}](orbital.eps "fig:"){width="1\columnwidth"}\
With increasing pressure one observes the following changes for both compounds along the two studied polarization directions: (i) a blueshift of the orbital excitations; (ii) the absorption edge due to excitations across the charge gap shifts to smaller energies with increasing pressure, and above 11 GPa (12 GPa) the overall transmittance is strongly suppressed in TiOBr (TiOCl). These results were obtained with CsI as pressure medium; when a more hydrostatic pressure medium is used (see Table \[tab:comparison\] and the results in Ref. ), the suppression of the transmittance occurs at somewhat higher pressure ($\Delta$$p$$\approx$4 GPa).
We estimated the charge gap, $\tilde{\Delta}$, by a linear extrapolation of the steep absorption edge. This is illustrated in the inset of Fig. \[fig:gap\], where we show the absorbance spectrum $A$($\omega$) of TiOBr for the lowest pressure (1.5 GPa), calculated from the transmittance $T$($\omega$) according to $A$($\omega$)=log$_{10}$\[1/$T$($\omega$)\], together with the linear extrapolation of the absorption edge. The intersection of the linear extrapolation with the horizontal axis was taken as an estimate of the charge gap. Starting from the lowest applied pressure, $\tilde{\Delta}$ initially slightly decreases with increasing pressure, and above $\approx$10 GPa it rapidly drops to zero (Fig. \[fig:gap\]). Similar observations were made earlier for TiOCl,[@Kuntscher06] with the onset of rapid decrease of $\tilde{\Delta}$ at $p$$\approx$12 GPa. The pressure dependence of the frequencies of the orbital excitations in TiOBr were obtained by fitting the absorption features in the transmittance spectra with Gaussian functions. The results are depicted in Fig. \[fig:orbital\]. With increasing pressure the orbital excitations shift to higher frequencies in a linear fashion. This shift could be attributed to a monotonically increasing strength of the crystal field related to the decreasing volume of the TiO$_4$Br$_2$ octahedra. External pressure could also induce a change in the octahedral distortion and related alterations of the crystal field. One furthermore notices a small difference in the frequency of the orbital excitations for pressure increase and decrease observed in the direction [**E**]{}$||$$b$ \[Fig. \[fig:orbital\](b)\], which suggests that the pressure-induced octahedral volume decrease and/or octahedral distortion are not completely reversible. This non-reversibility is more obvious at low temperatures and will be discussed in Sec. \[low-temperature results\].
![(Color online) Far-infrared reflectance $R_{\rm s-d}$ of TiOBr and TiOCl at room temperature as a function of pressure, for the polarization [**E**]{}$||$$a$ \[(a) and (c), resp.\] and [**E**]{}$||$$b$ \[(b) and (d), resp.\] (pressure medium: CsI).[]{data-label="fig:FIR-reflectivity"}](FIR-ref.eps){width="1\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) Real part of the optical conductivity of TiOBr as a function of pressure for the polarization (a) [**E**]{}$||$$a$ and (b) [**E**]{}$||$$b$ obtained by Drude-Lorentz fitting of the pressure-dependent reflectance data $R_{\rm s-d}$. Inset: Total effective carrier density, $n_{eff}$, and spectral weight calculated by integrating the real part of the optical conductivity (see text) up to $\omega_0$=8000 cm$^{-1}$ for [**E**]{}$||$$a$ (filled circles) and [**E**]{}$||$$b$ (open circles). Lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:cond-all"}](condBr-a.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Additional information about the pressure-induced changes in the optical response were obtained by reflectance measurements on TiOBr and TiOCl at high pressures. The most drastic changes occur in the far-infrared range, as illustrated for both compounds in Figs. \[fig:FIR-reflectivity\] (a) and (b) (for pressure-dependent reflectance spectra over a broader frequency range, see Refs. ). In case of TiOBr, the shape of the spectrum changes drastically for [**E**]{}$||$$b$: At 10 GPa the spectrum consists of a peak-like feature between 300 and 450 cm$^{-1}$, whereas for pressures $\geq$11 GPa it is almost flat with a peak at around 520 cm$^{-1}$. The pressure-induced changes in the far-infrared reflectance spectra $R_{\rm s-d}$ of TiOCl are very similar to those of TiOBr \[see Figs. \[fig:FIR-reflectivity\] (c) and (d)\]. However, for TiOCl the changes occur at somewhat higher pressure, as discussed in Sec. \[comparisontransitionpressures\]. For higher frequencies the overall reflectance increases for both compounds and saturates.[@Kuntscher06; @Kuntscher07]
The suppression of the transmittance in TiO$X$ at high pressures suggests the occurrence of new excitations in the infrared frequency range. More information about these additional excitations were obtained by fitting the high-pressure ($p$$>$10 GPa) reflectance spectra $R_{\rm s-d}$ with the Drude-Lorentz model combined with the normal-incidence Fresnel equation, taking into account the diamond-sample interface: $$R_{s-d} =\left| \frac{n_{\rm dia}-\sqrt{\epsilon_s}}{n_{\rm
dia}+\sqrt{\epsilon_s}}\right|^2 , \epsilon_s = \epsilon_\infty +
\frac{i \sigma}{\epsilon_0 \omega} \quad ,$$ where $\epsilon_s$ is the complex dielectric function of the sample and $\epsilon_\infty$ is the background dielectric constant (here $\epsilon_\infty$$\approx$3). From the function $\epsilon_s$($\omega$) the real part of the optical conductivity, $\sigma_1$($\omega$), can be calculated. Notice that only reflectance data above 10 GPa can be analyzed quantitatively because of the partial transparency of the sample below this critical pressure.
The evolution of the optical conductivity of TiOBr with pressure is shown in Fig. \[fig:cond-all\]. We find additional excitations in the infrared range, extending down to the far-infrared. These additional excitations include broad excitations, which cannot be attributed to phonon excitations, in contrast to the optical conductivity spectrum in the insulating phase.[@Caimi04a] Thus, the Mott-Hubbard gap is gradually filled with additional electronic states down to at least 200 cm$^{-1}$ (24 meV). This finding suggests the closure of the Mott-Hubbard gap above $p$=10 GPa.
With increasing pressure the spectral weight of the pressure-induced features increases, with a saturation setting in at around 13 GPa. From the spectral weight analysis one can extract the effective density of carriers, $n_{eff}$, involved in the excitations up to $\omega_0$ according to $$\label{carrierdensity}
n_{eff}(\omega_0)=(2m_0 / \pi e^2)\int_0^{\omega_0}\sigma_1(\omega)d\omega \quad ,$$ with the free electron mass, $m_0$. In the inset of Fig. \[fig:cond-all\](b) $n_{eff}$($\omega_0$=8000 cm$^{-1}$) is plotted as a function of pressure $p$. $n_{eff}(p)$ illustrates the saturation of the spectral features at high pressures.
Also for TiOCl the spectral weight of the pressure-induced excitations increases with increasing pressure and saturates, as presented in the earlier publication.[@Kuntscher06] The saturation, however, happens at somewhat higher pressure ($\approx$15 GPa) compared to TiOBr. In fact, all the pressure-induced effects occur in TiOCl at slightly higher pressures ($\Delta$$p$$\approx$2 GPa) compared to TiOBr. This pressure difference will be discussed in more detail in Sec. \[comparisontransitionpressures\].
![(Color online) Transmittance $T$($\omega$)=I$_{s}$($\omega$)/I$_{r}$($\omega$) (see text for definitions) of TiOBr as a function of temperature for the lowest pressure (0.8 GPa), for the polarization (a) [**E**]{}$||$$a$ and (b) [**E**]{}$||$$b$ (pressure medium: argon). Insets: Frequency of orbital excitations as a function of temperature. Lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:transmittance-T"}](trans-T.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) Transmittance $T$($\omega$)=I$_{s}$($\omega$)/I$_{r}$($\omega$) (see text for definitions) of TiOBr as a function of pressure at 23 K, for the polarization (a) [**E**]{}$||$$a$ and (b) [**E**]{}$||$$b$ (pressure medium: argon).[]{data-label="fig:transmittance-P"}](trans-PT.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Pressure-dependent transmittance of TiOBr at low temperatures {#low-temperature results}
-------------------------------------------------------------
We have furthermore checked the stability of the insulating spin-Peierls phase of TiOBr by pressure-dependent transmittance measurements at low temperatures in the near-infrared frequency range (3100 - 15000 cm$^{-1}$). As mentioned in the introduction, TiOBr undergoes two phase transitions as a function of temperature: Upon temperature increase, a first order transition takes place at $T_{c1}$=27 K from the spin-Peierls ground state into an intermediate phase with an incommensurate superstructure.[@Smaalen05] An additional, second-order phase transition is found at $T_{c2}$=47 K, where the material changes from the intermediate phase to the one-dimensional antiferromagnetic phase at high temperature.
Starting from room temperature and low-pressure (0.8 GPa) conditions, transmittance measurements on TiOBr were carried out upon temperature decrease. Fig. \[fig:transmittance-T\] shows the temperature-dependent transmittance spectra for the polarizations [**E**]{}$||$$a$ and [**E**]{}$||$$b$. The oscillations in the spectra are Fabry-Perot resonances due to multiple reflections within the thin sample platelet. With decreasing temperature one notices a small but significant shift of the orbital excitations to higher frequencies, as illustrated in the insets of Fig. \[fig:transmittance-T\]. The most pronounced changes occur between 295 and 200 K and can be attributed to the thermal contraction of the lattice while cooling down, leading to a smaller volume of the TiO$_4$Br$_2$ octahedra and thus to a stronger crystal field.[@Kato05] Below 100 K the orbital excitations hardly shift with temperature, which suggests that the structural changes occuring at the phase transitions at $T_{c1}$=27 K and $T_{c2}$=47 K have only a small effect on the TiO$_4$Br$_2$ octahedra and hence on the crystal field. This in agreement with an earlier work showing that the orbital degree of freedom is irrelevant for the low-energy physics, in particular the exotic spin-Peierls behavior with two successive phase transitions.[@Ruckkamp05]
![(Color online) Lattice parameters of TiOBr at room temperature as a function of pressure (pressure medium: helium). (a)-(c) Lattice parameters $a$, $b$, $c$. (d) Lattice parameters $a$, $b$, $c$ normalized to their respective zero-pressure values. Lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:lattice-TiOBr"}](lat-Br.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
At 23 K, where the sample is in the spin-Peierls state for ambient pressure, transmittance spectra were recorded for several pressures (see Fig. \[fig:transmittance-P\]). Similar to the room-temperature results, the transmittance is suppressed over the whole studied frequency range above a certain pressure; however, at 23 K the suppression occurs only above $\approx$16 GPa, compared to the room-temperature transition pressure of 14 GPa.
We also followed the pressure-induced shifts of the orbital excitations at 23 K \[Figs. \[fig:orbital\] (c) and (d)\]. With increasing pressure the frequencies of the orbital excitations increase linearly with increasing pressure. Like for the room-temperature results, we relate this shift to a pressure-induced decrease of the octahedral volume and a possible change in octahedral distortion, causing a change in the crystal field (see Sec. \[transmittance\]). At room-temperature we noticed a small difference in the frequencies of the orbital excitations for pressure increase and decrease. This difference is much more pronounced at 23 K. For example, for [**E**]{}$||$$a$ already at around 4 GPa during pressure release the ambient-pressure excitation energy of $\approx$5370 cm$^{-1}$, and thus the ambient-pressure crystal field strength, has been reached \[see Fig. \[fig:orbital\](c)\].
![(Color online) Room-temperature x-ray powder diffraction diagrams of TiOCl at high pressures ($\lambda$= 0.4128 Å) together with the LeBail fits (pressure medium: helium). For the lowest applied pressure (1.8 GPa) the difference curve ($I_{obs}-I_{calc}$) between the diffraction diagram and the LeBail fit is shown. Markers show the calculated peak positions for the ambient-pressure phase. Above 15.5 GPa the diffraction diagram can no longer be described by the ambient-pressure crystal symmetry. Arrows indicate the diffraction peaks with the most obvious discrepancy between the data and the LeBail fitting curve.[]{data-label="fig:x-ray-TiOCl"}](x-rayCl.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![(Color online) Lattice parameters of TiOCl at room temperature as a function of pressure (pressure medium: helium). (a)-(c) Lattice parameters $a$, $b$, $c$. (d) Lattice parameters $a$, $b$, $c$ normalized to their respective zero-pressure values. Lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="fig:lattice-TiOCl"}](lat-Cl.eps){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Pressure-induced structural phase transition at room temperature {#x-ray}
----------------------------------------------------------------
For the understanding of the drastic changes in the optical response under pressure, we carried out x-ray powder diffraction measurements on TiOBr and TiOCl at room temperature as a function of pressure. A typical diffraction pattern (not shown) does not consist of concentric rings as expected for powder diffraction data, but it contains separate spots. This is due to the fact that it was not possible to produce good TiO$X$ powders with homogenous grain size distributions and random orientations because of the platelet-like habits and the softnesses of the crystallites. Instead, the crystallites inside the DAC orient their $c$ crystal axis preferentially perpendicular to the diamond anvil surface, i.e., along the direction of incidence of the x-radiation. Therefore, Rietveld refinements of the diffraction patterns could not be carried out. Nevertheless LeBail fits of the diffraction patterns could be accomplished, in order to determine the unit cell volume and the lattice parameters as a function of pressure.
The room-temperature diffraction diagrams of TiOBr can be well fitted with the ambient-pressure crystal structure (space group $Pmmn$) at low pressures, as demonstrated in Ref. . The lattice parameters of TiOBr as a function of pressure, as obtained from the LeBail fitting, are presented in Fig. \[fig:lattice-TiOBr\]. The changes of the lattice parameters $a$ and $b$ with pressure are linear over a large pressure range. The behavior of the lattice parameters $c$ rather follows a sublinear fashion. In Fig. \[fig:lattice-TiOBr\] we also show the lattice parameters $a$, $b$, $c$ normalized to their respective zero-pressure values as a function of pressure \[Fig. \[fig:lattice-TiOBr\] (d)\]. According to these results, TiOBr has a very anisotropic compressibility, with the largest compressibility along the $c$ axis, i.e., the stacking axis of the buckled Ti-O bilayers.
At around 14 GPa the diffraction diagram of TiOBr undergoes pronounced changes and is no longer compatible with the ambient-pressure crystal structure symmetry.[@Kuntscher07] We can therefore conclude that TiOBr undergoes a structural phase transition at 14 GPa.
We also include the corresponding results from the pressure-dependent x-ray powder diffraction on TiOCl, namely the room-temperature diffraction diagrams for selected pressures together with the LeBail fits (Fig. \[fig:x-ray-TiOCl\]) as well as the lattice parameters as a function of pressure extracted by the LeBail fits (Fig. \[fig:lattice-TiOCl\]). The sublinear dependence on pressure is obvious for all three lattice parameters. Pronounced changes of the diffraction diagram occur at 15.5 GPa indicating a pressure-induced structural phase transition in TiOCl, similar like in TiOBr. For both compounds the pressure-induced changes are reversible in terms of the positions of the diffraction peaks.
From the lattice parameters the pressure dependence of the unit cell volume $V$ for both compounds was obtained. In Fig. \[fig:volume\] we plot $V(p)$ together with a fit according to the Murnaghan equation [@Murnaghan44] $$\label{Murnaghan}
V(p) = V_0 [(B'/B_0)p+1]^{-1/B'}$$ with the bulk modulus $B_0=-dp/dlnV$ and its derivative $B'$ at zero pressure. The ambient-pressure unit cell volume $V_0$ was kept fixed at the experimental value of 112.4(5) Å$^3$ \[102.7(6) Å$^3$\] for TiOBr (TiOCl). [@Sasaki05] The bulk moduli $B_0$ evaluated according to the Murnaghan equation are 33.7$\pm$ 0.8 GPa and 31.0$\pm$ 0.9 GPa for TiOBr and TiOCl, and the derivatives $B'$ are 6.9$\pm$ 0.3 and 6.7$\pm$ 0.3, respectively. The bulk modulus of TiOBr is slightly larger than that of TiOCl, i.e., TiOBr is slightly less compressible than TiOCl. Furthermore, one notices that the pressure derivative $B'$ of both compounds is significantly larger compared to the value $B'$$\approx$4 typically found for three-dimensional solids with isotropic elastic properties. The enhanced value of $B'$ thus suggests anisotropic compression properties of TiO$X$. It is interesting to note that the bulk modulus $B_0$ and its derivative $B'$ of TiO$X$ are close to the corresponding values found for graphite ($B_0$=33.8 GPa, $B'$=8.9).[@Hanfland89]
---------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------------- -------------------
material transmittance transmittance transmittance reflectance x-ray diffraction
(CsI) (argon) (alcohol mixture) (CsI) (helium)
TiOCl 12 GPa 16 GPa $\approx$16 GPa 12 GPa 15.5 GPa
TiOBr 10-11 GPa 14 GPa (295 K) not measured 10-11 GPa 14 GPa
16 GPa (23 K)
---------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------------- -------------------
![(Color online) Unit cell volume $V$ of TiOCl and TiOBr as a function of pressure $P$. The full, red (gray) lines are fits according to Eq. (\[Murnaghan\]). []{data-label="fig:volume"}](volume.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
Discussion {#sectiondiscussion}
==========
Comparison of transition pressures: TiOBr and TiOCl {#comparisontransitionpressures}
---------------------------------------------------
In Table \[tab:comparison\] we compare the transition pressures of TiOBr and TiOCl at room temperature obtained by different experimental techniques (transmittance, reflectance, x-ray powder diffraction) and for different pressure media. First, comparing the corresponding results for the two compounds, one notices a pressure difference of $\approx$2 GPa. This suggests the existence of some sort of chemical pressure effect in TiO$X$.
A starting point for the understanding of this finding could be a comparison of the ambient-pressure lattice parameters. The lattice parameters $b$ and $c$ of TiOBr ($a$=3.785 Å, $b$=3.485 Å, $c$=8.525 Å) are significantly larger than those of TiOCl ($a$=3.789 Å, $b$=3.365 Å, $c$=8.060 Å). [@Sasaki05; @Kataev03] The difference is most pronounced for the $c$ axis; here, the larger value in TiOBr can be attributed to the larger size of the Br$^-$ ions, which form layers separating the buckled Ti-O bilayers. Naively, one would then expect a [*higher*]{} pressure to induce the transition in TiOBr compared to TiOCl, which is in contradiction to our findings. Thus, not the distance between the Ti-O bilayers but the pressure-induced crystal structure changes [*within*]{} the bilayers seem to be the crucial parameter for inducing the closure of the Mott-Hubbard gap in TiO$X$. This furthermore suggests that the high-pressure phase has a dimensionality of less than three, being mainly confined to the buckled Ti-O bilayers.
![Pressure-dependent ratio of the lattice parameters $a$ and $b$ for the TiOBr and TiOCl at room temperature. The ratio $a$/$b$ as a function of pressure follows a linear behavior.[]{data-label="fig:ratio"}](ratio.eps){width="0.85\columnwidth"}
A two-dimensional character of the high-pressure phase could indeed explain the difference in the critical pressures for TiOBr and TiOCl: At ambient conditions the one-dimensional character of TiOBr is weaker than in TiOCl, since the lattice parameter ratio ($a$/$b$) in TiOBr ($a$/$b$=1.086) is smaller than in TiOCl ($a$/$b$=1.126).[@Sasaki05] This is consistent with magnetic susceptibility measurements showing a larger deviation from the Bonner-Fisher type behavior above the spin-Peierls transition for TiOBr compared to TiOCl.[@Kato05] The more two-dimensional character of TiOBr was also demonstrated by recent photoemission experiments and supported by density-functional calculations.[@Hoinkis07] Hence, in the case of TiOBr less pressure would be needed to drive the system into a (prospective) two-dimensional, high-pressure phase.
Our pressure-dependent crystal structure data can provide a test of this picture (two-dimensional character of the high-pressure phase): In Fig. \[fig:ratio\] we plot the ratio $a/b$ for both studied compounds as a function of pressure. This ratio should decrease towards the value 1 under pressure in the case of a two-dimensional high-pressure phase. Instead, the ratio $a/b$ [*increases*]{} with increasing pressure for both compounds: TiOBr and TiOCl become more one-dimensional under pressure. Obviously, a different criterium regarding the changes of the crystal structure with applied pressure has to be used, in order to explain the difference of $\approx$2 GPa for the critical pressures of TiOBr and TiOCl. At this point we can only speculate about possible criteria for the Mott-Hubbard gap closure – like a critical Ti-Ti distance along $b$ or $a$ direction – since information about the shifts of the atomic coordinates under pressure is not available.
Mott-Hubbard gap closure and structural phase transition {#gap closure-structure}
--------------------------------------------------------
Under hydrostatic conditions, i.e., for argon as pressure medium, the closure of the Mott-Hubbard gap in TiOBr (TiOCl) occurs at 14 GPa (16 GPa) (Table \[tab:comparison\]). Under less hydrostatic conditions, i.e., using CsI as pressure medium, the gap closure happens at somewhat lower pressure ($\Delta$$P$$\approx$4 GPa). This offset in the transition pressure for different types of pressure media has been reported earlier for TiOCl and LaTiO$_{3.41}$.[@Frank06; @Kuntscher06] The important finding is that under similar hydrostatic conditions the closure of the Mott-Hubbard gap in TiO$X$ coincides with a structural phase transition, as demonstrated by our pressure-dependent x-ray powder diffraction data (Table \[tab:comparison\]). Therefore, the gap closure in TiO$X$ is not of purely electronical origin, but the lattice degree of freedom has to be taken into account too.
In this regard it is interesting to compare the results for TiOBr and TiOCl with typical examples of bandwidth-controlled Mott transitions under external pressure, which are discussed in literature. One finds the general observation that the Mott transition coincides with volume discontinuities or even changes of the crystal symmetry. This applies, for example, to the canonical Mott-Hubbard systems VO$_2$ (Ref. ) and vanadium sesquioxide doped with chromium, (V$_{0.95}$Cr$_{0.04}$)$_2$O$_3$,[@McWhan70; @McWhan71; @McWhan73] and also to MnO,[@Yoo05] YNiO$_3$,[@Garcia-Munoz03] Fe$_2$O$_3$,[@Rozenberg02] or FeI$_2$.[@Rozenberg03] It was even suggested that as a rule the Mott transition coincides with a structural phase transition and volume collapse.[@Rozenberg03] Our finding of a pressure-induced structural phase transition in TiOBr and TiOCl at the same pressure where the Mott-Hubbard gap closes, is in agreement with such an interpretation of the Mott-Hubbard transition.
The importance of electronic correlations for the underlying mechanism of the observed gap closure in TiO$X$ is suggested by the effective mass of the charge carriers, as estimated from the spectral weight analysis. As demonstrated in Sec. \[transmittance\], for both TiOBr and TiOCl the spectral weight becomes pressure-independent above a certain pressure \[see inset of Fig. \[fig:cond-all\] and Fig. 4(b) in Ref. \]. From the high-pressure value of the spectral weight one can estimate an effective density of charge carriers according to Eq. (\[carrierdensity\]),[@comment1] averaged over the two studied crystal directions, to $n_{eff}$=$(0.6 \pm 0.2)$$\cdot$$10^{21}$cm$^{-3}$ for TiOBr and $n_{eff}$=$(1.3 \pm 0.2)$$\cdot$$10^{21}$cm$^{-3}$ for TiOCl for the same frequency range.[@Kuntscher06] Based on these values the effective number of charge carriers per Ti atom, $N_{eff}$, can in principle be calculated, if the unit cell volume and the number of formula units per unit cell are known. For an estimate of $N_{eff}$ we assumed a high-pressure volume of 93 Å$^3$ (82 Å$^3$) and a number of formula units per unit cell of $Z$=2 ($Z$=2) for TiOBr (TiOCl). Hereby, we neglected the change of the crystal symmetry and a possible collapse of the unit cell volume at the insulator-to-metal transition; the latter effect usually ranges between 1 and 10 %. [@McWhan70; @Yoo05; @Rozenberg02; @Rozenberg03] Under these assumptions we obtained $N_{eff}$=0.03 $\pm$0.01 for TiOBr and $N_{eff}$=0.05 $\pm$0.01 in the case of TiOCl. I. e., $N_{eff}$ is much lower than the expected value of 1.
One possible explanation for the reduced value of $N_{eff}$ could be that the charge carriers only partly contribute to the excitations in the specified frequency range. In addition, the reduction might be related to an enhanced effective mass of the charge carriers, typically found in materials with strong electronic correlations. The mass enhancement in TiO$X$ might get stronger when the system approaches the Mott insulating state, as suggested by the suppressed carrier density with decreasing pressure \[see inset of Fig. \[fig:cond-all\] and Fig. 4(b) in Ref. \]. A mass enhancement in the vicinity of a transition to a Mott insulator was theoretically predicted [@Brinkman70] and observed in some cases. [@Qazilbash06; @Merino08]
In order to understand the main mechanism driving the observed closure of the Mott-Hubbard gap, the crystal structure of the high-pressure phase might be an important piece of information. However, up to now we could not resolve the symmetry of the crystal structure at high pressures. In this regard, density-functional calculations [@Valenti08] might provide predictions which could then be tested on our x-ray diffraction data.
Finally, we would like to comment on the possibility of the metallic character of the high-pressure phase in TiO$X$. Based on our data we cannot prove the existence of a Drude term in the optical response related to coherent quasiparticles at high pressures.[@Rozenberg95] It was, however, demonstrated theoretically and experimentally in various cases, that above a certain temperature the absence of a Drude term in a correlated system located on the metallic side of the Mott transition is to be expected: A lot of theoretical work has been devoted to the transport properties of systems close to the first-order Mott transition at low temperatures and in the crossover regime at elevated temperatures. Optical conductivity spectra for different interaction strengths and different temperatures were obtained in a dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) treatment of the Hubbard model.[@Georges96] It was shown that only below a certain temperature $T_{coh}$ a quasiparticle peak involving coherent excitations appears at the Fermi energy and the Fermi liquid description applies. As a result, only at low temperatures ($T$$<$$T_{coh}$) a Drude term should be present in the optical conductivity spectrum. With increasing temperature, the quasiparticle peak is gradually destroyed and disappears above the temperature $T_{coh}$. Such a behavior was demonstrated for the two-dimensional organic charge-transfer salts $\kappa$-(BEDT-TTF)$_2$Cu\[N(CN)$_2$\]Br$_x$Cl$_{1-x}$:[@Merino08] Even for a high Br content, i.e., on the metallic side of the Mott transition, no Drude-like peak is present down to approx. 50 K. Only below this temperature a Drude-like feature appears, which can be described with an extended Drude model, with a frequency-dependent scattering rate and effective mass.
The optical conductivity spectra of TiO$X$ as a function of pressure were obtained at room temperature. According to the findings for organic salts mentioned above and in other cases, [@Georges96] the seeming absence of a Drude-like contribution in the optical response of TiO$X$ at high pressures could be explained by the elevated measurement temperature. Still, the metallic state appears to be the most plausible high-pressure phase for TiO$X$ based on our experimental results. The shape of the optical conductivity spectra at high pressures is, however, an open issue. Furthermore, a direct proof of the Drude response might be obtainable by pressure-dependent reflectance measurements carried out at low temperatures.
Conclusions {#summary}
===========
In conclusion, we have studied the pressure-dependent optical response of TiOBr and TiOCl at room temperature by transmittance and reflectance measurements in combination with pressure-dependent x-ray powder diffraction experiments. For both compounds the infrared transmittance is suppressed above a critical pressure. The pressure-dependent reflectance and corresponding optical conductivity spectra reveal additional electronic excitations at high pressures extending down to the far-infrared range. These findings suggest the closure of the Mott-Hubbard gap under pressure. For TiOBr the pressure-induced suppression of the infrared transmittance also occurs at 23 K, where the compounds is in the spin-Peierls phase at ambient pressure. The orbital excitations in TiOBr shift linearly to higher frequency with increasing pressure. The shifts are not completely reversible upon pressure release, especially at low temperatures.
The pressure-induced changes occur at somewhat lower pressure in the case of TiOBr compared to TiOCl. This difference cannot be attributed to the more two-dimensional character of TiOBr, since according to the ratio of the crystal parameters $a$ and $b$ the system becomes more one-dimensional under pressure, i.e., the high-pressure state seems to be rather of one-dimenisonal than of two-dimensional character.
The closure of the Mott-Hubbard gap coincides with a structural phase transition. From the results of our pressure-dependent x-ray powder diffraction measurements on TiOBr and TiOCl we could furthermore extract the pressure-dependence of the lattice parameters and of the unit cell volume. The latter can be well described by the Murnaghan equation. The enhancement of the effective mass of the charge carriers around the critical pressure suggests the importance of electronic correlations for the mechanism driving the transition. However, the lattice degree of freedom seems to play in important role as well, since the crystal symmetry changes at the transition pressure.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
We acknowledge the ANKA Angströmquelle Karlsruhe for the provision of beamtime and we would like to thank B. Gasharova, Y.-L. Mathis, D. Moss, and M. Süpfle for assistance using the beamline ANKA-IR. Facilities and beamtime provided by the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility is gratefully acknowledged. We furthermore thank K. Syassen for providing valuable information about the optical design of the infrared microscope with large working distance. Fruitful discussions with Jan Kunes are greatfully acknowledged. Financial support by the DFG, including the Emmy Noether-program, SFB 484, and DFG-CL124/6-1, is acknowledged.
[10]{}
A. Seidel. C. A. Marianetti, F. C. Chou, B. Ceder, and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 020405 (2003).
V. Kataev, J. Baier, A. Möller, L. Jongen, G. Meyer, and A. Freimuth, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 140405 (R) (2003).
G. Caimi, L. Degiorgi, N. N. Kovaleva, P. Lemmens, and F. C. Chou, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 125108 (2004).
M. Shaz, S. van Smaalen, L. Palatinus, M. Hoinkis, M. Klemm, S. Horn, and R. Claessen, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 100405 (2005).
S. van Smaalen, L. Palatinus, and A. Schönleber, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 020105(R) (2005).
R. Rückamp, J. Baier, M. Kriener, M. W. Haverkort, T. Lorenz, G. S. Uhrig, L. Jongen, A. Möller, G. Meyer, and M. Grüninger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 097203 (2005).
C. A. Kuntscher, S. Frank, A. Pashkin, M. Hoinkis, M. Klemm, M. Sing, S. Horn, and R. Claessen, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 184402 (2006).
C. A. Kuntscher, S. Frank, A. Pashkin, H. Hoffmann, A. Schönleber, S. van Smaalen, M. Hanfland, S. Glawion, M. Klemm, M. Sing, S. Horn and R. Claessen, Phys. Rev. B [**76**]{}, 241101(R) (2007).
R. J. Beynon and J. A. Wilson, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**5**]{}, 1983 (1993).
L. Craco, M. S. Laad, and E. Müller-Hartmann, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**18**]{}, 10943 (2006); arXiv:cond-mat/0410472.
W. Gaebel, M. Klemm, C. A. Kuntscher, A. Pashkin, H. Hoffmann, and S. Horn, unpublished.
H. Schäfer, F. Wartenpfuhl, and E. Weise, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. [**295**]{}, 268 (1958).
H. G. von Schnering, M. Collin, and M. Hassheider, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. [**387**]{}, 137 (1972).
H. K Mao, J. Xu, and P.M. Bell, J. Geophys. Res. [**91**]{}, 4673 (1986).
S. Frank, C. A. Kuntscher, I. Loa, K. Syassen, and F. Lichtenberg, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 054105 (2006).
G. Huber, K. Syassen, and W. B. Holzapfel, Phys. Rev. B [**15**]{}, 5123 (1977).
A. Hammersley, computer program FIT2D (ESRF, Grenoble, 1998).
V. Petricek, M. Dusek, and L. Palatinus. Jana2000. A crystallographic computing system. Institute of Physics, Praha, Czech Republic (2006).
T. Sasaki, M. Mizumaki, K. Kato, Y. Watabe, Y. Nishihata, M. Takata, and J. Akimitsu, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**74**]{}, 2185 (2005).
C. Kato, Y. Kobayashi, and M. Sato, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**74**]{}, 473 (2005).
G. Caimi, L. Degiorgi, P. Lemmens, and F. C. Chou, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**16**]{}, 5583 (2004).
F. D. Murnaghan, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. [**30**]{}, 244 (1944).
M. Hanfland, H. Beister, and K. Syassen, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 12598 (1989).
M. Hoinkis, M. Sing, S. Glawion, L. Pisani, R. Valenti, S. van Smaalen, M. Klemm, S. Horn, and R. Claessen, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 245124 (2007).
E. Arcangeletti, L. Baldassarre, D. Di Castro, S. Lupi, L. Malavasi, C. Marini, A. Perucchi, and P. Postorino, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 196406 (2007).
D. B. McWhan and J. P. Remeika, Phys. Rev. B [**2**]{}, 3734 (1970).
D. B. McWhan, J. P. Remeika, T. M. Rice, W. F. Brinkman, J. P. Maita, and A. Menth, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**27**]{}, 941 (1971).
D. B. McWhan, A. Menth, J. P. Remeika, W. F. Brinkman, and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B [**7**]{}, 1920 (1973).
C. S. Yoo, B. Maddox, J.-H. P. Klepeis, V. Iota, W. Evans, A. McMahan, M. Y. Hu, P. Chow, M. Somayazulu, D. Häusermann, R. T. Scalettar, and W. E. Pickett, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 115502 (2005).
J. L. Garcia-Munoz, M. Amboage, M. Hanfland, J. A. Alonso, M. J. Martinez-Lope, and R. Mortimer, High Pressure Research, [**23**]{}, 171 (2003).
G. Kh. Rozenberg, L. S. Dubrovinsky, M. P. Pasternak, O. Naaman, T. Le Bihan, and R. Ahuja, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 064112 (2002).
G. Kh. Rozenberg, M. P. Pasternak, W. M. Xu, L. S. Dubrovinsky, J. M. Osorio Guillen, R. Ahuja, B. Johansson, and T. Le Bihan, Phys. Rev. B [**68**]{}, 064105 (2003).
For the estimation of the effective carrier density $n_{eff}$ we used the free electron mass. Furthermore, we assumed a background dielectric constant $\epsilon_\infty$$\approx$3 in the Drude-Lorentz fitting, as described in Sec. \[transmittance\].
W. F. Brinkman and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. B [**2**]{}, 4302 (1970).
M. M. Qazilbash, K. S. Burch, D. Whisler, D. Shrekenhamer, B. G. Chae, H. T. Kim, and D. N. Basov, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 205118 (2006).
J. Merino, M. Dumm, N. Drichko, M. Dressel, and Ross H. McKenzie, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 086404 (2008).
Y.Z. Zhang, H.O. Jeschke, and R. Valenti, in preparation.
M. J. Rozenberg, G. Kotliar, H. Kajueter, G. A. Thomas, D. H. Rapkine, J. M. Honig, and P. Metcalf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 105 (1995).
See, for example, A. Georges, G. Kotliar, W. Krauth, and M. J. Rozenberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**68**]{}, 13 (1996); M. J. Rozenberg, T. Kotliar, H. Kajueter, G. A. Thomas, D. H. Rapkine, J. M. Honig, and P. Metcalf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 105 (1995); J. Merino and R. H. McKenzie, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 7996 (2000).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- '[^1]'
title: 'Ginzburg-Landau Equations for Coexistent States of Superconductivity and Antiferromagnetism in $t-J$ Model '
---
Introduction
============
The discovery of the coexistence of antiferromagnetism (AF) and superconductivity (SC) in multilayer high-$T_c$ cuprates has stimulated wide interest. [@Kitaoka; @Mukuda] Antiferromagnetic superexchange interactions in high-$T_C$ cuprate superconductors, which are strongly correlated electron systems, are thought to be the origin of two ordered states; thus understanding the condition for coexistence may give insight into the mechanism of superconductivity.
In single-layer and bilayer cuprates such as La- and Y-based compounds, it has been well known that AF is easily suppressed by a tiny amount of carrier doping.[@Keimer; @Sanna] On the contrary in multilayer systems (in this paper the term “multilayer” will refer to three or more layers in a unit cell) such as HgBa$_2$Ca$_4$Cu$_5$O$_{12+y}$, AF survives up to much higher doping rate and coexists with SC state. NMR measurements revealed that the coexistence was not due to a proximity effect but a genuine phase transition within a CuO$_2$ plane.[@Kitaoka; @Mukuda] Multilayer cuprates have flat CuO$_2$ planes with a perfect square lattice and are known to be free from disorder in contrast to La- and Y-based compounds. Combined with their high $T_C$ of more than 100K,[@Iyo] multilayer cuprates can be viewed as ideal systems to study the mechanism of high $T_C$. In this sense it is desirable to explore the nature of the coexistent state of AF and SC theoretically.
Low-energy electronic states of high-$T_C$ cuprates are described by the $t-J$ model. [@Anderson; @Ogata; @Lee] In the case of single-layer and bilayer systems the AF order is easily destabilized by strong fluctuations due to low dimensionality. Assuming the absence of AF order, mean-field (MF) theories[@Kotliar; @Suzumura] based on the slave-boson (SB) scheme[@Zou] to treat the condition of no double occupancy and the gauge theory,[@Nagaosa; @Lee] which takes into account the low-energy fluctuations around mean-fields, capture many important properties of single-layer and bilayer high-$T_C$ cuprates. In multilayer systems, on the other hand, relatively strong three dimensionality may stabilize AF order.[@KK1; @Yamase2] This situation can be suitably treated by MF theories for the $t-J$ model by taking AF order into account. Actually MF calculations for the $t-J$ model predicted that AF survives up to $\delta \lesssim 0.1-0.15$ ($\delta$ being the doping rate) and it may coexist with SC,[@Inaba; @Yamase; @KK1; @Yamase2] and a similar result was obtained by the variational Monte Carlo method.[@Himeda]
In this paper, we derive GL equations and the GL free energy microscopically from the two-dimensional $t-J$ model with extended transfer integrals (extended $t-J$ model) based on the SBMF approximation. In the MF approach the phase diagram will not be sensitive to the number of layers. It is the shape of the Fermi surface, in particular, the condition for the nesting that is crucial to determine the occurrence of the coexistent state, and an electronlike Fermi surface can lead to the experimentally observed phase diagram.[@KK1; @Yamase2] In multilayer cuprates we expect that such an electronlike Fermi surface may be stabilized as one of the Fermi surface due to strong hybridization between layers. This is the reason why we treat a single-layer (single-band) model, and we simulate the difference of the Fermi surface by including the extended transfer integrals.
The derived GL theory can be used to investigate the spatial dependence of the AF and SC order parameters (OPs) in high-$T_C$ cuprates, and it may provide information on the electronic states in these systems. For example, near the surface or impurity the OPs are suppressed, and their recovery to the bulk values will provide the coherence length, which reflect the underlying electronic structures of each system. Although the GL theory is reliable only qualitatively except near $T_C$, it can give a simple and intuitive description of the coexistence and competition of multiple OPs. Thus, it is complementary to more sophisticated methods such as the Bogoliubov-de Gennes and quasiclassical Green’s function theory. Previously various models have been employed to derive GL equations microscopically; a continuum[@Ren] and tight-binding model[@Feder] with $s$- and $d$-wave SCOPs, Hubbard model with nearest-neighbor attractive interactions,[@KKYano] a model with a spin generalized BCS term and Heisenberg exchange term,[@Dahl] and the $t-J$ model (without taking AF order into account)[@KKSig]. The method of deriving GL equations in this work is based on that by Gor’kov[@Gorkov] with the extension to include AF order.[@KKYano]
This paper is organized as follows. In $\S2$, we present the model and treat it by the SBMF approximation. GL equations and the GL free energy are derived in $\S3$. Section 4 is devoted to summary and discussion.
Model and Mean-Field Approximation
==================================
We consider the extended $t-J$ model on a square lattice whose Hamiltonian is given as $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle H = -\sum_{j,\ell,\sigma}
t_{j\ell} e^{i\phi_{j\ell}} {\tilde c}^\dagger_{j\sigma} {\tilde c}_{\ell\sigma}
+J\sum_{\langle j,\ell\rangle} {\bf S}_j\cdot {\bf S}_\ell,
%-\mu \sum_{j\sigma} c^\dagger_{j\sigma}c_{j\sigma}\end{aligned}$$ where the transfer integrals $t_{j\ell}$ are finite for the first- ($t$), second- ($t'$), and third-nearest-neighbor bonds ($t''$), and vanish otherwise. $J (>0)$ is the antiferromagnetic superexchange interaction and $\langle j,\ell \rangle$ denotes the nearest-neighbor bonds. The magnetic field is taken into account using the Peierls phase $\phi_{j,\ell} \equiv \frac{\pi}{\phi_0} \int_j^\ell {\bf A}\cdot d{\bf l}$, with ${\bf A}$ and $\phi_0 = \frac{hc}{2e}$ being the vector potential and flux quantum, respectively. ${\tilde c}_{j\sigma}$ is the electron operator in Fock space without double occupancy, and we treat this condition using the SB method[@Zou] by writing ${\tilde c}_{j\sigma}=b_j^\dagger f_{j\sigma}$ under the local constraint $\sum_{\sigma}f_{j\,\sigma}^{\dagger}f_{j\,\sigma}
+ b_j^{\dagger}b_j = 1$ at every $j$ site. Here $f_{j\sigma}$ ($b_j$) is a fermion (boson) operator that carries spin $\sigma$ (charge $e$); the fermions (bosons) are frequently referred to as spinons (holons). The spin operator is expressed as $%\displaystyle
{\bf S}_j = \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\alpha,\beta}
f^\dagger_{j\alpha} {\bf \sigma}_{\alpha\beta}f_{j\beta}$.
We decouple Hamiltonian eq. (1) in the following manner. [@Inaba; @Yamase; @KK1; @Yamase2] The bond order parameters $\langle \sum_\sigma f^\dagger_{j\sigma}f_{\ell\sigma} \rangle$ and $\langle b^\dagger_j b_\ell\rangle$ are introduced and we denote $\chi_{j,\ell}/2 =
\langle f^\dagger_{j\uparrow}f_{\ell\uparrow} \rangle
= \langle f^\dagger_{j\downarrow}f_{\ell\downarrow} \rangle$ for the nearest-neighbor bond. Although the bosons are not condensed in purely two-dimensional systems at finite temperature ($T$), they are almost condensed at low $T$ and for finite carrier doping $\delta (\gtrsim 0.02)$.[@Inaba] Hence we approximate $\langle b_j \rangle \approx {\sqrt \delta}$ and $\langle b^\dagger_ib_j\rangle \approx \delta$. The magnetization is defined by $m_j = \frac{1}{2}\langle f^\dagger_{j\uparrow}f_{j\uparrow}
- f^\dagger_{j\downarrow}f_{j\downarrow} \rangle $, and the superconducting OP on the bond $\langle j,\ell\rangle$ (under the assumption of the Bose condensation of holons) is given as $\Delta_{j,\ell} = \langle f_{j\uparrow}f_{\ell\downarrow}\rangle$.
Fluctuations around the mean-field solutions in the slave-boson scheme can be treated as the gauge field. It is known that this gauge field may affect the physical properties of the solutions in a serious way.[@Nagaosa] However, in the SC and AF states the effect of the gauge field is strongly suppressed.[@LeeNag; @DKim] Since we are interested in these ordered states, we do not consider the effect of gauge-field fluctuations.
In the following we are mainly interested in a region around the tetracritical point where the four states, AF, $d_{x^2-y^2}$-wave SC, their coexistence, and the normal states become identical. The onset temperature of the bond OPs is much higher than that for AF ($T_N$) and SC ($T_C$) in this doping region, so that they are almost independent of temperature near the tetracritical point. We consider only the spatial variations of $m_j$ and $\Delta_{j,\ell}$ assuming that $\chi_{j,\ell}$ is uniform in space. (Hereafter we denote it as $\chi$.) Then the mean-field Hamiltonian is given as $$\begin{array}{rl}
H_{MFA} = & \displaystyle -\sum_{j,\sigma}\Big[
\sum_{\delta=\pm x,\pm y} \big(t\delta e^{i\phi_{j+\delta,j}}
+ \frac{3J}{8}\chi\big) f^\dagger_{j+\delta,\sigma}f_{j\sigma}
+ t'\delta\sum_{\delta=\pm x \pm y}
e^{i\phi_{j+\delta,j}} f^\dagger_{j+\delta,\sigma}f_{j\sigma} \\
+ & \displaystyle t''\delta\sum_{\delta=\pm 2x, \pm 2y}
e^{i\phi_{j+\delta,j}} f^\dagger_{j+\delta,\sigma}f_{j\sigma} \Big]
- \mu\sum_{j,\sigma} f^\dagger_{j\sigma}f_{j\sigma}
+\frac{J}{2}\sum_j\sum_{\delta=\pm x,\pm y}
m_{j+\delta} \big(f^\dagger_{j\uparrow}f_{l\uparrow}
- f^\dagger_{j\downarrow}f_{l\downarrow}\big) \\
+ & \displaystyle \frac{J}{2}\sum_j \sum_{\delta=\pm x,\pm y}
\big[\Delta_{j,j+\delta}\big(f^\dagger_{j+\delta\uparrow}f^\dagger_{j\downarrow}
-\frac{1}{2}f^\dagger_{j+\delta\downarrow}f^\dagger_{j\uparrow}\big) + h.c.\big] + E_0,
\end{array}$$ with $$E_0= - J \sum_{\langle j,\ell \rangle} m_j m_\ell
+J\sum_{\langle j,\ell\rangle}\Big(\frac{1}{2}\Delta_{j,\ell}\Delta^*_{\ell,j}
+\frac{1}{4}|\Delta_{j,\ell}|^2\Big).$$
First we solve the self-consistency equations for $\chi$ and the chemical potential $\mu$ in the absence of $m$, $\Delta$, and ${\bf A}$. Self-consistency equations that determine $\chi$ and $\mu$ as functions of $T$ and $\delta$ are given as $$%\begin{array}{rl}
\displaystyle \chi = \frac{1}{N}\sum_p (\cos p_x+\cos p_y)f(\xi_p) , \ \
\delta= 1 - \frac{2}{N}\sum_pf(\xi_p),
%\end{array}$$ where $\xi_p = -(2t\delta + \frac{3J}{4}\chi)(\cos p_x+\cos p_y)
-4t'\delta\cos p_x \cos p_y - 2t''\delta(\cos 2p_x+\cos 2p_y) -\mu$, with $f$ and $N$ being the Fermi function and the total number of lattice sites, respectively. (Lattice constant is taken to be unity.) In the next section we will carry out the GL expansion to obtain GL equations for $m$ and $\Delta$.
For the values of $t'$ and $t''$ which reproduce the experimentally obtained phase diagram, incommensurate (IC) as well as commensurate (C) AF order may be possible around the tetracritical point depending on the choice of the parameters.[@Yamase2] (There are several distinct parameter sets which lead to similar phase diagrams.) Experimentally, since the NMR does not directly discriminate different ordering patterns of magnetism, at present it is not clear whether ICAF order exists. Then we will consider only the CAF state as a feasible candidate.
\[sec:GL\]GL Equations and GL Free Energy
=========================================
In this section we derive GL equations and the GL free energy. The procedure is essentially the same as that used in ref.20. Coupled equations for Green’s functions $G_\sigma(j,\ell,\tau) =
-\langle T_\tau f_{j\sigma}(\tau)f_{\ell\sigma}^\dagger\rangle$ and $F^\dagger_{\sigma\sigma'}(j,\ell,\tau) =
-\langle T_\tau f_{j\sigma}^\dagger(\tau)f_{\ell\sigma'}^\dagger\rangle$ can be derived from their equations of motion (Gor’kov equations) as
$$\begin{array}{rl}
G_\uparrow(j,\ell,i\varepsilon_n) = & \displaystyle {\tilde G}_0(j,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)
+ \frac{J}{2}\sum_{k,\delta_1} {\tilde G}_0(j,k,i\varepsilon_n)
\\ & \displaystyle \times
\Big[\Big(\Delta_{k+\delta_1,k}+\frac{1}{2}\Delta_{k,k+\delta_1}\Big)
F^\dagger_{\downarrow\uparrow}(k+\delta_1,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)
%\\ & \displaystyle
+m_{k+\delta_1}
G_\uparrow(k,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)\Big], \\
%
G_\downarrow(j,\ell,i\varepsilon_n) =
& \displaystyle {\tilde G}_0(j,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)
- \frac{J}{2}\sum_{k,\delta_1}{\tilde G}_0(j,k,i\varepsilon_n)
\\ & \displaystyle \times
\Big[\Big(\Delta_{k,k+\delta_1}+\frac{1}{2}\Delta_{k+\delta_1,k}\Big)
F^\dagger_{\uparrow\downarrow}(k+\delta_1,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)
%\\ & \displaystyle
+ m_{k+\delta_1}
G_\downarrow(k,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)\Big], \\
%
F^\dagger_{\downarrow\uparrow}(j,\ell,i\varepsilon_n) = & \displaystyle
- \frac{J}{2}\sum_{k,\delta_1} {\tilde G}_0(k,j,-i\varepsilon_n)
\\ & \displaystyle \times
\Big[\Big(\Delta^*_{k,k+\delta_1}+\frac{1}{2}\Delta^*_{k+\delta_1,k}\Big)
G_\uparrow(k+\delta_1,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)
%\\ & \displaystyle
+ m_{k+\delta_1}
F^\dagger_{\downarrow\uparrow}(k,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)\Big], \\
%
F^\dagger_{\uparrow\downarrow}(j,\ell,i\varepsilon_n) = & \displaystyle
\frac{J}{2}\sum_{k,\delta_1} {\tilde G}_0(k,j,-i\varepsilon_n)
\\ & \displaystyle \times
\Big[\Big(\Delta^*_{k+\delta_1,k}+\frac{1}{2}\Delta^*_{k,k+\delta_1}\Big)
G_\downarrow(k+\delta_1,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)
%\\ & \displaystyle
+ m_{k+\delta_1}
F^\dagger_{\uparrow\downarrow}(k,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)\Big], \\
\end{array}$$
where the summation on $\delta_1$ ($k$) is over $\pm {\hat x}$ and $\pm {\hat y}$ (all sites). Here, ${\tilde G}_0(j,\ell,i\omega_n)$ is Green’s function for the system without $\Delta$ and $m$ but with ${\bf A}$. ${\tilde G}_0(j,\ell,i\omega_n)$ is related to Green’s function for the system without ${\bf A}$, $G_0$, as $ {\tilde G}_0(j,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)
\sim G_0(j,\ell,i\varepsilon_n) e^{i\phi_{j,\ell}}$, with $G_0(j,\ell,i\varepsilon_n)$ being the Fourier transform of $G_0({\bf p},i\varepsilon_n) = 1/(i\varepsilon_n-\xi_p)$. In the expression of $\xi_p$, the bond order parameter $\chi$ and the chemical potential $\mu$ determined by eq.(4) are substituted.
Spin-singlet and spin-triplet SCOPs on the bond $(j,j+\eta)$ are expressed in terms of Green’s functions $F_{\uparrow\downarrow}^\dagger$ and $F_{\downarrow\uparrow}^\dagger$, $$\begin{array}{rl}
\displaystyle (\Delta_\eta^{(S)}(j))^* \equiv & \displaystyle \frac{1}{2} \langle
f_{j\uparrow}f_{j+\eta\downarrow} - f_{j\downarrow}f_{j+\eta\uparrow}\rangle^*
= \frac{1}{2} \big(\Delta_{j,j+\eta}+\Delta_{j+\eta,j}\big)^* \\
= & \displaystyle \frac{T}{2} \sum_{\varepsilon_n}
\Big[F^\dagger_{\uparrow\downarrow}(j+\eta,j,i\varepsilon_n)
- F^\dagger_{\downarrow\uparrow}(j+\eta,j,i\varepsilon_n)\Big], \\
\displaystyle (\Delta_\eta^{(T)}(j))^* \equiv & \displaystyle\frac{1}{2} \langle
f_{j\uparrow}f_{j+\eta\downarrow} + f_{j\downarrow}f_{j+\eta\uparrow}\rangle^*
= \frac{1}{2} \big(\Delta_{j,j+\eta}-\Delta_{j+\eta,j} \big)^* \\
= & \displaystyle -\frac{T}{2} \sum_{\varepsilon_n}
\Big[F^\dagger_{\uparrow\downarrow}(j+\eta,j,i\varepsilon_n)
+ F^\dagger_{\downarrow\uparrow}(j+\eta,j,i\varepsilon_n)\Big], \\
\end{array}$$ and the staggered magnetization $M_j \equiv m_j e^{i{\bf Q}\cdot{\bf r}_j}$ (${\bf Q} = (\pi,\pi)$) is similarly given using $G_{\uparrow}$ and $G_{\downarrow}$, $$\begin{array}{rl}
M_j \equiv & \displaystyle
\frac{1 }{2} \langle f^\dagger_{j\uparrow}f_{j\uparrow}
- f^\dagger_{j\downarrow}f_{j\downarrow} \rangle e^{i{\vec Q}\cdot{\vec r}_j} \\
= & \displaystyle \frac{T}{2} \sum_{\varepsilon_n}
\big[G_\uparrow(j,j,i\varepsilon_n)-G_\downarrow(j,j,i\varepsilon_n) \big]
e^{i{\vec Q}\cdot{\vec r}_j}.
\end{array}$$ We substitute eq. (5) into eqs. (6) and (7) iteratively and keep the terms up to the third order in OPs. In the coexistent state of AF and SC, spin-triplet SCOPs that oscillate in a similar manner as the staggered magnetization may occur[@Fenton; @Mura1; @Mura2; @Kyung; @Apens], and they are called the $\pi$-triplet SCOPs. The SCOPs of each symmetry, $\Delta_s$ ($s$-wave), $\Delta_d$ ($d$-wave), and $\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)}$ ($\pi$-triplet $px(y)$-wave), can be constructed by making a linear combination of eq.(6), $$\begin{array}{rl}
\Delta_s(j) = & \displaystyle \frac{1}{4} \sum_{\eta=\pm{\hat x},\pm{\hat y}}
\Delta_\eta^{(S)}(j) , \ \
\Delta_d(j) = \frac{1}{4} \Big[\sum_{\eta=\pm{\hat x}} \Delta_\eta^{(S)}(j)
- \sum_{\eta=\pm{\hat y}} \Delta_\eta^{(S)}(j)\Big],
\\
& \displaystyle \Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)}(j) =
\frac{1}{2} \big[\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{{\hat x}(y)}(j) +
\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{-{\hat x}(y)}(j)\big].
\end{array}$$
Assuming that the SCOPs and $M$ are slowly varying, we take a continuum limit. The OPs in the linear terms are expanded in powers of derivatives up tp the second order, and the Peierls phase is also expanded in powers of ${\bf A}$ to the same order. Then after straightforward but lengthy calculations we get the following GL equations:
$$\begin{array}{rl}
& \displaystyle
\alpha_s \Delta_s + 2\beta_s |\Delta_s|^2\Delta_s
- K_s (D_x^2+D_y^2) \Delta_s - K_{ds}(D_x^2-D_y^2)\Delta_d \\
+ & \displaystyle \gamma_1|\Delta_d|^2\Delta_s + 2\gamma_2\Delta_d^2\Delta_s^*
+ \gamma_3(|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}|^2+|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py}|^2)\Delta_s
+ 2\gamma_5((\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px})^2+(\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py})^2)\Delta_s^* \\
+ & \displaystyle \gamma_7(|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}|^2
-|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py}|^2)\Delta_d
+ \gamma_8((\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px})^2-(\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py})^2)\Delta_d^*
+ \gamma_9(\Delta^{(\pi T)*}_{px}\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py} + c.c.)\Delta_s \\
+ & \displaystyle 2\gamma_{11}\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py}\Delta_s^*
+ \gamma_{ms}M^2\Delta_s + \gamma_{spm}M
(\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}+\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py})
= 0,
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{rl}
& \displaystyle
\alpha_d \Delta_d + 2\beta_d |\Delta_d|^2\Delta_d
- K_d (D_x^2+D_y^2) \Delta_d - K_{ds}(D_x^2-D_y^2)\Delta_s \\
+ & \displaystyle \gamma_1|\Delta_s|^2\Delta_d + 2\gamma_2\Delta_s^2\Delta_d^*
+ \gamma_4(|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}|^2+|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py}|^2)\Delta_d
+ 2\gamma_6((\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px})^2+(\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py})^2)\Delta_d^* \\
+ & \displaystyle \gamma_7(|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}|^2
-|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py}|^2)\Delta_s
+ \gamma_8((\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px})^2-(\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py})^2)\Delta_s^*
+ \gamma_{10}(\Delta^{(\pi T)*}_{px}\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py} + c.c.)\Delta_d \\
+ & \displaystyle 2\gamma_{12}\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py}\Delta_d^*
+ \gamma_{md}M^2\Delta_d
+ \gamma_{dpm}M(\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}-\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py})
= 0,
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{rl}
& \displaystyle
\alpha_{p1} \Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)} + \alpha_{p2} \Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py(x)}
+ 2\beta_p |\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)}|^2\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)} \\
- & \displaystyle K_{p1}D_{x(y)}^2\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)}
-K_{p2}D_{y(x)}^2\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)}
- K_{p3}(D_x^2+D_y^2)\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py(x)} \\
+ & \displaystyle \gamma_{p1}|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py(x)}|^2\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)}
+ 2\gamma_{p2}(\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py(x)})^2\Delta^{(\pi T)*}_{px(y)} \\
+ & \displaystyle \gamma_{p3}(2|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)}|^2\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py(x)}
+ (\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)})^2\Delta^{(\pi T)*}_{py(x)}
+|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py(x)}|^2\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py(x)}) \\
+ & \displaystyle (\gamma_3|\Delta_s|^2+\gamma_4|\Delta_d|^2)
\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)}
+ 2(\gamma_5\Delta_s^2+\gamma_6\Delta_d^2) \Delta^{(\pi T)*}_{px(y)} \\
\pm & \displaystyle \gamma_7(\Delta_s\Delta_d^*+c.c.)\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)}
\pm 2\gamma_8 \Delta_s\Delta_d\Delta^{(\pi T)*}_{px(y)}
+(\gamma_9|\Delta_s|^2+\gamma_{10}|\Delta_d|^2)\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py(x)}
\\
+ & \displaystyle (\gamma_{11}\Delta_s^2+\gamma_{12}\Delta_d^2)
\Delta^{(\pi T)*}_{py(x)}
+(\gamma_{mp1}\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px(y)}
+\gamma_{mp2}\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py(x)})M^2 \\
+ & \displaystyle (\gamma_{spm}\Delta_s \pm \gamma_{dpm}\Delta_d)M
= 0,
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{rl}
& \displaystyle
\alpha_m M+ 2\beta_m M^3 -K_m(\nabla_x^2+\nabla_y^2)M \\
+ & \displaystyle (\gamma_{ms}|\Delta_s|^2+\gamma_{md}|\Delta_d|^2)M
+ [\gamma_{mp1}(|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}|^2+|\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py}|^2)
+\gamma_{mp2}(\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}\Delta^{(\pi T)*}_{py}+c.c.)]M \\
+ & \displaystyle \frac{1}{2}
\gamma_{spm}[\Delta_s^*(\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}+\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py}) +c.c.]
+ \frac{1}{2} \gamma_{dpm}[\Delta_d^*(\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{px}
-\Delta^{(\pi T)}_{py})+c.c.]
= 0,
\end{array}$$
where the coefficients appearing in eqs. (9)-(12) are given in the Appendix, and ${\bf D}$ is the gauge-invariant gradient defined as $ {\bf D} \equiv {\bf \nabla} +\frac{2\pi i}{\phi_0}{\bf A}$. Equations (9)-(12) are the coupled equations that determine SCOPs and the staggered magnetization self-consistently.
The GL free energy $F$ up to the fourth order in OPs can be obtained from the above GL equations in such a way that the variations of $F$ with respect to OPs reproduce eqs. (9)-(12). The results are written as follows: $$\begin{array}{rl}
%
\displaystyle F = & \displaystyle F_S + F_T + F_{ST} +F_M + F_{SM}
+ F_{TM} + F_{STM}, \\
%
F_S = &\displaystyle \int d^2{\bf r} \Big[
\alpha_s |\Delta_s|^2 + \beta_s |\Delta_s|^4 + K_s |{\vec D} \Delta_s|^2
+ \alpha_d |\Delta_d|^2+ \beta_d |\Delta_d|^4 + K_d |{\vec D} \Delta_d|^2 \\
& \displaystyle + \gamma_1 |\Delta_s|^2|\Delta_d|^2
+ \gamma_2 \big(\Delta_d^2(\Delta_s^*)^2 + c.c.\big) \\
& + K_{ds} \big((D_x\Delta_d)(D_x\Delta_s)^{*}
- (D_y\Delta_d)(D_y\Delta_s)^{*} + c.c. \big)\Big], \\
%
F_T = &\displaystyle \int d^2{\bf r} \Big[
\alpha_{p1}\big(|\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}|^2 + |\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}|^2\big)
+ \alpha_{p2}\big(\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}(\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)})^* + c.c\big)
+ \beta_p\big(|\Delta_{px}|^4 + |\Delta_{py}|^4\big) \\
%
& \displaystyle + \gamma_{p1}
|\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}|^2|\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}|^2
+ \gamma_{p2}\big((\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)})^2(\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)*})^2
+ c.c.\big) \\
& \displaystyle
+ \gamma_{p3}
\big(|\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}|^2 + |\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}|^2\big)
\big(\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}(\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)})^*+ c.c.\big) \\
%
& \displaystyle + K_{p1}\big(|D_x\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}|^2
+ |D_y\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}|^2\big)
+ K_{p2}\big(|D_y\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}|^2
+ |D_x\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}|^2\big) \\
%
& \displaystyle + K_{p3}\big((D_x\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)})^{*}
(D_x\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)})
+ (D_y\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)})^{*}(D_y\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}) + c.c.\big)\Big], \\
%
%
F_{ST} = &\displaystyle \int d^2{\bf r} \Big[
\big(|\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}|^2 + |\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}|^2\big)
(\gamma_3|\Delta_s|^2 + \gamma_4|\Delta_d|^2) \\
%
& \displaystyle +
\big\{\big((\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)})^2 + (\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)})^2\big)
(\gamma_5(\Delta_s^{*})^2 + \gamma_6(\Delta_d^{*})^2) + c.c \big\}
\\
%
& \displaystyle + \gamma_7
\big(|\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}|^2 - |\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}|^2\big)
\big(\Delta_s^{*}\Delta_d + c.c.\big)
+ \gamma_8
\big\{\big((\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)})^2 - (\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)})^2\big)
\Delta_s^{*}\Delta_d^{*} + c.c.\big\}\Big] \\
& \displaystyle +
\big((\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)})^*\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}+c.c.\big)
(\gamma_9 |\Delta_s|^2 + \gamma_{10} |\Delta_d|^2) \\
& \displaystyle +
\big\{\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}
(\gamma_{11}(\Delta_s^*)^2 + \gamma_{12}(\Delta_d^*)^2)
+c.c. \big\}\Big], \\
%
F_M = &\displaystyle \int d^2{\bf r} \Big[
\alpha_m M^2 + \beta_m M^4
+ K_m \big(\nabla M\big)^2\big], \\
%
F_{SM} = &\displaystyle \int d^2{\bf r} \Big(
\gamma_{ms} M^2 |\Delta_s|^2
+ \gamma_{md} M^2 |\Delta_d|^2 \Big), \\
%
F_{TM} = &\displaystyle \int d^2{\bf r} \Big[
\gamma_{mp1} M^2\Big(|\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}|^2
+ |\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}|^2\Big)
\\ & \displaystyle
+ \gamma_{mp2} M^2 \Big(\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}
(\Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)})^* + c.c.\Big)\Big], \\
%
\displaystyle F_{STM} = &\displaystyle \int d^2{\bf r} \Big[
\gamma_{spm} M \Delta_s\big(\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}
+ \Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}\big)^*
\\ & \displaystyle
+ \gamma_{dpm} M \Delta_d\big(\Delta_{px}^{(\pi T)}
- \Delta_{py}^{(\pi T)}\big)^*
+ c.c.\Big].
\end{array}$$ Here, $F_S$, $F_T$, and $F_M$ are the free energy for the singlet and $\pi$-triplet SCOPs, and the staggered magnetization, respectively, while $F_{ST}$, $F_{SM}$, $F_{TM}$, and $F_{STM}$ describe their couplings. Note that $F$ is invariant under all the symmetry operations of the square lattice. $F_{SM}$ and $F_{TM}$ are the usual terms to represent the competition of SCOPs and $M$. $F_{STM}$ is a cubic term that couples spin-singlet SCOPs, staggered magnetization, and $\pi$-triplet SCOPS, and it induces $\pi$-triplet SCOPs in the coexistent state of AF and SC. Generally in the coexistent state of ferromagnetism and spin-singlet SC state, spin-triplet SCOPs may occur when OPs are not uniform in space.[@KK2; @Berg2; @Esch; @Buz; @Berg] In the GL theory this can be explained by a cubic term that has a gradient coupling of spin-singlet, triplet SCOPs, and the magnetization $m$.[@KKYano] In the AF state magnetization $m$ is oscillating (though the staggered magnetization $M$ is uniform) even in a uniform case, and thus $\pi-$triplet SCOP can arise irrespective of the spatial dependence of OPs.
The important point of the present results is that the coefficients appearing in GL equations and the GL free energy are determined microscopically. These values depend on the parameters of the microscopic model and they reflect the evolution of the shape of the Fermi surface. This property can be used to study the material dependence of the coexistent states in various multilayer high-$T_C$ cuprates.
\[sec:summary\]Summary and Discussion
=====================================
We have derived GL equations and the GL free energy microscopically from the extended $t-J$ model using the slave-boson mean-field approximation. The derived GL theory can be used to investigate the spatial dependence of the AF and SC order parameters in high-$T_C$ cuprate superconductors. By analyzing the spatial variations of order parameters using the present results, information on the electronic states of high-$T_C$ cuprates may be extracted.
A typical example to be studied is the state near the surface or impurity. The interface states of heterostructures composed of cuprate superconductors and magnetic materials are also worth studying. There the coexistence and competition of superconductivity and magnetism can occur in various ways depending on the materials used.
Numerical study of the GL equations for the above situations assuming various band structure (by choosing the extended transfer integrals) may be interesting, and this problem will be examined separately.
The author thanks H. Yamase for useful discussions.
Coefficients in GL Equations and GL Free Energy
===============================================
The coefficients appearing in GL equations \[eqs.(9)-(12)\] and the GL free energy \[eq.(13)\] are given as follows: $$\begin{array}{rl}
%
& \displaystyle\alpha_{s(d)} = 3J \Big(1-\frac{3J}{4N}\sum_p
I_1(p) \omega_{s(d)}^2 \Big), \\
%
& \displaystyle \beta_{s(d)} = \frac{81J^4}{32N}\sum_p
I_2(p) \omega_{s(d)}^4, \\
%
& \displaystyle \gamma_1= \frac{81J^4}{8N}\sum_p
I_2(p) \omega_s^2 \omega_d^2,
\ \ \ \gamma_2 = \frac{1}{4} \gamma_1, \\
%
& \displaystyle K_{s(d)}= \frac{9J^2}{8N} \sum_p I_2(p)
\Big(\frac{\partial \xi_p}{\partial p_x}\Big)^2 \omega_{s(d)}^2, \\
%
& \displaystyle K_{ds}= \frac{9J^2}{8N} \sum_p I_2(p)
\Big(\frac{\partial \xi_p}{\partial p_x}\Big)^2 \omega_s \omega_d, \\
%
& \displaystyle \alpha_{p1} = -\frac{J}{2} \Big(1+\frac{J}{2N}\sum_p
I_3(p) \cos^2p_x \Big) , \\
& \displaystyle
\alpha_{p2} = -\frac{J^2}{4N}\sum_p
I_3(p) \cos p_x \cos p_y, \\
%
& \displaystyle \beta_p = \frac{J^4}{32N}\sum_p
I_4(p) \cos^4p_x,\\
%
& \displaystyle \gamma_{p1} = \frac{J^4}{8N}\sum_p
I_4(p) \cos^2p_x\cos^2p_y,
\ \ \ \gamma_{p2} = \frac{1}{4} \gamma_{p1}, \\
%
& \displaystyle \gamma_{p3} = \frac{J^4}{16N}\sum_p
I_4(p) \cos^3p_x\cos p_y, \\
%
& \displaystyle K_{p1(2)} = - \frac{J^2}{8N}\sum_p
I_4(p) \Big(\frac{\partial \xi_p}{\partial p_x}\Big)^2 \cos^2p_{x(y)}, \\
%
& \displaystyle
K_{p3} = - \frac{J^2}{8N}\sum_p
I_4(p) \Big(\frac{\partial \xi_p}{\partial p_x}\Big)^2 \cos p_x\cos p_y, \\
%
& \displaystyle \gamma_{3(4)} = \frac{9J^4}{8N} \sum_p I_5(p)
\omega_{s(d)}^2 \cos^2p_x, \\
%
& \displaystyle \gamma_{5(6)} = \frac{9J^4}{32N} \sum_p I_6(p)
\omega_{s(d)}^2 \cos^2p_x, \\
%
& \displaystyle \gamma_7 = \frac{9J^4}{8N} \sum_p I_5(p)
\omega_s\omega_d \cos^2p_x, \\
%
& \displaystyle \gamma_8 = \frac{9J^4}{16N} \sum_p I_6(p)
\omega_s\omega_d \cos^2p_x, \\
%
& \displaystyle \gamma_{9(10)} = \frac{9J^4}{8N} \sum_p I_5(p)
\omega_{s(d)}^2 \cos p_x \cos p_y, \\
%
& \displaystyle \gamma_{11(12)} = \frac{9J^4}{16N} \sum_p I_6(p)
\omega_{s(d)}^2 \cos p_x \cos p_y, \\
%
& \displaystyle \alpha_m = 2J\Big(1+\frac{2J}{N}\sum_p I_7(p)\Big), \\
%
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{rl}
& \displaystyle \beta_m = \frac{8J^4}{N}\sum_p I_8(p), \\
%
& \displaystyle K_m = \frac{4J^2}{N}\sum_p I_8(p)
\Big(\frac{\partial \xi_p}{\partial p_x}\Big)^2, \\
%
& \displaystyle \{ \gamma_{ms}, \ \gamma_{md}\}
= - \frac{9J^4}{N} \sum_p [2I_9(p)+I_6(p)]
\{ \omega_s^2, \omega_d^2\}, \\
%
& \displaystyle \{\gamma_{mp1}, \ \gamma_{mp2}\}
= - \frac{J^4}{N} \sum_p [2I_{10}(p)+I_6(p)]
\{\cos^2p_x, \cos p_x\cos p_y\}, \\
%
& \displaystyle \{ \gamma_{spm}, \ \gamma_{dpm}\}
= -\frac{3J^3}{N} \sum_p I_{11}(p) \cos p_x
\{\omega_s,\omega_d\},
\end{array}$$ where $\omega_s=\cos p_x+\cos p_y$ and $\omega_d=\cos p_x -\cos p_y$, and the summation on $p$ is taken over the first Brillouin zone. The functions appearing in the integrands are defined as $$\begin{array}{rl}
I_1(p) = & \displaystyle
T\sum_{\varepsilon_n} G_0(p,i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p,-i\varepsilon_n), \\
I_2(p) = & \displaystyle
T\sum_{\varepsilon_n} G_0^2(p,i\varepsilon_n)G_0^2(p,-i\varepsilon_n), \\
I_3(p) = & \displaystyle
T\sum_{\epsilon_n}G_0(p,-i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p+Q,i\varepsilon_n), \\
%= & \displaystyle
%\frac{1}{2\mu}\big[f(\xi_{p+Q})-f(-\xi_p)\big], \\
%
I_4(p) = & \displaystyle
T\sum_{\epsilon_n}G_0^2(p,i\varepsilon_n)G_0^2(p+Q,-i\varepsilon_n), \\
%= & \displaystyle
%\frac{1}{4\mu^2}\big[f'(\xi_p)+f'(\xi_{p+Q})\big]
%+ \frac{1}{4\mu^3}\big[f(\xi_p)-f(-\xi_{p+Q})\big], \\
%
I_5(p) = & \displaystyle T\sum_{\epsilon_n}
G_0^2(p,i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p,-i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p+Q,-i\varepsilon_n), \\
%= & \displaystyle
%-\frac{1}{4\mu\xi_p}
%\Big[f'(\xi_p)+f(\xi_p)
%\Big(\frac{1}{2\mu}-\frac{1}{2\xi_p}\Big)\Big]
%+\frac{1}{4(\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q})}\Big[\frac{1}{\mu^2}f(-\xi_{p+Q})
%-\frac{1}{\xi_p^2}f(-\xi_p)\Big], \\
%
I_6(p) = & \displaystyle
T\sum_{\epsilon_n}G_0(p,i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p,-i\varepsilon_n)
G_0(p+Q,i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p+Q,-i\varepsilon_n), \\
%= & \displaystyle
%-\frac{1}{4\mu(\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q})}
%\Big[\frac{\tanh\big(\frac{\xi_{p+Q}}{2T}\big)}{\xi_{p+Q}}
%- \frac{\tanh\big(\frac{\xi_p}{2T}\big)}{\xi_p}\Big], \\
%
I_7(p) = & \displaystyle
T\sum_{\epsilon_n}G_0(p,i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p+Q,i\varepsilon_n), \\
%= & \displaystyle
%\frac{f(\xi_p)-f(\xi_{p+Q})}{\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q}}, \\
%
I_8(p) = & \displaystyle
T\sum_{\epsilon_n}G_0^2(p,i\varepsilon_n)G_0^2(p+Q,i\varepsilon_n), \\
%= & \displaystyle
%\frac{f'(\xi_p)+f'(\xi_{p+Q})}{(\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q})^2}
%-2 \frac{f(\xi_p)-f(\xi_{p+Q})}{(\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q})^3}, \\
%
I_9(p) = & \displaystyle T\sum_{\epsilon_n}
G_0^2(p,i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p,-i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p+Q,i\varepsilon_n), \\
%= & \displaystyle
%\frac{1}{2\xi_p(\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q})}
%\Big[f(\xi_p)\Big(\frac{1}{\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q}}+\frac{1}{2\xi_p}\Big)-f'(\xi_p)\Big]
%- \frac{1}{2\mu}
%\Big[\frac{f(-\xi_p)}{4\xi_p^2}
%-\frac{f(\xi_{p+Q})}{(\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q})^2}\Big], \\
%
I_{10}(p) = & \displaystyle T\sum_{\epsilon_n}
G_0^2(p,i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p+Q,i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p+Q,-i\varepsilon_n), \\
%= & \displaystyle
%\frac{1}{2\mu(\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q})}
%\Big[f'(\xi_p)-f(\xi_p)\Big(\frac{1}{\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q}}
%-\frac{1}{2\mu}\Big)\Big]
%+ \frac{1}{2\xi_{p+Q}}\Big[\frac{f(-\xi_{p+Q})}{4\mu^2}
%-\frac{f(\xi_{p+Q})}{(\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q})^2}\Big], \\
%
I_{11}(p) = & \displaystyle T\sum_{\epsilon_n}
G_0(p,i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p,-i\varepsilon_n)G_0(p+Q,i\varepsilon_n). \\
%= & \displaystyle
%-\frac{1}{2\xi_p}
%\Big[\frac{f(\xi_p)}{\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q}}-\frac{f(-\xi_p)}{2\mu}\Big]
%-\frac{f(\xi_{p+Q})}{2\mu(\xi_p-\xi_{p+Q})}.
\end{array}$$
[9]{}
Y. Kitaoka, H. Mukuda, S. Shimizu, S. Tabata, P. M. Shirage, and A. Iyo: J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**72**]{} (2011) 486.
H. Mukuda, S. Shimizu, A. Iyo, and Y. Kitaoka: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**81**]{} (2012) 011008.
B. Keimer, N. Belk, B. J. Birgeneau, A. Cassanho, M. Greven, M. A. Kastner, A. Aharony, Y. Endoh, R. W. Erwin, and G. Shirane: Phys. Rev. B[**46**]{} (1992) 14034.
S. Sanna, G. Allodi, G. Concas, A. D. Hillier, and R. De Renzi: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93**]{} (2004) 207001.
A, Iyo, Y. Tanaka, H. Kito, Y. Kodama, P. M. Shirage, D. D. Shivagan, H. Matsuhata, K. Tokiwa, and T. Watanabe: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**76**]{} (2007) 094711.
P. W. Anderson: Science [**235**]{} (1987) 1196.
M. Ogata and H. Fukuyama: Rep. Prog. Phys. [**71**]{} (2008) 036501.
P. A. Lee, N. Nagaosa, and X.-G. Wen: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**78**]{} (2006) 17.
G. Kotliar and J. Liu: Phys. Rev. B[**38**]{} (1988) 5142.
Y. Suzumura, Y. Hasegawa, and H. Fukuyama: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**57**]{} (1988) 2768.
Z. Zou and P. W. Anderson: Phys. Rev. B[**37**]{} (1988) 627.
N. Nagaosa and P. A. Lee: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{} (1990) 2450.
K. Kuboki, M. Yoneya, and H. Yamase: Physica C[**470**]{} (2010) S163.
H. Yamase, M. Yoneya, and K. Kuboki: Phys. Rev. B[**84**]{} (2011) 014508.
M. Inaba, H. Matsukawa, M. Saitoh, and H. Fukuyama: Physica C [**257**]{} (1996) 299.
H. Yamase and H. Kohno: Phys. Rev. B[**69**]{} (2004) 104526.
A. Himeda and M. Ogata: Phys. Rev. B[**60**]{} (1999) R9935.
Y. Ren, J-H. Xu, and C. S. Ting: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{} (1995) 3680.
D. L. Feder and C. Kallin: Phys. Rev. B[**55**]{} (1997) 559.
K. Kuboki and K. Yano: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**81**]{} (2012) 064711.
E. K. Dahl and A. Sudbø: Phys. Rev. B[**75**]{} (2007) 144504.
K. Kuboki adn M. Sigrist: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**67**]{} (1998) 2873.
L. P. Gor’kov: Sov. Phys. JETP [**9**]{} (1959) 1364.
P. A. Lee and N. Nagaosa: Phys. Rev. B[**46**]{} (1992) 5621.
D. H. Kim and P. A. Lee: Ann. Phys. [**272**]{} (1999) 130.
G. C. Psaltakis and E. W. Fenton: J. Phys. C[**16**]{} (1983) 3913.
M. Murakami and H. Fukuyama: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**67**]{} (1998) 2784.
M. Murakami: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**69**]{} (2000) 1113.
B. Kyung: Phys. Rev. B[**62**]{} (2000) 9083.
A. Aperis, G. Varelogiannis, P. B. Littlewood, and B. D. Simons: J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**20**]{} (2008) 434235.
K. Kuboki: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**68**]{} (1999) 3150.
F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} (2001) 4096.
M. Eschrig, J. Kopu, J. C. Cuevas, and G. Schön: Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 137003.
A. I. Buzdin: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{} (2005) 935.
F.S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov: Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{} (2005) 1321.
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Ravi P. Pilla\
Department of Physics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA;\
[email protected]\
- |
Abraham Loeb\
Astronomy Department, Harvard University\
60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA;\
[email protected]
title: 'Spectral Implications of Variability in GRB Fireballs$\,$[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
The origin of $\gamma$-ray bursts (GRBs) is still unknown. However, independent of the energy source, the GRB emission itself must come from a highly relativistic wind. If most of the wind energy is carried originally in the form of proton kinetic energy [@mrtp], one needs to identify a process which would convert part of this energy into non-thermal $\gamma$-rays, after the expanding wind had already become optically thin. On the basis of the observed temporal fluctuations in the burst data, it has been suggested that the burst emission is actually produced through [*internal shocks*]{} in the expanding wind [@sp]. In this model the central source is compact ($\sim 10^{6-7}$ cm) and emits a relativistic wind of total energy $\approx
10^{52}$ erg over a time $t_{d}\lesssim 10^{2}$ seconds, with negligible mass of entrained protons ($\lesssim 10^{28}$ g). Strong temporal fluctuations in the luminosity of the source produce many thin layers of $e^{+}e^{-}\gamma$-plasma, or fireball shells, with a varying specific energy per unit baryonic mass. These shells acquire different Lorentz factors, and therefore tend to collide at a larger radius, thus producing (internal) shock waves. The temporal behavior of the bursts produced by multiple shell-collisions has been studied recently [@sp]. Here we report some results on the spectra from such collisions; more details of this calculation will be given elsewhere [@pl].
Radiation Mechanisms and Burst Spectra
======================================
Consider two fireball shells of energy $\tee_{i}$ and rest mass $m_{i}
\,\,(i=1,2)$ starting from the same initial radius. After an initial acceleration phase, the shells reach Lorentz factors $\tg_{i}\approx
\tee_{i}/m_{i}c^{2}$, where $c$ is the speed of light in vacuum; we take $\alpha\equiv\tg_{2}/\tg_{1}>1$. If the second shell is released behind the first one after a time $t_{var}$ (typical variability time) in the observer frame (or the rest frame of the central source) the two shells will collide at an observer-frame radius $r_{c}=2ct_{var}\tg_{1}^{2}\alpha^{2}/(\alpha^{2}-1) $ and move with a common Lorentz factor =\[\_[1]{}\_[2]{}(\_[1]{}+\_[2]{})/(m\_[1]{}\_[2]{}+m\_[2]{}\_[1]{})c\^[2]{}\]\^[1/2]{}. The total energy dissipated in the collision, $\tee_{d}$, defines the dissipation efficiency \_[d]{}\_[d]{}/(\_[1]{}+\_[2]{})= 1-\[\_(1+\_[m]{})\^[2]{}/(1+\_)(\_+\^[2]{}\_[m]{}) \]\^[1/2]{}, which depends only on the ratios $\delta_{\ee}=\tee_{2}/\tee_{1}$ and $\delta_{m}=m_{2}/m_{1}$.
For $\delta_{\ee,m}\sim$ a few, $\zeta_{d}\gtrsim
10\%$ can be achieved [@sp]. The shock waves heat the protons to an average comoving Lorentz factor $\overline{\gamma}_{p}\simeq 1+\xi_{d}\tg_{1}(1+\delta_{\ee})/
\tg(1+\delta_{m})$; the protons subsequently transfer a fraction $\zeta_{e}$ of their kinetic energy to the electrons through Fermi acceleration. This transfer of energy is expected to be rapid \[3\].
As an example for the typical physical properties of the emission (post-shock) region, we take a bulk Lorentz factor of $\tg\approx 400$, proper density of baryons $n\approx 1.1\times 10^{12}\,\,
\mbox{cm}^{-3}$, comoving thickness $\Delta\approx 4.1\times 10^{10}$ cm, and $\overline{\gamma}_{p}\approx 3$. With a radiative efficiency of $\sim
100\%$, these parameters correspond to a total observed fluence of $\sim
3\times 10^{-7}\,\,\mbox{erg}/\mbox{cm}^{2}$ for a source redshift $z_{s}\approx 1$. Before electron cooling starts, the number of electrons per unit energy with a Lorentz factor $\gamma$ is assumed to be proportional to $\gamma^{-p}$, where $p$ is the Fermi-acceleration index; at that time, the average value of $\gamma$ is $\overline{\gamma}_{0}\approx 3.6\times 10^{3}\zeta_{e}$. A magnetic equi-partition fraction $\zeta_{B}$ corresponds to a field strength of $B\approx 4.7\zeta_{B}^{1/2}10^{4}$ G. We denote the observer-frame energy of a photon in units of electron rest mass by $\ee$, and the fraction of total radiation energy carried by photons in the interval $(\ee,\ee+d\ee)$ by $\Phi(\ee)$, so that $\int_{0}^{\infty}\Phi(\ee)d\ee=1$. The values of $p$, $\zeta_{B}$, and $\zeta_{e}$ are free parameters that might vary among different bursts.
Very high-energy photons are produced as the electrons cool via synchrotron emission and inverse-Compton scattering on a comoving time scale $t_{c}\sim
1/cn\sigma_{T}\overline{\gamma}^{2}_{0}$, where $\sigma_{T}$ is Thomson cross section. Those photons remain in the wind for a time $\sim
t_{0}\equiv \Delta/c\gg t_{c}$, and produce relativistic $e^{+}e^{-}$ pairs which immediately transfer their energy back to the radiation through Compton cooling. Such a cascade of pair creation and cooling leaves pronounced signatures on the emergent spectrum. The final spectra are shown in Figure 1 for a variety of values for $p$, $\zeta_{B}$, and $\zeta_{e}$. The additional dependence of the resulting spectra on $r$ and $\tg$ can be found in \[3\]. The large variety of possible burst spectra might be responsible for the spectral diversity of bursts observed by BATSE [@db].
Conclusions
===========
We have shown that diverse spectra over a wide range of energies, covering that of BATSE, is a generic outcome of internal shocks produced by variability in GRB fireballs. The results shown here only pertain to the collision of a pair of shells but the qualitative spectral behavior of the entire event is likely to be similar.
We thank D. L. Band, E. Cohen, R. Narayan, T. Piran, M. A. Ruderman, and R. Sari for useful remarks. RP was supported in part by NASA grant NAG5-618 and NSF-MG8 travel award; he acknowledges the hospitality of Racah Institute for Physics, The Hebrew University. AL was supported in part by NASA ATP grant NAG5-3085 and the Harvard Milton fund.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
P. Mészáros and M. J. Rees, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**405**]{}, 278 (1993); for a review see T. Piran in [*Some Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics*]{}, eds. J. N. Bahcall and J. P. Ostriker (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1997).
R. Sari and T. Piran, [*Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.*]{} [**287**]{}, 110 (1996) and references there; S. Kobayashi, T. Piran, and R. Sari, preprint astro-ph/970513 (1997).
R. P. Pilla and A. Loeb, [*Astrophys. J. Lett.*]{} (submitted), preprint astro-ph/9710219 (1997); see R. P. Pilla and J. Shaham, [*Astrophys. J.*]{} [**486**]{}, 903 (1997) for a discussion on some of the relevant radiation mechanisms.
D. L. Band, these proceedings.
[^1]: Talk given at the VIII Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity, Jerusalem, June 1997; to appear in the proceedings, eds. R. Ruffini and T. Piran (World Scientific, Singapore).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We introduce functional degrees of freedom by a new gauge principle related to the phase of the wave functional. Thus, quantum mechanical systems are dissipatively embedded into a nonlinear classical dynamical structure. There is a necessary fundamental length, besides an entropy/area parameter, and standard couplings. For states that are sufficiently spread over configuration space, quantum field theory is recovered.'
address: |
Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pisa,\
Largo Pontecorvo 3, I–56127 Pisa, Italia\
[email protected]
author:
- 'HANS-THOMAS ELZE'
title: |
THE GAUGE SYMMETRY OF THE THIRD KIND AND\
QUANTUM MECHANICS AS AN INFRARED LIMIT
---
\#1[[\#1:]{}]{}
Introduction
============
We present a new ${\cal U}$(1) gauge symmetry “of the third kind”, related to local gauge transformations in the space of field configurations underlying quantum field theory (QFT). While results are summarized here, more details may be found in Ref. .
Point of departure is the observation that the reduction of the potentiality described by the wave function(al) $\Psi$ to the actuality of the outcome of a measurement process has been left outside of quantum theory (in its standard form):\
[*“ ... , it is an incomplete representation of real things, although it is the only one which can be built out of the fundamental concepts of force and material points (quantum corrections to classical mechanics). The incompleteness of the representation leads necessarily to the statistical nature (incompleteness) of the laws.”*]{} [@Einstein]\
In other words, aspects of the theory that concern the concept of information have hitherto been left separate from the concepts of force and material points, the “real things” Einstein refers to. Correspondingly, this is reflected in the remarkable derivation of the kinematical setting of quantum theory from three information theoretical constraints, as discussed, for example, in the recent review by Bub: [@Bub] the “real things” do not play a role in it.
The cut between “real things” and “information about real things” appears to be due to historical contingencies, not unlike the cut between dynamical theories, describing the effects of gravity in particular, and geometrical theories of space and time, until their fusion in general relativity.
In this note, we propose to reconsider the role of the wave functional. We assume that its phase is not only subject to global gauge transformations (“of the first kind”) and local ones (“of the second kind”), related to the common field variables of QFT: There are also functional gauge transformations which are [*local in the space of field configurations*]{} and which attribute a physical ‘charge’ to $\Psi$.
We recall that local U(1) gauge invariance of the Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics (“first quantization”) is related to the electromagnetic interaction via the classical minimal coupling prescription. Two important aspects should be noted: [@DGElze; @Saxon] ([**A**]{}) The quantum mechanical model of a charged particle interacting with the electromagnetic field descends from Maxwell’s theory, via minimally coupled classical particle Hamiltonian, through its quantization, finally to the gauge invariant Schrödinger equation. Thus, there is a [*classical*]{} regime where the quantum theory is anchored (Copenhagen interpretation). – ([**B**]{}) The Schrödinger equation can be also interpreted as nonrelativistic limit of the Klein-Gordon equation. However, the latter is not acceptable as a quantum mechanical single-particle wave equation, since there are negative energy states and a ‘probability’ density which is not positive definite. Instead, with minimal coupling, the Klein-Gordon equation describes [*interacting classical*]{} (!) [*scalar and electromagnetic fields*]{}.
An analogous dynamical scheme exists for the functional Schrödinger equation (“second quantization”), as we shall see. It predicts the universal coupling of [*all*]{} fields that are variables in this equation and introduces a fundamental length.
Guided by our new gauge principle, we couple a dynamical functional ${\cal A}$ to the wave functional $\Psi$, generalizing the action of Dirac’s variational principle. Here, the would-be-quantum sector described by $\Psi$ forms a dissipative subsystem of the enlarged structure, effectively extending it nonlinearly and nonlocally in the space of field configurations. – Nonlinear extensions of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics have been studied earlier by Bialynicki-Birula and Mycielski [@Iwo76] and by Weinberg [@Weinberg89]. Works of Kibble [@Kibble] and of Kibble and Randjbar-Daemi [@Kibble80] present nonlinear extensions of scalar QFT models where parameters of the models are quantum state dependent. However, this kind of nonlinearity is not compatible with our gauge principle, which dictates a different form of [*nonlinearity*]{} (in $\Psi$) of the wave functional equation.
As we shall see, quantum theory is embedded here into a new framework, where the potentiality represented by $\Psi$ bears the character of a charge. It causes correlations of the underlying fields beyond what is encoded in their usual Lagrangians, with QFT describing an infrared limit. We speculate that a model of this kind might point in the right direction towards unifying the concepts of “real things” and “information about real things”.
In distinction to other proposals that have quantum mechanics emerge from underlying dynamics [@tHdet88; @tHdet97; @tHdet01; @All; @E04; @I05; @Smolin; @Adler; @tH06], our approach does not depend on a particular field theory, such as the Standard Model, or otherwise special dynamics. We share, however, the tentative conclusion that quantum theory can and should be reconstructed as an effective theory describing large-scale behavior of [*fundamentally deterministic degrees of freedom*]{}. Quantum states are no longer the primary degrees of freedom. Bell’s theorem and the predicament of local hidden variable theories are circumvented, since the implied nonlocality operates at the pre-quantum level.
The Gauge Invariant Functional Wave Equation
============================================
The functional Schrödinger picture of QFT is convenient for our argument. References to related work are given in Ref. . – We consider a generic scalar field theory, for simplicity, and refer to Ref. concerning systems with internal gauge symmetries. The functional Schrödinger equation is: $$\label{fSscalar}
i\partial_t\Psi [\varphi ;t]=H[\hat\pi ,\varphi]\Psi [\varphi ;t]\equiv
\int\mbox{d}^3x\Big\{ -\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta^2}{\delta\varphi^2}
+\frac{1}{2}(\nabla\varphi )^2+V(\varphi )\Big\}\Psi [\varphi ;t]
\;\;,$$ with the Hamiltonian $H$ corresponding to the classical Hamiltonian density; mass and selfinteraction terms are included in $V(\varphi )$. Here, the classical canonical momentum conjugate to the field (coordinate) $\varphi$ is substituted by: $$\label{momentum}
\pi (\vec x)\;\longrightarrow\;\hat\pi (\vec x)\equiv
\frac{1}{i}\frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi (\vec x)}
\;\;,$$ which implements the field quantization (coordinate representation).
In analogy to gauge transformations in the first quantized Schrödinger picture, we now define ${\cal U}$(1) [*gauge transformations of the third kind*]{} by: $$\label{localfuncgt}
\Psi'[\varphi ;t]\equiv\exp (-i\Lambda [\varphi ;t])\Psi [\varphi ;t]
\;\;,$$ where $\Lambda$ denotes a time dependent real functional. Such gauge transformations are local in the space of field configurations. They differ from the usual gauge transformations in QFT. – In fact, the wave equation (\[fSscalar\]) becomes invariant under transformation (\[localfuncgt\]), if new covariant derivatives are introduced: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dtcov}
\partial_t&\longrightarrow &{\cal D}_t\equiv
\partial_t+i{\cal A}_t[\varphi ;t]
\;\;, \\ \label{dxcov}
\frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi (\vec x)}&\longrightarrow &
{\cal D}_{\varphi (\vec x)}\equiv
\frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi (\vec x)}+
i{\cal A}_\varphi [\varphi ;t,\vec x]
\;\;. \end{aligned}$$ The real functional ${\cal A}$ is analogous to the usual vector potential. Generally, ${\cal A}$ depends on $t$; it is a [*functional*]{} of $\varphi$ in Eq.(\[dtcov\]), while it is a [*functional field*]{} in Eq.(\[dxcov\]). Distinguishing these components of ${\cal A}$ by subscripts, they transform according to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Afunctionalgt}
{\cal A}'_t[\varphi ;t]&\equiv&{\cal A}_t[\varphi ;t]+
\partial_t\Lambda [\varphi ;t]
\;\;, \\ \label{Afunctiongt}
{\cal A}'_\varphi [\varphi ;t,\vec x]&\equiv=&
{\cal A}_\varphi [\varphi ;t,\vec x]+
\frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi (\vec x)}\Lambda [\varphi ;t]
\;\;. \end{aligned}$$ Then, we may also define an invariant ‘field strength’: $$\label{field}
{\cal F}_{t\varphi}[\varphi ;t,\vec x]\equiv
\partial_t{\cal A}_\varphi [\varphi ;t,\vec x]
-\frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi (\vec x)}
{\cal A}_t[\varphi ;t]
\;\;,$$ i.e., ${\cal F}_{t\varphi}=[{\cal D}_t,{\cal D}_\varphi]/i$.
In order to give further meaning to the coupling between $\Psi$ and ${\cal A}$, we have to postulate a consistent dynamics for the latter. All elementary fields supposedly are present as the coordinates on which the wave functional depends – presently just a scalar field, besides time. We assume the following ${\cal U}$(1) invariant action: $$\label{Action}
\Gamma\equiv\int\mbox{d}t\mbox{D}\varphi\;\Big\{
\Psi^*\Big ({\cal N}(\rho )
\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{i{\cal D}}_t
-H[\frac{1}{i}{\cal D}_{\varphi},\varphi ]\Big )\Psi
-\frac{l^2}{2}\int\mbox{d}^3x\;\big ({\cal F}_{t\varphi}
\big )^2\Big\}
\;\;,$$ where $\Psi^*{\cal N}\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{i{\cal D}}_t\Psi
\equiv\frac{1}{2}{\cal N}
\{\Psi^*i{\cal D}_t\Psi
+(i{\cal D}_t\Psi )^*\Psi\}$, and with a dimensionless real function ${\cal N}$ depending on the density: $$\label{rho}
\rho [\varphi ;t]\equiv\Psi^*[\varphi ;t]\Psi [\varphi ;t]
\;\;.$$ We shall see shortly that ${\cal N}$ incorporates a necessary [*nonlinearity*]{}. The fundamental parameter $l$ has dimension $[l]=[length]$, for dimensionless measure $\mbox{D}\varphi$ and $\Psi$.
Our action generalizes the action for a Schrödinger wave functional which has been employed for applications of Dirac’s variational principle to QFT before. [@DGElze; @Kibble80] It depends on $\Psi ,\Psi^*,{\cal A}_t$, and ${\cal A}_\varphi$ separately. – Varying $\Gamma$ with respect to $\Psi^*$ (and $\Psi$) yields the gauge invariant $\Psi$-functional equation of motion (and its adjoint): $$\label{ginvfSscalar}
\left (\rho {\cal N}(\rho )\right )'
i{\cal D}_t\Psi [\varphi ;t]
=H[\frac{1}{i}{\cal D}_{\varphi},\varphi ]
\Psi [\varphi ;t]
\;\;,$$ replacing Eq.(\[fSscalar\]); here $f'(\rho )\equiv\mbox{d}f(\rho )/\mbox{d}\rho$. Varying with respect to ${\cal A}_\varphi$, we obtain: $$\label{fieldeq}
\partial_t{\cal F}_{t\varphi}[\varphi;t,\vec x]
=\frac{1}{2il^2}\left (
\Psi^*[\varphi;t]{\cal D}_{\varphi (\vec x)}\Psi [\varphi;t]
-\Psi [\varphi;t]({\cal D}_{\varphi (\vec x)}\Psi [\varphi;t])^*
\right )
\;\;.$$ This invariant ‘gauge field equation’ completes the set of dynamical equations.
The nonlinear Eq.(\[ginvfSscalar\]) preserves the normalization, i.e. $\langle\Psi |\Psi\rangle\equiv\int\mbox{D}\varphi\;\Psi^*\Psi$ is conserved, while the overlap of two different states, $\langle\Psi_1|\Psi_2\rangle$, generally varies in time. This seems to hint at a probability interpretation, yet the continuity equation, Eq.(\[continuity\]) below, shows that this cannot be maintained. For ${\cal A}\neq 0$, also the [*homogeneity property*]{} does no longer hold, i.e., $\Psi$ and $z\Psi$ ($z\in\mathbf{Z}$) present two different physical states [@Iwo76; @Weinberg89]. This changes essential aspects of the measurement theory [@Kibble] and indicates that here QFT is embedded in a [*classical*]{} framework. – Furthermore, the Hamiltonian $H$, unlike in QFT, cannot be arbitrarily shifted by a constant $\Delta E$, transforming $\Psi\rightarrow\exp (-i\Delta Et)\Psi$. – Finally, our action is invariant under space-time translations and spatial rotations. Elsewhere, we will present $\Gamma$ in a manifestly Lorentz invariant form, given a suitable background spacetime.
Variation of $\Gamma$ with respect to ${\cal A}_t$, which is a Lagrange multiplier, yields the corresponding gauge invariant ‘Gauss’ law’: $$\label{Gauss}
-\int\mbox{d}^3x\;\frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi (\vec x)}{\cal F}_{t\varphi}[\varphi ;t,\vec x]
=\frac{1}{l^2}\Psi^*[\varphi ;t]\Psi [\varphi ;t]{\cal N}(\rho )
\;\;.$$ This can be combined with Eq.(\[fieldeq\]) to result in the continuity equation: $$\label{continuity}
0=\partial_t\Big (\rho{\cal N}(\rho )\Big )
+\frac{1}{2i}\int\mbox{d}^3x\;\frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi (\vec x)}
\left (
\Psi^*{\cal D}_{\varphi (\vec x)}\Psi
-\Psi ({\cal D}_{\varphi (\vec x)}\Psi )^*
\right )
\;,$$ expressing local ${\cal U}$(1) ‘charge’ conservation in the space of field configurations. – The Eq.(\[continuity\]) implies that the total ‘charge’ $Q$ has to vanish at all times:[@DGElze] $$\label{charge}
Q(t)\equiv\frac{1}{l^2}\int\mbox{D}\varphi\;\rho{\cal N}(\rho )=0
\;\;.$$ Here, the necessity of the nonlinearity becomes obvious. Without it, the vanishing total ‘charge’ could not be implemented.
Besides necessarily multiplying the invariant term $\Psi^*i{\cal D}_t\Psi$ in $\Gamma$, the nonlinearity is not yet determined. A particular choice related to an entropy functional has been studied in Ref. . In this case, one finds that the ‘charge’ density $\rho{\cal N}(\rho )$ is the deviation of entropy density per unit area from a reference density $\rho S/l^2$. Thus, also the [*entropy/area*]{} $S/l^2$ is a parameter, besides the fundamental [*length*]{} $l$. (Entropy per area is an essential parameter in apparently unrelated work of Padmanabhan [@Padmanabhan], suggesting that gravity is intrinsically holographic and quantum mechanical.) In any case, the timescale of the $\Psi$-functional evolution shrinks or expands in different regions of configuration space, depending on the factor $(\rho {\cal N}(\rho ))'$ in Eq.(\[ginvfSscalar\]).
Two remarks are in order here: ([**A**]{}) The Eqs.(\[ginvfSscalar\])–(\[Gauss\]) obey a [*weak superposition principle*]{} [@Iwo76]: The sum of two solutions, $\Psi_{1,2}$, that do not overlap, presents also a solution, provided that ${\cal A}={\cal A}_1+{\cal A}_2$ is determined consistently. – ([**B**]{}) As we argued in Ref. , our nonlinear extension of QFT is [*local*]{} in the usual sense ([*microcausality*]{}).[@Kibble] – However, suppose we integrated out the ‘gauge field’. The resulting effective equation for $\Psi$ would be [*nonlocal in field space and in space-time*]{}.
Stationary States, Separability and QFT Limit
=============================================
We study the separation of the time dependence in Eqs.(\[ginvfSscalar\])–(\[Gauss\]) with the Ansatz $\Psi [\varphi ;t]\equiv\mbox{exp}(-i\omega t)\Psi_\omega [\varphi ]$, $\omega\in\mathbf{R}$, and consistently assuming [*time independent*]{} ${\cal A}$-functionals. Thus, the Eq.(\[ginvfSscalar\]) yields: $$\label{PsiZeroEq}
\left (\rho_\omega {\cal N}(\rho_\omega )\right )'
\Big (\omega -{\cal A}_t[\varphi ]\Big )\Psi_\omega [\varphi ]
=H[\frac{1}{i}{\cal D}_{\varphi},\varphi ]
\Psi_\omega [\varphi ]
\;\;,$$ with ${\cal D}_\varphi = \frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi}+i{\cal A}_\varphi$ and $\rho_\omega\equiv\Psi_\omega^*[\varphi ]\Psi_\omega [\varphi ]$. From Eq.(\[fieldeq\]) follows: $$\label{fieldeq0}
\frac{1}{2i}\left (
\Psi^*_\omega [\varphi ]{\cal D}_{\varphi (\vec x)}\Psi_\omega [\varphi ]
-\Psi_\omega [\varphi ]({\cal D}_{\varphi (\vec x)}\Psi_\omega [\varphi ])^*
\right )=0
\;\;,$$ which expresses the vanishing of the ‘current’ in the stationary situation. – Applying a time independent gauge transformation, cf. Eqs.(\[localfuncgt\]), (\[Afunctiongt\]), the stationary wave functional can be made [*real*]{}. The Eq.(\[fieldeq0\]) then implies ${\cal A}_\varphi=0$; consequently, ${\cal D}_{\varphi}\rightarrow\frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi}$ everywhere. Finally, ‘Gauss’ law’, Eq.(\[Gauss\]), determines ${\cal A}_t$: $$\label{Gauss0}
\int\mbox{d}^3x\;\frac{\delta^2}{\delta\varphi (\vec x)^2}{\cal A}_t[\varphi ]
=\frac{1}{l^2}\rho_\omega {\cal N}(\rho_\omega )
\;\;,$$ which has to be solved selfconsistently together with Eq.(\[PsiZeroEq\]). – Separation of the time dependence thus leads to two coupled equations. One may guess an appropriate time independent $\Psi_\omega$-functional. Having an action at hand, Eq.(\[Action\]), the parameters of such an Ansatz can be optimized by the variational principle, in analogy to Hartree approximation and semiclassical limit of QFT. Furthermore, the Eq.(\[Gauss0\]) can be solved formally by functional Fourier transformation, eliminating ${\cal A}_t$ at the expense of introducing the nonlocality mentioned before.
Turning to [*separability*]{}, this is an important property of linear quantum theory. It allows to combine subsystems which do not interact with each other, without creating unphysical correlations [@Iwo76; @Weinberg89]. This should be preserved to the extent that is verified experimentally. – We have argued that linear [*QFT arises in the infrared (IR) limit*]{}, and consequently separability: [@DGElze] Assume that the system is in a [*diffuse state*]{}, characterized by a density $\rho_\omega$ that is widely spread over the space of configurations of $\varphi$. For such a high entropy state, the local energy density and the ‘charge density’ on the right-hand side of Eq.(\[Gauss0\]) must be small. For our particular choice of nonlinearity, then, the stationary functional Schrödinger equation results, $\omega\Psi_\omega =H\Psi_\omega$, and with it the known structures of QFT. – Consequences of small violations of this linear equation, related to terms involving $\rho_\omega$ or ${\cal A}_t$, should be explored. Nonlinear effects become important in our framework only for states with a small uncertainty in configuration space, such that the IR limit does not apply.
Finally, we remark that two stationary solutions, $\Psi_{\omega_{1,2}}$, of the present eigenvalue problem, in general, obey a generalized [*orthogonality*]{} relation that reduces to the usual one of QFT in the IR limit. [@DGElze]
Conclusions
===========
New gauge transformations “of the third kind” attribute a ${\cal U}$(1) ‘charge’ to the wave functional, which leads to an embedding of quantum field theory in a larger nonlinear structure. – It differs from earlier proposals of nonlinear generalizations of quantum mechanics or QFT [@Iwo76; @Weinberg89; @Kibble; @Kibble80]. We tentatively interpret it as a classical one, since differently charged components of the wave functional $\Psi$, besides being governed by the usual interactions of an underlying field theory model (such as gauge theories, see Ref. ), are coupled through a new connection functional ${\cal A}$. When effects of the latter are negligible, QFT is recovered.
A number of interesting problems need further study, before this proposal can stand on its own. – A theory of the observables and the measurement process needs to be worked out. It is promising that the energy-momentum tensor following from our action, Eq.(\[Action\]), similarly in the presence of internal gauge symmetries, is the one of the respective QFT [*plus*]{} contributions due to the coupling between $\Psi$ and ${\cal A}$. When the latter is small, the usual observables may be useful, while the coupling might be important for the reduction or collapse of the wave functional. – A solution in the case of an underlying free field theory should be possible, based on the variational principle, for example. This will be helpful to better understand effects of the new coupling. – Reparametrization invariant models are an important target. As compared to a Wheeler-DeWitt type equation, the presence of additional nonlinear terms in what replaces this equation may actually be useful.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I wish to thank G.’tHooft for discussions, particularly concerning the phase of the wave function. [@tH06] I am grateful to M.Genovese for the kind invitation to the Torino workshop “Advances in Foundations of Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Information with Atoms and Photons”.
[40]{}
H.-T. Elze, Gauge symmetry of the third kind and quantum mechanics as an infrared phenomenon, quant-ph/0604142 , in: [*“A Sense of Beauty in Physics”*]{}, Festschrift for A.DiGiacomo, ed. by M.D’Elia and E.Meggiolaro (Pisa University Press, Pisa, 2006), to appear.
A.Einstein, [*Physics and Reality*]{}, [*The Journal of the Franklin Institute*]{}, [**221**]{}, No.3 (March 1936); reprinted in: A.Einstein, [*“Ideas and Opinions”*]{} (Souvenir Press, London, 1973), p.315.
J.Bub, Quantum information and computation, quant-ph/0512125 .
D.S.Saxon, [*“Elementary Quantum Mechanics”*]{} (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976).
I.Bialynicki-Birula and J. Mycielski, [*Ann.Phys.(N.Y.)*]{} [**100**]{} (1976) 62.
S.Weinberg, [*Phys.Rev.Lett.*]{} [**62**]{} (1989) 485; [*Ann.Phys.(N.Y.)*]{} [**194**]{} (1989) 336.
T.W.B.Kibble, [*Commun.Math.Phys.*]{} [**64**]{} (1978) 73.
T.W.B.Kibble and S.Randjbar-Daemi, [*J.Phys.*]{} [**A13**]{} (1980) 141.
G.’tHooft, [*J.Stat.Phys.*]{} [**53**]{} (1988) 323; Nucl.Phys. [**B342**]{} (1990) 471; G.’t Hooft, K.Isler and S.Kalitzin, [*Nucl.Phys.*]{} [**B386**]{} (1992) 495.
G.’tHooft, [*Found.Phys.Lett.*]{} [**10**]{} (1997) 105.
G.’tHooft, Quantum Mechanics and Determinism, presented at PASCOS 2001, Eighth International Symposium on Particles, Strings and Cosmology (2001), hep-th/0105105 .
M.Blasone, P.Jizba and G.Vitiello, [*Phys.Lett.*]{} [**A287**]{} (2001) 205; M.Blasone [*et al.*]{}, [*Phys.Lett.*]{} [**A310**]{} (2003) 393; H.-T.Elze and O.Schipper, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D66**]{} (2002) 044020; H.-T.Elze, Phys.Lett. [**A310**]{} (2003) 110, [*Physica*]{} [**A344**]{} (2004) 478; quant-ph/0306096 ; C.Wetterich, Quantum Correlations in Classical Statistics, in: [@E04], p.180; quant-ph/0212031; M.Blasone, P.Jizba and H.Kleinert, [*Braz.J.Phys.*]{} [**35**]{} (2005) 497; [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**A71**]{} (2005) 052507.
, ed. H.-T.Elze, Lecture Notes in Physics, [**633**]{} (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004).
H.-T.Elze, Quantum fields, cosmological constant and symmetry doubling, hep-th/0510267; [*Braz.J.Phys.*]{} [**35**]{} (2005) 343; A quantum field theory as emergent description of constrained supersymmetric classical dynamics, Proceedings 8th Int. Conf. [*“Path Integrals. From Quantum Information to Cosmology”*]{}, Prague, June 6-10, 2005, to appear, hep-th/0508095 ; [*Phys.Lett.*]{} [**A335**]{} (2005) 258.
F.Markopoulou and L.Smolin, [*Phys.Rev.*]{} [**D70**]{} (2004) 124029.
S.L.Adler, [*“Quantum Mechanics as an Emergent Phenomenon”*]{} (Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 2005).
G.’tHooft, The Mathematical Basis For Deterministic Quantum Mechanics, quant-ph/0604008 .
T.Padmanabhan, [*Mod.Phys.Lett.*]{} A [**17**]{}, 1147 (2002).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recent breakthroughs in AI for multi-agent games like Go, Poker, and Dota, have seen great strides in recent years. Yet none of these games address the real-life challenge of cooperation in the presence of unknown and uncertain teammates. This challenge is a key game mechanism in hidden role games. Here we develop the DeepRole algorithm, a multi-agent reinforcement learning agent that we test on *The Resistance: Avalon*, the most popular hidden role game. DeepRole combines counterfactual regret minimization (CFR) with deep value networks trained through self-play. Our algorithm integrates deductive reasoning into vector-form CFR to reason about joint beliefs and deduce partially observable actions. We augment deep value networks with constraints that yield interpretable representations of win probabilities. These innovations enable DeepRole to scale to the full Avalon game. Empirical game-theoretic methods show that DeepRole outperforms other hand-crafted and learned agents in five-player Avalon. DeepRole played with and against human players on the web in hybrid human-agent teams. We find that DeepRole outperforms human players as both a cooperator and a competitor.'
author:
- |
Jack Serrino[^1]\
MIT\
`[email protected]`\
Max Kleiman-Weiner$^*$\
Harvard, MIT, Diffeo\
`[email protected]` David C. Parkes\
Harvard University\
`[email protected]`\
Joshua B. Tenenbaum\
MIT, CBMM\
`[email protected]`\
bibliography:
- 'social.bib'
title: 'Finding Friend and Foe in Multi-Agent Games'
---
Introduction
============
Cooperation enables agents to achieve feats together that no individual can achieve on her own [@tomasello2014natural; @henrich2015secret]. Cooperation is challenging, however, because it is embedded within a competitive world [@galinsky2015friend]. Many multi-party interactions start off by asking: who is on my team? Who will collaborate with me and who do I need to watch out for? These questions arise whether it is your first day of kindergarten or your first day at the stock exchange. Figuring out who to cooperate with and who to protect oneself against is a fundamental challenge for any agent in a diverse multi-agent world. This has been explored in cognitive science, economics, and computer science [@axelrod1985evolution; @camerer2003behavioral; @camerer2004cognitive; @kleiman2016coordinate; @rand2013human; @nowak2006five; @leibo2017multi; @wunder2011using; @littman1994markov; @perolat2017multi; @lerer2017maintaining; @lanctot2017unified].
Core to this challenge is that information about who to cooperate with is often noisy and ambiguous. Typically, we only get this information indirectly through others’ actions [@baker2017rational; @ullman2009help; @kleiman2016coordinate; @albrecht2017autonomous]. Since different agents may act in different ways, these inferences must be robust and take into account ad-hoc factors that arise in an interaction. Furthermore, these inferences might be carried out in the presence of a sophisticated adversary with superior knowledge and the intention to deceive. These adversaries could intentionally hide their non-cooperative intentions and try to appear cooperative for their own benefit [@strouse2018learning]. The presence of adversaries makes communication challenging— when intent to cooperate is unknown, simple communication is unreliable or “cheap” [@farrell1996cheap].
This challenge has not been addressed by recent work in multi-agent reinforcement learning (RL). In particular, the impressive results in imperfect-information two-player zero-sum games such as poker [@bowling2015heads; @brown2017superhuman; @moravvcik2017deepstack] are not straightforward to apply to problems where cooperation is ambiguous. In heads-up poker, there is no opportunity to actually coordinate or cooperate with others since two-player zero-sum games are strictly adversarial. In contrast, games such as Dota and capture the flag have been used to train Deep RL agents that coordinate with each other to compete against other teams [@OpenAI_dota; @jaderberg2018human]. However, in neither setting was there ambiguity about *who* to cooperate with. Further in real-time games, rapid reflexes and reaction times give an inherent non-strategic advantage to machines [@canaan2019leveling].
Here we develop *DeepRole*, a multi-agent reinforcement learning algorithm that addresses the challenge of learning who to cooperate with and how. We apply DeepRole to a five-player game of alliances, *The Resistance: Avalon* (Avalon), a popular hidden role game where the challenge of learning *who* to cooperate with is the central focus of play [@Avalon]. Hidden role games start with players joining particular teams and adopting roles that are not known to all players of the game. During the course of the game, the players try to infer and deduce the roles of their peers while others simultaneously try to prevent their role from being discovered. As of May 2019, Avalon is the most highly rated hidden role game on boardgamegeek.com. Hidden role games such as Mafia, Werewolf, and Saboteur are widely played around the world.
#### Related work
DeepRole builds on the recent success of heuristic search techniques that combine efficient depth-limited lookahead planning with a value function learned through self-play in two-player zero-sum games [@silver2016mastering; @moravvcik2017deepstack; @silver2018general]. In particular, the DeepStack algorithm for no-limit heads up poker combines counterfactual regret minimization (CFR) using a continual re-solving local search strategy with deep neural networks [@zinkevich2008regret; @moravvcik2017deepstack]. While DeepStack was developed for games where all actions are public (such as poker), in hidden role games some actions are only observable by some agents and therefore must be deduced. In Avalon, players obtain new private information as the game progresses while in poker the only hidden information is the initial set of cards.
#### Contributions.
Our key contributions build on these recent successes. Our algorithm integrates deductive reasoning into vector-form CFR [@johanson2012efficient] to reason about joint beliefs and partially observable actions based on consistency with observed outcomes, and augments value networks with constraints that yield interpretable representations of win probabilities. This augmented network enables training with better sample efficiency and generalization. We conduct an empirical game-theoretic analysis in five-player Avalon and show that the DeepRole CFR-based algorithm outperforms existing approaches and hand-crafted systems. Finally, we had DeepRole play with a large sample of human players on a popular online Avalon site. DeepRole outperforms people as both a teammate and opponent when playing with and against humans, even though it was only trained through self-play. We conclude by discussing the value of hidden role games as a long-term challenge for multi-agent RL systems.
![Description of the public game dynamics in The Resistance: Avalon. (left) Each round (rectangle) has up to 5 proposals (white circles) and leads to either a mission that fails or succeeds. (right) Example dynamics within each round. Players (colored circles) alternate proposing subsets of players (2 or 3) to go on a mission which are then put to vote by all 5 players. If the majority approves, those players (1 & 5 in this example) privately and independently decide to succeed or fail the mission. If the majority disapproves, the next player proposes a subset. \[fig:avalon\]](figures/avalon_game){width=".8\textwidth"}
The Resistance: Avalon \[sec:game\]
===================================
We first briefly describe game mechanics of The Resistance: Avalon played with five players. At the beginning of the game, 3 players are randomly assigned to the *Resistance* team and 2 players are assigned to the *Spy* team. The spies know which players are on the Spy team (and hence also know which players are on the Resistance team). One member of the Resistance team is randomly and privately chosen to be the *Merlin* role who also knows all role assignments. One member of the Spy team is randomly chosen to be the *Assassin*. At the end of the game, if the Resistance team has won, the Assassin guesses the identity of Merlin. If the Assassin guesses Merlin correctly then the Spy team wins.
Figure \[fig:avalon\] shows a visual description of the public game dynamics. There are five *rounds* in the game. During each round a player *proposes* a subset (two or three depending on the round) of agents to go on a *mission*. All players simultaneously and publicly vote (approve or not approve) of that subset. If a simple majority do not approve, another player is selected to propose a subset to go on the mission. If after five attempts, no proposal receives a simple majority, the Spy team wins. If a simple majority approves, the subset of players privately select whether the mission succeeds or fails. Players on the Resistance team must always choose success but players on the Spy team can choose success or failure. If any of the Spies choose to fail the mission, the mission fails. Otherwise, the mission succeeds. The total number of success and fail votes is made public but the identity of who made those votes is private. If three missions succeed, the Resistance team wins. If three missions fail, the Spy team wins. When people play Avalon, the games are usually rich in “cheap talk,” such as defending oneself, accusing others, or debunking others’ claims [@chittaranjan2010you]. In this work, we do not consider the strategic implications of natural language communication.
Although Avalon is a simple game to describe, it has a large state space. We compute a lower bound of $10^{56}$ distinct information sets in the 5-player version of Avalon (Appendix \[a:state\_space\] for details). This is larger than the state space of Chess ($10^{47}$) and larger than the number of information sets in heads-up limit poker ($10^{14}$) [@johanson2013measuring].
Algorithm: DeepRole \[sec:algo\]
================================
The DeepRole algorithm builds off of recent success in poker by combining DeepStack’s innovations of deep value networks and depth-limited solving with deductive reasoning. Unique to DeepRole, our innovations allow the algorithm to play games with simultaneous and hidden actions. In broad strokes, DeepRole is composed of two parts: (1) a CFR planning algorithm augmented with deductive reasoning; and (2) neural value networks that are used to reduce the size of the game tree.
#### Background.
Hidden role games like Avalon can be modeled as extensive-form games. We follow the notation of [@johanson2012efficient]. Briefly, these games have a game tree with nodes that correspond to different histories of actions, $h \in H$, with $Z \subset H$ the set of terminal histories. For each $h \in Z$, let $u_i(h)$ be the utility to player $i$ in terminal history $h$. In extensive-form games, only a single player $P(h)$ can move at any history $h$, but because Avalon’s mechanics intimately involve simultaneous action, we extend this definition to let $P'(h)$ be the set of players simultaneously moving at $h$. Histories are partitioned into information sets ($I \in \mathcal{I}_i$) that represent the game states that player $i$ cannot distinguish between. For example, a Resistance player does not know who is on the Spy team and thus all $h$ differing only in the role assignments to the other players are in a single information set. The actions available in a given information set are $a \in A(I)$.
A strategy $\sigma_i$ for player $i$ is a mapping for each $I \in \mathcal{I}_i$ to a probability distribution over $A(I)$. Let $\sigma = (\sigma_1, \ldots, \sigma_p)$ be the joint strategy of all $p$ players. Then, we let $\pi^\sigma(h)$ be the probability of reaching $h$ if all players act according to $\sigma$. We write $\pi^\sigma_i(h)$ to mean the contribution of player $i$ to the joint probability $\pi^\sigma(h) = \prod_{1\ldots p} \pi_i^\sigma(h)$. Finally, let $\pi_{-i}^\sigma(h)$ be the product of strategies for all players except $i$ and let $\pi^\sigma(h,h')$ be the probability of reaching history $h'$ under strategy $\sigma$, given $h$ has occurred.
Counterfactual regret minimization (CFR) iteratively refines $\sigma$ based on the regret accumulated through a self-play like procedure. Specifically, in CFR+, at iteration $T$, the cumulative counterfactual regret is $R_i^{+,T}(I,a) = \max\{\sum_T CFV_i(\sigma^t_{I\rightarrow a}, I)-CFV_i(\sigma^t,I),0\}$ where the counterfactual values for player $i$ are defined as $CFV_i(\sigma, I) = \sum_{z\in Z}u_i(z)\pi_{-i}^\sigma(z[I])\pi^\sigma(z[I],z)$ [@tammelin2015solving]. At a high-level, CFR iteratively improves $\sigma$ by boosting the probability of actions that would have been beneficial to each player. In two-player zero-sum games, CFR provably converges to a Nash equilibrium. However, it does not necessarily converge to an equilibrium in games with more than two players [@szafron2013parameterized]. We investigate whether CFR can generate strong strategies in a multi-agent hidden role game like Avalon.
CFR with deductive logic
------------------------
The CFR component of DeepRole is based on the vector-form public chance sampling (PCS) version of CFR introduced in [@johanson2012efficient], together with CFR+ regret matching [@tammelin2015solving]. Vector-form versions of CFR can result in faster convergence and take advantage of SIMD instructions, but require a public game tree [@johanson2011accelerating]. In poker-like games, one can construct a public game tree from player actions, since all actions are public (e.g., bets, new cards revealed) except for the initial chance action (giving players cards). In hidden role games, however, key actions after the initial chance action are made privately, breaking the standard construction.
To support hidden role games, we extend the public game tree to be a history of third-person observations, $o \in O(h)$, instead of just actions. This includes both public actions and observable consequences of private actions (lines 22-44 in Alg. \[alg:cfr\] in the Appendix). Our extension works when deductive reasoning from these observations reveals the underlying private actions. For instance, if a mission fails and one of the players is known to be a Spy, one can deduce that the Spy failed the mission. $\texttt{deduceActions}(h, o)$ carries out this deductive reasoning and returns the actions taken by each player under each information set ($\vec{a}_i[I]$) (line 23). With $\vec{a}_i[I]$ and the player’s strategy ($\vec{\sigma_i}$), the player’s reach probabilities are updated for the public game state following the observation ($ho$) (lines 24-26).
Using the public game tree, we maintain a human-interpretable joint posterior belief $\mathbf{b}(\rho|h)$ over the initial assignment of roles $\rho$. $\rho$ represents a full assignment of roles to players (the result of the initial chance action) – so our belief $\mathbf{b}(\rho | h)$ represents the joint probability that each player has the role specified in $\rho$, given the observed actions in the public game tree. See Figure \[fig:nn\] for an example belief $\mathbf{b}$ and assignment $\rho$. This joint posterior $\mathbf{b}(\rho | h)$ can be approximated by using the individual players’ strategies as the likelihood in Bayes rule: $$\mathbf{b}(\rho | h) \propto \mathbf{b}(\rho)(1 - \mathbbm{1}\{h \vdash \neg \rho\})\prod_{i\in 1\ldots p} \pi_i^\sigma(I_i(h, \rho))
\label{eq:bayes}$$ where $\mathbf{b}(\rho)$ is the prior over assignments (uniform over the 60 possible assignments), $I_i(h, \rho)$ is the information set implied by public history $h$ and assignment $\rho$, and the product is the likelihood of playing to $h$ given each player’s implied information set. A problem is that this likelihood can put positive mass on assignments that are impossible given the history. This arises because vector-form CFR algorithms can only compute likelihoods for each player independently rather than jointly. For instance, consider two players that went on a failing mission. In the information sets implied by the $\rho$ where they are both resistance, each player is assumed to have passed the mission. However, this is logically inconsistent with the history, as one of them must have played fail. To address this, the indicator term $(1 - \mathbbm{1}\{h \vdash \neg \rho\})$ zeros the probability of any $\rho$ that is logically inconsistent with the public game tree $h$. This zeroing removes any impact these impossible outcomes would have had on the value and regret calculations in CFR (line 20 in Alg. \[alg:terminal\]).
![DeepRole neural network architecture used to limit game tree depth. Tables (black headers) show example inputs. The uppercase characters represent the different roles: (R)esistance, (S)py, (M)erlin, (A)ssassin. The outputs are the probability weighted value for each player in each of their information sets. While there is only one information set for Resistance (since they only know their own role), there are multiple for each of the other roles types. “M (2,3)” should be read as Merlin who sees players 2 and 3 as Spy and “S (4)” should be read as Spy who sees player 4 as Assassin. \[fig:nn\]](figures/nn_arch){width=".9\textwidth"}
Value network
-------------
The enhanced vector-form CFR cannot be run on the full public game tree of Avalon (or any real hidden role game). This is also the case for games like poker, so CFR-based poker systems [@moravvcik2017deepstack; @brown2017superhuman] rely on action abstraction and state abstraction to reduce the size of the game tree. However, actions in Avalon are not obviously related to each other. Betting 105 chips in poker is strategically similar to betting 104 chips, but voting up a mission in Avalon is distinct from voting it down. The size of Avalon’s game tree does not come from the number of available actions, but rather from the number of players. Furthermore, since until now Avalon has only received limited attention, there are no developed hand-crafted state abstractions available either (although see [@brown2018deep] for how these could be learned). We follow the general approach taken by [@moravvcik2017deepstack], using deep neural networks to limit the size of the game tree that we traverse (lines 14-16 in Alg. \[alg:cfr\] in Appendix \[a:cfr\]).
We first partition the Avalon public game tree into individually solvable parts, segmented by a proposal for every possible number of succeeded and failed missions (white circles on the left side of Figure \[fig:avalon\]). This yields 45 neural networks. Each $h$ corresponding to a proposal is mapped to one of these 45 networks. These networks take in a tuple $\theta \in \Theta, \theta = (i, \mathbf{b})$ where $i$ is the proposing player, and $\mathbf{b}$ is the posterior belief at that position in the game tree. $\Theta$ is the set of all possible game situations. The value networks are trained to predict the probability-weighted value of each information set (Figure \[fig:nn\]).
Unlike in DeepStack, our networks calculate the *non-counterfactual* (i.e. normal) values for every information set $I$ for each player. This is because our joint belief representation loses the individual contribution of each player’s likelihood, making it impossible to calculate a counterfactual. The value $V_i(I)$ for private information $I$ for player $i$ can be written as: $$V_i(I) = \pi_i^\sigma(I) \sum_{h \in I} \pi_{-i}^\sigma(h) \sum_{z \in Z} \pi^\sigma(h, z) u_i(z) = \pi_i^\sigma(I) \hspace{0.1cm}CFV_i(I)$$ where players play according to a strategy $\sigma$. Since we maintain a $\pi_i^\sigma(I)$ during planning, we can convert the values produced by the network to the counterfactual values needed by CFR (line 15 in Alg. \[alg:terminal\]).
{height="10em"} {height="10em"}
#### Value network architecture
While it’s possible to estimate these values using a generic feed-forward architecture, it may cause lower sample efficiency, require longer training time, or fail to achieve a low loss. We design an interpretable custom neural network architecture that takes advantage of restrictions imposed by the structure of many hidden role games. Our network feeds a one-hot encoded vector of the proposer player $i$ and the belief vector $\mathbf{b}$ into two fully-connected hidden layers of 80 ReLU units. These feed into a fully-connected *win probability layer* with sigmoid activation. This layer is designed to take into account the specific structure of $V$, respecting the binary nature of payoffs in Avalon (players can only win or lose). It explicitly represents the probability of a Resistance win ($\vec{\textbf{w}} = P(\text{win}|\rho)$) for each assignment $\rho$.
Using these probabilities, we then calculate the $V_i(I)$ for each player and information set, constraining the network’s outputs to sound values. To do this calculation, for each player $i$, win probabilities are first converted to expected values ($\vec{u}_i\vec{\textbf{w}} + \textrm{-}\vec{u}_i(1 - \vec{\textbf{w}}$) representing $i$’s payoff in each $\rho$ if resistance win. It is then turned into the probability-weighted value of each information set which is used and produced by CFR: $\vec{V}_i = M_i [(\vec{u}_i\vec{\textbf{w}} + \textrm{-}\vec{u}_i(1 - \vec{\textbf{w}})) \odot \textbf{b}]$ where $M_i$ is a $(15 \times 60)$ multi-one-hot matrix mapping each $\rho$ to player $i$’s information set, and **b** is the belief over roles passed to the network. This architecture is fully differentiable and is trained via back-propagation. A diagram and description of the full network is shown in Figure \[fig:nn\]. See Appendix \[a:vtrain\] and Alg. \[alg:train\] for details of the network training algorithm, procedure, parameters and compute details.
The win probability layer enabled training with less training data and better generalization. When compared to a lesioned neural network that replaced the win probability layer with a zero-sum layer (like DeepStack) the average held-out loss per network was higher and more training data was required (Figure \[fig:test\_loss\]).
![\[fig:botvbot\] Comparing the expected win rate of DeepRole with other agents. The x-axis shows how many of the first four agents are DeepRole. The y-axis shows the expected win rate for the fifth agent if they played as DeepRole or the benchmark. Standard errors smaller than the size of the dots. (top) Combined expected win rate. (middle) Spy-only win rate. (bottom) Resistance-only win rate. ](figures/botvbot){width="\textwidth"}
Empirical game-theoretic analysis \[sec:exp\]
=============================================
The possibility of playing with diverse teammates who may be playing conflicting equilibrium strategies, out-of-equilibrium strategies, or even human strategies makes evaluation outside of two-player zero-sum games challenging. In two-player zero-sum games, all Nash equilibria are minimally exploitable, so algorithms that converge to Nash are provably optimal in that sense. However evaluating 3+ player interactions requires considering multiple equilibria and metrics that account for coordinating with teammates. Further, Elo and its variants such as TrueSkill are only good measures of performance when relative skill is intransitive, but have no predictive power in transitive games (e.g., rock-paper-scissors) [@tuyls2018generalised]. Thus, we turn to methods for empirical game-theoretic analysis which require running agents against a wide variety of benchmark opponents [@wellman2006methods; @tuyls2018generalised].
We compare the performance of DeepRole to 5 alternative baseline agents: CFR – an agent trained with MCCFR [@lanctot2009monte] over a hand-crafted game abstraction; LogicBot – a hand-crafted strategy that uses logical deduction; RandomBot - plays randomly; ISMCTS - a single-observer ISMCTS algorithm found in [@cowling2012information; @cowling2015emergent; @silver2010monte]; MOISMCTS - a multiple-observer variant of ISMCTS [@whitehouse2014monte]. Details for these agents are found in Appendix \[a:comp\].
We first investigated the conditional win rates for each baseline agent playing against DeepRole. We consider the effect of adding a 5th agent to a preset group of agents and compare DeepRole’s win rate as the 5th agent with the win rate of a baseline strategy as the 5th agent in that same preset group. For each preset group (0-4 DeepRole agents) we simulated >20K games.
Figure \[fig:botvbot\] shows the win probability of each of these bots when playing DeepRole both overall and when conditioning on the role (Spy or Resistance). In most cases adding a 5th DeepRole player yielded a higher win rate than adding any of the other bots. This was true in every case we tested when there were at least two other DeepRole agents playing. Thus from an evolutionary perspective, DeepRole is robust to invasion from all of these agent types and in almost all cases outperforms the baselines even when it is the minority.
![\[fig:tri\] Empirical game-theoretic evaluation. Arrow size and darkness are proportional to the size of the gradient. (left) DeepRole against hand-coded agents. (center) DeepRole compared to systems without our algorithmic improvements. (right) DeepRole against itself but with CFR iterations equal to the number next to the game. ](figures/triHand.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"} ![\[fig:tri\] Empirical game-theoretic evaluation. Arrow size and darkness are proportional to the size of the gradient. (left) DeepRole against hand-coded agents. (center) DeepRole compared to systems without our algorithmic improvements. (right) DeepRole against itself but with CFR iterations equal to the number next to the game. ](figures/triLesion.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"} ![\[fig:tri\] Empirical game-theoretic evaluation. Arrow size and darkness are proportional to the size of the gradient. (left) DeepRole against hand-coded agents. (center) DeepRole compared to systems without our algorithmic improvements. (right) DeepRole against itself but with CFR iterations equal to the number next to the game. ](figures/triDR.pdf "fig:"){width=".32\textwidth"}
To formalize these intuitions we construct a meta-game where players select a mixed meta-strategy over agent types rather than actions. Figure \[fig:tri\] shows the gradient of the replicator dynamic in these meta-games [@wellman2006methods; @tuyls2018generalised]. First, we compare DeepRole to the two hand-crafted strategies (LogicBot and CFR), and show that purely playing DeepRole is the equilibrium with the largest basin of attraction. The ISMCTS agents are too computationally demanding to run in these contests, but in a pairwise evaluation, playing DeepRole is the sole equilibrium.
Next, we test whether our innovations make DeepRole a stronger agent. We compare DeepRole to two lesioned alternatives. The first, DeepRole (No Win Layer), uses a zero-sum sum layer instead of our win probability layer in the neural network. Otherwise it is identical to DeepRole. In Figure \[fig:test\_loss\], we saw that this neural network architecture did not generalize as well. We also compare to a version of DeepRole that does not include the logical deduction step in equation \[eq:bayes\], and also uses the zero-sum layer instead of the probability win layer (No Win Layer, No Deduction). The agent without deduction is the weakest, and the full DeepRole agent is the strongest, showing that our innovations lead to enhanced performance.
Finally, we looked at the impact of CFR solving iterations during play (thinking time). More iterations make each move slower but may yield a better strategy. When playing DeepRole variants with 10, 30, and 100 iterations against each other, each variant was robust to invasion by the others but the more iterations used, the larger the basin of attraction (Figure \[fig:tri\]).
----------------------- -------------------- -- ---------------- -- -------------------- -- ---------------- --
(r)[2-5]{} (r)[6-9]{}
Overall **46.9 $\pm$ 0.6** 38.8 $\pm$ 1.3 **60.0 $\pm$ 5.5** 48.1 $\pm$ 1.2
Resistance **34.4 $\pm$ 0.7** 25.6 $\pm$ 1.5 **51.4 $\pm$ 8.2** 40.3 $\pm$ 1.5
Spy **65.6 $\pm$ 0.9** 57.8 $\pm$ 2.0 **67.4 $\pm$ 7.1** 59.7 $\pm$ 1.9
----------------------- -------------------- -- ---------------- -- -------------------- -- ---------------- --
: Win rates for humans playing with and against the DeepRole agent. When a human replaces a DeepRole agent in a group of 5 DeepRole agents, the win rate goes down for the team that the human joins. When a DeepRole agent replaces a human in a group of 5 humans, the win rate goes up for the team the DeepRole agent joins. Averages $\pm$ standard errors. \[tab:bot\_winrates\]
Human evaluation \[sec:human\]
==============================
Playing with and against human players is a strong test of generalization. First, humans are likely to play a diverse set of strategies that will be challenging for DeepRole to respond to. During training time, it never learns from any human data and so its abilities to play with people must be the result of playing a strategy that generalizes to human play. Importantly, even if human players take the DeepRole neural networks “out of distribution”, the online CFR iterations can still enable smart play in novel situations (as with MCTS in AlphaGo).
Humans played with DeepRole on the popular online platform ProAvalon.com (see Appendix \[a:human\_comment\] for commentated games and brief descriptions of DeepRole’s “play style”). In the 2189 mixed human/agent games we collected, all humans knew which players were human and which were DeepRole. There were no restrictions on chat usage for the human players, but DeepRole did not say anything and did not process sent messages. Table \[tab:bot\_winrates\] shows the win rate of DeepRole compared to humans. On the left, we can see that DeepRole is robust; when four of the players were DeepRole, a player would do better playing the DeepRole strategy than playing as an average human, regardless of team. More interestingly, when considering a game of four humans, the humans were better off playing with the DeepRole agent as a teammate than another human, again regardless of team. Although we have no way quantifying the absolute skill level of these players, among this pool of avid Avalon players, DeepRole acted as both a superior cooperator and competitor – it cooperated with its teammates to compete against the others.
{width=".5\textwidth"}
Finally, DeepRole’s interpretable belief state can be used to gain insights into play. In Figure \[fig:belief\] we show DeepRole’s posterior probability estimate of the true set of Spies when playing as a Resistance player. When DeepRole played as the sole agent among four humans (left plot), the belief state rapidly converged to the ground truth in the situations where three missions passed, even though it had never been trained on human data. If three missions failed, it was often because it failed to learn correctly. Next, we analyze the belief state when fed actions and observations from the perspective of a human resistance player playing against a group of humans (yoked actions). As shown in Figure \[fig:belief\], the belief estimates increase as the game progresses, indicating DeepRole can make correct inferences even while just observing the game. The belief estimate converges to the correct state faster in games with three passes, presumably because the data in these games was more informative to all players.
Discussion \[sec:dis\]
======================
We developed a new algorithm for multi-agent games called DeepRole which effectively collaborates and competes with a diverse set of agents in The Resistance: Avalon. DeepRole surpassed both humans and existing machines in both simulated contests against other agents and a real-world evaluation with human Avalon players. These results are achieved through the addition of a deductive reasoning system to vector-based CFR and a win probability layer in deep value networks for depth-limited search. Taken together, these innovations allow DeepRole to scale to the full game of Avalon allowing CFR agents to play hidden role games for the first time. In future work, we will investigate whether the interpretable belief state of DeepRole could also be used to ground language, enabling better coordination through communication.
Looking forward, hidden role games are an exciting opportunity for developing AI agents. They capture the ambiguous nature of day-to-day interactions with others and go beyond the strictly adversarial nature of two-player zero-sum games. Only by studying 3+ player environments can we start to capture some of the richness of human social interactions including alliances, relationships, teams, and friendships [@shum2019theory].
### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
We thank Victor Kuo and ProAvalon.com for help integrating DeepRole with human players online. We also thank Noam Brown and Murray Campbell for helpful discussions and comments. This work was supported in part by The Future of Life Institute, DARPA Ground Truth, the Center for Brains, Minds and Machines (NSF STC award CCF-1231216), and the Templeton World Charity Foundation.
DeepRole depth-limited CFR \[a:cfr\]
====================================
**INPUT** $h$ (root public game history); $\textbf{b}$ (root public belief); $n$ (\# iterations); $d$ (averaging delay); $\textrm{NN}[h]$ (neural networks that approximate CFVs from $h$) Init regrets $\forall I, r_I[a] \gets 0$, Init cumulative strategies $\forall I, s_I[a] \gets 0$ $\vec{u}_{1 \dots p} \gets \vec{0}$ $w_i \gets \max(i - d, 0)$ $\vec{u}_{1 \dots p} \gets \vec{u}_{1 \dots p} + $ **return** $\vec{u}_{1 \dots p}$ / $\sum{w_i}$ **return** **return** $\vec{u}_{1 \dots p} \gets \vec{0}$ $\vec{I}_i \gets \textrm{lookupInfosets}_i(h)$ $\vec{\sigma}_i \gets \textrm{regretMatching+}(\vec{I}_i)$ $\vec{a}_{1 \dots p} \gets \textrm{deduceActions}(h, o)$ $\vec{\pi}_i \gets \vec{\sigma}_i[\vec{a}_i] \odot \vec{\pi}_i$ $\vec{u}'_{1 \dots p} \gets$ $\vec{m}_i[\vec{a}_i] \gets \vec{m}_i[\vec{a}_i] + \vec{u}_i$ $\vec{u}_i \gets \vec{u}_i + \vec{\sigma}_i[\vec{a}_i] \odot \vec{u}'_i$ $\vec{u}_i \gets \vec{u}_i + \vec{u}_i'$ $r_I[a] \gets \max(r_I[a] + \vec{m}_i[a][I] - \vec{u}_i[I], 0)$ $s_I[a] \gets s_I[a] + \vec{\pi}_i[I]\vec{\sigma}_i[I][a] w$ **return** $\vec{u}_{1 \dots p}$
$\vec{v}_{1\dots p}[\cdot] \gets 0$ $\textbf{b}_{\textrm{term}} \gets$ $\vec{v}_i[I_i(h, \rho)] \gets \vec{v}_i[I_i(h, \rho)] + \textbf{b}_\textrm{term}[\rho] u_i(h, \rho)$ **return** $\vec{v}_{1 \dots p} / \vec{\pi}_{1 \dots p}$ $\textbf{b}_{\textrm{term}} \gets$ $w \gets \sum_\rho \textbf{b}_{\textrm{term}}[\rho]$ $\vec{v}_1, \vec{v}_2, \dots, \vec{v}_p \gets \textrm{NN}[h](h, \textbf{b}_{term}/w)$ **return** $w\vec{v}_{1 \dots p} / \vec{\pi}_{1 \dots p}$ $\textbf{b}_{\textrm{term}}[\rho] \gets \textbf{b}[\rho] \prod_i \vec{\pi}_i(I_i(h, \rho))$ $\textbf{b}_{\textrm{term}}[\rho] \gets \textbf{b}_{\textrm{term}}[\rho](1 - \mathbbm{1}\{h \vdash \neg \rho\})$ **return** $\textbf{b}_{\textrm{term}}$
Value network training \[a:vtrain\]
===================================
We generate training data for the deep value networks by using CFR to solve each part of the game from a random sample of starting beliefs. By working backwards from the end of the game, trained networks from later stages enable data generation using CFR at progressively earlier stages. This progressive back-chaining follows the dependency graph of proposals shown on the left side of Figure \[fig:avalon\]. This generalizes the procedure used to generate DeepStack’s value networks [@moravvcik2017deepstack].
For each network, we sampled $120,000$ game situations ($\theta \in \Theta$) to be used for training and validation. For each sample, CFR ran for 1500 iterations, skipping the first 500 during averaging. The neural networks were each trained for 3000 epochs (batch size of 4096) using the Adam optimizer with a mean squared error loss on $\vec{V}$. Training hyperparameters and weight initializations used Keras defaults. 10% of the data was set aside for validation. Training on 480 CPU cores, 480 GB of memory, and 1 GPU took roughly 48 hours to produce the networks for every stage in the game.
**INPUT** $P_{1 \dots n}$: Dependency-ordered list of game parts. **INPUT** $\Theta_{1 \dots n}$: For each game part, a distribution over game situations. **INPUT** $d$: The number of training datapoints generated per game partition. **OUTPUT** $N_{1 \dots n}$: $n$ trained neural value networks, one for each game part. $\textbf{x}, \textbf{y} \gets$ $N_i \gets$ **return** $N_{1 \dots n}$ $\theta_i \sim \Theta$ $\textbf{v}_i \gets$ \[euclidendwhile\] **return** $\theta_{1 \dots d}, \textbf{v}_{1 \dots d}$
**INPUT** $s$: The number of succeeds. **INPUT** $f$: The number of fails. **OUTPUT** $p, \textbf{b}$: A random game situation from this game part, consisting of a proposer and a belief over the roles. $I \gets $ $E \gets $ $P(E) \sim \textrm{Dir}(\vec{1}_{|E|})$ $P(M) \sim \textrm{Dir}(\vec{1}_{n})$ $\textbf{b} \gets P(E) \bigotimes P(M)$ $p \sim \textrm{unif}\{1, n\}$ **return** $p, \textbf{b}$
Comparison Agents \[a:comp\]
============================
#### CFR
CFR denotes an agent using a strategy trained by external sampling MCCFR with a hand-built imperfect-recall abstraction, used to reduce the size of Avalon’s immense game tree. We bucket information sets for players based on their initial information set (their role and who they see) and a set of hand-chosen game metrics: the round number, the number of failed missions each player has participated in, and the number of times a player has proposed a failing mission. We trained the bot until we observed decayed performance of the bot in self-play. In total, CFRBot was trained for 6,000,000 iterations.
#### LogicBot
LogicBot is an agent that plays a hand-crafted pre-set strategy derived from our intuition of playing Avalon with real people. During play, LogicBot keeps a list of possible role assignments that are logically consistent with the observations it has made. As resistance, it randomly samples an assignment and proposes a mission using the resistance players in that assignment. It votes up proposals if and only if the proposed players and the proposer are resistance in a randomly sampled assignment or if it is the final proposal in the round. As spy, it proposes randomly, votes opposite to resistance players, and selects merlin randomly.
#### Random
Our random agent selects an action uniformly from the available actions.
#### ISMCTS & MOISMCTS
We also evaluate our bot against opponents playing using the ISMCTS family of algorithms. Specifically, we evaluate our bot against the single-observer ISMCTS (ISMCTS) algorithm shown in [@cowling2012information; @whitehouse2014monte; @cowling2015emergent], as well as the improved multiple-observer version of the algorithm (MOISMCTS). Each variant used 10,000 iterations per move.
State space calculation \[a:state\_space\]
==========================================
Unlike large two-player games like Poker, Go, or Chess, Avalon’s complexity lies in the combinatorial explosion that comes with having 5 players, four role types (Spy, Resistance, Merlin, Assassin), and a large number observable moves. We lower bound the number of information sets by just considering the longest possible game. The longest possible game lasts five rounds with each round requiring five proposals. Each proposal can made in 10 different ways by choosing which 2 or 3 players out of 5 should go on the mission. From there, there are 16 ways proposals 1-4 can be voted down and 16 ways proposal 5 can be voted up. Thus, a lower bound on the number of information sets is $(10*16)^{5*5} \approx 10^{56}$ which does not consider shorter games or any of the private information.
ProAvalon.com \[a:pro\_avalon\]
===============================
[ProAvalon.com](ProAvalon.com) is a website where players can play Avalon online in groups of 5 to 10. We’ve integrated DeepRole in to this website, allowing humans from all around the world to play against 0-4 DeepRole agents. Fig. \[fig:proavalon\] shows the game interface for human players on ProAvalon.com. Natural language communication is done via a publicly visible chat. See the website for more details about the specific interface.
![The ProAvalon.com game interface. This shows a completed game between 4 DeepRole agents and a human player (no affiliation to this work’s authors). The interface consists of a visualization of a “round table” of players (top), a public chat for each game (bottom left), and the public game history (bottom right). \[fig:proavalon\]](figures/proavalon){width="\textwidth"}
Human commentary of DeepRole v. Human games. \[a:human\_comment\]
=================================================================
Some players on ProAvalon.com have uploaded commentary that qualitatively examine the style of play the bots have. We examine two of these games to show DeepRole effectively cooperating and competing with a human player.
In the first game we examine (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKdY4Us0Ci4>), the human player is playing as “VT” (“Vanilla Town”, i.e. non-Merlin resistance). After the first two missions fail and the third one passes, the human player is able to accurately deduce the identities of the spy players. During proposals for the 4th and 5th missions, however, his fellow resistance teammates (including Merlin), seem to be rejecting missions that he knows to be “clean” (do not contain a spy). While he expresses exasperation that one of his teammates doesn’t seem to deduce the obvious, these clean missions are eventually approved and succeed. At the end of the game, resistance win, revealing that the rejecting player was Merlin all along – purposefully rejecting missions to seem ignorant.
In the second game we examine (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RkUFHYTo_s>), the human player is playing as Merlin. During multiple rounds of the game, the human player “slams clean”, proposing a mission containing no spies – generally an obvious indicator of Merlin-like knowledge of the spy players. While these missions are ultimately approved and succeeded, the DeepRole Assassin correctly identifies the human player due to their obvious play, resulting in a spy victory.
There are more examples of DeepRole v. human games on YouTube, and we encourage readers to check out other videos with qualitative analysis of DeepRole.
[^1]: indicates equal contribution
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'I. Tereno'
- 'C. Schimd'
- 'J.-P. Uzan'
- 'M. Kilbinger'
- 'F. H. Vincent'
- 'L. Fu'
date: 'Received 3 October 2008 ; accepted 7 February 2009'
title: 'CFHTLS[^1] weak-lensing constraints on the neutrino masses'
---
[Oscillation experiments yield strong evidence that at least some neutrinos are massive. As a hot dark-matter component, massive neutrinos shuld modify the expansion history of the Universe as well as the evolution of cosmological perturbations, in a different way from cold dark matter or dark energy.]{} [We use the latest release of CFHTLS cosmic-shear data to constrain the sum of the masses $\sum m_\nu$ of neutrinos, assuming three degenerate mass states. We also consider a joint analysis including other cosmological observables, notably CMB anisotropies, baryonic acoustic oscillations, and distance modulus from Type Ia supernovae.]{} [Combining CAMB with a lensing code, we compute the aperture mass variance using a suitable recipe to deal with matter perturbations in the non-linear regime. The statistical analysis is performed by sampling an 8-dimensional likelihood on a regular grid as well as using the importance sampling technique.]{} [We obtain the first constraint on neutrino masses based on cosmic-shear data, and combine CFHTLS with WMAP, SDSS, 2dFGRS, Gold-set, and SNLS data. The joint analysis yields 0.03 eV $ < \sum m_\nu < 0.54$ eV at the 95% confidence level. The preference for massive neutrinos vanishes when systematics are included.]{}
Introduction {#sec1}
============
The construction of a cosmological model [@Bondi1960; @Ellis1971], must take into account any progress in the understanding of the laws of physics. To date, the reference model $\Lambda$CDM is based on the standard model of particle physics, general relativity, and some additional hypothesis about the symmetries of the background spacetime (the Copernican principle) to which it is mandatory to add the two still unknown components of cold dark matter (CDM) and cosmological constant ($\Lambda$).
We know now that it is imperative to include the effects of massive neutrinos, which behave as a warm or hot dark matter component depending on their mass. Strong evidence of such particles, which have not yet been included in the standard model of particle physics but whose existance is supported by e.g. grand-unified theories [@GUT], emerges from experimental results on oscillations of atmospheric, solar, and accelerator- or reactor-produced neutrinos, such as Super-Kamiokande, K2K, MINOS, KamLAND [see @NuExpReview for a review]. These results indicate a mixing of the three known neutrinos species by non-vanishing squared mass differences between the mass eigenstates and the non-vanishing corresponding mixing angles. The most recent results are $\Delta m_{12}^2\sim 8\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$, $\Delta m_{23}^2\sim
2\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$, and mixing angles of $\theta_{12} \sim 30^\circ$, $\theta_{23}\sim 45^\circ$, and $\theta_{13} \lesssim 11^\circ$. These values yield a lower bound on the heavier mass of order $0.06 \,(0.1)$ eV for normal (inverted) hierarchy, but cannot give the absolute mass scale. Forthcoming experiments based on other mechanisms, such as SuperNEMO (conceived to detect the neutrinoless double $\beta$ decay) and KATRIN (designed to probe the tritium $\beta$ decay) are designed to measure directly the *absolute* mass of the electron neutrino with a sensitivity of 0.05 and 0.2 eV, respectively.
Cosmological observations are compelling in providing an independent way to probe the absolute neutrino mass. The effect of light massive fermions in cosmology is well understood [see @NuCosmoReview for a review]. The standard cosmological model predicts the existence of relic neutrinos that decouple from the primeval plasma while ultra-relativistic and produce a cosmic neutrino background, which cannot yet be detected directly. Their contribution to the total radiation energy density is a fraction $7/8(T_\nu/T_\gamma)^4{N_\mathrm{eff}}$ of the contribution of photons, $T_\nu$ and $T_\gamma$ being the temperatures of the neutrino and the photon backgrounds, respectively. The effective number of neutrinos is constrained to be ${N_\mathrm{eff}}=3.04$, if there are no extra relativistic degrees of freedom besides three active neutrinos [@Neff], and has an impact mainly on the primordial nucleosynthesis and the time of matter-radiation equality. Analyses of light element abundances [@NeffBBN] and of the time of equality [@wmap5komatsu] produce results that agree with this value.
When neutrinos become non-relativistic, their velocities begin to decrease from $c$ as $T_\nu(t)$, due to momentum conservation. Assuming that the mass states are degenerate ($m_1=m_2=m_3\equiv m_\nu$), the velocity is given by $v_\mathrm{th}=3k_BT_\nu(t)/m_\nu c$ or, since $T_\nu(z)\simeq 1.9(1+z)$ K, by $$\label{eq:vth}
v_\mathrm{th}= 150\,(1+z)(m_\nu/1\,\mathrm{eV})^{-1}~\mathrm{km/s}.$$ The transition occurs at $$\label{eq:ztrans}
1+z_\mathrm{tr}= 2\times 10^3\left(\frac{m_\nu}{1\,\mathrm{eV}}\right).$$ For masses smaller than $\sim$ 0.6 eV, the transition occurs well into the matter-dominated era and after recombination. Therefore, massive neutrinos affect the anisotropies of the CMB temperature only through the background evolution. However CMB data strongly constrain other cosmological parameters that are degenerate with the neutrino mass, and is thus invaluable to joint analyses. The result would slightly differ for non-degenerate masses, for the normal or inverted hierarchies, but at a negligible level for a total mass above 0.2 eV [@lesgourgueshepph].
After the transition, neutrino-density perturbations evolve in a similar way to CDM on scales larger than a free-streaming length, and are damped on smaller scales. The comoving free-streaming length is defined analogously to a Jeans length, by replacing the sound of speed by $v_\mathrm{th}$, i.e., $\lambda_\mathrm{fs}(t)=2\pi\sqrt{2/3}\,v_\mathrm{th}(t)/[a(t)H(t)]$. It decreases from the time of transition onwards as, $$\label{eq:kfs}
\lambda_\mathrm{fs} = 2 \pi \times 1.2 (1+z)^{1/2} (m_\nu/1\,\mathrm{eV})^{-1}({\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}h^2)^{-1/2} \,\,\mathrm{Mpc},$$ which is valid at high redshift. The maximum occurs at the transition and is given by, $$\label{eq:kfsmax}
\lambda^*_\mathrm{fs}= 2\pi \times 55 ({\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}h^2)^{-1/2}\left( \frac{m_\nu}{1\,\mathrm{eV}}\right)^{-1/2}h^{-1} \mathrm{Mpc}.$$ The density perturbations of the other components, in particular CDM, are affected by the presence of massive neutrinos as a consequence of the change in the background evolution, the change in the time of equality, and feedback from the neutrino perturbations. Roughly speaking, the effect of $m_\nu=1\mathrm{eV}$ neutrinos in the power spectrum is similar to the CDM effect on large scales $k=2\pi/\lambda < k_\mathrm{fs}(z_\mathrm{tr}) \simeq 0.01\,
\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$; a scale-dependent suppression of the power spectrum amplitude at intermediate scales $0.01\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}\lesssim k < k_\mathrm{fs}(z=0)\simeq 0.5\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$; and a scale-independent suppression of amplitude at small scales $k \gtrsim 0.5\,\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$.
Various combinations of cosmological data have been used to constrain the neutrino mass. Using CMB data alone, the WMAP 5-year analysis obtaied an upper 95% confidence limit on the sum of the neutrinos masses of 1.3 eV, for a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology [@wmap5komatsu]. By adding galaxy clustering data to CMB data and marginalizing over the galactic bias, the upper limit decreases to around 0.7 eV - 1.0 eV, depending on the datasets used [e.g., @Tegmark06; @Fogli08]. If instead, distance indicators (supernovae and baryon acoustic oscillations) were combined with CMB, stronger constraints were obtained, e.g., ${\sum m_\nu}< 0.61$ eV [@wmap5komatsu]. When all of these probes were used together, the result improved to around 0.4 eV - 0.5 eV [e.g., @Goobar; @Kristiansen07]. Similar results were obtained using only CMB and galaxy clustering data but assuming that the bias was known [@Mctavish06], or measuring it independently [@biasnu]. By applying the latter technique to WMAP 5-year data and new galactic bias constraints, an improved value of ${\sum m_\nu}< 0.28$ eV was obtained [@Debernardis]. Lyman-$\alpha$ data was also added to different combinations of probes, producing results of around 0.15 eV - 0.3 eV, including the tighest constraint to date of ${\sum m_\nu}< 0.17$ eV [@Seljaklyalpha].
In this paper we present the first constraints on neutrino masses obtained with cosmic shear data. The possibility of using the effect of weak gravitational lensing of background galaxies by large-scale structures, or cosmic shear [see @physrepwl for a review], to constrain neutrino properties was first studied in Cooray (1999). Since then, various forecasts have been made and future cosmic shear surveys in combinations with redshift information and CMB data from Planck are expected to measure the sum of neutrino masses with an accuracy of $~0.05$ eV, using shear tomography [@Hannestad] or the full 3D shear field [@nu3d]. In the present work, we use the latest release of the CFHTLS wide survey, CFHTLS-T0003, where two-point angular correlations of the cosmic shear field were detected on scales ranging from 1 to 4 [@Fu]. The signal was measured on source galaxies with mean redshift $z_\mathrm{m}=0.92$, implying it is produced mainly by the dark matter distribution at $z \simeq 0.4$. The measured range therefore probes the non-linear matter power spectrum on comoving scales of $0.08 < k < 10\,h$ Mpc$^{-1}$, reaching the quasi-linear regime of largest scale corresponding to a physical size of approxiamtely $1\,h^{-1}$ Gpc. This largest scale probed is still one order of magnitude smaller than the largest free-streaming scale, $k^*_\mathrm{fs}\simeq 0.01\,
\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$, computed from Eq. (\[eq:kfsmax\]). The data probes thus both the scale-independent and the scale-dependent suppression effects of the sub-free-streaming regime.
{width="7cm"} {width="7cm"}
We proceed by presenting in Sect. 2 the methodology followed to compute the spectra. In the same section we introduce the statistical analysis performed and the datasets used. Cosmological constraints are obtained and discussed in Sect. 3 and our conclusions are presented in Sect. 4.
Methodology {#sec2}
===========
Implementing massive neutrinos in cosmic-shear 2-point correlation functions {#sec2a}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
We perform a statistical analysis of a mixed dark-matter scenario by considering a 8+1 dimensional parameter space (see Sect. \[sec2b\]). For each sampled model of this parameter space the cosmic-shear power spectrum $P_\gamma(\ell)$ is computed by integrating the non-linear *total* matter power spectrum $P_{\mathrm{m}}^{\mathrm nl}$ along the line-of-sight, up to the limiting redshift of the survey $z_\mathrm{lim}$, to account for the distribution of source galaxies $n(z)$. It is given by $$\label{eq:pgamma}
P_\gamma(\ell)=\frac{9{\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}^2 H_0^4}{4c^4}
\int_0^{z_\mathrm{lim}} \frac{{\mathrm{d}}z}{H(z)} \, (1+z)^2 W^2(z) P_{\mathrm{m}}^{\mathrm {nl}} (k,z),$$ where $k=\ell/S_K(\chi(z))$ and $$W(z)= \int_z^{z_\mathrm{lim}}{\mathrm{d}}z' n(z')
\frac{S_K[\chi(z')-\chi(z)]}{S_K[ \chi(z')]}$$ defines the lensing efficiency window function, and $S_K[\chi(z)]$ denotes the comoving angular diameter distance as function of redshift, which reduces to the comoving radial distance $\chi(z)$ for spatial flatness $K=0$. The redshift distribution of sources was determined in Fu [et al. ]{}(2008) from the photometric redshift estimations of Ilbert [et al. ]{}(2006). We adopt the commonly used fitting function of $$n(z)=N(z/z_\mathrm{s})^\alpha\exp\left[-(z/z_\mathrm{s})^\beta\right]$$ with best-fit parameters $\alpha=1.47$, $\beta=2.15$, and $z_\mathrm{s}=0.90$, and a normalization constant $N$ that was determined by integrating up to $z_\mathrm{lim}\simeq 6$.
The shear power spectrum is integrated over the appropriate window function to obtain the mass variance in apertures $\theta$ [@map], $${\left<M^2_\mathrm{ap}( \theta )\right>}=\frac{288}{\pi\theta^4}\int\frac{{\mathrm{d}}\ell}{\ell^3}J^2_4(\ell\theta)P_\gamma(\ell),$$ where $J_4$ is the 4th-order Bessel function of the first kind.
All quantities relying on the background evolution depend on the equation-of-state of the various matter components. The neutrino equation-of-state is defined as $w_\nu(m_\nu,z)=
P(m_\nu,T(z))/\rho(m_\nu,T(z))$. We compute the pressure P and the energy density $\rho$ at points of a grid $(m_\nu,T(z))$, using the fact that the distribution of neutrinos in the phase space is a Fermi-Dirac distribution. The result is well approximated by the fitting function $$\label{eq:nz}
w_\nu(m_\nu,z)=\frac{1}{3}\left[1+\left(\frac{m_\nu}{(1+z)\,0.058\,\mathrm{eV} }\right)^{a}\right]^{-b},$$ where $a=1.652$ and $b=0.561$, and is shown in Fig. \[fig:wmz+deltaMap2\] (left panel). The transition to the non-relativistic regime occurs earlier for heavier particles, at the redshift given by Eq. (\[eq:ztrans\]) and indicated in the figure. The lensing efficiency window shows the redshift range probed by our data. At the upper end of this range, $w_\nu$ is far from zero, especially for low masses. There is thus a degeneracy between the characteristic redshift of the sources and the neutrino mass, which is independent of the well-known redshift-mass degeneracy defined by the amplitude of the cosmic shear signal.
The total matter power spectrum in Eq. (\[eq:pgamma\]) is computed following Hannestad [et al. ]{}(2006), which is also similar to the description adopted for perturbed quintessence fields [@csquintessence]. By assuming that the neutrino overdensities remain always in the linear regime while CDM and baryons grow non-linearly, the total matter power spectrum is given by $$\label{eq:Pnl}
P_{\mathrm{m}}^{{\small\mathrm{nl}}}(k,z)=\left[ f_\nu
\sqrt{P_\nu^{{\small\mathrm{lin}}}(k,z)}+(f_{\mathrm{cdm}}+f_{\mathrm{b}})\sqrt{P_{{\mathrm{cdm}}+{\mathrm{b}}}^{{\small\mathrm{nl}}}(k,z)}\right]^2,$$ where $f_i\equiv\Omega_i/{\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}$ with $i=\{\nu,{\mathrm{cdm}},{\mathrm{b}}\}$ are the density fractions of each matter field over the total matter density parameter ${\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}={\Omega_\mathrm{cdm}}+{\Omega_\mathrm{b}}+{\Omega_\nu}$. The linear power spectra $P_i^{{\small\mathrm{lin}}}(k,z)$ are computed using the Boltzmann code CAMB [^2], to take into account properly the scale-dependent growth of the neutrino perturbations. The output is computed for a grid of redshifts linearly spanning the range $0<z\leq 4$ and then spline-interpolated. The non-linear spectrum $P_{{\mathrm{cdm}}+{\mathrm{b}}}^{{\small\mathrm{nl}}}$ is computed with the [halofit]{} mapping [@halofit]. The Peacock & Dodds mapping [@PD] is unsuitable for this study, because it uses a scale-independent growth factor, which cannot be defined in the presence of neutrinos.
The right panel of Fig. \[fig:wmz+deltaMap2\] shows the aperture mass dispersion in the presence of massive and massless neutrinos, computed from the total matter power spectrum, for the same ${\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}$. The models are similar on large scales where the neutrinos behave like cold dark matter and show a scale-dependent deviation on intermediate scales. On small scales, which stay always inside the free-streaming length, the suppression is constant. Linear perturbation theory predicts the small-scale suppression to be, $[P^{{\small\mathrm{lin}}}_{\mathrm{m}}(f_\nu,z=0) -
P^{{\small\mathrm{lin}}}_{\mathrm{m}}(f_\nu=0,z=0)] /P^{{\small\mathrm{lin}}}_{\mathrm{m}}(f_\nu,z=0) \sim -8f_\nu$ [@hudeltap]. For the non-linear power spectrum, the suppression is higher, around $-10f_\nu$, as predicted by both numerical simulations [@nunbody] and one-loop corrections [@Wong08]. For the aperture mass dispersion, the models shown in Fig. \[fig:wmz+deltaMap2\] have a small-scale suppression of $\sim
-5f_\nu$.
Likelihood analysis {#sec2b}
-------------------
### Cosmic shear alone
The statistical analysis evaluates a mixed dark matter scenario with nine parameters, including the reduced Hubble parameter $h$, the density of baryons $\omega_{\mathrm{b}}\equiv{\Omega_\mathrm{b}}{h^2}$, cold dark matter, $\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}\equiv{\Omega_\mathrm{cdm}}{h^2}$, and massive neutrinos, $\omega_\nu\equiv{\Omega_\nu}{h^2}$, the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom ${N_\mathrm{eff}}$, the optical depth to reionization $\tau$, the primordial spectral index ${n_\mathrm{s}}$, the rms of the matter perturbations extrapolated to redshift $z=0$ and filtered over the $8h^{-1}$ Mpc scale, $\sigma_8$, and the mean redshift $z_\mathrm{m}$ of the source galaxies. The results will be marginalized over a mean redshift range $0.78<z_\mathrm{m}<1.0$, corresponding to the $2\sigma$ interval of the redshift distribution found in Fu [et al. ]{}(2008). The neutrino physical density parameter relates to the total neutrino mass as ${\Omega_\nu}{h^2}={\sum m_\nu}/93$ eV, and we assume that the three neutrino masses are degenerate.
In a very conservative approach, we shall work in a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) cosmology with cosmological constant as dark energy, with energy density fixed assuming spatial flatness. More generally, in this framework, dark energy is a fluid-like component that is dominant at low redshift and responsible for the recent accelerated expansion. A quintessence field, eventually allowing for non-minimal couplings [@Wetterich1995; @uzan99; @TocchiniValentiniAmendola2002], provides the most general alternative that might alleviate the coincidence problem [e.g., @QuintessenceReview for a review]. Alternatively, it is possible to account for the global dynamics without advocating such an additional field, by considering back-reaction effects of structure formation [@DEbackreaction; @Kolb06; @Wiltshire07], rejecting the Copernican principle [@CopernicanPrinciple], or invoking theories of gravitation that differ from general relativity on large scales [see @DEclassification for a review]. Our results do not exclude these possibilities, which require new, consistent analyses to be evaluated properly [see e.g., @quintlens for a weak-lensing analysis of quintessence].
The log-likelihood is defined as usual to be $$\label{eq:logL}
\log\mathcal{L}=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{ij}\Delta{\left<M^2_\mathrm{ap}( \theta_i )\right>}(\mathsf{Cov}^{-1})_{ij}\Delta{\left<M^2_\mathrm{ap}( \theta_j )\right>},$$ where $\Delta{\left<M^2_\mathrm{ap}( \theta_i )\right>}$ is the difference between the observed and the theoretical values of the aperture mass variance computed at angles $1 \arcmin \leq \theta_i \leq
230\arcmin$ and $\mathsf{Cov}$ is the corresponding covariance matrix.
We sample the likelihood over a regular grid of the parameter space, for a total of $\sim 10^7$ models. The domain of the grid is : $\omega_{\mathrm{b}}\in[0.0186,0.0249]$, $\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}\in[0.110,0.152]$, $\omega_\nu \in[0,0.042]$, $h \in[0.62,0.80]$, ${N_\mathrm{eff}}\in[2,4]$, $\tau \in[0,0.225]$, ${n_\mathrm{s}}\in[0.87,1.02]$, $\sigma_8 \in[0.65,0.92]$.
In this work we use the aperture mass vector and covariance matrix obtained in Fu [et al. ]{}(2008), which was measured over 57 square degrees (35 square degrees of effective area) in three connected patches of the sky, using $2.5 \times 10^6$ galaxies with magnitudes $21.5 < i_\mathrm{AB} < 24.5$. The covariance matrix includes shape noise in the shear estimator, non-Gaussian cosmic variance, and the residual B-mode. The shear-measurement pipeline was tested on STEP2 simulations [@step2] and shown to be slightly biased, underestimating the shear on average by 2% [@Fu]. Moreover, this analysis showed that highly anisotropic point-spread-functions (PSF) may introduce a spurious constant shear. The aperture mass statistic, being computed with a compensated filter, is unaffect by a constant shear, which is the main reason for choosing this statistic for the present analysis. In contrast, a constant shear affects top-hat two-point statistics. The impact of redshift-dependent additive and multiplicative shear biases, which are present in all KSB-based shear estimators, on cosmological constraints is studied in Semboloni [et al. ]{}(2008).
### Joint analysis
In the joint analysis, we adopt the [*importance sampling*]{} technique [@hastings70; @lewisbridle], adding CFHTLS-T0003 cosmic shear data to two Monte Carlo Markov chains available in the [Lambda]{} archive[^3] for the mixed dark-matter scenario. One of the chains was computed for CMB temperature and polarization anisotropies derived from WMAP-5yr [@wmap5dunkley] data. The other chain used a combination of these data with baryon acoustic oscillations from SDSS and 2dFGRS [@baodata], and Type Ia supernovae from the “Gold” sample [@sngold] and SNLS [@snls].
Importance sampling consists of estimating a target distribution (a joint posterior distribution in our case) by sampling an auxiliary distribution. We assume that the public Monte Carlo Markov chains provided by the WMAP team have enough resolution at the region of parameter space intersecting the cosmic shear posterior distribution. This is a reasonable assumption since they are the dominant contribution to the joint constraints. They are thus useful auxiliary distributions and are biased distributions of the target distributions. To obtain the two unbiased joint distributions (WMAP+CFHTLS and WMAP+BAO+SNe+CFHTLS), we scale the chains by multiplying the weight of each chain element by its likelihood with respect to the cosmic shear data.
This method allows us to accelerate the computation compared to sampling directly the joint posterior with a grid or a Markov chain, since it requires only the computation of the cosmic shear likelihood for each model of the chains. Each model of the chains has a constant ${N_\mathrm{eff}}=3.04$, hence in the joint analysis, we consider only 7+1 physically independent parameters, i.e., the remaining 7 cosmological parameters used in the cosmic shear analysis and the lensing sources redshift.
Results {#sec3}
=======
CFHTLS-T0003 alone {#sec3a}
------------------
We now discuss the analysis of cosmic-shear data alone. Figure \[fig:nufu\] shows the marginalized confidence contours in the $(\sigma_8,\Omega_{\mathrm{m}})$ plane. The degeneracy direction in the case of massless neutrinos is fitted by $$\sigma_8\,({\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}/0.25)^{0.72}=0.744 \pm 0.052.$$ This value was found by marginalizing over $h$ but for fixed $\omega_{\mathrm{b}}$ and ${n_\mathrm{s}}$ to be more directly comparable to the result of Fu [et al. ]{}(2008) for the same data. Our result is slightly lower, but within $1\sigma$. There are several differences between the two analyses that account for this difference. In particular, since we are interested in combining our results with CMB constraints, we explored a narrower grid in $(\omega_{\mathrm{b}},\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}},\omega_\nu)$, corresponding to a grid interval of ${\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}\in[0.2,0.6]$. The boundary effects slightly increase the curvature of the contour, which is most accurately described with a larger exponent power-law. The comparison of both results is particularly sensitive to this choice because here the confidence intervals are computed as volumes of the posterior distribution containing a certain fraction of the total probability, whereas in Fu [et al. ]{}(2008) the results are obtained from the values of $\Delta\chi^2$. The theoretical modelling also differs. Here we use Eq. (\[eq:Pnl\]), while in Fu [et al. ]{}(2008) the power spectrum was computed from the Eisenstein & Hu transfer function [@ehutransfer].
In the presence of massive neutrinos, the contours are shifted towards the right. This follows from the ${\Omega_\mathrm{cdm}}-{\Omega_\nu}$ degeneracy, and shows that an increase in ${\Omega_\nu}$ is compensated by an increase in ${\Omega_\mathrm{cdm}}$, confirming that the data are in the sub-free-streaming-length regime, where the effect of the neutrinos opposes that of the cold dark matter. The contours also broaden, since many more preferred models exist now. For example, on angular scales of between 10and 100, ${\left<M^2_\mathrm{ap}( \theta )\right>}$ of the best-fit models of the full grid and the massless neutrino sub-grid, differ by less than 5%. As the contours broaden, their shape remains unchanged, implying that the CDM effect on the cosmic shear signal is more significant than that of the neutrinos. The degeneracy direction in the case of massive neutrinos is now fitted by $$\sigma_8\,({\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}/0.35)^{0.64}=0.711 \pm 0.076 \,,$$ where we chose a higher pivot ${\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}$.
![Confidence contours (68% and 95%) from the aperture-mass dispersion between 1and 230, for ${\Omega_\nu}=0$ (red, smaller) and marginalized over $\omega_\nu$ (blue, larger). Both cases are marginalized over the source redshift distribution and the remaining cosmological parameters.[]{data-label="fig:nufu"}](11077fg2.ps){width="7cm"}
{width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"}
Figure \[fig:wlcont\] (left panel) shows the massless and massive neutrino best-fit models, ($m_\nu=0$ eV, ${\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}=0.30$) and ($m_\nu=0.53$ eV, ${\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}=0.44$), respectively. They have the same values of $\sigma_8$ and $h$ and differ in ${n_\mathrm{s}}$. The difference between the two models, shown in the inset normalized by the massless neutrino model, increases on larger scales with the approach to the free-streaming-length. This indicates that combining cosmic shear measurements at sub- and super-free-streaming-scales, might break the ${\Omega_\mathrm{cdm}}-{\Omega_\nu}$ degeneracy. Shown explicitly in Fig. \[fig:wlcont\] (middle panel), this degeneracy, as well as the similarly-oriented $\sigma_8-{\Omega_\nu}$ correlation (not shown), confirm that an increasing neutrino density decreases the cosmic shear signal. However, the tilting effect of the neutrino density on the matter power spectrum around the free-streaming scale may mimic the dependence on ${n_\mathrm{s}}$, especially if the pivot scale $k$ used is similar to the free-streaming scale $k^*_\mathrm{fs} \sim 0.01
h$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Therefore, the combination of sub- and super-free-streaming data may not have enough information to additionally break the ${n_\mathrm{s}}-{\Omega_\nu}$ degeneracy. This degeneracy is shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:wlcont\].
To explore the benefit of a broader range of scales, we construct a fiducial model consisting of an extension of our best-fit massless neutrino model to $\theta=20\degr$ (also shown in Fig. \[fig:wlcont\], left panel), where the flat-sky approximation remains valid. We computed a new covariance matrix using the Schneider [et al. ]{} (2002) approximation with the Semboloni [et al. ]{}(2007) non-Gaussian correction and WMAP-5yr mean parameter values [@wmap5dunkley]. We assumed the same sky coverage and galaxy density as in CFHTLS-T0003. In this way we can evaluate the benefit of using large scales independent of a gain due to better statistics. We obtain constraints similar to the ones obtained for the data up to 230, the extension to $\theta=20\degr$ only adding a small number of independent points. Since the cosmic shear signal on large scales becomes very small, better statistics are needed in attempting to break the ${\Omega_\mathrm{cdm}}-{\Omega_\nu}$ degeneracy with cosmic shear data alone.
Using either CFHTLS-T0003 data or its extension to $\theta=20\degr$, the marginalized upper bound on the neutrino mass is, $$\sum m_\nu < 3.3\,\mbox{eV (95\% C.L.)}.
\label{res33}$$ This constraint, while very loose when compared with the combined constraints mentioned in Sect. 2, is comparable to the ones obtained from SDSS or 2dF galaxy redshift surveys alone (see e.g., Kristiansen [et al. ]{}2007, who find ${\sum m_\nu}\lesssim 5.2 $ eV).
We note that the 95% C.L. contours in Fig. \[fig:nufu\] do not close inside the range of the parameters probed. This implies that our grid limits are an effectively strong prior, in particular implying ${\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}\in[0.2,0.6]$ and $\sigma_8 \in[0.65,0.92]$. In other words, the constraint in Eq. (\[res33\]) includes a marginalisation over an arbitrary and relatively narrow range of parameters values, and is thus optimistic. Furthermore, the derived constraint does not take account of degeneracies with dark energy. In more general scenarios with non-vanishing curvature or with non-cosmological-constant dark energy, both growth of structure and distances, as functions of redshift, depend on both the dark-energy density parameter $\Omega_{\mathrm{de}}$ and the equation-of-state $w_{\mathrm{de}}$. To effectively break the ${\Omega_\nu}-{\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}$ degeneracy, it will thus be necessary to use a measure that is not degenerate in $\Omega_{\mathrm{de}}$ and $w_{\mathrm{de}}$. One possibility is to exploit the lens efficiency at different redshift bins with tomography [e.g., @denutom]. However, even with tomography, some direct neutrino-dark energy degeneracy will remain due to the transition epoch from matter to dark-energy domination [@denu].
Regarding the effective number of relativistic species, cosmic shear is sensitive to it via the change in the matter-radiation equality. A higher ${N_\mathrm{eff}}$ implies a longer radiation-dominated era, and thus a more efficient suppression of growth. Hence, the relative amplitude of small and large scales changes and the shear power spectrum tilts. The effect is however weak and we find an essentially flat likelihood in the probed range of ${N_\mathrm{eff}}\in
[2,4]$, meaning that the data do not constrain this parameter.
{width="6cm"} {width="6cm"} {width="6cm"}
Joint analysis {#sec3b}
--------------
We now explore the parameter space by adding CFHTLS-T0003 cosmic shear data to each of the Monte Carlo Markov chains defined in Sect. 2.2.2, aiming to determine the gain achieved by including lensing data.
The main independent piece of information provided by cosmic shear is the power spectrum on small scales. As discussed above, it has a distinctive scaling with both neutrino and CDM densities, while these two parameters for CMB are instead weakly correlated, as seen in Fig. \[fig:joint\] (left panel, largest contour). This allows us to obtain a narrow, joint constraint, approximatively in the same direction found for cosmic shear alone in Fig. \[fig:wlcont\] (middle panel). The direction orthogonal to the contour indicates the combination of parameters to which cosmic shear is mostly sensitive to. It is well approximated by the linear relation $\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}- \omega_\nu$ and the WMAP5 + CFHTLS constraint on this combination of parameters is, $$\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}- \omega_\nu = 0.106 \pm 0.006\; (1\sigma).$$ The figure-of-merit (FoM) quantifies the error ellipses of correlated parameters and was introduced for the parameters of the dark energy equation of state [@detf]. It is defined as the inverse area of the ellipse approximating the $p\%$ confidence level contour, centered on the contour centroid, i.e., $$\mathrm{FoM}^{-1}=\Delta\chi^2(p)\pi\,(\sigma_{11}\sigma_{22}-\sigma_{12}^2)^{1/2},$$ where $\sigma_{ii}$ is the variance of the parameter $i$. We consider 2$\sigma$ contours, for which $\Delta\chi^2(95.4\%)=6.17$, and obtain ${\rm FoM} \simeq 19$ for the WMAP5 contour and ${\rm FoM} \simeq
44$ for the combined (WMAP5 + CFHTLS) case, corresponding to a gain of a factor of 2.3. The two parameters $\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}$ and $\omega_\nu$ are, however, strongly correlated, exhibiting a narrow, long combined contour and the effective gain in the $\omega_\nu$ variance is of only 1.2.
The introduction of distance measurements (BAO+SNe) is useful, since its combination with WMAP5 data (also shown in Fig. \[fig:joint\], left panel) defines a narrow region in the $(\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}},\omega_\nu)$ plane that complements that of the WMAP5+CFHTLS data. Both cases thus probe orthogonal combinations of the two parameters and, furthermore, in a way that is independent of the spectral index, since this is already well determined by the CMB data alone (as shown in Fig. \[fig:joint\], middle panel). Their combination thus has the same properties we were looking for when discussing the possibility of using sub- and super-free-streaming scales from cosmic shear alone, along with the need for an independent measure of ${n_\mathrm{s}}$. This means that the combination of the two cases (WMAP5 + BAO + SNe + CFHTLS) breaks the remaining degeneracy, as is clear from Fig. \[fig:joint\] (left panel, smaller contour) and from the fact that the combined contour has very small correlation ($\sigma_{12}<
0.1\%$, for un-normalised parameters $\omega_c$ and $\omega_\nu$).
Figure \[fig:joint\] (right panel) shows the one-dimensional marginalized probability distributions of the neutrino masses in the four cases. The upper 95% confidence levels are $\sum m_\nu < 1.32$ eV (WMAP5), $\sum m_\nu < 1.22$ eV (WMAP5 + CFHTLS) and $\sum m_\nu < 0.62$ eV (WMAP5 + BAO + SNe). For the full combination (WMAP5 + BAO + SNe + CFHTLS), we find that $$0.03\,\mbox{eV}\, < \sum m_\nu < 0.54\,\mbox{eV (95\% C.L.)},$$ with mean 0.31 eV. Interestingly, we obtain a lower bound, and thus a preference for massive neutrinos at the $2\sigma$ level.
It is worth to point out that the lower bound on $\sum m_\nu$ is strongly dependent on the position of the WMAP5 + CFHTLS contour in the $(\omega_\nu,\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}})$ plane (see Fig. \[fig:joint\], left panel). Any systematic effect that underestimates the cosmic-shear signal would shift the $({\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}},\sigma_8)$ contour towards the bottom-left corner of Fig. \[fig:nufu\] with a consequent shift in the $(\omega_\nu,\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}})$ contour towards the bottom-right corner of Fig. \[fig:joint\] (left panel). The WMAP5 + BAO + SNe + CFHTLS contour would thus descend along the WMAP5 + BAO + SNe one producing a positive lower bound for the neutrino mass. A similar effect appeared in Allen [et al. ]{}(2003), which also showed a preference for a non-zero neutrino mass from a combination of CMB, galaxy clustering and X-ray cluster data; that result was in fact caused by an underestimation of $\sigma_8$, as pointed out by Seljak [et al. ]{}(2005). Similarly, the joint constraint depends crucially on BAO data. Komatsu [et al. ]{}(2008) pointed out a tension between SNe and BAO results when the joint SDSS + 2dFGRS BAO sample is used. If BAO data overestimates the total matter density, then an unbiased WMAP5 + BAO + SNe contour in the $(\omega_\nu,\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}})$ plane (Fig. \[fig:joint\], left panel) will be shifted towards the bottom-left corner, weakening the preference for massive neutrinos.
Robustness of the constraints {#sec3c}
-----------------------------
We check here the robustness of our results against systematics of the cosmic shear data, that have not been included in the analysis so far. For this purpose, we first assume the data vector is biased as a consequence of an underestimation in the shear, as indicated by the STEP simulations. We assume a 2% redshift-independent bias in the shape measurements, which translates into a scale-independent 4% error in the data vector, and repeat the joint analysis. The resulting combined contour shifts upwards along the WMAP5+BAO+SNe degeneracy in agreement with the discussion in Sect. 3.2. As seen in Fig. \[fig:testWLdata\] (left panel, solid lines), this small bias is enough for the evidence of massless neutrinos to be lost and we obtain at the 95% C.L. : $$\sum m_\nu<0.53~eV.$$
Other sources of errors that can affect cosmic-shear cosmological constraints are: contamination from intrinsic alignments, in particular shear-shape correlations [@hirataseljak] for no precise theoretical modeling yet exists; uncertainties in the photometric redshifts; and extra PSF residuals not predicted by the STEP simulations. Modelling of some of the CFHTLS-T0003 systematics is included in the analysis of Kilbinger [et al. ]{}(2008). Here we consider the rougher approach of marginalizing over a scale-independent calibration factor, accounting for all possible sources of biases, with the goal of finding a threshold of contamination above which the CFHTLS data do not improve the combined constraints.
{width="5.9cm"} {width="5.9cm"} {width="5.9cm"}
We find a threshold of 25% for the aperture mass dispersion data. The corresponding combined contour in the $(\omega_\nu,\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}})$ plane is shown in Fig. \[fig:testWLdata\] (left panel, dashed lines). The contour is now elongated and similar to the WMAP+BAO+SNe one of Fig. \[fig:joint\] (left panel). If the data contains systematics of amplitude smaller than 25% of the signal, we can quote conservative combined constraints by marginalizing over the amplitude of the systematics. The final 95% C.L. for the joint analysis will be intermediate between the most optimistic case (no bias) of 0.03 eV $< \sum m_\nu<0.54$ eV and the worst case (no contribution from lensing) of $\sum m_\nu<0.62$ eV. For example, in the case of systematics of 10%, the conservative constraints are $\sum m_\nu<0.58$ eV. These marginalized constraints, not including systematics with a scale- or a redshift-dependence, are approximative since massive neutrinos affect both the amplitude and the shape of the cosmic shear correlations. Only on smaller scales ($\lesssim 10\arcmin \,$, see e.g. Fig. \[fig:wmz+deltaMap2\] right panel) is the suppression scale-independent.
We can also assess the robustness of the result by comparing it with a forecast. For this, we compute a systematics-free cosmic-shear covariance matrix for our survey size using the results of Schneider [et al. ]{}(2002) and Semboloni [et al. ]{}(2007). This covariance matrix differs from the one we have used so far, which was computed by taking into account the true galaxy positions and weights. The results do not change when we replace the covariance matrices, as shown in Fig. \[fig:testWLdata\] (middle and right panels, solid lines). To ensure that the forecast is completely independent of the data, we redo it by further replacing the data vector by a fiducial model [the WMAP5 mean, @wmap5dunkley]. This time we obtain a shift in the contour location (Fig. \[fig:testWLdata\], middle and right panels, dashed lines). Again the evidence for massless neutrinos is lost, this time due to the higher $\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}$ value of the WMAP5 fiducial model. This behaviour mimicks a correction for an eventual overestimation of the source redshifts. Indeed, if the effective redshift is lower, the models will have a higher value of ${\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}$ for the same amplitude $\sigma_8$, shifting the combined $\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}- \omega_\nu$ contour up. It likewise mimicks a correction for an underestimation of the shear measurements. The combined constraint on the neutrino mass, when using the WMAP5 fiducial model, strengthens to $\sum m_\nu<0.44$ eV. We note this is also the result that would be obtained if the data were corrected for a negative calibration bias of 20%.
In summary, the possible systematics do not change the angle between the $\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}-\omega_\nu$ degeneracy in the WMAP5 + CFHTLS and WMAP5 + BAO + SNe cases, only shift or broaden the combined contour position and size. Eventual corrections for an underestimation of the data vector or for an overestimation of the source redshifts would produce both a tighter upper bound and a looser lower bound on the neutrino mass.
The matter power spectrum also contributes as a source of uncertainties. The prescription used, Eq. (\[eq:Pnl\]), does not consider clustering of neutrinos on CDM structures, which occurs when the neutrino thermal velocity drops below the velocity dispersion, $v$, of forming clusters; for instance, it takes place at $z\sim 2.3$ for $v\sim
1000$ km/s and $m_\nu\sim 0.5$ eV. The corresponding neutrino halo profile is flatter in the centre than a pure CDM Navarro-Franck-White [@nuprofile]. Including it in the 1-halo term of the halo model, Abazajian [et al. ]{}(2005) showed that it decreases the non-linear matter power spectrum. Accordingly, in this work the term $P_{{\mathrm{cdm}}+{\mathrm{b}}}^{{\small\mathrm{nl}}}$ is expected to be overestimated by $\sim1\%$ on scales around $k=0.5\,h$ Mpc$^{-1}$ for $m_\nu \sim 0.5$ eV. Alternatively, results from perturbation theory with neutrinos [@Wong08] also indicate an overestimation of the matter power spectrum, as already mentioned in Sect. 2.1.
The non-linear power spectrum is computed with the [halofit]{}, which declares a 3% uncertainty on scales $k<10$ h/Mpc at $z<3$ [@halofit], which are thus of the same order as the supposed shear measurement bias. This uncertainty is effectively both redshift- and scale-independent over the data redshift and scale ranges. Marginalizing over a 5% uncertainty, the corresponding joint constraint is $\sum m_\nu<0.56$ eV. Furthermore, the [halofit]{} does not take account of the effects of cooling baryons and hot intra-cluster baryons, which are degenerate with the neutrinos, affecting the power spectrum by a few percent on small scales [@psbaryons1; @psbaryons2; @psbaryons3].
Conclusions {#sec4}
===========
We have investigated the potential of cosmic shear to constrain the mass of neutrinos. In the sub-free-streaming regime, the constraining power originates, for a fixed density of baryons, in the tendency of relativistic (hot) dark matter particles to escape from collapsed regions. Therefore additional amounts of CDM are needed to produce the same cosmic-shear distortion, shifting the ${\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}-\sigma_8$ degeneracy towards larger values of ${\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}$ with respect to the analysis without massive neutrinos (Fig. \[fig:nufu\]), producing a $\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}-\omega_\nu$ degeneracy favoring higher amounts of CDM for higher amounts of massive neutrinos (Fig. \[fig:wlcont\]). The analysis of CFHTLS-T0003 data alone yields a loose constraint of $\sum
m_\nu<3.3$ eV at the 95% C.L., for our particular choice of priors.
We have explored larger angular scales using a synthetic data vector extended to $20\degr$ to explore the possibility of breaking the $\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}-\omega_\nu$ degeneracy using only cosmic shear. This analysis did not predict an improvement in the results, which would require higher signal-to-noise ratio at large scales.
The introduction of CFHTLS-T0003 data in a WMAP5+BAO+SNe analysis provides an interesting combination, breaking the $\omega_{\mathrm{cdm}}-\omega_\nu$ degeneracy present in that analysis (Fig. \[fig:joint\] , left panel). The joint analysis yields 0.03 eV $< \sum m_\nu<0.54$ eV at the 95% confidence level, marginally excluding massless neutrinos (Fig. \[fig:joint\], right panel). The preference for massive neutrinos is lost when the data is corrected for a possible underestimation of the shear signal, which simulations indicate may be around 4%. In this case, the result shifts to $\sum m_\nu<0.53$ eV. The CFHTLS data also shows some disagreement with the result of WMAP5. Indeed, if a cosmic-shear fiducial WMAP5 model was used, the expected combined WMAP5+BAO+SNe+CFHTLS constraint would be tighter: $\sum m_\nu<0.44$ eV. Finally, we showed that CFHTLS-T0003 data do not improve the WMAP5+BAO+SNe constraints on the neutrino mass if they contain a bias larger than 25%.
After submission of the manuscript, a similar study was submitted by Ichiki [et al. ]{}(2008), also using CFHTLS-T0003 cosmic shear data to constrain the neutrino mass. Both analyses take a similar approach, the main differences being: they use the cosmic shear correlation function, which is more affected by systematics, as opposed to the aperture-mass dispersion; the non-Gaussian shear covariance matrix is also computed in different ways, as is the likelihood analysis. Their neutrino mass constraints from cosmic shear only are weaker, which is consistent with the fact they impose weaker priors, and the results for a WMAP5+BAO+SNe+CFHTLS joint analysis are very similar.
Besides the neutrino mass, we also considered the effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom, ${N_\mathrm{eff}}$. CMB anisotropies are by far more sensitive than cosmic shear and CFHTLS-T0003 data produced an almost flat likelihood with respect to this parameter. This prevented us from using the $\sigma_8-{N_\mathrm{eff}}$ degeneracy, caused by a higher ${N_\mathrm{eff}}$ delaying the matter-radiation equivalence and the corresponding defreezing of matter perturbations, which have less time to grow.
In summary, the CFHTLS cosmic-shear has already sufficient statistical precision for the accuracy of the results to be affected by systematics. The CFHTLS lensing systematics collaboration is currently undertaking a very detailed and lengthy analysis of those systematics. The statistical precision is however still insufficient to allow us to improve current constraints on the neutrino mass. Future ground-based and space-borne observations [such as KIDS, Pan-STARRS, DES, LSST, SNAP-L, JDEM, or EUCLID surveys; see @ESAESOreport], with better statistics, larger scales, and also the use of tomographic techniques, will allow to perform more elaborate analyses, for instance enabling to relax the assumption of degeneracy between mass eigenstates.
From the theoretical point-of-view, a more suitable computation of the matter power spectrum in the non-linear regime will be mandatory, to take more careful account of the effects of massive neutrinos without relying on mappings based on $\Lambda$CDM $N$-body simulations. This might be achievable using either standard perturbation theory [e.g., @nupt] or a resummation scheme [see e.g., @ptr1; @ptr2]. It will be interesting, eventually, to investigate the degeneracy with the low-redshift physics ($z\lesssim 20$), such as reionization and dark energy, relevant if $m_\nu\lesssim0.01$ eV. On this mass scale, the normal/inverted hierarchy of mass states can also be distinguished. More elaborate models allowing for an interaction between massive neutrinos and a quintessence field [@mQ2], or in which mass-varying neutrinos behave as a negative pressure fluid, which could then be the origin of the cosmic acceleration [@mQ1], may then also be considered.
We are thankful to Yannick Mellier for supporting this project and to Elisabetta Semboloni for many discussions. We thank Karim Benabed for help with computation in the early stage of this work and the Terapix group for computational facilities. We acknowledge the CFHTLS lensing systematics collaboration for helpful discussions. We are grateful to Peter Schneider and Jens Roediger for careful readings of the manuscript. We acknowledge use of CAMB and of the LAMBDA archive. IT and LF are supported by the European Commission Programme 6-th framework, Marie Curie Training and Research Network “DUEL”, contract number MRTN-CT-2006-036133. MK is funded by the CNRS/ANR research grant “ECOSSTAT”, contract number ANR-05-BLAN-0283-04. CS thanks IAP for hospitality.
Abazajian, K. & Dodelson, S. 2003, , 91, 041301
Abazajian, K., Switzer, E. R., Dodelson, S., Heitmann, K. & Habib, S. 2005, 71, 043507
Albrecht, A., Bernstein, G., Cahn, R. [et al. ]{}2006, arXiv:0609591 \[astro-ph\]
Allen, S. W., Schmidt, R. W. & Bridle, S. L. 2003, , 346, 593
Astier, P., Guy, J., Regnault, N. [et al. ]{}2006, , 447, 31
Bondi, F. 1960, [*Cosmology*]{}, Cambridge University Press
Brandbyge, J., Hannestad, S., Haugboelle, T. & Thomsen, B. 2008, JCAP, 08, 020B
Brookfield, A. W., van de Bruck, C. Mota, D. F. & Tocchini-Valentini, D. 2006, , 96, 061301
Calibbi, L., Faccia, A., Masiero, A. & Vempati, S. K. 2006, , 74, 116002
Cooray, A. 1999, , 348, 31
Copeland, E. J., Sami. M., & Tsujikawa, S. 2006, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 15, 1753
Cuoco, A., Iocco, F., Mangano, G., Miele, G., Pisanti, O.& Serpico, P. D. 2004, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 19, 4431
Crocce, M. & Scoccimarro, R. 2006, , 73, 6
De Bernardis, F., Serra, P., Cooray, A., Melchiorri, A. 2008, , 78, 083535
Dunkley, J., Komatsu, E., Nolta, M. R. [et al. ]{}2008, arXiv:0803.0586 \[astro-ph\]
Eisenstein, D. J. & Hu, W. 1998, , 496, 605
Ellis, G. F. R. 1971, Q. Jl. Astron. Soc., 16, 245
Ellis, G. F. R. & Buchert, T. 2005, Phys. Lett. A, 347, 38
Fardon, R., Nelson, A. E. & Weiner, N. 2004, , 10, 205
Fogli, G. L., Lisi, E., Marrone, A. [et al. ]{}2008, , 78, 033010
Fu, L., Semboloni, E., Hoekstra, H. [et al. ]{}2008, , 479, 9
Gonzalez-Garcia, M.C. & Maltoni, M. 2008, , 460, 1
Goobar, A., Hannestad, S., Moertsell, E. & Tu, H. 2006, , 06, 019
Hannestad, S., Tu, H., & Wong, Y. 2006, , 06, 025
Hastings, W. K. 1970, Biometrika, 57, 1
Hirata, C. & Seljak, U. 2004, , 70, 063526
Hu, W., Eisenstein, D. J. & Tegmark, M. 1998, , 80, 5255
Ichiki, K., Takada, M. & Takahashi, T., 2008, arXiv:0810.4921 \[astro-ph\]
Ilbert, O., Arnouts, S., McCracken, H. J. [et al. ]{}2006, , 457, 841
Jing, Y. P., Zhang, P., Ling, W. P., Gao, L. & Springel, V. 2006, , 640, L119
Kiakotou, A., Elgar[ø]{}y, [Ø]{}. & Lahav, O. 2008, , 77, 063005
Kilbinger, M., Benabed, K., Guy, J. [et al. ]{}2008, arXiv:0810.5129 \[astro-ph\]
Kitching, T. D., Heavens, A. F., Verde, L., Serra, P. & Melchiorri, A. 2008, , 77, 103008
Kolb, E. W., Matarrese, S. & Riotto, A. 2006, New J. Phys., 8, 322
Komatsu, E., Dunkley, J., Nolta, M. R. [et al. ]{}2008, arXiv:0803.0547 \[astro-ph\]
Kristiansen, J., Elgaroy, O. & Dahle, H. 2007, , 75, 083510
Lesgourgues, J., Pastor, S., & Perotto, L. 2004, , 70, 045016
Lesgourgues, J., & Pastor, S. 2006, , 429, 307
Lewis, A., & Bridle, S. 2002, 66, 103511
Mangano, G., Miele, G., Pastor, S., & Peloso, M. 2002, Phys. Lett. B, 534, 8
Massey, R., Heymans, C., Berge, J. [et al. ]{}2007, , 376, 13
McTavish, C. J., Ade, P. A. R., Bode, J. J. [et al. ]{}2006, 647, 799
Munshi, D., Valageas, P., van Waerbeke, L., & Heavens, A. F. 2008, 462, 67
Peacock, J. A., & Dodds, S. J. 1996, 280, 19
Peacock, J. A., Schneider, P., Efstathiou, G. [et al. ]{}2006, Report of the ESA-ESO Working Group on Fundamental Cosmology, arXiv:0610906 \[astro-ph\]
Percival, W. J., Cole, S., Eisenstein, D. [et al. ]{}2007, , 381, 1053
Pietroni, M. 2008, JCAP, 10, 036
Riess, A. G., Strolger, L.-G., Tonry, J. [et al. ]{}2004, , 607, 665
Ringwald, A. & Wong, Y.Y. 2004, JCAP, 0412, 005
Saito, S., Takada, M. & Taruya, A. 2008, , 100, 191301
Schneider, P., van Waerbeke, L., Jain, B. & Kruse, G. 1998, , 296, 873
Schneider, P., van Waerbeke, L., Kilbinger, M. & Mellier, Y. 2002, , 396, 1
Schimd, C., Uzan, J.-P. & Riazuelo, A. 2005, , 71, 083512
Schimd, C., Tereno, I., Uzan, J.-P. [et al. ]{}2007, , 463, 405
Seljak, U., Makarov, A., Mandelbaum, R. [et al. ]{}2005, , 71, 043511
Seljak, U., Slosar, A., McDonald, P. [et al. ]{}2006, JCAP, 10, 14
Semboloni, E., van Waerbeke, L., Heymans, C. [et al. ]{}2007, , 375, L6
Semboloni, E., Tereno, I., van Waerbeke, L. & Heymans, C. 2008, arXiv:0812.1881 \[astro-ph\]
Smith, R. E., Peacock, J. A., Jenkins, A. [et al. ]{}2003, , 341, 1311
Tegmark, M., Eisenstein, D. J., Strauss, M. A. [et al. ]{}. 2006, , 74, 123507
Tocchini-Valentini, D. & Amendola, L. 2002, , 65, 063508
Uzan, J.-P. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 123510
Uzan, J.-P. 2006, Gen. Rel. Grav., 39, 307
Uzan, J.-P., Clarckson, C., & Ellis, G.F.R. 2008, , 100, 191303
Wetterich, C. 1995, , 301, 321
White, M. 2005, Astropar. Phys., 24, 334
Wiltshire, D. 2007, New J. Phys., 9, 377
Wong, Y. Y. Y. 2008, JCAP, 10, 035
Zhan, H. & Knox, L. 2004, 616, L75
[^1]: Based on observations obtained with MegaPrime/MegaCam, a joint project of CFHT and CEA/DAPNIA, at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) which is operated by the National Research Council (NRC) of Canada, the Institut National des Sciences de l’Univers of the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) of France, and the University of Hawaii. This work is based in part on data products produced at TERAPIX and the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre as part of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey, a collaborative project of NRC and CNRS.
[^2]: http://camb.info
[^3]: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This is a report for reproducibility challenge of NeurlIPS’19 on the paper *Competitive gradient descent* [@Schafer2019CGD]. The paper introduces a novel algorithm for the numerical computation of Nash equilibria of competitive two-player games. It avoids oscillatory and divergent behaviors seen in alternating gradient descent.
The purpose of this report is to critically examine the reproducibility of the work by [@Schafer2019CGD], within the framework of the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Challenge. The experiments replicated in this report confirms the results of the original study. Moreover, this project offers a Python(Pytorch based) implementation of the proposed CGD algorithm which can be found at the following public git repository: (<https://github.com/GopiKishan14/Reproducibility_Challenge_NeurIPS_2019>)
author:
- |
Gopi Kishan\
Computer Science and Engineering\
Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee\
Roorkee, Uttarakhand\
`[email protected]`
title: 'Reproducibility Challenge NeurIPS 2019 Report on “Competitive Gradient Descent”'
---
\[section\] \[theorem\] \[theorem\][Lemma]{} \[theorem\][Remark]{}
Introduction and Motivation
===========================
The original paper introduces a new algorithm for the numerical computation of Nash equilibria of competitive two-player games. Authors suggest their method is a natural generalization of gradient descent to the two-player scenario where the update is given by the Nash equilibrium of a regularized bilinear local approximation of the underlying game. It avoids oscillatory and divergent behaviors seen in alternating gradient descent.
*The paper proposes several experiments to establish the robustness of their method. This project aims at replicating their results.*
The paper provides a detailed comparison to methods based on *optimism* and *consensus* on the properties of convergence and stability of various discussed methods using numerical experiments and rigorous analysis.
In order to understand these terms, comparison and proposed method and examine the results of the experiments, next section gives a necessary background of the original paper.
Background
==========
The traditional optimization is concerned with a single agent trying to optimize a cost function. It can be seen as $\min_{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^m} f(x)$. The agent has a clear objective to find (“Good local”) minimum of $f$. Gradeint Descent (and its varients) are reliable Algorithmic Baseline for this purpose.
The paper talks about **Competitive optimization**. Competitive optimization extends this problem to the setting of multiple agents each trying to minimize their own cost function, which in general depends on the actions of all agents.
The paper deals with the case of two such agents: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:game}
&\min_{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^m} f(x,y),\ \ \ \min_{y \in {\mathbb{R}}^n} g(x,y)
\end{aligned}$$ for two functions $f,g:{\mathbb{R}}^m \times {\mathbb{R}}^n \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$.\
In single agent optimization, the solution of the problem consists of the minimizer of the cost function. In competitive optimization, the right definition of *solution* is less obvious, but often one is interested in computing Nash– or strategic equilibria: Pairs of strategies, such that no player can decrease their costs by unilaterally changing their strategies. If $f$ and $g$ are not convex, finding a global Nash equilibrium is typically impossible and instead we hope to find a “good” local Nash equilibrium.
**Gradient descent/ascent and the cycling problem:** For differentiable objective functions, the most naive approach to solving is gradient descent ascent (GDA), whereby both players independently change their strategy in the direction of steepest descent of their cost function. Unfortunately, this procedure features oscillatory or divergent behavior even in the simple case of a bilinear game ($f(x,y) = x^{\top} y = -g(x,y)$) (see Figure \[fig:bilinear\_strong\]). In game-theoretic terms, GDA lets both players choose their new strategy optimally with respect to the last move of the other player. Thus, the cycling behaviour of GDA is not surprising: It is the analogue of *“Rock! Paper! Scissors! Rock! Paper! Scissors! Rock! Paper!...”* in the eponymous hand game. While gradient descent is a reliable basic *workhorse* for single-agent optimization, GDA can not play the same role for competitive optimization. At the moment, the lack of such a *workhorse* greatly hinders the broader adoption of methods based on competition.
Competitive gradient descent {#sec:cgd}
----------------------------
Authors propose a novel algorithm, which they call *competitive gradient descent* (CGD), for the solution of competitive optimization problems $\min_{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^m} f(x,y),\ \min_{y \in {\mathbb{R}}^n} g(x,y)$, where they have access to function evaluations, gradients, and Hessian-vector products of the objective functions. [^1]
$(x_{N},y_{N})$
To motivate this algorithm, authors remind us that gradient descent with stepsize $\eta$ applied to the function $f:{\mathbb{R}}^m \longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ can be written as $$x_{k+1} = {\operatorname{argmin}}\limits_{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^m} (x^{\top} - x_{k}^{\top}) \nabla_x f(x_k) + \frac{1}{2\eta} \|x - x_{k}\|^2.$$ This models a (single) player solving a local linear approximation of the (minimization) game, subject to a quadratic penalty that expresses her limited confidence in the global accuracy of the model. The natural generalization of this idea to the competitive case should then be given by the two players solving a local approximation of the true game, both subject to a quadratic penalty that expresses their limited confidence in the accuracy of the local approximation.\
In order to implement this idea, we need to find the appropriate way to generalize the linear approximation in the single agent setting to the competitive setting.
Authors suggest to use a *bilinear* approximation in the two-player setting. Since the bilinear approximation is the lowest order approximation that can capture some interaction between the two players, they argue that the natural generalization of gradient descent to competitive optimization is not GDA, but rather the update rule $(x_{k+1},y_{k+1}) = (x_k,y_k) + (x,y)$, where $(x,y)$ is a Nash equilibrium of the game [^2] $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{eqn:localgame}
\min_{x \in {\mathbb{R}}^m} x^{\top} \nabla_x f &+ x^{\top} D_{xy}^2 f y + y^{\top} \nabla_y f + \frac{1}{2\eta} x^{\top} x \\
\min_{y \in {\mathbb{R}}^n} y^{\top} \nabla_y g &+ y^{\top} D_{yx}^2 g x + x^{\top} \nabla_x g + \frac{1}{2\eta} y^{\top} y.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Indeed, the (unique) Nash equilibrium of the Game can be computed in closed form.
\[thm:uniqueNash\] Among all (possibly randomized) strategies with finite first moment, the only Nash equilibrium of the Game is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:nash}
&x = -\eta \left( {\operatorname{Id}}- \eta^2 D_{xy}^2f D_{yx}^2 g \right)^{-1}
\left( \nabla_{x} f - \eta D_{xy}^2f \nabla_{y} g \right) \\
&y = -\eta \left( {\operatorname{Id}}- \eta^2 D_{yx}^2g D_{xy}^2 f \right)^{-1}
\left( \nabla_{y} g - \eta D_{yx}^2g \nabla_{x} f \right),
\end{aligned}$$ given that the matrix inverses in the above expression exist. [^3]
An elegant proof of the above theorem is presented in the original paper [@Schafer2019CGD]. According to Theorem \[thm:uniqueNash\], the Game has exactly one optimal pair of strategies, which is deterministic. Thus, we can use these strategies as an update rule, generalizing the idea of local optimality from the single– to the multi agent setting and obtaining Algorithm \[alg:CGD\].
**What I think that they think that I think ... that they do**: Another game-theoretic interpretation of CGD follows from the observation that its update rule can be written as $$\label{eqn:whatIthink}
\begin{pmatrix}
\Delta x\\
\Delta y
\end{pmatrix}
=
-
\begin{pmatrix}
{\operatorname{Id}}& \eta D_{xy}^2 f \\
\eta D_{yx}^2 g & {\operatorname{Id}}\end{pmatrix}^{-1}
\begin{pmatrix}
\nabla_{x} f\\
\nabla_{y} g
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Applying the expansion $ \lambda_{\max} (A) < 1 \Rightarrow \left( {\operatorname{Id}}- A \right)^{-1} = \lim_{N \rightarrow \infty} \sum_{k=0}^{N} A^k$ to the above equation, we observe that:\
- The first partial sum ($N = 0$) corresponds to the optimal strategy if the other player’s strategy stays constant (GDA).
- The second partial sum ($N = 1$) corresponds to the optimal strategy if the other player thinks that the other player’s strategy stays constant (LCGD, see Figure \[fig:ingredients\]).
- The third partial sum ($N = 2$) corresponds to the optimal strategy if the other player thinks that the other player thinks that the other player’s strategy stays constant, and so forth, until the Nash equilibrium is recovered in the limit.
Comparison with other methods {#sec:comparison}
-----------------------------
As illustrated in Figure \[fig:ingredients\], these six algorithms amount to different subsets of the following four terms.
$$\begin{aligned}
& \text{GDA: } &\Delta x = &&&- \nabla_x f&\\
& \text{LCGD: } &\Delta x = &&&- \nabla_x f& &-\eta D_{xy}^2 f \nabla_y f&\\
& \text{SGA: } &\Delta x = &&&- \nabla_x f& &- \gamma D_{xy}^2 f \nabla_y f& & & \\
& \text{ConOpt: } &\Delta x = &&&- \nabla_x f& &- \gamma D_{xy}^2 f \nabla_y f& &- \gamma D_{xx}^2 f \nabla_x f& \\
& \text{OGDA: } &\Delta x \approx &&&- \nabla_x f& &-\eta D_{xy}^2 f \nabla_y f& &+\eta D_{xx}^2 f \nabla_x f& \\
& \text{CGD: } &\Delta x = &\left({\operatorname{Id}}+ \eta^2 D_{xy}^2 f D_{yx}^2 f\right)^{-1}&\bigl( &- \nabla_x f& &-\eta D_{xy}^2 f \nabla_y f& & & \bigr)
\end{aligned}$$
1. \[item:grad\] The *gradient term* $-\nabla_{x}f$, $\nabla_{y}f$ which corresponds to the most immediate way in which the players can improve their cost.
2. \[item:comp\] The *competitive term* $-D_{xy}f \nabla_yf$, $D_{yx}f \nabla_x f$ which can be interpreted either as anticipating the other player to use the naive (GDA) strategy, or as decreasing the other players influence (by decreasing their gradient).
3. \[item:consensus\] The *consensus term* $ \pm D_{xx}^2 \nabla_x f$, $\mp D_{yy}^2 \nabla_y f$ that determines whether the players prefer to decrease their gradient ($\pm = +$) or to increase it ($\pm = -$). The former corresponds the players seeking consensus, whereas the latter can be seen as the opposite of consensus.\
(It also corresponds to an approximate Newton’s method. [^4])
4. \[item:equilibrium\] The *equilibrium term* $({\operatorname{Id}}+ \eta^2 D_{xy}^2 D_{yx}^2 f)^{-1}$, $({\operatorname{Id}}+ \eta^2 D_{yx}^2 D_{xy}^2 f)^{-1}$, which arises from the players solving for the Nash equilibrium. This term lets each player prefer strategies that are less vulnerable to the actions of the other player.
**Further Discussion:**\
\
***Consensus optimization* (ConOpt)** [@mescheder2017numerics], penalises the players for non-convergence by adding the squared norm of the gradient at the next location, $\gamma \|\nabla_x f(x_{k+1},y_{k+1}), \nabla_x f(x_{k+1},y_{k+1})\|^2$ to both pla yer’s loss function (here $\gamma \geq 0$ is a hyperparameter).\
[@daskalakis2017training] proposed to modify GDA as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqn:updateOGDA}
\Delta x &= - \left( \nabla_x f(x_{k},y_{k})
+ \left( \nabla_x f(x_{k},y_{k}) - \nabla_x f(x_{k-1},y_{k-1}) \right) \right) \\
\Delta y &= - \left( \nabla_y g(x_{k},y_{k})
+ \left( \nabla_y g(x_{k},y_{k}) - \nabla_y g(x_{k-1},y_{k-1}) \right) \right),\end{aligned}$$ which we will refer to as ***optimistic gradient descent ascent* (OGDA)**. By interpreting the differences appearing in the update rule as finite difference approximations to Hessian vector products, we see that (to leading order) OGDA corresponds to yet another second order correction of GDA (see Figure \[fig:ingredients\]).\
It will also be instructive to compare the algorithms to ***linearized competitive gradient descent* (LCGD)**, which is obtained by skipping the matrix inverse in CGD (which corresponds to taking only the leading order term in the limit $\eta D_{xy}^2f \rightarrow 0$).
Experiments and Replications {#exp}
============================
This section contains the contribution from this project and defines the experiment.\
A link to public Github repository (<https://github.com/GopiKishan14/Reproducibility_Challenge_NeurIPS_2019>) describes the implementation details of *Competitive Gradient Descent*.
A brief discussion on the implementation of CGD by Authors.\
**Computing Hessian vector products:** First, our algorithm requires products of the mixed Hessian $v \mapsto D_{xy}f v$, $v \mapsto D_{yx}g v$, which we want to compute using automatic differentiation.
Many AD frameworks, like Autograd (<https://github.com/HIPS/autograd>) and ForwardDiff(<https://github.com/JuliaDiff/ForwardDiff.jl>, [@revels2016forward]) together with ReverseDiff(<https://github.com/JuliaDiff/ReverseDiff.jl>) support this procedure. **Matrix inversion for the equilibrium term**: Similar to a *truncated Newton’s method* [@nocedal2006numerical], we propose to use iterative methods to approximate the inverse-matrix vector products arising in the equilibrium term \[item:equilibrium\]. We will focus on zero-sum games, where the matrix is always symmetric positive definite, making the conjugate gradient (CG) algorithm the method of choice. We suggest terminating the iterative solver after a given relative decrease of the residual is achieved ($\| M x - y \| \leq \epsilon \|x\|$ for a small parameter $\epsilon$, when solving the system $Mx = y$). In our experiments we choose $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$. Given the strategy $\Delta x$ of one player, $\Delta y$ is the optimal counter strategy which can be found without solving another system of equations.
Experiment 1 {#exp:exp1}
------------
The author suggest that each of the terms (section \[terms\]) used in the definition of the algorithm is responsible for a different feature of the corresponding algorithm which can illustrated by applying the algorithms to three prototypical test cases.
1. \[item:test1\]**Test Case 1:** We first consider the bilinear problem $f(x,y) = \alpha xy$ (see Figure \[fig:bilinear\_strong\]).\
**Replication and Findings:** As suggested, GDA fails on this problem, for any value of stepsize $\eta$.\
For $\alpha = 1.0$, all the other methods converge exponentially towards the equilibrium, with ConOpt and SGA converging at a faster rate.\
For $\alpha = 3.0$, OGDA diverges, while ConvOpt and SGA begin to oscillate widely.\
For $\alpha = 6.0$, all methods but CGD diverge. This result is compared and summed up in Figure (\[fig:bilinear\_strong\])\
However, for $\alpha = 3.0$, if we decrease $\gamma \ to \ 0.5 $ ConOpt and SGA converges. ConOpt and SGA does not converge for any value of $\gamma$ if $\alpha = 6.0$. Figure \[fig:test1\] Left.\
For $\alpha = 6.0$, if stepsize $\eta$ is increased to $\eta = 0.9$, CGD converges faster. Hence, establishing the claim that CGD convergence rate increases with increase in stepsize $\eta$. Figure \[fig:test1\] Middle.
Interestingly, CGD fails for the problem if initial points set on $y = 5/3 x$ for $\alpha = 3.0$ and $\eta = 0.2$. But LCGD still converges. Figure (\[fig:test1\]) Right.
2. \[item:test2\]**Test case 2:** In order to explore the effect of the consensus Term \[item:consensus\], we now consider the convex-concave problem $f(x,y) = \alpha(x^2 - y^2)$ (see Figure \[fig:quad\]).\
**Replication and Findings:** For $\alpha = 1.0$, all algorithms converge at an exponential rate, with ConOpt converging the fastest, and OGDA the slowest.
As we increase $\alpha$ to $\alpha = 3.0$, the OGDA and ConOpt start failing (diverge), while the remaining algorithms still converge at an exponential rate. Upon increasing $\alpha$ further to $\alpha = 6.0$, all algorithms diverge. (See Figure \[fig:quad\])\
Figure \[fig:test2\] shows the robustness of CGD, while other methods can also be tuned for convergance at $\alpha = 3.0$ and $\eta = 0.2$ on decreasing $\gamma.$
3. \[item:test3\]**Test case 3:** We further investigate the effect of the consensus Term \[item:consensus\] by considering the concave-convex problem $f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2)$ (see Figure \[fig:quad\]).\
**Replication and Findings:** The critical point $(0,0)$ does not correspond to a Nash-equilibrium, since both players are playing their *worst possible strategy*. Thus it is highly undesirable for an algorithm to converge to this critical point.\
However for $\alpha = 1.0$, ConOpt does converge to $(0,0)$ which provides an example of the consensus regularization introducing spurious solutions. The other algorithms, instead, diverge away towards infinity, as would be expected. In particular, we see that SGA is correcting the problematic behavior of ConOpt, while maintaining its better convergence rate in the first example. As we increase $\alpha$ to $\alpha \in \{3.0,6.0\}$, the radius of attraction of $(0,0)$ under ConOpt decreases and thus ConOpt diverges from the starting point $(0.5,0.5)$, as well. (See Figure \[fig:quad\])\
Figure \[fig:test3\] shows the robustness of CGD, while can also be tuned for convergence at $\alpha = 1.0$ and $\eta = 0.2$ on decreasing $\gamma$ $\gamma \in \{1.0,0.5,0.2\}$ (divergence desired).
**Conclusion:** The first test case illustrates that this is not just a lack of theory, but corresponds to an actual failure mode of the existing algorithms. Introducing the competitive term (\[item:comp\]) is enough to fix the cycling behaviour of GDA, OGDA and ConOpt (for small enough $\eta$).
In the Test Case \[item:test2\] (where convergence is desired), OGDA converges in a smaller parameter range than GDA and SGA, while only diverging slightly faster in the Test Case \[item:test3\] (where divergence is desired). ConOpt, on the other hand, converges faster than GDA in the Test Case \[item:test2\], for $\alpha = 1.0$ however, it diverges faster for the remaining values of $\alpha$ and, what is more problematic, it converges to a spurious solution in the Test Case \[item:test3\] for $\alpha = 1.0$.
Based on the findings of Test Case \[item:test2\] and \[item:test3\], the consensus term (\[item:consensus\]) with either sign does not seem to systematically improve the performance of the algorithm (see Fig \[fig:test2\] and \[fig:test3\]), which is why the authors suggest to only use the competitive term (that is, use LOLA/LCGD, or CGD, or SGA).
![Replicated Result: The first 50 iterations of GDA, LCGD, ConOpt, OGDA, and CGD with parameters $\eta = 0.2$ and $\gamma = 1.0$. The objective function is $f(x,y) = \alpha x^{\top}y$ for, from left to right, $\alpha \in \{1.0, 3.0, 6.0\}$. (Note that ConOpt and SGA coincide on a bilinear problem)[]{data-label="fig:bilinear_strong"}](figures/bilinear_strong_alpha1.png "fig:") ![Replicated Result: The first 50 iterations of GDA, LCGD, ConOpt, OGDA, and CGD with parameters $\eta = 0.2$ and $\gamma = 1.0$. The objective function is $f(x,y) = \alpha x^{\top}y$ for, from left to right, $\alpha \in \{1.0, 3.0, 6.0\}$. (Note that ConOpt and SGA coincide on a bilinear problem)[]{data-label="fig:bilinear_strong"}](figures/bilinear_strong_alpha3.png "fig:") ![Replicated Result: The first 50 iterations of GDA, LCGD, ConOpt, OGDA, and CGD with parameters $\eta = 0.2$ and $\gamma = 1.0$. The objective function is $f(x,y) = \alpha x^{\top}y$ for, from left to right, $\alpha \in \{1.0, 3.0, 6.0\}$. (Note that ConOpt and SGA coincide on a bilinear problem)[]{data-label="fig:bilinear_strong"}](figures/bilinear_strong_alpha6.png "fig:")
![Replicated Result: The first 50 iterations of GDA, LCGD, ConOpt, OGDA, and CGD with parameters $\eta = 0.2$ and $\gamma = 1.0$. The objective function is $f(x,y) = \alpha x^{\top}y$ for, from left to right, $\alpha \in \{1.0, 3.0, 6.0\}$. (Note that ConOpt and SGA coincide on a bilinear problem)[]{data-label="fig:bilinear_strong"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test1/bilinear_strong_alpha1.png "fig:") ![Replicated Result: The first 50 iterations of GDA, LCGD, ConOpt, OGDA, and CGD with parameters $\eta = 0.2$ and $\gamma = 1.0$. The objective function is $f(x,y) = \alpha x^{\top}y$ for, from left to right, $\alpha \in \{1.0, 3.0, 6.0\}$. (Note that ConOpt and SGA coincide on a bilinear problem)[]{data-label="fig:bilinear_strong"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test1/bilinear_strong_alpha3.png "fig:") ![Replicated Result: The first 50 iterations of GDA, LCGD, ConOpt, OGDA, and CGD with parameters $\eta = 0.2$ and $\gamma = 1.0$. The objective function is $f(x,y) = \alpha x^{\top}y$ for, from left to right, $\alpha \in \{1.0, 3.0, 6.0\}$. (Note that ConOpt and SGA coincide on a bilinear problem)[]{data-label="fig:bilinear_strong"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test1/bilinear_strong_alpha6.png "fig:")
![Results for Experiment \[exp:exp1\] Test \[item:test1\]. (Refer to the part for explanation)[]{data-label="fig:test1"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test1/bilinear_strong_alpha3_eta0_2_gamma0_5.png "fig:") ![Results for Experiment \[exp:exp1\] Test \[item:test1\]. (Refer to the part for explanation)[]{data-label="fig:test1"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test1/bilinear_strong_alpha6_eta0_9_gamma1_0.png "fig:") ![Results for Experiment \[exp:exp1\] Test \[item:test1\]. (Refer to the part for explanation)[]{data-label="fig:test1"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test1/bilinear_strong_alpha3_eta0_2_gamma1_0.png "fig:")
![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](figures/quadratic_equi_alpha1.png "fig:") ![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](figures/quadratic_equi_alpha3.png "fig:") ![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](figures/quadratic_equi_alpha6.png "fig:") ![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](figures/quadratic_noequi_alpha1.png "fig:") ![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](figures/quadratic_noequi_alpha3.png "fig:") ![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](figures/quadratic_noequi_alpha6.png "fig:")
![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test2/quadratic_equi_alpha1.png "fig:") ![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test2/quadratic_equi_alpha3.png "fig:") ![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test2/quadratic_equi_alpha6.png "fig:") ![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test3/quadratic_noequi_alpha1.png "fig:") ![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test3/quadratic_noequi_alpha3.png "fig:") ![Replicated result: We measure the (non-)convergence to equilibrium in the separable convex-concave– ($f(x,y) = \alpha( x^2 - y^2 )$, left three plots) and concave convex problem ($f(x,y) = \alpha( -x^2 + y^2 )$, right three plots), for $\alpha \in \{1.0,3.0,6.0\}$. (Color coding given by , , , the y-axis measures $\log_{10}(\|(x_{k},y_{k})\|)$ and the x-axis the number of iterations $k$. Note that convergence is desired for the first problem, while *divergence* is desired for the second problem.[]{data-label="fig:quad"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test3/quadratic_noequi_alpha6.png "fig:")
![Results for Experiment \[exp:exp1\] Test \[item:test3\]. Shows the robustness of CGD, while can also be tuned for convergence at $\alpha = 1.0$ and $\eta = 0.2$ on decreasing $\gamma.$. $\gamma \in \{1.0,0.5,0.2\}$ (divergence desired)[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test2/quadratic_equi_alpha3_eta0_2_gamma0_5.png "fig:") ![Results for Experiment \[exp:exp1\] Test \[item:test3\]. Shows the robustness of CGD, while can also be tuned for convergence at $\alpha = 1.0$ and $\eta = 0.2$ on decreasing $\gamma.$. $\gamma \in \{1.0,0.5,0.2\}$ (divergence desired)[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test2/quadratic_equi_alpha3_eta0_2_gamma0_05.png "fig:") ![Results for Experiment \[exp:exp1\] Test \[item:test3\]. Shows the robustness of CGD, while can also be tuned for convergence at $\alpha = 1.0$ and $\eta = 0.2$ on decreasing $\gamma.$. $\gamma \in \{1.0,0.5,0.2\}$ (divergence desired)[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test2/quadratic_equi_alpha3_eta0_01_gamma0_05.png "fig:")
![Results for Experiment \[exp:exp1\] Test \[item:test3\]. Shows the robustness of CGD, while can also be tuned for convergence at $\alpha = 1.0$ and $\eta = 0.2$ on decreasing $\gamma.$. $\gamma \in \{1.0,0.5,0.2\}$ (divergence desired)[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test3/quadratic_noequi_alpha1_eta0_4_gamma1_0.png "fig:") ![Results for Experiment \[exp:exp1\] Test \[item:test3\]. Shows the robustness of CGD, while can also be tuned for convergence at $\alpha = 1.0$ and $\eta = 0.2$ on decreasing $\gamma.$. $\gamma \in \{1.0,0.5,0.2\}$ (divergence desired)[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test3/quadratic_noequi_alpha1_eta0_2_gamma0_5.png "fig:") ![Results for Experiment \[exp:exp1\] Test \[item:test3\]. Shows the robustness of CGD, while can also be tuned for convergence at $\alpha = 1.0$ and $\eta = 0.2$ on decreasing $\gamma.$. $\gamma \in \{1.0,0.5,0.2\}$ (divergence desired)[]{data-label="fig:test3"}](repfigures/Exp1/Test3/quadratic_noequi_alpha1_eta0_2_gamma0_2.png "fig:")
Experiment 2: Estimating a covariance matrix
--------------------------------------------
To show that CGD is also competitive in terms of computational complexity, authors consider the noiseless case of the covariance estimation example used by [@daskalakis2017training].
Authors consider the problem $-g(V,W) = f(W,V) = \sum_{ijk} W_{ij}\left(\hat{\Sigma}_{ij} - (V\hat{\Sigma} V^{\top})_{i,j}\right)$, where the $\hat{\Sigma}$ are empirical covariance matrices obtained from samples distributed according to $\mathcal{N}(0,\Sigma)$. For the experiments, the matrix $\Sigma$ is created as $\Sigma = U U^T$, where the entries of $U \in \mathbb{R}^{d \times d}$ are distributed i.i.d. standard Gaussian.\
**Replication and Findings:** As described in the original paper, this project considers the algorithms OGDA, SGA, ConOpt, and CGD for deterministic case $\hat{\Sigma} = \Sigma$, corresponding to the limit of large sample size, with $\gamma = 1.0$, $\epsilon = 10^{-6}$. Let dimensions of $\Sigma$, $d \in \{20, 40, 60\}$ and let the stepsizes range over $\eta \in \{0.005, 0.025, 0.1, 0.4\}$.\
Authors suggest to evaluate the algorithms according to the trade-off between the number of forward evaluations and the corresponding reduction of the residual $\|W+W^{\top}\|_{\operatorname{FRO}}/2+ \|UU^{\top} - V V^{\top}\|_{\operatorname{FRO}}$, starting with a random initial guess (the same for all algorithms) obtained as $W_{1} = \delta W$, $V_{1} = U + \delta V$, where the entries of $\delta W, \delta V$ are i.i.d uniformly distributed in $[-0.5,0.5]$. Authors count the number of “forward passes” per outer iteration as follows.
- OGDA: 2
- SGA: 4
- ConOpt: $6$
- CGD: 4 + 2 $*$ number of CG iterations
The results are summarized in Figure \[fig:matrixDet\] and Figure \[fig:mymatrixDet\]. We see consistently that for the same stepsize, CGD has convergence rate comparable to that of OGDA. However, as we increase the stepsize the other methods start diverging, thus allowing CGD to achieve significantly better convergence rates by using larger stepsizes. For larger dimensions ($d\in \{40, 60\}$) OGDA, SGA, and ConOpt become even more unstable such that OGDA with the smallest stepsize is the only other method that still converges, although at a much slower rate than CGD with larger stepsizes.
**Conclusion :** On studying the tradeoff between the number of evaluations of the forward model and the residual, this project supports that larger stepsize, the convergence rate of CGD is better than the other methods and for comparable stepsize, the convergence rate of CGD is similar to the other methods.
![Replication result: Plot of the decay of the residual after a given number of model evaluations, for increasing problem sizes and $\eta \in \{0.005, 0.025, 0.1, 0.4\}$.[]{data-label="fig:mymatrixDet"}](apfigures/cvest_d_20.png "fig:") ![Replication result: Plot of the decay of the residual after a given number of model evaluations, for increasing problem sizes and $\eta \in \{0.005, 0.025, 0.1, 0.4\}$.[]{data-label="fig:mymatrixDet"}](apfigures/cvest_d_40.png "fig:") ![Replication result: Plot of the decay of the residual after a given number of model evaluations, for increasing problem sizes and $\eta \in \{0.005, 0.025, 0.1, 0.4\}$.[]{data-label="fig:mymatrixDet"}](apfigures/cvest_d_60.png "fig:")
![Replication result: Plot of the decay of the residual after a given number of model evaluations, for increasing problem sizes and $\eta \in \{0.005, 0.025, 0.1, 0.4\}$.[]{data-label="fig:mymatrixDet"}](repfigures/Exp2/cvest_d_20_maxIter_100000.png "fig:") ![Replication result: Plot of the decay of the residual after a given number of model evaluations, for increasing problem sizes and $\eta \in \{0.005, 0.025, 0.1, 0.4\}$.[]{data-label="fig:mymatrixDet"}](repfigures/Exp2/cvest_d_40_maxIter_100000.png "fig:") ![Replication result: Plot of the decay of the residual after a given number of model evaluations, for increasing problem sizes and $\eta \in \{0.005, 0.025, 0.1, 0.4\}$.[]{data-label="fig:mymatrixDet"}](repfigures/Exp2/cvest_d_60_maxIter_100000.png "fig:")
Experiment 3: Fitting a bimodal distribution
--------------------------------------------
To further study the robustness of the CGD, authors propose to use a simple GAN to fit a Gaussian mixture model with two modes, in two dimensions.
**Replication and Findings** We use a GAN to fit a Gaussian mixture of two Gaussian random variables with means $\mu_{1} = (0,1)^{\top}$ and $\mu_{2} = (2^{-1/2}, 2^{-1/2})^{\top}$, and standard deviation $\sigma = 0.1$\
Generator and discriminator are given by dense neural nets with four hidden layers of $128$ units each that are initialized as orthonormal matrices, and ReLU as nonlinearities after each hidden layer. The generator uses 512-variate standard Gaussian noise as input, and both networks use a linear projection as their final layer. At each step, the discriminator is shown 256 real, and 256 fake examples. We interpret the output of the discriminator as a logit and use sigmoidal crossentropy as a loss function.The results are summarized in Figure \[fig:two\_mode\_gan\] and Figure \[fig:my\_two\_mode\_gan\].\
We apply SGA, ConOpt ($\gamma = 1.0$), OGDA, and CGD for stepsize $\eta \in \{0.4, 0.1, 0.025, 0.005\}$ together with RMSProp ($\rho = 0.9)$. In each case, CGD produces an reasonable approximation of the input distribution without any mode collapse. In contrast, all other methods diverge after some initial cycling behaviour.
![Replication result: Under CGD, the mass eventually distributes evenly among the two modes.[]{data-label="fig:my_two_mode_gan"}](figures/plot_iter_83_grad_1060.png "fig:") ![Replication result: Under CGD, the mass eventually distributes evenly among the two modes.[]{data-label="fig:my_two_mode_gan"}](figures/plot_iter_98_grad_2028.png "fig:")
![Replication result: Under CGD, the mass eventually distributes evenly among the two modes.[]{data-label="fig:my_two_mode_gan"}](repfigures/Exp3/CGD/plot_iter_104_grad_1566.png "fig:") ![Replication result: Under CGD, the mass eventually distributes evenly among the two modes.[]{data-label="fig:my_two_mode_gan"}](repfigures/Exp3/CGD/plot_iter_110_grad_2076.png "fig:")
**Conclusion :** On all methods, the generator and discriminator are initially chasing each other across the strategy space, producing the typical cycling pattern. When using SGA, ConOpt, or OGDA, however, eventually the algorithm diverges with the generator either mapping all the mass far away from the mode, or collapsing the generating map to become zero. Therefore, we also tried decreasing the stepsize to $0.001$, which however did not prevent the divergence. For CGD, after some initial cycles the generator starts splitting the mass and distributes is roughly evenly among the two modes.
***This project supports authors’ claim that CGD is significantly more robust than existing methods for competitive optimization.***
Conclusion and Acknowledgement
==============================
This project mostly successfully replicates the work of original paper. It supports the properties of introduced *Competitive Gradient Descent* method for Competitive optimization through the proposed experiments. The three experiments test different aspects of the algorithms. Experiment 1 is based on removal of cyclic behaviour and importance of different definition terms. It also tests convergence/divergence of the algorithms on different zero-sum games. Experiment 2 evaluates and compares computational complexity of the CGDA w.r.t other algorithms. Experiment 3 studies the robustness of CGDA by fitting bimodal distribution using GAN.
This project acknowledges the code of the original paper written in Julia used for replication. The original paper describes the experiments very well and their code is also very understandable. It also acknowledges the support of Code Ocean for providing compute resources and prof. Debasish Ghose, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science.
Florian Sch[ä]{}fer, and Anima Anandkumar (2019). Competitive Gradient Descent. In [*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.*]{}
Daskalakis, C., Ilyas, A., Syrgkanis, V., and Zeng, H. (2017). Training gans with optimism. .
Mescheder, L., Nowozin, S., and Geiger, A. (2017). The numerics of gans. In [*Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems*]{}, pages 1825–1835.
Nocedal, J. and Wright, S. J. (2006). . Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering. Springer, New York, second edition.
, J., [Lubin]{}, M., and [Papamarkou]{}, T. (2016). Forward-mode automatic differentiation in julia. .
[^1]: Here and in the following, all derivatives are evaluated in the point $(x_k, y_k)$
[^2]: We could alternatively use the penalty $(x^{\top}x + y^{\top}y)/(2 \eta)$ for both players, without changing the solution.
[^3]: We note that the matrix inverses exist for all but one value of $\eta$, and for all $\eta$ in the case of a zero sum game.
[^4]: Applying a damped and regularized Newton’s method to the optimization problem of Player 1 would amount to choosing $x_{k+1} = x_{k} - \eta({\operatorname{Id}}+ \eta D_{xx}^2)^{-1} f \nabla_x f \approx x_{k} - \eta( \nabla_xf - \eta D_{xx}^{2}f \nabla_x f)$, for $\|\eta D_{xx}^2f\| \ll 1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present a catalog of millions of radio sources, created by consolidating large-area radio and optical surveys GB6 (6cm), FIRST (20cm), NVSS (20cm), WENSS (92cm), VLSSr (4m), and SDSS DR9 (optical). The region where all surveys overlap covers 3269 deg$^2$ in the North Galactic Cap, and contains $>$160,000 20-cm sources, with about 12,000 detected in all five radio surveys and over one-third detected optically. Combining parameters from the sky surveys allows easy and efficient classification by radio and optical morphology and radio spectral index. The catalog is available at [http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/Amy.Kimball/radiocat.shtml]{}.'
author:
- 'Amy E. Kimball'
- Željko Ivezić
bibliography:
- '../bibliography.bib'
title: 'An Updated Version of the Unified Radio Catalog: A Multi-Wavelength Radio and Optical Catalog of Quasars and Radio Galaxies'
---
An updated catalog
==================
We present an updated version of the unified radio catalog published by @ki08 [hereafter KI08]. That catalog comprised sources detected at 20 cm by the Faint Images of the Radio Sky at Twenty cm survey [FIRST; @first] and/or the NRAO-VLA Sky Survey [NVSS; @nvss], with supplemental data (when available) from the Green Bank 6-cm survey [GB6; @gb6], at 92 cm from the Westerbork Northern Sky Survey [WENSS; @wenss], and in the optical by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Sixth Data Release [DR6 @dr6].
The main addition to the catalog is the inclusion of 4-m (74-GHz) data detections (when available) from the VLA Low-Frequency Sky Survey Redux[^1] [VLSSr; @vlssr]. Additionally, the latest versions of FIRST (updated 24 Feb 2012), and the final version of NVSS (version 41) are included. The latest data reductions from those surveys have resulted in modified source lists (especially at low signal-to-noise) and small variations in measured parameters; however, the overall properties of the radio source populations in the unified catalog have not changed significantly. Finally, for the updated catalog we have incorporated data from the Ninth Data Release [DR9 @dr9] of the SDSS instead of the earlier DR6. As a result, the number of sources in the radio catalog that have optical spectra has increased by almost 60%.
{width="7in"}
New VLSSr survey
================
The VLSSr covers the majority of the sky north of $\delta=-40^\circ$ (i.e., the majority of the sky area covered by the original KI08 catalog). The sky coverage of DR9 and the VLSSr are shown in Figure \[fig:sky\]. (The sky coverage of the other surveys is as shown in Figure 1 of KI08.) We have defined a 3269 deg$^2$ overlap region of sky which was observed by all of the contributing surveys.
To select a matching radius between the VLSSr and the FIRST and NVSS surveys, we performed a random cross-matching analysis; the results are shown in Figure \[fig:astrometry\]. We cross-matched all FIRST sources within the overlap region to the VLSSr, and compared with matches to random positions, chosen by offsetting the true FIRST positions in Galactic longitude. We suggest an optimal matching radius of $\sim65^{\prime\prime}$ between VLSSr and FIRST or NVSS.
The majority of extra-galactic radio sources are flat-spectrum ($\alpha\sim0$ for $f_\nu\propto\nu^\alpha$) or steep-spectrum ($\alpha\sim<-0.5$, typically $\alpha\sim-0.8$), with increasing brightness at longer wavelengths. Therefore longer-wavelength surveys like the VLSSr are more sensitive to steep-spectrum sources while shorter-wavelength surveys are more sensitive to flat-spectrum sources. The VLSSr reaches a sensitivity of about 700 mJy at a wavelength of 4 meters, significantly brighter than the other radio surveys included here. The radio survey sensitivities are shown in Figure \[fig:surveys\], with labels showing the spectral index a source would have if it were detected at the survey limits. The spectral index between the VLSSr limit and the NVSS limit ($\alpha\sim-2$) is un-physically steep, implying that most VLSSr sources should be detected in the NVSS. In fact, 98% of VLSSr sources have an NVSS counterpart, while only about 10% of entries in the updated catalog have a VLSSr counterpart. A selection of VLSSr sources from the updated catalog is essentially a complete, flux-limited (at 4m) sample of sources detected in all of these radio surveys, but it is a sample strongly biased toward steep-spectrum sources.
Figure \[fig:contours\] illustrates morphological and spectral index characteristics of the population of sources detected in all five radio surveys (12,000 in the 3269 deg$^2$ overlap region). The left panel shows spectral index distributions of three radio morphology classes defined at 20 cm (see KI08): compact (unresolved), resolved, and complex (extended). The right panel shows spectral index distributions of three optical morphology classes: galaxy (resolved), quasar (unresolved), and optically undetected. Quasars tend to have flatter spectral indices (suggesting flat-spectrum radio-jet core sources) than galaxies (suggesting steep-spectrum radio lobes). Similarly, the compact class has more flat-spectrum sources than the resolved or complex classes. Spectral indices of compact sources are more likely to remain constant from 92 cm to 6 cm, while many resolved and complex sources have spectra that flatten out toward shorter wavelengths.
Catalog access
==============
The updated version of the catalog (as well as the original KI08 catalog) is available at [*http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/Amy.Kimball/radiocat.shtml*]{}. The catalog parameters and format are described there, and links to online survey references are included. We have prepared a downloadable version of the complete catalog, as well as several smaller subsets of data. Subsets include the set of all sources detected by both FIRST and NVSS (580,000 entries), sources with galaxy (54,000 entries) or quasar (14,000 rows) optical spectra, and the set of isolated FIRST/NVSS sources.
{width="2.8in"}
{width="3.in"}
{width="5in"}
[^1]: http://www.cv.nrao.edu/vlss/VLSSlist.shtml
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose the existence, via analytical derivations, novel phenomenologies, and first-principles-based simulations, of a new class of materials that are not only spontaneously optically active, but also for which the sense of rotation can be switched by an electric field applied to them– via an induced transition between the dextrorotatory and laevorotatory forms. Such systems possess electric vortices that are coupled to a spontaneous electrical polarization. Furthermore, our atomistic simulations provide a deep microscopic insight into, and understanding of, this class of naturally optically active materials.'
author:
- 'Sergey Prosandeev$^{1,2}$, Andrei Malashevich$^{3}$, Zhigang Gui$^{1}$, Lydie Louis$^{1}$, Raymond Walter$^{1}$, Ivo Souza$^{4}$ and L. Bellaiche$^{1}$'
title: Natural optical activity and its control by electric field in electrotoroidic systems
---
Introduction
============
The speed of propagation of circularly-polarized light traveling inside an [*optically active*]{} material depends on its helicity [@Melrose; @Barron]. Accordingly, the plane of polarization of linearly polarized light rotates by a fixed amount per unit length, a phenomenon known as [*optical rotation*]{}. One traditional way to make materials optically active is to take advantage of the Faraday effect, by applying a magnetic field. However, there are some specific systems that are [*naturally gyrotropic*]{}, that is they spontaneously possess optical activity. Examples of known natural gyrotropic systems are quartz [@Arago], some organic liquids and aqueous solutions of sugar and tartaric acid [@Melrose], the Pb$_5$Ge$_3$O$_{11}$ compound [@experiment; @Koiiak], and the layered crystal (C$_5$H$_{11}$NH$_3$)$_2$ZnCl$_4$ [@Pnma-P212121]. Finding novel natural gyrotropic materials has great fundamental interest. It may also lead to the design of novel devices, such as optical circulators and amplifiers, especially if the [*sign*]{} of the optical rotation can be efficiently controlled by an external factor that is easy to manipulate.
When searching for new natural gyrotropic materials, one should remember the observation of Pasteur that chiral crystals display spontaneous optical activity, which reverses sign when going from the original structure to its mirror image [@Pasteur]. Hence it is worthwhile to consider a newly discovered class of materials that are potentially chiral, and therefore may be naturally gyrotropic. This class is formed by electrotoroidic compounds (also called ferrotoroidics [@Shmid]). These are systems that possess an electrical toroidal moment, or equivalently, exhibit electric vortices [@Dubovik]. Such intriguing compounds were predicted to exist around nine years ago [@Ivan], and were found experimentally only recently [@Gruverman-Scott-vortex; @Balke-Kalinin; @Vasudevan; @Nelson; @Gregg]. One may therefore wonder if this new class of materials is indeed naturally gyrotropic, and/or if there are other necessary conditions, in addition to the existence of an electrical toroidal moment, for such materials to be optically active.
In this work, we carry out analytical derivations, original phenomenologies and first-principles-based computations that successfully address all the aforementioned important issues. In particular, we find that electrotoroidic materials do possess spontaneous optical activity, but only if their electric toroidal moment changes [*linearly*]{} under an applied electric field. This linear dependence is further proved to occur if the electrotoroidic materials also possess a spontaneous electrical polarization that is coupled to the electric toroidal moment, or if they are also piezoelectric with the strain affecting the value of the electric toroidal moment. We also find that, in the former case, the applied electric field further allows the control of the sign of the optical activity. Our atomistic approach also reveals the evolution of the microstructure leading to the occurrence of field-switchable gyrotropy, and shows that the optical rotatory strength can be significant in some electrotoroidic systems.
Relation between gyrotropy and electrical toroidal moment in electrotoroidic systems
====================================================================================
Let us first recall that the gyrotropy tensor elements, $g_{ml}$, are defined via [@Landau]: $$\label{eq74}
g_{mk}=\frac{\omega }{2c}e_{ijm}\gamma _{ijk}$$ where $e_{ijm}$ is the Levi-Civita tensor [@Tyldesley], $c$ is the speed of light, and $\omega$ is the angular frequency. Note that this angular frequency is not restricted to the optical range. For instance, it can also correspond to the 1-100 GHz frequency range. The $\gamma$ tensor provides the linear dependence of the dielectric permittivity on the wave vector ${\bf k}$ in the optically active material, that is: $$\label{eq15}
\varepsilon _{ik} \left( {\omega ,{\rm {\bf k}}} \right)=\varepsilon
_{ik}^{\left( 0 \right)} \left( \omega \right)+i\gamma _{ikl} k_l$$ Here, $k_l$ is the $l$-component of the wave vector; $\varepsilon _{ik} \left( {\omega ,{\rm {\bf k}}} \right)$ denotes the double Fourier transform in time and space of the dielectric tensor, with the long-wavelength components being denoted by $\varepsilon_{ik}^{\left( 0 \right)}$. Throughout this manuscript we adopt Einstein notation, in which one implicitly sums over repeated indices (as it happens, e.g., for the $l$ index in Eq. (\[eq15\])).
Thus, the calculation of the gyrotropy tensor can be reduced to the calculation of the tensor $\gamma$ responsible for the spatial dispersion of the dielectric permittivity.
Alternatively, one can use the following formula for the dielectric permittivity [@Landau; @Melrose]: $$\label{eq19}
\varepsilon _{ik}\left( {\omega ,{\rm {\bf k}}} \right) \\
=\delta _{ik} +\frac{4\pi i}{\omega }\sigma _{ik}\left( {\omega ,{\rm {\bf k}}} \right) \\
=\delta _{ik} +\frac{4\pi i}{\omega }(\sigma _{ik}^{(0)}\left( {\omega } \right)+\sigma_{ikl}k_l)$$ where $\delta _{ik}$ is the Kronecker symbol and $\sigma _{ik}\left( {\omega ,{\rm {\bf k}}} \right)$ is the effective conductivity tensor in the reciprocal space, at a given frequency [@Melrose]. $\sigma_{ikl}$ is the third-rank tensor associated with the linear dependence of the effective conductivity tensor on the wave vector, and $\sigma _{ik}^{(0)}$ is the effective conductivity tensor at zero wave vector. Combining Eqs. (\[eq19\]) with Eq. (\[eq15\]) yields: $$\label{eq20}
\gamma _{ikl} =\frac{4\pi}{\omega }\sigma_{ikl}\\
=\frac{4\pi}{\omega }(\sigma_{ikl}^S(\omega)+\sigma _{ikl}^A(\omega))$$ where $$\label{eq16b}
\sigma_{ijk}^A =\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_{ijk}-\sigma_{jik})$$ and $$\label{eq16c}
\sigma _{ijk}^S =\frac{1}{2}(\sigma_{ijk}+\sigma_{jik})$$ Moreover, using the results of Ref. [@Malashevich] and working at nonabsorbing frequencies (i.e., frequencies, such as GHz in ferroelectrics, for which the corresponding energy is below the band gap of the material), one can write
$$\label{eq16}
\sigma _{ijk}^A =ic\left( {e_{jkl} \beta _{il} -e_{ikl} \beta _{jl} }
\right)+\omega \xi _{ijk}$$
with $$\label{eq17}
\beta _{ij} =i\mathrm{Im}(\chi _{ij}^{em}) \mathop = -i\mathrm{Im}(\chi _{ji}^{me})$$ and $$\label{eq18}
\xi _{ijk} =\frac{1}{2}\left[ {\frac{dQ_{kj} }{dE_i }-\frac{dQ_{ki} }{dE_j
}} \right]$$ where $\mathrm{Im}$ stands for the imaginary part and $Q$ is the quadrupole moment of the system [@Raab]. $\chi^{me}$ is the response of the magnetization, [**M**]{}, to an electric field [**E**]{}, while $\chi^{em}$ is the response of the electrical polarization, [**P**]{}, to a magnetic field [**B**]{}, that is: $$\label{eq22}
\chi _{ij}^{me} =\frac{dM_i }{dE_j } \\ \nonumber ~~~{\rm and} ~~~
\chi _{ji}^{em} =\frac{dP_j }{dB_i}$$
Inserting Eq. (\[eq16\]) into Eq. (\[eq20\]) provides : $$\label{eq21}
\gamma _{ijk} =\frac{4\pi }{\omega }\left[ {c\left( {e_{jkl} \mathrm{Im}\,\chi
_{li}^{me} -e_{ikl} \mathrm{Im}\,\chi _{lj}^{me} } \right)+\omega \xi _{ijk} } \right] + \gamma_{ijk}^S$$ where $\gamma_{ijk}^S=(4\pi/\omega)\sigma_{ijk}^S$ is the contribution of the symmetric part of the conductivity to the $\gamma$ tensor. As a result, $\gamma_{ijk}^S$ is non-zero only when the system is magnetized or possesses a spontaneous magnetic order [@Landau].
Let us now focus on the magnetization, which can be written as [@Raab]: $$\label{eqm1}
{\bf M} =\frac{1}{2cV} \int {\left ( {\bf r} \times {\bf {\cal J}(r)}\right ) d^3r }$$ where $c$ is the speed of light, $V$ is the volume of the system, [ **r**]{} is the position vector, and ${\bf {\cal J}(r)}$ is the current density. We consider here the following contributions to this density: $$\label{eq6}
{\bf {\cal J}(r)}=\dot {{\cal P}}({\bf r)}+c~ {\bm \nabla}\times {\bf {\cal M}_0(r)}$$ where the dot symbol refers to the partial derivative with respect to time. ${\bf {\cal P}(r)}$ is the polarization [*field*]{}, that is, the quantity for which the spatial average is the macroscopic polarization. Similarly, ${\bf {\cal M}_0(r)}$ is the magnetization field, that is, the quantity for which the spatial average is the part of the macroscopic magnetization that does not originate from the time derivative of the polarization field [@gauge]. By plugging this latter equality into Eq. (\[eqm1\]), we have: $$\label{eqn6}
{\bf M} =\frac{1}{2cV} \int{ \left ( {\bf r} \times \dot {{\cal P}}({\bf r)}\right ) d^3r}+
\frac{1}{2V} \int{ \left ( {\bf r} \times {\bm \nabla}\times {\bf {\cal M}_0(r)} \right ) d^3r}
=\frac{1}{2cV} \int{ \left ( {\bf r} \times \dot {{\cal P}}({\bf r)}\right ) d^3r} + {\bf M}_0$$ The analytical expression of this latter equation bears some similarities with the definition of the electrical toroidal moment, [**G**]{}, that is [@Dubovik] $$\label{eqn1}
{\bf G}=\frac{1}{2V}\int {\left ( {\bf r} \times {\bf {\cal P}(r)} \right ) d^3r}~~~,$$
More precisely, taking the time derivative of [**G**]{} gives: $$\label{eqntds}
\dot{\bf G} \simeq \frac{1}{2V} \int{ \left ( {\bf r} \times \dot {{\cal P}}({\bf r)}\right ) d^3r}$$ when omitting the time dependency of the volume (the numerical simulations presented below indeed show that one can safely neglect this dependency when computing the time derivative of the electric toroidal moment).
As a result, combining Eq. (\[eqntds\]) and Eq. (\[eqn6\]) for a monochromatic wave having an $\omega$ angular frequency gives: $$\label{eqn3}
{\bf M}-{\bf M}_0 \simeq \frac{1}{c}{\dot{\bf G}}=-\frac{i\omega }{c}{\bf G}$$ in electrotoroidic systems.
Plugging this latter equation in Eq. (\[eq22\]) then gives: $$\label{eq24}
\chi _{ij}^{me} =\chi_{ij}^{me(0)}-\frac{i\omega }{c}\frac{dG_i }{dE_j }$$ where $\chi_{ij}^{me(0)}$ is the magnetoelectric tensor related to the derivative of ${\bf M}_0$ with respect to an electric field. Therefore $$\label{eq25}
\mathrm{Im}\,(\chi _{ij}^{me}-\chi_{ij}^{me(0)}) =-\frac{\omega }{c}\frac{dG_i }{dE_j }$$ This relation between the imaginary part of the magnetoelectric susceptibility and the field derivative of the electrical toroidal moment is reminiscent of the connection discussed in Ref. [@Spaldin] between the linear magnetoelectric response and the [*magnetic*]{} toroidal moment.
Inserting Eqs. (\[eq25\]) and (\[eq18\]) into Eq. (\[eq21\]) then provides: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq29}
\gamma _{ijk} =&&\gamma_{ijk}^{S} +\frac{4\pi c}{\omega} \left ( e_{jkl} {\rm Im} \chi_{li}^{me(0)}-e_{ikl}{\rm Im} \chi_{lj}^{me(0)} \right ) \nonumber \\
&&+4\pi \left[ {e_{ikl} \frac{dG_l }{dE_j }-e_{jkl} \frac{dG_l
}{dE_i }+\frac{1}{2}\left( {\frac{dQ_{kj} }{dE_i }-\frac{dQ_{ki} }{dE_j }}
\right)} \right]\end{aligned}$$
Combining this latter equation with Eq. (\[eq74\]), and recalling that $\gamma_{ijk}^{S}$ is a symmetric tensor while $e_{ijm}$ is antisymmetric (which makes their product vanishing), gives: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq33before}
g_{mk} =&&4\pi \left ( \delta_{mk} {\rm Im} \chi_{ll}^{me(0)}-{\rm Im}\chi_{mk}^{me(0)} \right ) \nonumber \\
&& +\frac{4\pi \omega }{c}\left[ \left( {\frac{dG_m }{dE_k }-\frac{dG_l }{dE_l
}\delta _{mk} } \right) +\frac{1}{4} e_{ijm}\left( \frac{dQ_{kj}}{dE_i}-\frac{dQ_{ki}}{dE_j} \right) \right]\end{aligned}$$
Choosing a specific gauge [@gauge] and neglecting quadrupole moments (simulations reported below show that spontaneous and field-induced quadrupole moments can be neglected for the ferrotoroidics numerically studied in Section IV) lead to the reduction of Eq. (\[eq33before\]) to: $$\label{eq33}
g_{mk} =\frac{4\pi \omega }{c}\left[ \left( {\frac{dG_m }{dE_k }-\frac{dG_l }{dE_l
}\delta _{mk} } \right) \right]$$
This formula nicely reveals that optical activity should happen when electrical toroidal moment [*linearly*]{} responds to an applied electric field.
Necessary conditions for gyrotropy in electrotoroidic systems
=============================================================
According to Eq. (\[eq33\]), an electrotoroidic system possessing non-vanishing derivatives of its electrical toroidal moment with respect to the electric field automatically possesses natural optical activity. Let us now prove analytically that the occurrence of such non-vanishing derivatives requires additional symmetry breaking in electrotoroidic systems, namely that an electrical polarization or/and piezoelectricity should also exist, as well as couplings between electrical toroidal moment and electric polarization and/or strain.
For that, let us express the free energy of an electrotoroidic system that exhibits couplings between electrical toroidal moment **G**, polarization **P**, and strain $\eta$ as: $$\label{eq34}
F=F_0+\zeta_{ijkl}G_iG_j\eta_{kl}+\lambda_{ijkl}G_iG_jP_kP_l+q_{ijkl}P_iP_j\eta_{kl}-h_iG_i$$ where $h_i=( {\bm \nabla}\times \,{\bf E})_i$ is the field conjugate of $G_i$.
The equilibrium condition, $\partial F / \partial G_n = 0$, implies that $$\label{eq35}
\partial F_0 / \partial G_n+(\zeta_{njkl}+\zeta_{jnkl})G_j\eta_{kl}+(\lambda_{njkl}+\lambda_{jnkl})G_jP_kP_l
=h_n$$ which indicates that $h_n$ depends on both the polarization and strain.
As a result, the change in electrical toroidal moment with electric field can be separated into the following two contributions:
$$\label{eq34b}
\frac{d{\rm { G_i}}}{d{\rm { E_j}}}= \left( {\frac{dG_i }{dE_j }} \right)^{(1)}+ \left( {\frac{dG_i }{dE_j }} \right)^{(2)}$$
with $$\label{eq35a}
\left( \frac{dG_i }{dE_j } \right)^{(1)}=
\frac{dG_i}{d h_n} \frac{\partial h_n}{\partial P_l} \frac{d P_l}{d E_j} = \chi^{(G)}_{in}\frac{\partial h_n}{\partial
P_l}\chi^{(P)}_{lj}$$ and $$\label{eq35b}
\left( {\frac{dG_i }{dE_j }} \right)^{(2)}= \frac{d G_i}{\partial h_n} \frac{\partial h_n}{\partial \eta_{kl}} \frac{d \eta_{kl}}{d E_j} = \chi^{(G)}_{in}
\frac{\partial h_n}{\partial \eta_{kl} } d_{klj}$$ Here $$\chi^{(G)}_{in}=\frac{dG_i}{dh_n}$$ is the response of the electrical toroidal moment to its conjugate field, $$\chi_{ij} ^{(P)}=\frac{dP_i}{dE_j}$$ is the electric susceptibility, and $$d_{ijk}=\frac{d \eta_{ij}}{dE_k}$$ is a piezoelectric tensor.
The remaining derivatives appearing in Eqs. (\[eq35a\]) and (\[eq35b\]) can be found from Eq. (\[eq35\]): $$\label{eq38}
\left( {\frac{\partial h_n }{\partial P_l }} \right)= (\lambda_{njlm} +\lambda _{njml}+\lambda_{jnlm} +\lambda _{jnml})G_jP_m$$ and $$\label{eq39}
\left( {\frac{\partial h_n }{\partial \eta_{kl} }} \right)=(\zeta_{njkl}+\zeta _{jnkl}) G_j$$
Equations (\[eq34b\])-(\[eq39\]) reveal that there are two scenario for the occurence of natural optical activity in electrotoroidic systems. In the first scenario, the system possesses a finite polarization that has a bilinear coupling with the electrical toroidal moment (see Eqs. (\[eq35a\]), (\[eq38\]), and (\[eq34\])). In the second scenario, the electrotoroidic system is also piezoelectric, and electrical toroidal moment and strain are coupled to each other (see Eqs. (\[eq35b\]), (\[eq39\]), and (\[eq34\])). An example of the latter can be found in Reference [@Prosandeev], where a pure gyrotropic phase transition leading to a piezoelectric, but non-polar, $P2_12_12_1$ state (that exhibits spontaneous electrical toroidal moments) was discovered in a perovskite film. Next, we describe the theoretical prediction of a material where the former scenario is realized.
Prediction and microscopic understanding of gyrotropy in electrotoroidic systems
================================================================================
The system we have investigated numerically is a nanocomposite made of periodic squared arrays of BaTiO$_3$ nanowires embedded in a matrix formed by (Ba,Sr)TiO$_3$ solid solutions having a 85% Sr composition. The nanowires have a long axis oriented along the \[001\] pseudo-cubic direction (chosen to be the $z$-axis). They possess a squared cross-section of 4.8x4.8 nm$^2$ in the ($x$,$y$) plane, where the $x$- and $y$-axes are chosen along the pseudo-cubic \[100\] and \[010\] directions, respectively. The distance (along the $x$- or $y$-directions) between adjacent BaTiO$_3$ nanowires is 2.4 nm.
We choose this particular nanocomposite system because a recent theoretical study [@submitted], using an effective Hamiltonian ($H_{\rm{eff}}$) scheme, revealed that its ground state possesses a spontaneous polarization along the $z$-direction inside the whole composite system, as well as electric vortices in the ($x$,$y$) planes inside each BaTiO$_3$ nanowire, with the same sense of vortex rotation in every wire. Such a phase-locking, ferrotoroidic and polar state is shown in Fig. 1a. It exhibits an electrical toroidal moment being parallel to the polarization. Figure 1a also reveals the presence of antivortices located in the [*medium*]{}, half-way between the centers of adjacent vortices.
In the present study, we use the same $H_{\rm{eff}}$ as in Ref. [@submitted], combined with molecular dynamics techniques, to determine the response of this peculiar state to an $ac$ electric field applied along the main, $z$-direction of the wires. In our simulations, the amplitude of the field was fixed at 10$^9$ V/m and its frequency ranged between 1GHz and 100GHz. The sinusoidal frequency-driven variation of the electric field with time makes therefore this field ranging in time between 10$^9$ V/m (field along \[001\]) and -10$^9$ V/m (field along \[00-1\]). The idea here is to check if the electrical toroidal moment has a [*linear*]{} variation with this field at these investigated frequencies, and therefore if the investigated system can possess nonzero gyrotropy coefficients (see Eq.(\[eq33\])).
In this effective Hamiltonian method, developed in Ref.[@Walizer2006] for (Ba,Sr)TiO$_3$ (BST) compounds, the degrees of freedom are: the local mode vectors in each 5-atom unit cell (these local modes are directly proportional to the electric dipoles in these cells), the homogeneous strain tensor and inhomogeneous-strain-related variables [@Zhong1995]. The total internal energy contains a local mode self-energy, short-range and long-range interactions between local modes, an elastic energy and interactions between local modes and strains. Further energetic terms model the effect of the interfaces between the wires and the medium on electric dipoles and strains, as well as take into account the strain that is induced by the size difference between Ba and Sr ions and its effect on physical properties. The parameters entering the total internal energy are derived from first principles. This $H_{\rm{eff}}$ can be used within Monte-Carlo or Molecular dynamics simulations to obtain finite-temperature static or dynamical properties, respectively, of relatively large supercells (i.e., of the order of thousands or tens of thousands of atoms). Previous calculations [@Choudhury2011; @Walizer2006; @Lisenkov2007; @Hlinka2008; @Quingteng2010] for various disordered or ordered BST systems demonstrated the accuracy of this method for several properties. For instance, Curie temperatures and phase diagrams, as well as the subtle temperature-gradient-induced polarization, were well reproduced in BST materials. Similarly, the existence of two modes (rather than a single one as previously believed for a long time) contributing to the GHz-THz dielectric response of pure BaTiO$_3$ and disordered BST solid solutions were predicted via this numerical tool and experimentally confirmed.
Figures 2(a) and 2(b) report the evolution of the $z$-component of the electrical toroidal moment, G$_z$, and of the polarization, P$_z$, respectively, as a function of the electric field, for a frequency of 1GHz at a temperature of 15K. In practice, G$_z$ is computed within a lattice model [@submitted], by summing over the electric dipoles located at the lattice sites rather than by continuously integrating the polarization field of Eq. (\[eqn1\]) over the space occupied by the nanowires. The panels in Fig. 1 show snapshots of important states occurring during these hysteresis loops, in order to understand gyrotropy at a microscopic level. A striking piece of information revealed by Fig. 2 (a) is that G$_z$ [*linearly decreases*]{} with a slope of $-1.6$ e/V when the applied $ac$ field varies between 0 (state 1) and its maximum value of 10$^9$ [V/m]{} (state 2). Such variation therefore results in [ *positive*]{} g$_{11}$ and g$_{22}$ gyrotropy coefficients that are both equal to $0.94 \times 10^{-7}$ for a frequency of 1GHz, according to Eq. (\[eq33\]) (that reduces here to $g_{11} =g_{22}=-\frac{\omega
}{c\varepsilon_0} {\frac{dG_z }{dE}}$ in S.I. units, since there are no $x$- and $y$-components of the toroidal moment and since the field is applied along $z$ in the studied case). Interestingly, we found that the aforementioned slope of $-1.6$ e/V stays roughly constant over the entire frequency range we have investigated (up to 100GHz). As a result, Eq. (\[eq33\]) indicates that $g_{11} =g_{22}$ should be proportional to the angular frequency $\omega$ of the applied $ac$ field, and that the meaningful quantity to consider here is the ratio between $g_{11}$ and this frequency. Such ratio is presently equal to $5.9 \times 10^{-16}$ per Hz. Moreover, the rate of optical rotation is related to the product between $\omega/c$ and the gyrotropy coefficient according to Ref. [@Landau]. As a result, the rate of optical rotation depends on the [*square*]{} of the angular frequency because of Eq. (\[eq33\]), as consistent with one finding of Biot in 1812 [@Barron]. Here, the ratio of the rate of optical rotation to the square of the angular frequency is found to be four orders of magnitude larger than that measured in “typical” gyrotropic materials, such as Pb$_5$Ge$_3$O$_{11}$ [@experiment; @Koiiak]. As a result, the plane of polarization of light will rotate by around $1.2$ radians per meter at 100GHz (or by $1.24\times 10^{-4}$ radians per meter at 1GHz), when passing through the system.
Figure 2b indicates that the observed decrease of G$_z$ is accompanied by an increase of the polarization, which is consistent with our numerical finding that increasing the field from 0 to 10$^9$ V/m reduces the $x$- and $y$-components of the electric dipoles inside the nanowires (that form the vortices) while enhancing the $z$-component of the electric dipoles in the whole nanocomposite (i.e., wires and medium). Interestingly, the antivortices in the medium progressively disappear during this linear decrease of G$_z$ and increase of P$_z$, as shown in Figs 1. Figures 2 also show that decreasing the electric field from 10$^9$ V/m (state 2) to $\simeq$ -0.031 $\times$ 10$^9$ V/m (state 3) leads to a linear increase of the electric toroidal moment (yielding the aforementioned values of $g_{11}$ and $g_{22}$), while the $z$-component of the polarization decreases but still stay positive.
Further increasing the magnitude of negative electric fields up to $\simeq$ -0.094 $\times$ 10$^9$ V/m results in drastic changes for the microstructure: dipoles in the medium now adopt negative $z$-components (state 3), then sites at the interfaces between the medium and the wires also flip the sign of the $z$-component of their dipoles (states 3 and $\alpha$). During these changes, the overall polarization rapidly varies from a significant positive value along the $z$-axis to a slightly negative value (Fig. 2b), while G$_z$ is nearly constant, therefore rendering the gyrotropic coefficients null. Then, continually increasing the strength of the negative $ac$ field up to $\simeq$ -0.48 $\times$ 10$^9$ V/m leads to the next stage: dipoles [*inside*]{} the wires begin to change the sign of their $z$-components (states $\beta$, 4 and $\gamma$) until all of the $z$-components of these dipoles point down (state 5). During that process, P$_z$ becomes more and more negative, while the electrical toroidal moment decreases very fast but remains positive (indicating that the chirality of the wires is unaffected by the switching of the overall polarization).
Once this process is completed, further increasing the magnitude of the applied field along \[00$\bar{1}$\] up to -10$^9$ V/m (state 2$'$), leads to a [*linear decrease*]{} of the electrical toroidal moment. Interestingly, this decrease is quantified by a slope $dG_z/dE$ that is exactly [*opposite*]{} to the corresponding one when going from state 1 to state 2. As a result, the $g_{11}$ and $g_{22}$ gyrotropic coefficients associated with the evolution from state 5 to state 2$'$ are now [*negative*]{} and equal $-$$0.94 \times
10^{-7}$ at 1GHz.
Finally, Figures 1 and 2 indicate that varying now the $ac$ field from its minimal value of -10$^9$ V/m to its maximal value of 10$^9$ V/m leads to the following succession of states: 2$'$, 5, 1$'$, 3$'$, $\alpha$$'$, $\beta$$'$, 4$'$, $\gamma$$'$, 5$'$ and 2, where the $'$ superscript used to denote the i$'$ states (with $i$=2, 3, 4, 5, $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$) indicates that the corresponding states have $z$-components of their dipoles that are all opposite to those of state $i$ (for instance, state $\beta$$'$ has $z$-components of the dipoles being positive in the medium while being negative in the wires, as exactly opposite to state $\beta$). During this path from state 2$'$ to state 2, the gyrotropic coefficients $g_{11}$ and $g_{22}$ can be negative (from state 2$'$ to state 3$'$) or positive (from state 5$'$ to state 2), depending on the sign of the polarization.
Such possibility of having both negative and positive gyrotropic coefficients in the same system originates from the fact that the polarization can be down or up, and is consistent with Eqs. (\[eq38\]), (\[eq35a\]) and (\[eq33\]). As a result, one can turn the polarization of light either in clockwise or anticlockwise manner in electrotoroidic systems, via the control of the direction of the polarization by an external electric field – which induces the switching between the dextrorotatory and laevorotatory forms of these materials (see states 1 and 1$'$). Such control may be promising for the design of original devices [@footnotedegen; @footnoteconj].
Figure 3 shows how the gyrotropic coefficient $g_{11}$ depends on temperature. One can clearly see that $g_{11}$ significantly increases as the temperature increases up to 240K. As indicated in the figure, the temperature behavior of $g_{11}$ is very well fitted by $A/\sqrt{(T_C-T)(T_G-T)}$, where $A$ is a constant, $T_C=240K$ is the lowest temperature at which the polarization vanishes and $T_G=330K$ is the lowest temperature at which the electric toroidal moment is annihilated [@submitted]. In order to understand such fitting, let us combine Eqs (\[eq33\]), (\[eq35a\]) and (\[eq38\]) for the studied case, that is: $$\label{eqnew}
g_{11} =-\frac{4\pi \omega }{c}\frac{dG_3 }{dE_3
}=
-\frac{4\pi \omega }{c} \chi^{(G)}_{3n}\frac{\partial h_n}{\partial
P_l}\chi^{(P)}_{l3}=-\frac{4\pi \omega }{c} (\lambda_{n3l3} +\lambda _{n33l}+\lambda_{3nl3} +\lambda _{3n3l}) \chi^{(G)}_{3n} G_3 P_3
\chi^{(P)}_{l3}$$
The usual temperature dependencies of the order parameter and its conjugate field imply that $G_3$ and $P_3$ should be proportional to $\sqrt{(T_G-T)}$ and $\sqrt{(T_C-T)}$, respectively, while their responses, $ \chi^{(G)}_{3n}$ and $\chi^{(P)}_{l3}$, should be proportional to $1/(T_G-T)$ and $1/(T_C-T)$, respectively. This explains why the behavior of $g_{11}$ as a function of $T$ is well described by $A/\sqrt{(T_C-T)(T_G-T)}$.
Summary
=======
In summary, we propose the existence of a new class of spontaneously optically active materials, via the use of different techniques (namely, analytical derivations, phenomenologies and first-principles-based simulations). These materials are electrotoroidics for which the electric toroidal moment changes linearly under an applied electric field. Such linear change is demonstrated to occur if at least one of the following two conditions is satisfied: (1) the electric toroidal moment is coupled to a spontaneous electrical polarization; or (2) the electric toroidal moment is coupled to strain and the whole system is piezoelectric. We also report a realization of case (1), and further show that applying an electric field in such a case allows a systematic control of the sign of the optical rotation, via a field-induced transition between the dextrorotatory and laevorotatory forms. We therefore hope that our study deepens the current knowledge of natural optical activity and will be put in use to develop novel technologies.
This work is financially supported by ONR Grants N00014-11-1-0384 and N00014-08-1-0915 (S.P. and L.B.), ARO Grant W911NF-12-1-0085 (Z.G. and L.B.), NSF grant DMR-1066158 (L.L. and L.B.). I.S acknowledges support by Grant MAT2012-33720 from the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. S.P. appreciates Grant 12-08-00887-a of Russian Foundation for Basic Research. L.B. also acknowledges discussion with scientists sponsored by the Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, under contract ER-46612, Javier Junquera and Surendra Singh.
[1]{}
D. B. Melrose and R. C. McPhedran, [*Electromagnetic Processes in Dispersive Media*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991). L. D. Barron, [*Molecular Light Scattering and Optical Activity*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004). D. F. J. Arago, [Mém. Inst.]{} **12**, Part I, 93 (1811). J. P. Dougherty, E. Sawaguchii, and L. E. Cross, [Appl. Phys. Lett.]{} **20**, 364 (1972). C. Konak, V. Kopsky and F. Smutny, [ J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.]{} **11**, 2493 (1978). A. Gómez Cuevas, J. M. Pérez Mato, M. J. Tello, G. Madariaga, J. Fernández, López Echarri, F. J. Zuñiga, and G. Chapuis Phys. Rev. B **29**, 2655 (1984). L. Pasteur [ Researches on the Molecular Asymmetry of Natural Organic Products]{} (Edinburg: Alembic 1897). H. Schmid, [ J. Phys.: Condens. Matter]{} **20**, 434201 (2008). V. M. Dubovik and V. V. Tugushev, [ Physics Reports]{} [**187**]{}, 145 (1990). I. I. Naumov, L. Bellaiche, and H. Fu, [ Nature]{} **432**, 737 (2004). A. Gruverman, D. Wu, H-J Fan, I. Vrejoiu, M. Alexe, R. J. Harrison, and J. F. Scott, [J. Phys.: Condens. Matter.]{} **20**, 342201 (2008). R. G. P. McQuaid, L. J. McGilly, P. Sharma, A. Gruverman, and A. Gregg, [ Nat Commun.]{} **2**, 404 (2011). N. Balke, B. Winchester, W. Ren, Y. H. Chu, A. N. Morozovska, E. A. Eliseev, M. Huijben, R. K. Vasudevan, P. Maksymovych, J. Britson, S. Jesse, I. Kornev, R. Ramesh, L. Bellaiche, L. Q. Chen, and S. V. Kalinin [ Nature Physics]{}, **8**, 81 (2012). R. K. Vasudevan, Y. C. Chen, H. H. Tai, N. Balke, P. Wu, S. Bhattacharya, L. Q. Chen, Y. H. Chu, I. N. Lin, S. V. Kalinin, and V. Nagarajan, [ ACS Nano.]{} **5**, 879 (2011). C. T. Nelson, B. Winchester, Y. Zhang, S. J. Kim, A. Melville, C. Adamo, C. M. Folkman, S. H. Baek, C. B. Eom, D. G. Schlom, L. Q. Chen, X. Pan, [ Nano Lett.]{} [**11**]{}, 828 (2011). L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, [Electrodynamics of Continuous Media]{}, Second Edition: Volume 8 (Course of Theoretical Physics), (Elsevier, New-York 1984). J. R. Tyldesley, [ An introduction to Tensor Analysis: For Engineers and Applied Scientists.]{} (Longman, Niw-York 1973). A. Malashevich, and I. Souza, [ Phys. Rev. B]{} **82**, 245118 (2010). R. E. Raab, and O. L. De Lange, [*Multipole Theory in Elecromagnetism.*]{} (Clarendon Press - Oxford 2005). Note that ${\bf {\cal P}(r)}$ and ${\bf {\cal M}_0(r)}$ are technically ill-defined in the sense that they depend on the choice of a gauge [@Hirst]. However, all the different gauges result in the same current density, ${\bf {\cal J}(r)}$, [@Hirst] which is the physical quantity that appears in Eqs. (12) and (13). As a result, the choice of the gauge does not modify our results, in general, and Eq. (21), in particular. Such conclusion can also be reached by realizing that the quantity appearing in the left hand side of Eq. (12) is the [*macroscopic*]{} magnetization, and as such, should not depend on the choice of a gauge. Note, however, that Eq. (22) is deduced from Eq. (21) via the annihilation of all the contributions stemming from ${\bf M}_0$. As a result, a specific choice of gauge was made in going from Eq.(21) to Eq.(22), namely the “P-only” gauge discussed in Ref. [@Hirst]. L.L. Hirst, [Reviews of Modern Physics]{}, **69**, 607 (1997). N. A. Spaldin, M. Fiebig, and M. Mostovoy, [ J. Phys. Cond. Mat.]{} **20**, 434203 (2008). S. Prosandeev, I. A. Kornev, L. Bellaiche, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**107**]{}, 117602 (2011). L. Louis, I. Kornev, G. Geneste, B. Dkhil, and L. Bellaiche, [ J. Phys. Cond. Mat.]{} [**24**]{}, 402201 (2012).
J. Hlinka, T. Ostapchuk, D. Nuzhnyy, J. Petzelt, P. Kuzel, C. Kadlec, P. Vanek, I. Ponomareva, and L. Bellaiche, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 167402 (2008).
Note that Eq. (\[eq34\]) involves the [*squares*]{} of the toroidal moment and of the polarization for the coupling interaction between these two physical quantities. As a result, one can easily understand that the presently studied nanocomposite has a ground state that is four times degenerated, due to the fact that the polarization and electrical toroidal moment can independently be parallel or antiparallel to the z-axis. These four states have the same probability (of 25%) to occur when cooling the system from high to low temperature. In our simulations, when the system statistically chooses one of these states below the critical temperature, it stays in it when further decreasing the temperature, likely because the potential barrier to go from one of these states to the other three states is too high. Moreover, one can also force the system to be in one of these four states by applying, and then removing, the conjugate fields of the polarization and electrical toroidal moment. For instance, the selection of the states for which the polarization is parallel to the z-axis requires the application of an homogeneous electric field along \[001\]. Similarly, obtaining states with electrical toroidal moment being aligned along \[001\] can be done by applying specific curled electric fields [@Weicurled] (see also Refs. [@Dubovik; @Sergeyinho1; @Sergeyinho2] for more details about how to control toroidal moments). Notice that creating a curled electric field along \[001\] can be practically realized by applying a magnetic field having a time derivative being oriented along \[00$\bar{1}$\], since Maxwell equations directly relate the time derivative of a magnetic field with minus the curl of the electric field.
Note that the homogeneous electric field is the field conjugate of the electrical polarization but is not the field conjugate of the electrical toroidal moment. As a result (and as proven by our simulations), applying an electric field can change the direction of the polarization but can not change the direction of the electrical toroidal moment. This explains why an electric field can control the chirality and optical activity in electrotoroidic systems.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Louis Poinsot has shown in 1854 that the motion of a rigid body, with one of its points fixed, can be described as the rolling without slipping of one cone, the ‘body cone’, along another, the ‘space cone’, with their common vertex at the fixed point. This description has been further refined by the second author in 1996, relating the geodesic curvatures of the spherical curves formed by intersecting the cones with the unit sphere in Euclidean $\R^3$, thus enabling a reconstruction of the motion of the body from knowledge of the space cone together with the (time dependent) magnitude of the angular velocity vector. In this article we show that a similar description exists for a time dependent family of unimodular $ 2 \times 2 $ matrices in terms of rolling cones in 3-dimensional Minkowski space $\R^{2,1}$ and the associated ‘pseudo spherical’ curves, in either the hyperbolic plane $H^2$ or its Lorentzian analog $H^{1,1}$. In particular, this yields an apparently new geometric interpretation of Schrödinger’s (or Hill’s) equation $ \ddot x + q(t) x =0 $ in terms of rolling without slipping of curves in the hyperbolic plane.'
author:
- 'Gil Bor[^1]'
- 'Mark Levi[^2]'
date: 'November 12, 2019'
title: 'Hill’s equation, tire tracks and rolling cones'
---
Introduction
============
The motion of a rigid body in $\R^3$, with one of its points fixed, consists at every moment of rotation about an instantaneous axis passing through the fixed point, also called the [*angular velocity axis*]{}. This is well known and easy to imagine (see for example the book [@Ar p. 125]). What is perhaps less well known is the following remarkable 19th century theorem of Louis Poinsot [@Po], describing the motion in terms of [*rolling without slipping of one cone along another:*]{}
> [*When a body is continuously moving round one of its points, which is fixed, the locus of the instantaneous axis in the body is a cone, whose vertex is at the fixed point: the locus of the instantaneous axis in space is also a cone whose vertex is at the fixed point \[…\] the actual motion of the body can be obtained by making the former of these cones (supposed to be rigidly connected with the body) roll on the latter cone (supposed to be fixed in space).*]{} (Quoted from [@Wh p. 2]). See Figure \[fig:poinsot\].
As the second author has shown [@Ma], this rolling cones description can be made more precise: if we intersect each of the cones in Poinsot’s theorem with a sphere centered at the fixed point we obtain a pair of spherical curves whose geodesic curvatures are related by the magnitude of the angular velocity vector $\ob$, enabling a reconstruction of the motion of the body from knowledge of the space cone together with the (time dependent) magnitude $|\ob|$ (see Theorem \[thm:so3\] below for the precise statement).
Poinsot’s Theorem can be reformulated more abstractly as a statement about smooth curves in the orthogonal group $\SO_3$. It is natural to look for an analog for other groups. In this paper we do that for the Möbius group $\mathrm{PSL}_2(\R)\simeq \SO_{2,1}$. Poinsot’s Theorem and its refinement of [@Ma] then become a statement about the phase flow of the non-autonomous Hamiltonian linear system of ordinary differential equations \[eq:sys\](t)=a(t)(t), where $\x(t)\in\R^2$ and $a=a(t)\in\slt$, the space of $2\times 2$ traceless matrices. The salient features of this interpretation are:
- Solving equation is equivalent to reconstructing a curve on a ‘pseudo-sphere’ in Minkowski’s space $\R^{2,1}$ from its geodesic curvature.
- The phase flow of can be visualized as a rigid motion in $\R^{2,1}$, under which motion one cone rolls on another without slipping.
- The rigid motion, and thus the solutions to equation, is completely determined by two cones, the ‘body cone’ and the ‘space cone’, lying in $\R^{2,1}$ and given explicitly in terms of $a(t)$.
- Unless $a(t)$ is a commuting family of matrices, the system cannot be solved explicitly by the naïve formula $\x(t)=\exp\left(\int_0^t a(\tau)\d \tau\right)\x(0)$ (unlike in the scalar version of this equation). Nevertheless, the rolling cones interpretation allows for a correction of this formula in terms of parallel transport along curves in the pseudo-sphere in $\R^{2,1}.$ Interestingly, the cumulative angle of rotation appears in the solution despite the fact that the $a(t)$ do not commute.
. In the next section, Section \[sec:back\], we describe in more detail Poinsot’s Theorem and its refinement due to [@Ma], see Theorem \[thm:so3\]. In Section \[sec:sl2\] we formulate our main result, Theorem \[thm:sl2\], generalizing Theorem \[thm:so3\] to rigid motions in Minkowski’s space, thus giving a novel ‘rolling cones’ interpretation to the phase flow of system . Section \[sec:proofs\] contains a proof of both Theorem \[thm:so3\] and \[thm:sl2\] in a unified group theoretic language, so as to make the generalization from $\SOt$ to $\SLt$ straightforward, see Theorem \[thm:both\]. In the last two sections, we illustrate our main result via two examples of equation : periodically perturbed harmonic oscillator (Mathieu’s equation) and the 2D bicycling equation.
Background {#sec:back}
==========
Consider the motion of a rigid body in Euclidean $\R^3$, with one of its points fixed at the origin. If we follow any of the points of the body, initially at $\x(0)$, then its position $\x(t)\in\R^3$ at time $t$ satisfies $$\dot\x(t)=\ob(t)\times\x(t),$$ where $\ob(t)\in \R^3$ is the associated [*angular velocity vector*]{} – a vector aligned with the axis of rotation, whose length $|\ob(t)|$ is the angular velocity of the body about the axis of rotation and whose direction is given by the ‘right hand rule’.
Denote by $a_\ob :\R^3\to\R^3$ the map $\x\mapsto \ob\times \x$; then the last equation can be rewritten as the non-autonomous linear system \[eq:rigbod\] (t)=a(t) (t),(t)\^3, a(t)=a\_[(t)]{}, and where $\sot$ denotes the space of $3\times 3$ antisymmetric real matrices. An equation equivalent to is the equation for its fundamental solution matrix $g(t)\in\SO_3$ (the group of $3\times 3$ orthogonal matrices with determinant 1), satisfying g(t)=a(t)g(t), g(0)=, g(t)\_3, a(t)=a\_[(t)]{}, \[eq:fund\] and $\II$ denotes the identity $3\times 3$ matrix. The relation between the solutions of equations and is $\x(t)=g(t)\x(0).$
Figure \[fig:conesintro\] illustrates the above mentioned Poinsot theorem and the geometrical solution of equation . In the figure, $\Cs$ denotes the locus of rotation axes of the body, the ‘space cone’ (the cone, with vertex at the origin, generated by the space curve $\ob(t)$). Viewed from a body-fixed frame, the rotation axes form another cone, the ‘body cone’ $\Cb$, rigidly attached to the body, with vertex at the origin as well. Then, as the body moves according to equation , the cone $\Cb$ (rigidly affixed to the body) rolls without slipping along $\Cs$: at each moment, $\Cb$ is [*tangent*]{} to $\Cs$ along the instantaneous axis of rotation, which is (momentarily) at rest.
As shown in [@Ma], this rolling cones description can be made more precise, as follows. For a given non-vanishing ‘space angular velocity’ curve $\ob(t)$ and a solution $g(t)$ to equation , let $\Ob(t)=g(t)^{-1}\ob(t)$ be the ‘body angular velocity’ curve, and $\spa(t):= \ob(t)/|\ob(t)|, \bod(t):= \Ob(t)/|\Ob(t)|$ the (parametrized) intersections of $\Cs, \Cb$ (respectively) with the unit sphere $S^2\subset \R^3$.
\[thm:so3\]
(1) $g(t)$ rolls $\bod$ without slipping along $\spa$; that is: $g(t)\bod(t)=\spa(t)$, $g(t)\dot\bod(t)=\dot\spa(t)$, for all $t$. See Figure \[fig:conesintro\].
(2) For non vanishing $\dot \spa$, the (spherical) geodesic curvatures $K,k$ of $\bod, \spa$ (respectively) are related by \[eq:geod1\] K=k-[||||]{}.
(3) Let $R[\Phi(t)]$ be the rotation about $\ob(0)$ by the angle $\Phi(t)=\int_0^t |\ob(\tau)|\d\tau$. Then \[eq:decomp\] g(t)=P\_(t)R\[(t)\]P\_(t)\^[-1]{}, where $P_\bod(t)$ is (spherical) parallel transport along $\bod$ from $\bod(0)$ to $\bod(t)$, extended to $\R^3$ by $\bod(0)\mapsto \bod(t)$ and similarly for $P_\spa(t).$
Statement (1) is just a reformulation of Poinsot Theorem. Statement (2), taken together with statement (1), can be thought of as a geometrical/mechanical ‘recipe’ for solving equation : given a ‘space angular velocity curve’ $\ob(t)$, one uses equation to construct $\bod(t)$ from its geodesic curvature and the initial conditions $\bod(0)=\spa(0)$, $\dot\bod(0)=\dot\spa(0)$. Then $g(t)\in \SO_3$ is the (unique) rigid motion mapping $\bod(t)\mapsto \spa(t),$ $\dot\bod(t)\mapsto \dot\spa(t)$.
Statement (3) of Theorem \[thm:so3\] is a curious fact regarding ‘composition of a non-commuting family of matrices’. Namely, the difficulty of solving explicitly lies in the fact that, in general, the matrices $ a(t) $ do not commute for different values of $t$. If, on the other hand, the axis of rotation is fixed, i.e., $\ob(t)=\omega(t)\e$ for some fixed unit vector $\e$ and a scalar function $\omega(t)$, so that the $a(t)$ commute, then $g(t)$ is the rotation about $\e$ by the cumulative angle $\int_{0}^{t}\omega( \tau ) \d\tau ,$ i.e., $g(t)=\exp\left(\int_{0}^{t}a( \tau ) \d\tau \right)$ is the solution to equation , just as in the scalar version of equation . In spite of the lack of commutativity in general, the cumulative angle still appears in the decomposition formula , with an appropriate correction by parallel translations.
Here is a heuristic explanation for the decomposition formula . As the body curve $\bod$ rolls along $\spa$ in some time range $0\leq t\leq t_0$, the vector $ \dot {\bf N} (t_0) $ in Figure \[fig:conesintro\] swings over and coincides with $ \dot {\bf n} (t_0) $ at $ t=t_0 $. The first key idea is that [*this hard-to-describe motion can be decomposed into two simpler ones*]{}, as shown in Figure \[fig:decomp\]: tangent transport $\TT^{-1} _{\bf N}$ of $ \dot {\bf N} (t_0) $ along $ {\bf N} $ backwards to $ {\bf N} (0)= {\bf n} (0) $, followed by tangent transport $\TT_ {\bf n}$ forward along $ {\bf n} $ to $ {\bf n} (t_0) $: $$\dot {\bf n} (t_0)= (\TT_ {\bf n}\circ \TT^{-1} _{\bf N} )\, \dot {\bf N} (t_0).
\label{eq:tt}$$ But $$\TT_ {\bf n} = P_ {\bf n} \circ R(\theta _ {\bf n}), \ \ \TT_ {\bf N} = P_ {\bf N} \circ R(\theta _ {\bf N}),$$ where $P_ {\bf n} $ denotes parallel transport along ${\bf n}$, $\theta _ {\bf n}$ is the integral of the geodesic curvature of ${\bf n}$ and $R(\theta) $ is the rotation around $ {\bf n}(0) = {\bf N} (0)$ through the angle $\theta$; thus (\[eq:tt\]) becomes $$\dot {\bf n} (t_0) = g(t_0)\,\dot {\bf N} (t_0)= (P_ {\bf n} \circ R(\theta _{\bf n}-\theta _{\bf N})\circ P^{-1}_ {\bf N})\, \dot {\bf N} (t_0).
\label{eq:compintro}$$
The second key idea is the observation that [*the angle $ \theta _{\bf n}-\theta _{\bf N} $ turns out to be the time integral of the angular velocity $|\ob(t)|$ of the rigid motion $g(t)$*]{} – this is made precise by equation , relating the geodesic curvatures of ${\bf N}$ and of ${\bf n}$.
The main result {#sec:sl2}
================
We apply the above ideas to gain geometrical insight into the linear system of ordinary differential equations \[eq:symp\] (t)=a(t)(t),(t)\^2, a(t), and where $\slt$ denotes the set of traceless $2\times 2$ matrices. This system includes, among numerous applications in mathematics, physics and engineering, the 1-dimensional Schrödinger’s, or Hill’s, equation \[eq:hill\] x + q (t)x = 0, where $x=x(t)$ and $q(t)$ are real functions. The last equation is obtained as a special case of by setting $$\x(t)={x(t)\choose \dot x(t)}, \quad a(t)=\left(\begin{matrix}0& 1\\-q(t)&0\end{matrix}\right).$$ Another special case of is the ‘planar bicycle equation’ (see Section \[sect:be\] below).
The fundamental solution matrix $g$ of , defined (as before) by \[eq:lie1\] g(t)=a(t)g(t), g(0)=, lies in $\SLt$, the group of $2\times 2$ matrices with determinant 1. As before, the relation between the solutions of equations and is $\x(t)=g(t)\x(0).$
The starting point of our approach is the observation that the linear area–preserving flow in $\R^2$ of equation $\slt$. More precisely, instead of considering the motion of points in $\R^2 $ under $g\in\SLt$, we consider the motion of points in $ \slt$, the $3$–dimensional Lie algebra of $\SLt$, given by conjugation with $g$: $$\Ad_g: \sl_2( \R)\rightarrow \sl_2( \R) ,\quad a\mapsto gag^{-1}, \quad a\in\slt, \quad g\in \SLt.$$ Now $ \Ad_g $, being a conjugation, preserves the spectrum of each $a\in\slt$, and in particular, $\det(a)$. Since $\tr(a) = 0 $, $\det(a)$ turns out to be an indefinite quadratic form, which makes $\slt$ a Minkowski space (we provide the details later in Section \[sec:prelim\]). Thus, [*$ \Ad_g$ is an orthogonal transformation of the Minkowski space $\slt\simeq\R^{2,1}$*]{}, a ‘rigid motion’. The map $ g\mapsto \Ad_g $ is $ 2 $ to $1$, so up to a minor ambiguity, all properties of $g$ can be recovered from those of $ \Ad_g $. For instance, $g$ is elliptic, i.e., conjugate to a rotation of $ \R^2 $ through an angle $\theta$, if and only if $ \Ad_g $ is a rigid rotation in $\slt$ (in the Minkowski metric) around a timelike axis, rotating the orthogonal (spacelike) plane through the angle $ 2 \theta $; similar statements hold for parabolic and hyperbolic elements in $\SLt$.
One advantage of looking at $ \Ad_g $ acting on $ \sl_2( \R)$ (versus $ g $ acting on $ \R^2 $) is that a geometry (hidden heretofore in $\R^2$) is revealed; the already mentioned orthogonality of $ \Ad_g $ is one example. Furthermore, orthogonal transformations of Minkowski’s space, just like Euclidean ones, have axes of rotation: lightlike for the elliptic rotations and spacelike for the hyperbolic ones; in $\R^2$, none of this is visible.
By carrying through this analogy between Euclidean and Minkowski rigid motions, we then obtain, with some minor modifications due to sign and nullity details, the following almost-verbatim Minkowski version of Theorem \[thm:so3\].
\[thm:sl2\] Let $a(t)\in\slt$ be a given non-vanishing ‘space angular velocity’ curve with non vanishing $|a|:=2\sqrt{|\det(a)|} $ and let $g(t)\in\SLt$ be the solution to $\dot g=ag,$ $g(0)=\II$. Let $A=g^{-1}a g$ be the associated ‘body angular velocity’ curve and $\spa:= a/|a|, \bod:= A/|A|$ be the projections of $a,A$ (respectively) on the unit ‘pseudo-sphere’ $\Sigma\subset \slt$ (either the hyperbolic plane $H^2$ or its Lorentzian analog $H^{1,1}$, depending on the sign of $\det(a)$; see Section \[sec:prelim\] below for details). Then
(1) $g(t)$ rolls $\bod$ without slipping along $\spa$, i.e., $\Ad_{g(t)}\bod(t)=\spa(t)$, $\Ad_{g(t)}\dot\bod(t)=\dot\spa(t)$, for all $t$.
(2) For non vanishing $|\dot \spa|$, the (pseudo-spherical) geodesic curvatures $K,k$ of $\bod, \spa$ (respectively) are related by $$K=k-{|\ob|\over |\dot \spa|}.$$
(3) Let $R[\Phi(t)]$ be the (pseudo) rotation about $a(0)$ by the angle $\Phi(t)=\int_0^t |\ob(\tau)|\d\tau$. Then $$\Ad_{g(t)}=P_\spa(t)\circ R[\Phi(t)]\circ P_\bod(t)^{-1},$$ where $P_\bod(t)$ is parallel transport along $\bod$ from $\bod(0)$ to $\bod(t)$, extended to $\slt$ by $\bod(0)\mapsto \bod(t)$ and similarly for $P_\spa(t).$
In the above theorem, the assumption that $|a(t)|$ is non-vanishing, i.e., the space angular velocity is nowhere null, is essential. For the special case of Hill’s equation , this amounts to assuming that the potential $q(t)$ does not vanish for all $t$. Studying this case of $a$ crossing the null cone remains an interesting question which we do not address in this paper.
Notation and setup {#sec:proofs}
==================
We start with a review of some notation and terminology, mostly standard.
Geometry and algebra of $\SOt$ and $\SLt$ {#sec:prelim}
-----------------------------------------
Denote in the following by $G$ either $\SO_3$ or $\SLt$ and by $\g$ its Lie algebra, either $\so_3$ or $\slt$, respectively. The conjugation action of $G$ on $\g$, $\Ad:G\to \mathrm{GL}(\g),$ is denoted by \_g(a)=ga:=gag\^[-1]{}, gG, a. \[eq:cong\]
Define an Ad-invariant inner product on $\g$ by \[eq:inner\] a,b:=(ab), Our choice of the normalization factor for each $\g$ will be explained in a moment. In either case, we set $$|a|:=\sqrt{|\<a,a\>|}.$$ The $\Ad$-invariance of $\<\ ,\ \>$ implies that $b\mapsto [a,b]=ab-ba$ is an anti symmetric operator on $\g$ with respect to $\<\ ,\ \>$, i.e., $\<[a,b],c\>=-\<b, [a,c]\>$ for all $a,b,c\in\g$, hence \[eq:as\] ,a =0,a,b.
Let us examine the resulting geometry of $\g$ in each of the two cases.
$\g=\so_3$. With the choice $\lambda=-{1\over 2}$ in , $\<a,b\>:=-\tr(ab)/2$ is a positive definite inner product on $\so_3$, the image of the standard inner product on $\R^3$ under the isomorphism $\R^3\to \sot$, $\o\mapsto a_{\ob} \in \so_3$, where $a_{\ob}\x:=\ob\times\x.$ Explicitly, \[eq:aw\] =(
[c]{}\_1\
\_2\
\_3
) a\_= (
[ccc]{} 0 & -\_3 & \_2\
\_3 & 0 & -\_1\
-\_2 & \_1 & 0
). Furthermore, under this isomorphism, the cross product $\u\times\v$ corresponds to the Lie bracket $[a,b]=ab-ba$ and the standard action of $\SO_3$ on $\R^3$ corresponds to the conjugation action (\[eq:cong\]); that is, $$\<a_\u, a_\v\>=\u\cdot\v,\ [a_\u, a_\v]=a_{\u\times \v}, \ g\cdot a_\u=a_{g\u}, \quad \mbox{for } g\in\SO_3,\ \u,\v\in\R^3.$$
$\g=\slt$. The Lie algebra $\slt$ consists of traceless $2\times 2$ real matrices, which we choose to write in the form $$a={1\over 2}\left(\begin{matrix} a_1& a_2+a_3\\a_2- a_3&-a_1\end{matrix}\right),$$ so that $ \<a,b\>:=2\tr(ab)=a_1b_1+a_2b_2-a_3b_3.$ Thus the inner product is indefinite, of signature $++-$ (the ‘spacelike sign convention’). A simpler formula for the associated quadratic form is $$\<a,a\>=(a_1)^2+(a_2)^2-(a_3)^2=-4\det(a), \quad a\in\slt.$$
An element $a\in\slt$ is called [*timelike*]{} if $\<a,a\><0,$ [*lightlike*]{} (or [*null*]{}) if $\<a,a\>=0$ and [*spacelike*]{} if $\<a,a\>>0.$ These are the three [*causal types*]{} of elements in $\slt$, also referred to as [*elliptic, parabolic*]{} and [*hyperbolic*]{}, respectively.
The reason for our choice $\lambda=2$ in formula for $\g=\slt$ is the following analog of a familiar property of the vector product in $\R^3$.
\[lemma:bracket\] If $a,b\in\slt$ is an orthonormal pair, i.e., $|a|=|b|=1$ and $\<a,b\>=0$, then $(a,b,[a,b])$ is an orthonormal frame in $\slt$, positively oriented with respect to the standard volume form $a_1\wedge a_2\wedge a_3$ if $a,b$ are spacelike, and negatively oriented if one of them is timelike.
It is easy to check that \[eq:basis\] [**i**]{} := (
[cc]{} 1 &0\
0 & -1
), := (
[cc]{} 0 &1\
1 & 0
), := (
[cc]{} 0 &1\
-1 & 0
) is an orthonormal basis of $\slt$, dual to $a_1, a_2,a_3 $, hence it is positively oriented with respect to $a_1\wedge a_2\wedge a_3.$ Furthermore, $\bi, \bj$ are spacelike and $\bk$ is timelike, satisfying \[eq:comm\] \[ [**i**]{}, [**j**]{} \] = [**k**]{}, \[[**j**]{}, [**k**]{} \] = -[**i**]{} , \[[**k**]{} , [**i**]{} \] = -[**j**]{}.
Now let $a,b\in\slt$ be an orthonormal pair. Since $a,b$ are not null and orthogonal, both are spacelike or one is timelike and the other spacelike. In the first case, where $a,b$ are spacelike orthogonal unit vectors, by conjugating by an appropriate element of $\SLt$ and (possibly) permuting them (neither operation changes the orientation of $(a,b,[a,b])$), we can assume that $a=\bi$, $b=\bj$, thus $[a,b]=\bk$, hence $(a,b,[a,b])$ is a positively oriented orthonormal frame.
In the second case, where one of $a,b$ is timelike and the other spacelike, by (possibly) permuting $a$ and $b$ and changing $a$ to $-a$ (these operations do not affect the orientation of $(a,b,[a,b])$), we can assume that $a$ is timelike future pointing ($a_3>0$) and $b$ is spacelike. Next, by conjugating by an appropriate element of $\SLt$, we can assume that $a=\bk$ and $b=\bi$, so that $[a,b]=-\bj$, and hence $(a,b,[a,b])$ is a negatively oriented orthonormal frame, as claimed.
The commutation relations differ from the analogous relations for the cross product in $ \R^3 $ by the “$-$" sign when the timelike vector ${\bf k}$ occurs in the commutator. Putting it differently, when taking the cross product in the Minkowski space $\slt$, one uses the ‘right-hand rule’ to determine the direction of the cross product of two spacelike vectors, and the ‘left-hand rule’ whenever a timelike vector participates in the cross product.
Rolling without slipping
------------------------
Denote by $\Sigma\subset \g$ the unit (pseudo) sphere, i.e., the set of elements $a\in \g$ with $\<a,a\>=\pm 1.$ Thus, for $\g=\so_3$, $\Sigma$ is the standard 2-sphere $S^2=\{a\in\so_3\st \<a,a\>=1\}$, while for $\g=\slt$, $\Sigma$ is either $H^{2}:=\{a\in\slt\st \<a,a\>=-1\}$ (hyperboloid of two sheets), or $H^{1,1}:=\{a\in\slt\st \<a,a\>=1\}$ (hyperboloid of one sheet), see Figure \[fig:mink\].
Now let $g(t)$ be a smoothly parametrized curve in $G$ with $g(0)=\II$ (the identity element in $G$). Define \[eq:ang\]A(t):=g\^[-1]{}(t)g(t), a(t):=g(t)g\^[-1]{}(t), the [*body*]{} and [*space angular velocities*]{}, respectively, and \[eq:angn\](t):=A(t)/|A(t)|, (t) :=a(t)/|a(t)|, the radial projections of $A(t),a(t)$ (respectively) onto $\Sigma\subset\g$. Note that in order to define the (pseudo) spherical curves $\bod(t), \spa(t),$ we need to assume that $|a(t)|\neq 0$ for all $t$, which we assume henceforth. For $G=\SO_3$ this amounts to $a(t)\neq 0$; for $G=\SLt$ it means that $a(t)$ is non null for all $t$, i.e., it is either spacelike or timelike.
From equations and , we have \[eq:one\] g=ag=gA, a=gA, =g, g(0)=.
Sometimes, as in , we suppress the explicit dependence on $t$, i.e., $g=g(t) ,$ $a=a(t) $, etc.
\[def:roll\] Let $\Gamma(t),\gamma(t)$ be two parametrized curves in $\g$. A [*rolling without slipping of $\Gamma$ along $\gamma$*]{} is a parametrized curve $g(t)$ in $G$, satisfying for all $t$ the [*contact*]{} and [*no slip*]{} conditions: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:roll1}
g(t)\cdot \Gamma(t)&=\gamma(t), \\
g(t)\cdot \dot \Gamma(t)&=\dot \gamma(t).\label{eq:roll2}\end{aligned}$$ See Figure \[fig:rolling\].
The no-slip condition is equivalent to \[eq:roll3\] \[a,\]=0, where $a=\dot g g^{-1}.$ This expresses the vanishing of the velocity of the ‘material point’ of the moving curve at the contact point $g(t)\cdot \Gamma(t)$ between the two curves.
Taking the derivative with respect to $t$ of equation and using equations , $$[a,\gamma]+g\cdot \dot\Gamma=\dot \gamma.$$ Thus $g\cdot \dot \Gamma=\dot \gamma$ (equation ) is equivalent to $[a,\gamma]=0$.
Geodesic curvature
------------------
Let $\gamma(t)$ be a smoothly parametrized (pseudo) spherical curve in $ \Sigma\subset\g$ with nowhere null tangent, i.e., $|\dot\gamma|$ does not vanish, and let $\gamma':=\dot\gamma/|\dot\gamma|$ be the unit tangent along $\gamma$. Then $(\gamma, \gamma', [\gamma,\gamma'])$ is a ‘moving’ orthonormal frame along $\gamma$.
We denote henceforth by dot derivative along a curve $\gamma$ with respect to an arbitrary parameter $t$, $\dot\gamma:=\d\gamma/\d t, $ and by prime derivative with respect to arc length parameter $s$, $\gamma':=\d \gamma/\d s=\dot\gamma/|\dot\gamma| $ (provided $|\dot\gamma|$ does not vanish).
\[def:geod\]The [*geodesic curvature*]{} of an oriented (pseudo) spherical curve $\gamma$ in $\Sigma \subset \g$ with nowhere null tangent is its [*normal acceleration*]{}, i.e., the coefficient of $[\gamma, \gamma']$ in the decomposition of $\gamma''$ as a linear combination of $\gamma,\gamma', [\gamma, \gamma']$.
This definition can be also expressed conveniently as \[eq:geod\] ”k\[, ’\] ,’. For an arbitrary parametrization $\gamma(t)$, $\gamma'' \equiv \ddot \gamma/|\dot\gamma|^2\equiv k[\gamma, \gamma'] \ \mod \gamma,\gamma'$, from which follows $$\ddot \gamma
\equiv k |\dot\gamma|[\gamma,\dot\gamma]\ \ \mod \gamma, \dot\gamma.$$
Our Definition \[def:geod\] of geodesic curvature may differ in sign from other common definitions in the literature, since this sign depends on the choice of a unit normal to the curve. Our choice of unit normal $[\gamma,\gamma']$ is mostly for simplicity in subsequent formulas. At any rate, all applications of this definition in this article are invariant under sign change of $k$. For example, equation below.
Parallel transport
------------------
A vector field $v(t)$ tangent to $\Sigma$ along $\gamma(t)$ is [*parallel*]{} if $\dot v(t)\perp T_{\gamma(t)}\Sigma$ for all $t$. That is, $$\dot v\equiv 0 \quad \mod \gamma.$$ Any initial vector $v(0)\in T_{\gamma(0)}\Sigma$ can be extended uniquely to parallel vector field $v(t)$ along $\gamma$, by solving the last displayed equation (a linear system of ODEs). The resulting map $P_\gamma(t): T_{\gamma(0)}\Sigma\to T_{\gamma(t)}\Sigma$, $v(0)\mapsto v(t)$, is an isometry (with respect to the restriction of $ \<\ ,\ \>$ to $\Sigma$), called [*parallel transport*]{} along $\gamma$.
The two notions, geodesic curvature and parallel transport, are related as follows. Let $\gamma(t)$ be a (pseudo) spherical curve with non vanishing $|\dot\gamma|$ and $v(t)$ the parallel transport of $\gamma'(0)$ along $\gamma$ (or any parallel vector field along $\gamma$ with the same causal type as $\gamma'$). At each point $\gamma(t)$ along the curve, $\gamma'$ is related to $v$ by a unique orientation preserving isometry $R(\theta)$ of $T_{\gamma(t)}\Sigma$, with ‘rotation angle’ $\theta$. That is, in the Riemannian case, \[eq:rot1\] ’ = R()v=()v+()\[,v\], =S\^2 H\^2, and in the Lorentzian case \[eq:rot2\] ’ = R()v=()v+()\[,v\], =H\^[1,1]{}.
\[lemma:para\] For any oriented curve $\gamma$ in $\Sigma$ with non-null tangent, its geodesic curvature is the rate of change, with respect to arc length, of the ‘rotation angle’ of the unit tangent $\gamma'$, relative to a parallel unit vector of the same causal type as $\gamma'$, as defined in equations -; that is, $$k=\theta'.$$ It follows that $$\gamma'(t)=R\left[\theta(t)\right]P_\gamma(t)\gamma'(0)=P_\gamma(t)R\left[\theta(t)\right]\gamma'(0),$$ where $$\theta(t)=\int_0^{L_t}k\,\d s=\int_0^tk|\dot\gamma|\d \tau,$$ and where $s$ is an arc length parameter along $\gamma$, $L_t$ is the length of $\gamma$ between $\gamma(0)$ and $\gamma(t)$ and $\tau$ is the same parameter as $t$.
From $\gamma'=R(\theta)v$ follows, by a simple calculation, $\gamma''=\theta'(\partial_\theta R(\theta))v+R(\theta)v'\equiv\theta'[\gamma,R(\theta)v]= \theta'[\gamma, \gamma']\ \mod \gamma$, implying $k=\theta'$.
In case $\Sigma=H^{1,1}$, $|\dot\gamma(t_0)|$ may vanish even if $\dot\gamma(t_0)\neq 0.$ Then one cannot reparametrize $\gamma$ by arc length and $k$ becomes infinite at $t=t_0$. It would be interesting to understand the significance of this phenomena for a linear system $\dot g=ag$.
The combined theorem and its proof
==================================
With the above background we now state and prove the following result, which combines Theorems \[thm:so3\] and \[thm:sl2\].
\[thm:both\] Let $G$ be either $\SLt$ or $\SOt$, $\g$ its Lie algebra, $a(t)$ a smoothly parametrized curve in $\g$ with non-vanishing $|\dot a|$, and $g(t)\in G$ the solution to $ \dot g = a g $, $ g(0)=\II$. Set $A(t)=g^{-1}(t)a(t),$ and $\bod(t), \spa(t)$ the corresponding normalized (pseudo) spherical curves in $\Sigma\subset\g$, as defined in equations –. Then
(1) (Poinsot Theorem) $g(t)$ rolls without slipping the curve $A(t)$ along $a(t)$ and $\bod(t)$ along $\spa(t)$.
(2) (The reconstruction formula) If $|\dot \spa|$ is non-vanishing then the geodesic curvatures $K, k$ of the (pseudo) spherical curves $\bod, \spa$ (respectively) are related by \[eq:curv\] K=k-[|a|||]{}.
(3) (The decomposition formula) $$\Ad_{g(t)}=\tilde P_\spa(t) \circ R\left[\Phi(t)\right]\circ (\tilde P_\bod(t))^{-1},$$ where $\tilde P_\spa(t)$ is parallel transport $T_{\spa(0)}\Sigma\to T_{\spa(t)}\Sigma$ along $\spa$, extended to $\g$ by $\spa(0)\mapsto \spa(t)$, similarly for $\tilde P_\bod(t)$, and $R\left[\Phi(t)\right]$ is the (pseudo) rotation around the axis $a(0)$ by the angle $\Phi(t)=\int_0^t|a(\tau)|\d \tau.$
\(1) If $\gamma=g\cdot \Gamma$ then $\dot \gamma=\dot g\cdot \Gamma+g\cdot \dot\Gamma=[a,\gamma]+g\cdot \dot \Gamma.$ For $\gamma=a, \Gamma=A$, since $a=g\cdot A$ and $[a,a]=0$, we get $\dot a=g\cdot\dot A.$ Next, $\spa=g\cdot \bod$ implies $\dot \spa=[a,\spa]+g\cdot\dot \bod=|a|^{-1}[a,a]+g\cdot\dot \bod=g\cdot\dot \bod$.
\(2) Applying $g$ to $\ddot \bod\equiv K|\dot\bod| [\bod, \dot\bod]\ (\mod \bod, \dot\bod)$, we obtain $g\cdot \ddot \bod\equiv K|\dot\spa| [\spa, \dot\spa]\ (\mod \spa, \dot\spa).$ Taking derivative of $\dot \spa=g\cdot\dot \bod$, we get $\ddot \spa=[a,\dot\spa]+g\cdot\ddot \bod=|a|[\spa,\dot\spa]+g\cdot\ddot \bod\equiv (|a|+ K|\dot\spa| ) [\spa, \dot\spa]\ (\mod \spa, \dot\spa).$ On the other hand, $\ddot \spa\equiv k|\dot\spa| [\spa, \dot\spa]\ (\mod \spa, \dot\spa),$ hence $|a|+ K|\dot\spa|= k|\dot\spa|,$ which gives formula .
\(3) Both sides of the equation are orientation preserving isometries of $\g$, mapping $\bod(t)\mapsto\spa(t)$, hence it is enough to show that they coincide on $\bod'(t)$. By Lemma \[lemma:para\] and equation , $$\spa'(t)=P_\spa(t)R\left[\theta(t)\right]\spa'(0), \qquad
\bod'(t)=P_\bod(t)R\left[\Theta(t)\right]\bod'(0),$$ where $\theta(t)=\int_0^{L_t} k\,\d s$ and $$\Theta(t)= \int_0^{L_t}K\, \d s=\int_0^{L_t}\left(k -{|a|\over |\dot\spa|}\right)\d s
=\int_0^{L_t} k\, \d s-\int_0^t|a| \d \tau=\theta(t)-\Phi(t).$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
P_\spa(t) R\left[\Phi(t)\right] ( P_\bod(t))^{-1}\bod'(t)&=
P_\spa(t) R\left[\Phi(t)\right] R\left[\theta(t)\right]\bod'(0)=\\
&= P_\spa(t) R\left[\Phi(t)+\Theta(t)\right]\bod'(0)=\\
&=
P_\spa(t) R\left[\theta(t)\right]\spa'(0)=\spa'(t),
\end{aligned}$$ as claimed.
Example: the Mathieu equation (timelike angular velocity) {#sec:examples}
=========================================================
In this section we illustrate Theorem \[thm:both\] for $G=\SLt$ with a well-known example. The [*Mathieu equation*]{} \[eq:harm\] x+\^2(1+t)x=0 can be thought of as a model of small–amplitude oscillations of a pendulum whose pivot oscillates sinusoidally in the vertical direction. This system arises in numerous other settings which we will not list here. We can rewrite Mathieu equation as a system $$\dot\x=a\x, \hbox{ where } \x={x\choose \dot x},\quad a=\left(\begin{matrix}0&1\\ -\omega^2(1+\epsilon \cos t)&0\end{matrix}\right)\in\sl_2(\R),$$ with the fundamental matrix $g(t)\in\SL_2(\R)$ defined by $\dot g=ag,$ $g(0)=\II.$ From now on we assume that $ |\epsilon |< 1 $, so that $\< a, a\>=-4\det(a)=-4\omega^2(1+\epsilon \cos t)<0$, and thus $a(t)$ is timelike. Since the diagonal entries of $a$ vanish, $a$ is constrained to the plane $a_1=0$, and thus the space curve $\spa$ follows a geodesic segment on $H^2$ (unless $ \epsilon =0 $, in which case $\spa$ is a point); in particular, $k=0$ for the geodesic curvature of the space curve. From equation , we obtain the expression for the geodesic curvature of the body curve $\bod$:
$$K=-{|a|\over |\dot\spa|}=-\frac{4 \omega (1+\epsilon \cos t)^{3/2}}{\epsilon |\sin t|}.$$
Thus $\bod(t)$ has cusps at $t=n\pi,$ $n\in\Z$, see Figure \[fig:rollingmatt\].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![The Mathieu equation: The space curve $\spa$ (the horizontal segment) and the body curve $\bod$ in the Poincaré disk model of $H^2$, for various choices of $ \omega $ and $\epsilon$. Top row: unstable case (hyperbolic period map); bottom row: stable case (elliptic period map).[]{data-label="fig:rollingmatt"}](fig6a.png "fig:"){width=".2\textwidth"} ![The Mathieu equation: The space curve $\spa$ (the horizontal segment) and the body curve $\bod$ in the Poincaré disk model of $H^2$, for various choices of $ \omega $ and $\epsilon$. Top row: unstable case (hyperbolic period map); bottom row: stable case (elliptic period map).[]{data-label="fig:rollingmatt"}](fig6b.png "fig:"){width=".2\textwidth"} ![The Mathieu equation: The space curve $\spa$ (the horizontal segment) and the body curve $\bod$ in the Poincaré disk model of $H^2$, for various choices of $ \omega $ and $\epsilon$. Top row: unstable case (hyperbolic period map); bottom row: stable case (elliptic period map).[]{data-label="fig:rollingmatt"}](fig6c.png "fig:"){width=".2\textwidth"}
$\omega=1/2$ $\omega=1$ $\omega=3/2$
![The Mathieu equation: The space curve $\spa$ (the horizontal segment) and the body curve $\bod$ in the Poincaré disk model of $H^2$, for various choices of $ \omega $ and $\epsilon$. Top row: unstable case (hyperbolic period map); bottom row: stable case (elliptic period map).[]{data-label="fig:rollingmatt"}](fig6d.png "fig:"){width=".2\textwidth"} ![The Mathieu equation: The space curve $\spa$ (the horizontal segment) and the body curve $\bod$ in the Poincaré disk model of $H^2$, for various choices of $ \omega $ and $\epsilon$. Top row: unstable case (hyperbolic period map); bottom row: stable case (elliptic period map).[]{data-label="fig:rollingmatt"}](fig6e.png "fig:"){width=".2\textwidth"} ![The Mathieu equation: The space curve $\spa$ (the horizontal segment) and the body curve $\bod$ in the Poincaré disk model of $H^2$, for various choices of $ \omega $ and $\epsilon$. Top row: unstable case (hyperbolic period map); bottom row: stable case (elliptic period map).[]{data-label="fig:rollingmatt"}](fig6f.png "fig:"){width=".2\textwidth"}
$\omega\approx 1/5$ $\omega\approx 2/5$ $\omega\approx 1/3$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recall briefly that the [*period map*]{} (the [*monodromy*]{}, or [*Floquet matrix*]{}) of equation is defined by $M:=g(2\pi)\in \SLt$, where $g(t)$ is the fundamental solution of the associated linear system, and that it determines completely the stability properties of equation in the sense that all solutions are bounded for all time if and only if $M$ is elliptic, or equivalently, if and only if the set of its matrix powers $\{M^n | n\in\Z\}$ is bounded. Note that for $ | \epsilon | < 1 $, the infinitesimal generator $a(t)$ of the flow $g(t)$ of (\[eq:harm\]), for each $t$, is elliptic, and yet $M$, thought of as a composition of a non commuting family of infinitesimal elliptic rotations, may itself fail to be elliptic, leading to unbounded solutions of , a phenomenon known as [*parametric resonance*]{} [@Ar §25, p. 113]. Figure \[fig:tongues\] shows the associated [*Arnold tongues*]{}: the shaded regions in the $(\omega, \epsilon ) $–plane, corresponding to the parameter values for which the period map $M$ is hyperbolic.
![As $ ( \omega, \epsilon ) $ crosses the first Arnold tongue of Figure \[fig:tongues\] (with fixed $ \epsilon = 0.55) $, the curve $ {\bf N} $ changes as shown, starting with the elliptic case on the left, through hyperbolic (the middle three figures) and ending an elliptic monodromy again (right) in the next stability region.[]{data-label="fig:tonguecrossing"}](fig7a.pdf "fig:"){height=".23\textwidth"} ![As $ ( \omega, \epsilon ) $ crosses the first Arnold tongue of Figure \[fig:tongues\] (with fixed $ \epsilon = 0.55) $, the curve $ {\bf N} $ changes as shown, starting with the elliptic case on the left, through hyperbolic (the middle three figures) and ending an elliptic monodromy again (right) in the next stability region.[]{data-label="fig:tonguecrossing"}](fig7b.pdf "fig:"){height=".23\textwidth"} ![As $ ( \omega, \epsilon ) $ crosses the first Arnold tongue of Figure \[fig:tongues\] (with fixed $ \epsilon = 0.55) $, the curve $ {\bf N} $ changes as shown, starting with the elliptic case on the left, through hyperbolic (the middle three figures) and ending an elliptic monodromy again (right) in the next stability region.[]{data-label="fig:tonguecrossing"}](fig7c.pdf "fig:"){height=".23\textwidth"} ![As $ ( \omega, \epsilon ) $ crosses the first Arnold tongue of Figure \[fig:tongues\] (with fixed $ \epsilon = 0.55) $, the curve $ {\bf N} $ changes as shown, starting with the elliptic case on the left, through hyperbolic (the middle three figures) and ending an elliptic monodromy again (right) in the next stability region.[]{data-label="fig:tonguecrossing"}](fig7d.pdf "fig:"){height=".23\textwidth"} ![As $ ( \omega, \epsilon ) $ crosses the first Arnold tongue of Figure \[fig:tongues\] (with fixed $ \epsilon = 0.55) $, the curve $ {\bf N} $ changes as shown, starting with the elliptic case on the left, through hyperbolic (the middle three figures) and ending an elliptic monodromy again (right) in the next stability region.[]{data-label="fig:tonguecrossing"}](fig7e.pdf "fig:"){height=".23\textwidth"}
![Arnold’s tongues for the Mathieu equation.[]{data-label="fig:tongues"}](fig8.png){width=".6\textwidth"}
Returning to the hyperbolic plane $H^2$, Figure \[fig:tonguecrossing\] illustrates how stability of the Mathieu equation is reflected in the body curve $\bod(t)$: for $ ( \omega ,\epsilon ) $ in the stable (unshaded) region of Figure \[fig:tongues\], the body curve $ \bod $ is quasi-periodic or periodic, as must be the case since the set $\{M^n | n\in \Z\}$ is bounded. On the other hand, for all resonant $ ( \omega ,\epsilon ) $ (the shaded regions of Figure \[fig:tongues\]) the body curve $ \bod $ extends to the absolute (the ‘circle at infinity’ in the Poincaré disk model of $H^2$ in Figure \[fig:tonguecrossing\]), reflecting the fact that the powers $ M^n $ are unbounded as $ | n | \rightarrow \infty $.
We also point out that if the period map $M$ is elliptic, conjugate to a rotation through an angle $ 2 \pi /n $, the body curve ${\bf N}$ is closed, with $ 2n $ cusps, as shown in the lower row of images in Figure \[fig:rollingmatt\].
Figure \[fig:rollingmatt\] shows the ‘static’ picture, i.e., the initial position of ${\bf N}$ at $t=0$; Figures \[fig:snapshots\] and \[fig:rollingmatt1\] illustrate the rolling of ${\bf N}$ on the space curve ${\bf n}$.
![(a): a piece of the ‘body’ curve ${\bf N} $ and the space curve $\spa$ (the horizontal segment) in the Poincaré disk; (b)-(h): some snapshots of a single ‘loop’ of the body curve ${\bf N}$ rolling on the space curve ${\bf n}$. []{data-label="fig:snapshots"}](fig9.png){width=".8\textwidth"}
Example: the bicycle equation (spacelike angular velocity) {#sect:be}
==========================================================
In this section we illustrate Theorem \[thm:both\] for $G=\SLt$ with another example, where the motion of a ‘bicycle’ is represented by rolling of cones in Minkowski space; the bicycle is described in the caption of Figure \[fig:bike\].
We start by recalling the description the motion of a bicycle by a linear system of ODEs. The ‘no slip’ condition is easily seen to be equivalent to the angle $\theta$ of the bicycle satisfying
$$\ell\dot \theta =\dot x \sin \theta- \dot y \cos \theta , % \qquad \dot F=(\dot x, \dot y),
\label{eq:bike}$$
where $F(t)= (x(t),y(t))$ is a parametrized ‘front track’. Equation is equivalent to $$\frac{d}{dt} \left(\begin{matrix}u\\v\end{matrix}\right)=-{1\over 2\ell}\left(\begin{matrix}\dot x&\ \ \dot y\\\dot y&-\dot x\end{matrix}\right)
\left(\begin{matrix}u\\v\end{matrix}\right);
\label{eq:bikesys}$$ namely, for any solution of the linear system , the angle $$\theta = 2 \arg (u+iv)
\label{eq:2arg}$$ evolves according to equation . The proof of this equivalence is a straightforward calculation (see [@BLPT Theorem 1]).
The coefficients matrix $a(t)$ of the system satisfies $
\langle a, a \rangle =- 4\det(a) = (\dot x ^2 + \dot y ^2 )/ \ell^2 > 0,
$ so that $a$ is spacelike and $\spa=a/|a| \in H^{1,1}$. From now on we assume that the front track $F(t)$ is a closed convex curve of perimeter $L$, parametrized by arc length, i.e., $|\dot F|^2=\dot x^2+\dot y^2=1$, so $\spa=-\dot x\,\bi-\dot y\,\bj$ is a parametrization of the equator $x_3=0$ of $H^{1,1} $. In other words, the ‘space curve’ follows the equator; in particular, the geodesic curvature of $\spa$ is $ k = 0 $. To calculate the geodesic curvature of the body curve we use formula , obtaining $K=-|a|/|\dot\spa|=-1/(\ell\kappa)$, where $\kappa=|\ddot F|=\sqrt{\ddot x^2+\ddot y^2}$ is the curvature of the front track. That is: [*the geodesic curvatures of the body curve $\bod(t)\in H^{1,1}$ and the front wheel track $F(t)\in \R^2$ are reciprocal, up to a factor.*]{}
This surprising reciprocal connection between two curves living in different spaces – the bike’s front track in $\R^2$ and the body curve in $H^{1,1}$ – was proven here by computation. It turns out, however, that there is a geometrical explanation of this reciprocity; we will provide this explanation elsewhere.
We now make some observations on the body curve. Since $ F(t) $ is assumed to be closed, the coefficient matrix of the bicycle system is periodic; the Floquet matrix $M_\ell$ of this system is referred to as the [*$\ell$-bicycle monodromy*]{} of the front track. The monodromy $M_\ell$ may be elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic; as a side remark, in the latter case $M_\ell$ has two real eigendirections, which correspond to two [*closed*]{} rear wheel tracks, as Figure \[fig:bmonod\] illustrates; one of these corresponds to the bike moving backwards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
![Some snapshots of rolling curves in $H^{1,1}$, representing bicycling along a circular front track with elliptic monodromy ($\ell>$ radius of the front track). The ‘body curve’ $\bfN$ (the tilted ellipse) has constant curvature $|K|>1$, and is rolling along the stationary ‘space curve’ $\bfn$ (the ‘equator’ of $H^{1,1}$, a geodesic). []{data-label="fig:rollingellipse"}](fig13a.png "fig:"){width=".25\textwidth"} ![Some snapshots of rolling curves in $H^{1,1}$, representing bicycling along a circular front track with elliptic monodromy ($\ell>$ radius of the front track). The ‘body curve’ $\bfN$ (the tilted ellipse) has constant curvature $|K|>1$, and is rolling along the stationary ‘space curve’ $\bfn$ (the ‘equator’ of $H^{1,1}$, a geodesic). []{data-label="fig:rollingellipse"}](fig13b.png "fig:"){width=".25\textwidth"} ![Some snapshots of rolling curves in $H^{1,1}$, representing bicycling along a circular front track with elliptic monodromy ($\ell>$ radius of the front track). The ‘body curve’ $\bfN$ (the tilted ellipse) has constant curvature $|K|>1$, and is rolling along the stationary ‘space curve’ $\bfn$ (the ‘equator’ of $H^{1,1}$, a geodesic). []{data-label="fig:rollingellipse"}](fig13c.png "fig:"){width=".25\textwidth"} ![Some snapshots of rolling curves in $H^{1,1}$, representing bicycling along a circular front track with elliptic monodromy ($\ell>$ radius of the front track). The ‘body curve’ $\bfN$ (the tilted ellipse) has constant curvature $|K|>1$, and is rolling along the stationary ‘space curve’ $\bfn$ (the ‘equator’ of $H^{1,1}$, a geodesic). []{data-label="fig:rollingellipse"}](fig13d.png "fig:"){width=".25\textwidth"}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the special case when the front track is the unit circle we have $\kappa=1$, $|K|=1/\ell$, so $\bod$ is a spacelike constant geodesic curvature curve on $H^{1,1}$. Now all curves of constant geodesic curvature on $H^{1,1}$ are given simply by plane sections of this hyperboloid (just like in case of the ordinary sphere ${ S} ^2\subset\R^3$). In our case, the intersecting plane is tangent to the equator at $\spa(0)$, Figure \[fig:rollingellipse\]. For $ \ell >1$ this plane section is an ellipse with geodesic curvature $|K|=1/\ell<1$, as shown in Figure \[fig:rollingellipse\], and the bicycle monodromy is elliptic. For $ \ell =1 $ the plane section is a parabola, with $| K| = 1 $ and $M_\ell$ parabolic. Similarly, for $ \ell < 1 $ the plane section is a hyperbola, one branch of which is the body curve, with asymptotes a pair of ruling null lines of $H^{1,1}$, with $|K|=1/\ell>1$, and the bicycle monodromy is hyperbolic.
In the general case when $\kappa$ (the curvature of the bicycle front track $F$) is not constant and the bicycle length $\ell$ is small enough, the bicycle monodromy $M_\ell$ is hyperbolic and the resulting body curve $\bod$ in $H^{1,1}$ is unbounded, asymptotic to one of the ruling null lines, as shown in Figure \[fig:hyproll\](b). For $\ell$ large enough the bicycle monodromy is elliptic and the corresponding body curve is bounded quasi-periodic, filling up a ‘ribbon’ wrapped around $H^{1,1}$, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:hyproll\](d).
----- -- -----
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
----- -- -----
Returning to the case of a general closed convex front track, the body curve ${\bf N}$ on $H^{1,1}$ is obtained by deforming the equator ${\bf n}$ by changing its geodesic curvature from $0$ to $ 1/(\ell \kappa)$; the resulting deformation “splits" what initially was the closed curve, with the endpoints and the tangents at the endpoints related by $$\Ad_{g(L)} {\bf N} (L)= {\bf N}(0), \ \ \Ad_{g(L)} \dot {\bf N} (L)= \dot{\bf N}(0),$$ as Figure \[fig:rollingellipse\] illustrates. It turns out that the split is rather special for large $ \ell $: the endpoints separate almost tangentially, as Figure \[fig:rollingellipse\] suggests, and [*the distance of separation is proportional to the area $A$ enclosed by the front track*]{}, to the leading order, as Figure \[fig:rollingellipse\] suggests. Indeed, this follows from the following observation.
\[lem:Ad\] Let $A$ be the area enclosed by the front track $F$. For large $ \ell$, the adjoint action $\Ad_{g(L)}$ is an elliptic rotation through an angle $$\ell ^{-2}A+ O(\ell^{-3} ),
\label{eq:rotationangle}$$ around a timelike axis which is $O( \ell ^{-1}) $ – close to the $ a_3 $ axis in $ \R^{2,1}$.
In the special case when the front track is the unit circle, the picture is particularly simple, Figure \[fig:rollingellipse\]: the body curve ${\bf N}$ is an arc of an ellipse lying in a plane tangent to the equator and of slope $ \ell ^{-1}$ (exactly); and the axis of the rotation $\Ad_{g(L)}$ is the line of slope $ \ell $ (in the Lorenz plane the orthogonal lines have reciprocal slopes; in other words, the slope of the light line is the geometric mean of two orthogonal slopes).
1. As stated before, we assume $ F(t) $ to be a closed front track and $ \ell $ to be large. According to Prytz’s formula (see [@F] or [@BLPT equation (1)]) the bicycle angle $\theta$ governed by (\[eq:bike\]) changes, after the front wheel traces out the front track, by $$\Delta\theta = \ell ^{-2} A + O(\ell ^{-3} ).
\label{eq:prytz}$$ In particular, the rotation is near–rigid: the leading order term is independent on the initial condition $ \theta (0) $.
2. According to (\[eq:2arg\]), every solution $ (u,v) $ of (\[eq:bikesys\]) rotates through half as much as $\theta$ does: $$\Delta \arg (u+iv) = \frac{1}{2} \Delta\theta \ \stackrel{\eqref{eq:prytz}}{=} \ \frac{1}{2} \ell ^{-2} A + O(\ell ^{-3} );$$ and since these angles are independent of the initial condition modulo $ \ell^{-3} $, we conclude that $ g(L) $ is $ O( \ell ^{-3}) $–close to the Euclidean rotation through $ \frac{1}{2} \ell ^{-2} A $. And this in turn implies that $ \Ad_{g(L)}$ is $ O( \ell ^{-3}) $–close to the Euclidean=Minkowski rotation $ R $ around the ${\bf k}$–axis in the Minkowski space through twice the angle, namely through $$\ell ^{-2} A + O(\ell ^{-3}).$$
3. This proximity in turn implies via an implicit function argument that the the Minkowski rotation axis of $ \Ad_{g(L)}$ (i.e. the eigendirection corresponding to the eigenvalue $1$) is $ O(\ell ^{-1} ) $–close to the ${\bf k}$–axis. Indeed, consider the maps induced by the linear maps $\Ad_{g(L)}$ and $R$ on the unit sphere, and examine what happens to the fixed point ${\bf k}$ of $R$ as we perturb $R$ to $ \Ad_{g(L)}$. By an implicit function argument, the displacement of the fixed point is bounded by the size of the perturbation ($ O(\ell ^{-1} ) $) divided by the distance from $R$ to identity, which is [*at least*]{} $\frac{1}{2}\ell^{-2} A $; thus the fixed point is displaced by [*at most*]{} $$\frac{O(\ell ^{-3} )}{ \frac{1}{2} A\ell ^{-2} } =O(\ell ^{-1} ).$$
4. Finally, by the Minkowski orthogonality, the invariant plane of $ \Ad_{g(L)}$ corresponding to the eigenvalues $ \pm i \bigl(\ell ^{-2} A +O(\ell ^{-3}) \bigr) $ has the reciprocal slope, i.e., this plane is $ O(\ell^{-3} ) $–close to the equatorial plane.
[9]{}
V.I. Arnol’d, [*Mathematical methods of classical mechanics.*]{} Vol. 60. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
G. Bor, M. Levi, R. Perline, S. Tabachnikov, [*Tire Tracks and Integrable Curve Evolution,*]{} Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2018)
R. Foote, [*Geometry of the Prytz planimeter,*]{} Rep. Math. Phys. 42 (1998), 249–71.
M. Levi, [*Composition of rotations and parallel transport*]{}. Nonlinearity [**9.2**]{} (1996), 413.
L. Poinsot, [*Théorie nouvelle de la rotation des corps*]{}. Bachelier (1854).
E.T. Whittaker, [*A treatise on the analytical dynamics of particles and rigid bodies*]{}. Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition (1917).
[^1]: CIMAT, A.P. 402, Guanjuato, Gto. 36000, Mexico; [email protected]
[^2]: Department of Mathematics, Penn State, University Park, PA 16802, USA; [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The continuous imaginary-time quantum Monte Carlo method with the worm update algorithm is applied to explore the ground state properties of the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model with antiferromagnetic (AF) coupling $J>0$ and ferromagnetic (F) coupling $J^{\prime}<0$ along zigzag and armchair directions, respectively, on honeycomb lattice. It is found that by enhancing the F coupling $J^{\prime}$ between zigzag AF chains, the system is smoothly crossover from one-dimensional zigzag spin chains to a two-dimensional magnetic ordered state. In absence of an external field, the system is in a stripe order phase. In presence of uniform and staggered fields, the uniform and staggered out-of-plane magnetizations appear while the stripe order keeps in $xy$ plane, and a second-order quantum phase transition (QPT) at a critical staggered field is observed. The critical exponents of correlation length for QPTs induced by a staggered field for the cases with $J>0$, $J^{\prime}<0$ and $J<0$, $J^{\prime}>0$ are obtained to be $\nu=0.677(2)$ and $0.693(0)$, respectively, indicating that both cases belong to O(3) universality. The scaling behavior in a staggered field is analyzed, and the ground state phase diagrams in the plane of coupling ratio and staggered field are presented for two cases. The temperature dependence of susceptibility and specific heat of both systems in external magnetic fields is also discussed.'
author:
- 'Yi-Zhen Huang'
- Gang Su
title: 'Quantum Monte Carlo Study on the Spin-1/2 Honeycomb Heisenberg Model with Mixing Antiferromagnetic and Ferromagnetic Interactions in External Magnetic Fields'
---
Introduction
============
Since the spin-1/2 antiferromagnetic (AF) Heisenberg model is believed to be capable of describing the undoped precursors of high temperature superconducting cuprates, it has attracted intensive attention in condensed matter and statistical physics. Through extensive explorations both theoretically and experimentally in the past decades, many properties of this model have been exposed, and a great deal of advances have been achieved. However, as the complexity occurs intrinsically in many-body systems, there still remain a lot of ambiguities remaining to be investigated. For instance, by searching for exotic states of matter or studying quantum phase transitions (QPTs), people usually invoke this model with different interactions on various lattices as prototypes. To name but a few, quantum spin liquid is thought to exist in spin-1/2 AF Heisenberg models on lattices with geometrical frustrations, but its nature is still under active debate [@white; @Depenbrock; @T.H.Han; @Y.Iqbal; @Xie; @T.Liu1; @T.Liu2; @T.Liu3]; whether exotic phase transitions beyond the traditional Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson framework [@awsandvik] exist or not were also discussed by introducing more complex interactions or by tuning the spatial anisotropy in coupling strength; and so on.
It has been shown that the spin-1/2 AF Heisenberg system on square lattice displays $N\acute{e}el$ order in ground state with the staggered magnetic moment per site $m_{s} \cong 0.3075$ by quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) [@runge] and $m_{s} \cong 0.3034$ by the spin-wave theory [@oguchi], while the one-dimensional (1D) AF spin chain is magnetically disordered with gapless excitations. The spin-1/2 AF Heisenberg chain is critical according to the exact result of Bethe ansatz or the results of, e.g., spin-wave theory with random phase approximation [@rosner] and mean-field approaches [@schulz], which is also confirmed by using the multi-chain mean-field method associated with SSE Monte Carlo algorithm [@Sandvik]. The experiments on quasi-1D spin-1/2 AF chains such as $Sr_{2}CuO_{3}$ and $Ca_{2}CuO_{3}$ [@kojima] trigger an interesting question: how does the AF long-range order in two-dimensional (2D) lattice (like square lattice) in ground state develop from coupled 1D spin chains with increasing inter-chain interactions? There are a number of studies to tackle this issue and determine the critical inter-chain coupling ratio $R_{c}=J_{\perp}/J$: the spin wave theory gives $R_{c}=0.034$ [@sakai], one-loop renormalization group analysis on an effectively spatially anisotropic nonlinear sigma model yields $R_{c}=0.047$ [@castro], the series expansion numerical techniques bound $R_{c}$ upper to 0.02 [@affleck]; whereas some self-consistent calculations [@aoki] and exact diagnalization [@ihle] predict it as high as 0.15 and $0.1\sim0.2$, respectively. Therefore, this question still calls on further more accurate explorations.
Alternatively, one can also study 2D anisotropic Heisenberg AF models with different bond interactions to observe crossover behaviors by tuning the bond interactions. For instance, such attempts were made on honeycomb lattice with the dimer pairs pinned on the armchair bonds by using the methods of tensor renormalization group [@wei] and QMC [@Ugerber], where it is found that there is a QPT of classical O(3) universality from a disordered dimer phase to quantum $N\acute{e}el$ order at a critical inter-dimer AF interaction. In our previous work [@yizhen], we replaced the inter-dimer AF couplings by ferromagnetic (F) interactions along zigzag directions on honeycomb lattice, and found that there is also a phase transition from a dimerized phase to a stripe phase. The scaling behaviors were analyzed, and the coupling parameters of two compounds were estimated by comparing our QMC calculated results.
In contrast to this previous work [@yizhen], where the interactions are supposed to be F along zigzag direction and AF along armchair direction, for the completeness of the study, in this paper we shall consider the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model with mixing AF interaction ($J$) along zigzag direction and F interaction ($J'$) along armchair direction on honeycomb lattice (Fig. 1) in magnetic fields. It should be remarked here that the present system (we refer to Case A later) is quite different from that considered in Ref. (we refer to Case B later), and the two systems cannot be transformed mutually by simply using a unitary transformation. This observation is confirmed by our QMC studies, where we observe that a small inter-chain F interaction could make the 1D disordered state smoothly crossover to a 2D spin ordered state. In presence of uniform and staggered fields, the uniform and staggered magnetizations in $z$ direction appear while a stripe order keeps in $xy$ plane, and a second-order QPT at a critical staggered field is observed. Unlike there is a zero magnetization plateau in the honeycomb spin ladder with AF legs and F rungs in $m_{z}\sim\emph{h}$ curves [@yang], no zero magnetization plateau exists for both cases with $J'=-J$ owing to the appearance of spin order. The phase diagram in a staggered field is also presented.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. , we shall give the model Hamiltonian, calculational method and definitions of several physical quantities; the crossover behavior from 1D to 2D in absence of a magnetic field is discussed in Sec. ; the magnetization in presence of uniform and staggered external magnetic fields is presented in Sec. ; the finite-size scaling analysis is given in Sec. ; Sec. shows the phase diagrams of two systems for a comparison; the temperature dependence of specific heat and susceptibility in magnetic fields is discussed in Sec. ; and finally, a summary is given.
![(Color online) The spin-1/2 Heisenberg model on honeycomb lattice with antiferromagnetic (AF) and ferromagnetic (F) interactions between nearest neighbor spins (indicated by arrows) along zigzag (blue bonds along $y$ direction) and armchair (red bonds along $x$ direction) chains, respectively.[]{data-label="interaction-pattern"}](paper2-structure.eps){width="42.00000%"}
Model, Method and Definitions
=============================
Model
-----
By using the continuous imaginary time QMC with worm update algorithm, we shall study the spin-1/2 Heisenberg model on honeycomb lattice with mixing AF and F interactions along zigzag and armchair directions, respectively, as depicted in Fig. \[interaction-pattern\], in presence of uniform or staggered magnetic fields. The Hamiltonian of the system is $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
H=J \!\sum_{\mathclap{\langle ij\rangle_{ZZ}}} \!\bold{S}_{i}\! \cdot\! \bold{S}_{j}+J^{\prime}\!\sum_{\mathclap{\langle ij\rangle_{AM}}}\!\bold{S}_{i}\!\cdot\! \bold{S}_{j}-\emph{h}\!\sum_{l=1}^{N}\!{\bold{S}_{l}^{z}}-\emph{h}_{s}\! \sum_{l=1}^{N}\!{(-1)^{l}\bold{S}_{l}^{z}},
\end{aligned}
\label{eq-hamiltonian}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bold{S}_{i}$ is the spin-1/2 operator at $i$-th site, $\langle ij\rangle_{ZZ}$ and $\langle ij\rangle_{AM}$ denote nearest neighbours along zigzag and armchair directions, respectively, $J>0$ and $J^{\prime}<0$ are corresponding coupling constants, $h$ and $h_s$ are the external uniform and staggered magnetic fields, respectively. We define the coupling ratio $\alpha_{1}=\frac{J^{\prime}}{J}$ for a later use. For convenience, we also mark the armchair and zigzag directions by $x$ and $y$ directions, respectively. The lattice size is $N=L_{x}\times L_{y}$ with $L_{x(y)}$ the length of $x$ $(y)$ direction.
From Sec. on, we shall also make comparisons between the present system and the system with $J<0$ and $J^{\prime}>0$ in the previous work [@yizhen] in a staggered field, where the coupling ratio is defined as $\alpha_{2}=\frac{J}{J^{\prime}}$.
Method
------
We shall use the continuous time QMC with worm update algorithm to study the system under consideration. This algorithm expands the partition function of system as a summation of path integrals with continuous loops under Fork states representation with $\{|S_{i}^{z}\rangle\}$ as the basis in interaction picture by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
Z&=Tr(e^{-\beta H})\\
&=Tr(e^{-\int_{0}^{\beta}d\tau H})\\
&=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}\!Tr\{e^{-\beta H_{0}}\int_{0}^{\beta}\!d\tau_{n}...\int_{0}^{\tau_{2}}\!d\tau_{1}(H_{In}H_{I(n-1)}..H_{I1})\},
\end{aligned}
\label{partition-function}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta=\frac{1}{k_{B}T}$, the inverse temperature, acting as the length of the imaginary time in the simulation, $k_{B}=1$ the Boltzman constant, $H_{0}$ stands for the interaction between spins along the $z$ direction $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
H_{0}\!=\!J\! \sum_{\mathclap{\langle ij\rangle_{ZZ}}}S^{z}_{i}S^{z}_{j}+J^{\prime}\!\sum_{\mathclap{\langle ij\rangle_{AM}}}S^{z}_{i}S^{z}_{j}-\emph{h}\!\sum_{l=1}^{N}{S_{l}^{z}}-\emph{h}_{s}\! \sum_{l=1}^{N}{(-1)^{l}S_{l}^{z}},
\end{aligned}
\label{diagonal}\end{aligned}$$ and $H_{I}$ is the hopping term in the $xy$ plane of spin space $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
H_{I}=\frac{J}{2}\sum_{\langle ij\rangle_{ZZ}}(S^{+}_{i}S^{-}_{j}+S^{-}_{i}S^{+}_{j})+\frac{J^{\prime}}{2}\sum_{\langle ij\rangle_{AM}}(S^{+}_{i}S^{-}_{j}+S^{-}_{i}S^{+}_{j}).
\end{aligned}
\label{off-diagonal}\end{aligned}$$
In this framework, the object sampled during executing the algorithm is each term in Eq. (\[partition-function\]), and the integration is concretized to several configurations with special localizations of off-diagonal terms in the imaginary time axis. In lattice space and imaginary time coordination, such configurations are graphed as multiple worldlines with only continuous loops. By introducing the kink pair $S^{+}_{i\tau_{1}}S^{-}_{i\tau_{2}}$, called a worm, a partition function configuration is switched into a Green function configuration. The hopping of the worm ends ($S^{+}_{i\tau}$ or $S^{-}_{i\tau}$) along the imaginary time or real space direction realizes the sampling of the Green functions and the ends’ annihilation finishes an update from an old Z configuration to a new one [@prokofef]. The big difference between the partition function configuration and the Green function configuration is that the latter has an extra discontinuous worldline, i.e., the worm. This method extends the sampling space and could be used to calculate the winding number directly.
Definitions
-----------
Before we proceed further, we first give the definitions of relevant physical quantities that will be used later. As the calculations based on the QMC method are usually associated with the finite-size systems, where the spin O(3) rotational symmetry remains in a finite system, we should determine the order parameters by calculating the corresponding square values combined with a size extrapolation. The staggered magnetization per site is defined via the following expression $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\langle m^{2}_{s}\rangle&=\langle\{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j}^{N}(-1)^{j}(\mathbf{S}_{j}^{x}
+\mathbf{S}_{j}^{y}+\mathbf{S}_{j}^{z})\}^{2}\rangle\\
&=3\langle(\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j}^{N}(-1)^{j}\mathbf{S}_{j}^{z})^{2}\rangle\\
&=\frac{3}{2}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{0}^{N}f(r)<S_{0}^{+}S_{r}^{-}>,\\
\end{aligned}
\label{eq-stripe-magnetization}\end{aligned}$$ where $f(r)=1$ if $S_{0}^{+}$ and $S_{r}^{-}$ are both in the even or odd zigzag (armchair) bonds, otherwise $f(r)=-1$.
The staggered magnetization per site in the $xy$ plane in presence of unform or staggered field can be studied through $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\langle m_{\perp}^{2}\rangle&=\frac{1}{N^{2}}\sum_{n_{1}=0,n_{2}=0}^{n_{1}=N,n_{2}=N}f(r)\langle(S_{n_{1}}^{x}S_{n_{2}}^{x}+S_{n_{1}}^{y}S_{n_{2}}^{y})\rangle\\
&=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{0}^{N}f(r)\langle S_{0}^{+}S_{r}^{-}\rangle.\\
\end{aligned}
\label{eq-horizontal-magnetization}\end{aligned}$$
The uniform magnetization per site is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
m_{z}=\langle\frac{1}{N\beta}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\int_{0}^{\beta}S_{i\tau}^{z}d\tau\rangle.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq-net-magnetization}\end{aligned}$$
The uniform magnetic susceptibility is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{u}\!&=&\!\frac{1}{N\beta}\{\!\sum_{ij}\!\langle\int_{0}^{\beta}\!d\tau_{1}d\tau_{2} S_{i\tau_{1}}^{z}S_{j\tau_{2}}^{z}\rangle \nonumber \\
&-&\langle\!\int_{0}^{\beta}\!d\tau_{1}S_{i\tau_{1}}^{z}\rangle\langle\!\int_{0}^{\beta}\!d\tau_{2}S_{j\tau_{2}}^{z}\rangle\}.
\label{eq-susceptibility}\end{aligned}$$
The staggered magnetization per site in $z$ direction will be calculated by $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned} m_{z}^{s}=\langle\frac{1}{N\beta}\sum_{i=1,j=1}^{i=L_{x},j=L_{y}}(-1)^{i+j}\int_{0}^{\beta}S_{ij(\tau)}^{z}d\tau\rangle.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq-staggered-magnetization}\end{aligned}$$
The spin stiffness $\rho$ is obtained by the fluctuation of winding numbers [@sandvik] $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
\rho_{\theta} &=\frac{\partial^{2}\Omega}{\partial^{2}\Phi}=\frac{1}{\beta}\langle W_{\theta}^{2}\rangle\\
&=\frac{1}{\beta}\langle [(N_{\theta}^{+}-N_{\theta}^{-})/L]^{2}\rangle,
\label{eq-spinstiffness}
\end{aligned}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Omega$ is the free energy, $\Phi$, $W_{\theta}$, $N_{\theta}^{+}$ and $N_{\theta}^{-}$ are twisted angle at the boundaries, the winding number, number of sites for spin $\uparrow$ hopping along the positive and negative $\theta$ directions, respectively. It is noted that the spin stiffness $\rho$ in Eq. (\[eq-spinstiffness\]) has its counterpart in a boson system [@jasnow; @josephson], the superfluid density, which characterizes an off-diagonal long range order.
Crossover from 1D to 2D
=======================
Now let us consider the crossover behavior from 1D to 2D by altering the coupling ratios of the present system. During the calculations, the coupling ratio is changed to the value as low as $\alpha_{1}=-0.010$.
We first take $L_{x}$ and $L_{y}$ to be equal and the inverse temperature to be size-dependent $\beta=2*\sqrt{N}/J$. Fig. \[order-size\] (a) shows the size extrapolation of $m^{2}_{s}$ versus $1/\sqrt{N}$ for various coupling ratio $\alpha$. It is seen that as the system size increases, $\langle m^{2}_{s}\rangle$ first decreases and then increases, leaving a minimum at a finite size for each $\alpha$, and in this case, it shows a non-monotonic behavior, and therefore a size extrapolation is impossible. It is known that the finite size gap in the zigzag chain is $\bigtriangleup (L_{y})\sim\frac{1}{L_{y}}$. When energy scales in the two directions are compatible, $\bigtriangleup (L_{y})\sim\rho_{x}$, where $\rho_{x}$ scales the energy in the armchair direction, the system crossovers from 1D to 2D [@Sandvik], and in this way, the size extrapolation for the order parameter square is meaningful. In order to make a reasonable size extrapolation, we should take $L_{y}\gg L_{x}$ for small $|\alpha_{1}|$.
We carry out simulations on lattices with $L_{y}=8L_{x}$ for $\alpha_{1}$ from -0.04 to -0.18, where the inverse temperature is taken as $\beta=\sqrt{N}/J$. The size extrapolations to the square root of the total number of lattice sites $N=L_{x}*L_{y}$ are shown in Fig. \[order-size\] (b). It can be observed that $\langle m^{2}_{s}\rangle$ decreases almost linearly against $1/\sqrt{N}$. By doing a polynomial fitting of order two to the data for $\alpha=-0.04$, the size extrapolation of $\langle m^{2}_{s}\rangle$ gives 0.0100(3), suggesting that the system is magnetically ordered.
In Fig. \[order-size\] (a), the fitting curves for $\alpha_{1}=-0.02$ is very close to that for $\alpha_{1}=-0.01$ till the thermodynamic limit is reached, where the two curves do not have crossings, implying that the system is in a spin ordered state when $|\alpha_{1}|$ is larger than 0.01. The result $\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\langle m^{2}_{s}\rangle\rightarrow0.0100(3)$ for $\alpha=-0.04$, confirms the above observation. Therefore, upon tuning a very small inter-chain F interaction between the AF zigzag spin chains, the system immediately undergoes a crossover from a disordered 1D state to a 2D spin ordered state.
![(Color online) The size extrapolation of the order parameter $\langle m^{2}_{s}\rangle$ versus $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$ for (a) $L_{x}=L_{y}=L$ and (b) $L_{y}=8L_{x}$. $N=L_{x}*L_{y}$ is the total number of lattice sites, and the inverse temperature is set to be $\beta=2*\sqrt{N}/J$ for (a) and $\beta=\sqrt{N}/J$ for (b). In (a), $\langle m^{2}_{s}\rangle$ exhibits a minimum for every $\alpha_{1}$. When $L_{y}\gg L_{x}$, $\langle m^{2}_{s}\rangle$ decreases almost linearly against $1/\sqrt{N}$ in (b). The errors that are visible are of order $10^{-3}$ and the invisible ones are of $10^{-4}$ at least. []{data-label="order-size"}](order-parameter.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Magnetization in magnetic fields
================================
We now consider the effects of external uniform and staggered fields on magnetization and susceptibility of the system under interest.
Presence of a uniform field
---------------------------
In the presence of a uniform field $\emph{h}$, the uniform magnetization $m_{z}$, the staggered magnetization in $xy$ plane $m^{s}_{\bot}=\sqrt{\langle m^{2}_{\bot}\rangle}$, and the uniform magnetic susceptibility $\chi_{u}$, have been calculated for $\alpha_{1}=-0.3$ on lattices with $L_{x}=L_{y}=32,36$, and $\beta=100/J$ for $L_{x}=32$ and $108/J$ for $L_{x}=36$.
Fig. \[uniform-filed\] shows the field dependence of $m_{z}$, $m^{s}_{\bot}$ and $\chi_{u}$ for $\alpha_{1}=-0.3$. One may see that, in a weak field, $m_{z}$ increases from zero slowly and goes to saturation when $\emph{h/J}$ approaches to 2.0, while $m^{s}_{\bot}$ enhances from a finite value to a peak and then declines sharply around $\emph{h/J}=2.0$, and reaches zero when $\emph{h/J}>2.0$. The susceptibility $\chi_{u}$ in the inset displays a sharp peak at $\emph{h/J}=2.0$, indicating a second-order in-plane phase transition, and being consistent with the observation in magnetic curves. When $\emph{h}$ is applied, the $z$-component (out of plane component) of magnetic moments begins to develop with the decay of the in-plane $m^{s}_{\bot}$; when $\emph{h/J} \geq 2$, the system is fully polarized and the transverse component is totally suppressed. We call such a phase before fully polarized the canted stripe phase, in which $m^{s}_{\bot}>0$, and $m_{z}>0$.
In contrast, for the system considered in Ref. where $J<0$ and $J^{\prime}>0$, there is a phase transition at $\alpha_{2}=\frac{J}{J^{\prime}}\simeq-0.93$ from a disorder dimer phase to an ordered stripe phase, where the spin alignments are parallel along the same zigzag line and antiparallel along the armchair direction. $m_{z}$, $\tilde{m}^{s}_{\bot}$ (the staggered magnetization in $xy$ plane for the system explored in Ref. ) and $\chi$ for the ordered phase look like the ones of this present system. When it is in the dimer phase for $\alpha_{2}=-0.6$, the zero magnetization plateau appears in $m_{z}$, $\tilde{m}^{s}_{\bot}$ and $\chi$. Since the present system has an in-plane long range order (${m}^{s}_{\bot} \neq 0$) in the ground state, the excitation is gapless with Goldstone bosons, and there is no zero magnetization plateau in the magnetic curve (Fig. 3).
![(Color online) $m^{s}_{\perp}$ $m_{z}$, and $\chi_u$ vs uniform magnetic field $\emph{h/J}$ for different lattice sizes $L_{x}=L_{y}=32$ with $\beta=100/J$ and 36 with $\beta=108/J$ for $\alpha_{1}=-0.3$. Inset is the susceptibility $\chi_u$ as a function of $\emph{h/J}$. Around $\emph{h/J} = 2$ there is a second-order phase transition between a canted stripe phase and a polarized phase. Except the points whose error bar is visible, the rest data are calculated with accuracy of at least $10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="uniform-filed"}](uniform-field-data.eps){width="45.00000%"}
Presence of a staggered field
-----------------------------
In this subsection, we shall investigate the magnetic curves the present system (we call Case A) and the system discussed in Ref. (we call Case B) in a staggered field $\emph{h}_{s}$ (while keeping $\emph{h}=0$). We study the staggered magnetization $m^{s}_{z}$ (Eq. (\[eq-staggered-magnetization\])) and the magnetization square in the $xy$ plane $\langle m^{2}_{\bot}\rangle$ under a field $\emph{h}_{s}$ for $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$, and $\langle\tilde{m}^{2}_{\bot}\rangle$ for $\alpha_{2}=-1.0$, respectively. The simulations are performed on lattices with $L_{x}=L_{y}=$30, 36, 42, 48, and $\beta=100/J(J^{\prime})$ for $L_{x}<30$ and $3*L_{x}/J(J^{\prime})$ for $L_{x}>34$.
![(Color online) The transverse staggered magnetization square $\langle m_{\perp}^{2}\rangle$ ($\langle\tilde{m}_{\perp}^{2}\rangle$) and longitudinal staggered magnetization $m_{s}^{z}$ versus the staggered field $\emph{h}_{s}$ in the present system with coupling ratio (a) $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$ (Case A) and (b) $\alpha_{2}=-1.0$ (Case B). Here we take $L_{x}=L_{y}=L$. Most of the data are as accurate as $10^{-4}$.[]{data-label="staggered-stripe"}](staggered-stripe.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Fig. \[staggered-stripe\] presents the transverse staggered magnetization square $\langle m_{\perp}^{2}\rangle$ ($\langle\tilde{m}_{\perp}^{2}\rangle$) and longitudinal staggered magnetization $m_{s}^{z}$ as a function of staggered field $\emph{h}_{s}/J(J^{\prime})$ of the system for $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$ \[Case A in Fig. \[staggered-stripe\](a)\] and $\alpha_{2}=-1.0$ \[Case B in Fig. \[staggered-stripe\] (b)\], where both are spin ordered in ground state in the absence of a magnetic field. It is observed that for both cases, with increasing the staggered magnetic field, $\langle m_{\perp}^{2}\rangle$ ($\langle\tilde{m}_{\perp}^{2}\rangle$) decreases from a finite value (around 0.1 for Case A and 0.06 for Case B) to sharply vanishing at a critical field $\emph{h}_{s}/J\simeq 0.45$ and $\emph{h}_{s}/J^{\prime}\simeq 0.50$ for Case A and Case B, respectively, where the in-plane QPT at critical fields appears to be of second-order, while $m_{s}^{z}$ increases almost linearly in the region of weak fields. This is understandable, as the staggered magnetic field is applied along the $z$ (out-of-plane) direction, with the increase of the field, the transverse magnetization in $xy$ plane will be gradually suppressed, while the longitudinal magnetization grows till saturation, as manifested in Fig.4. Recall that in the absence of an external field, the system with mixing F and AF bond couplings has an spin ordered ground state.
For the two cases, the behaviors of $\langle m_{\perp}^{2}\rangle$ and $\langle\tilde{m}_{\perp}^{2}\rangle$ look qualitatively similar, but the in-plane critical fields are somewhat different; $m_{s}^{z}$ behaviors slightly in a different way: Case A goes to magnetic saturation faster than Case B, because the former can be viewed as the antiferromagnetic zigzag spin chains coupled ferromagnetically whereas the latter is formed by ferromagnetic zigzag spin chains coupled antiferromagnetically. In addition, the finite-size effect in Case B appears to be more obvious than Case A.
Scaling behavior in a staggered field
=====================================
Binder ratios [@binder; @kbinder; @DPlandau] and spin stiffness [@sandvik] are proper quantities for investigating the critical features of the system. As $\emph{h}_{s}$ breaks the O(3) spin rotating symmetry, and the in-plane order parameter disappears at the critical point, we consider only the spin stiffness $\rho$ for simplicity. As mentioned in Sec., $\rho$ could be directly related to the superfluid density of a superconductor or superfluid [@jasnow; @josephson; @schultka; @manousakis], marking the occurrence of off-diagonal long-range order. According to the previous study [@Wang], at the critical point it scales as $\rho\sim L^{2-d-z}$, where $d$ is the spatial dimension of the system, and $z$ is the dynamical exponent. Here we can set $z$ as 1, and measure $\rho L$ that is size-independent at the critical point.
![(Color online) (a) $\rho_{x}L_{x}$ and (c) $\rho_{y}L_{y}$ as function of $\emph{h}_{s}/J$ of the system with coupling ratio $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$ near the critical point for various lattice sizes L=20, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 ; (b) and (d) are the corresponding data collapses for the finite-size scaling, where the data fall on a line, respectively, giving a critical staggered field $\emph{h}_{sc}/J\simeq0.42373(4)$ and an exponent $\nu=0.677(2)$, which indicates that this is an O(3) universality transition. The errors for $\rho_{x}$ are mostly of $10^{-4}$ and for $\rho_{y}$ of $10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig-af-zigzag-data-collapse"}](spin-stiffness-data-collapse1.eps){width="47.00000%"}
For Case A with $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$, a staggered field $\emph{h}_{s}/J$ in \[0.4145, 0.435\] has been applied to the system on lattices $L_{x}=L_{y}=20$, 24, 28, 32, 36, 40, 44 and 48 with $\beta=100/J$ for $L_{x}<34$ and $3L_{x}/J$ for $L_{x}>34$. Figs. \[fig-af-zigzag-data-collapse\] (a) and (c) present the field dependence of $\rho_{x}L_{x}$ and $\rho_{y}L_{y}$, showing that the curves for different lattice sizes do intersect at about 0.424, which must be a critical point. To confirm this, we perform a finite-size scaling (FSS) by making data collapse analysis, as shown in Figs. \[fig-af-zigzag-data-collapse\] (b) and (d), where all curves fall on a single almost straight line (see below for details).
For Case B with $\alpha_{2}=-1.0$, we calculate $\rho_{x}L_{x}$ and $\rho_{y}L_{y}$ as function of staggered magnetic field on lattice sizes from L=12 to L=42 with $\beta=100/J^{\prime}$ for $L_{x}<34$ and $3L_{x}/J^{\prime}$ for $L_{x}>34$, as shown in Figs. \[fig-af-armchair-data-collapse\] (a) and (c), from which one may see that there is a crossing point at about $\emph{h}_{s}/J^{\prime}\simeq 0.495$, demonstrating that it may be a quantum critical point. The corresponding data collapses confirm this observation that all curves for different lattice sizes go to a single line \[Figs. \[fig-af-armchair-data-collapse\] (b) and (d)\]. It is also consistent with the vanishing points for $\langle\tilde{m}^{2}_{\perp}\rangle$ shown in Fig. \[staggered-stripe\], confirming the second-order QPT triggered by a staggered field. Here we would like to point out that in Ref. we discussed the scaling behaviors of $\rho_{x}L_{x}$ and $\rho_{y}L_{y}$ against the coupling ratio (here $|\alpha_{2}|$), where the QPT occurs at a critical coupling ratio, and the transition induced by the staggered magnetic field is left for our present study.
![(Color online) (a) $\rho_{x}L_{x}$ and (c) $\rho_{y}L_{y}$ as function of $\emph{h}_{s}/J^{\prime}$ of the system considered in Ref. with $\alpha_{2}=-1.0$ for various lattice sizes from L=16 to 42, where a crossing point is seen at the staggered field $\emph{h}_{s}/J^{\prime} \simeq 0.495$; (b) and (d) show the corresponding data collapse for the FSS fit, which gives $\emph{h}_{sc}/J^{\prime}\simeq0.497$ and $\nu\simeq0.693$, indicating that this QPT also belongs to the classical Heisenberg O(3) universality. The errors are at least $10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="fig-af-armchair-data-collapse"}](spin-stiffness-data-collapse2.eps){width="48.00000%"}
In the framework of renormalization group, the finite-size scaling plays as an essential role in studying the critical behavior near the transition point in finite-size systems [@fisher; @brezin; @barber; @zinn]. In the vicinity of a critical point, the correlation length $\xi$ is divergent and, as the lattice size obeys $L\leq\xi$, some quantities exhibit power-law divergent behaviors with $\xi$ and could be expressed by a scaling function of the form $Q(t,L)=L^{\kappa/\nu}g(tL^{1/\nu})$, where $\kappa$ is the critical exponent of Q and $\nu$ of $\xi$, $t$ is the reduced phase transition tuning parameter and $g(x)$ is a smooth function which asymptotically behaves as $g(x)\sim x^{-\kappa}$ for $x\rightarrow\infty$. Here for $\rho L$, $\kappa$ is zero and $t=(h_{s}-h_{sc})/h_{sc}$.
In Case A, the intersection points for different pairs $[L,L^{\prime}]$, where $L^{\prime}>L$, shift as $L$ enlarges, and a general scaling function under such conditions with extra corrections to $tL^{1/\nu}$ and $Q(t,L)$ [@beach] can be taken $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
(1+cL^{-\omega})Q(t,L)=g(tL^{1/\nu}+dL^{-\phi}).
\end{aligned}
\label{scaling-function}\end{aligned}$$ The following scaling form will be more convenient $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
(1+cL^{-\omega})Q(t,L)=a_{0}+a_{1}tL^{1/\nu}+a_{2}(tL^{1/\nu})^2,
\end{aligned}
\label{scaling-function1}\end{aligned}$$ where $c$, $\omega$, $a_{0}$, $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ are constants to be determined. For Case A only the correction $(1+cL^{-\omega})$ [@Ugerber] for $\rho_{x(y)}L_{x(y)}$ are included in the scaling functions.
For Case B, the form $Q(t,L)=L^{\kappa/\nu}g(tL^{1/\nu})$ works very well, and the scaling function is supposed to be polynomial of order two: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{aligned}
Q^{\prime}(t,L)=a^{\prime}_{0}+a^{\prime}_{1}tL^{1/\nu}+a^{\prime}_{2}(tL^{1/\nu})^2,
\end{aligned}
\label{scaling-function2}\end{aligned}$$ where $a'_{0}$, $a'_{1}$, $a'_{2}$ and $\nu$ are constants independent of $L$.
The data are analyzed following the lines in Ref. . We take thousands of copies of bootstrap resamplings of the raw data as the fitting data, and prepare the same amount of sets of initial fitting parameters in above functions as the input in fitting procedures, which are based on the nonlinear Levenberg-Marquardt optimization algorithm (LMOA) [@murray]. For Case A, $h_{s}/J$ in the area of $[0.4230, 0.4245]$ for lattice sizes $L_{x}=L_{y}=32$, 36, 40, 44, 48 are taken in the optimization procedure; while for Case B, all the data in Figs. \[fig-af-armchair-data-collapse\] (a) and (c) are considered. The corresponding collapsed curves are shown in Figs. \[fig-af-zigzag-data-collapse\] (b) and (d), and Figs. \[fig-af-armchair-data-collapse\] (b) and (d), respectively.
Table. \[table1\] presents the two sets of critical staggered magnetic field $h_{sc}$ and the exponent $\nu$ of correlation length for both cases. The values are determined by the lowest $\chi^{2}/DOF$ \[e.g., the weighted sum of squares residual per degree of freedom (DOF)\] for each single LMOA fitting. For case A, it gives $\emph{h}_{sc}/J=0.42373(4)$ and $\nu=0.677(2)$; and for case B, $\emph{h}_{sc}/J^{\prime}=0.49757(4)$ and $\nu=0.693(0)$. Considering the calculational errors, both cases are close to $\nu=0.7112(5)$ [@Massimo], showing that these QPTs belong to the classical Heisenberg O(3) universality.
Case A Case B
------------------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
$\rho_{x}L_{x}$ $\rho_{y}L_{y}$ $\rho_{x}L_{x}$ $\rho_{y}L_{y}$
$\emph{h}_{sc}/J(J^{\prime})$ 0.4233(1) 0.42373(4) 0.49757(4) 0.49734(8)
$\nu$ 0.686(3) 0.677(2) 0.693(0) 0.692(2)
: The critical staggered magnetic field $\emph{h}_{sc}$ and the exponent $\nu$ of correlation length determined from $\rho_{x(y)}L_{x(y)}$ for the present system (Case A) and the system (Case B) considered in Ref. [@yizhen].
\[table1\]
Phase diagram in a staggered field
==================================
As shown in Fig. \[staggered-stripe\], when $\emph{h}_{s}<\emph{h}_{sc}$ both systems exhibit a staggered magnetization in $z$ direction and keep the corresponding stripe order in $xy$ plane, that is, $m^{s}_{z}>0$ and $\langle m^{2}_{\perp}\rangle(\langle\tilde{m}^{2}_{\perp}\rangle)>0$. We coin the so-defined phase for $\emph{h}_{s}<\emph{h}_{sc}$ as the canted phase $\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}$ for Case A and the canted phase $\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}$ for Case B. As $\emph{h}_{s}>\emph{h}_{sc}$, only the out-of-plane staggered magnetization remains in both cases, say, $m^{s}_{z}>0$, and $\langle m^{2}_{\perp}\rangle(\langle\tilde{m}^{2}_{\perp}\rangle)=0$. We call such a phase for $\emph{h}_{s}>\emph{h}_{sc}$ as the $N\acute{e}el$ phase in a staggered field.
To draw a phase diagram, we inspect various coupling ratios for the two cases, and make use of the transition points in the curves of $m^{s}_{z}$, $\langle m^{2}_{\perp}\rangle$, $\langle\tilde{m}^{2}_{\perp}\rangle$, and $\rho L$ vs $h_{s}$ for each $\alpha_{1}$ or $\alpha_{2}$, forming the phase boundaries. In doing so, a schematic phase diagram in the plane of $h_{s}/J(J^{\prime})$ vs $-\alpha_{1(2)}$ is thus depicted in Fig. \[phase-diagram\].
For Case A, as shown in Fig. \[phase-diagram\] (a), there are three phases, the stripe phase $\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}$ (where $m^{s}_{z}=0$ but $\langle m^{2}_{\perp}\rangle>0$), the canted phase $\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}$, and the $N\acute{e}el$ phase. The stripe phase $\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}$ always remains in the absence of a staggered field. When $h_{s}$ is increasing, the system immediately first enters into the canted phase $\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral1}$, and then enters into the $N\acute{e}el$ phase when $\emph{h}_{s}>\emph{h}_{sc}$.
For Case B, as shown in Fig. \[phase-diagram\] (b), there are four phases, a dimerized phase, the stripe phase $\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}$, the canted phase $\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}$, and the $N\acute{e}el$ phase. Our previous study [@yizhen] shows that in the absence of a magnetic field, there is a phase transition at the critical point $\alpha_{2c}\simeq-0.93$ from a dimer phase to a stripe phase $\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}$ with a nonvanishing $\langle\tilde{m}^{2}\rangle=\frac{3}{2}\langle\tilde{m}^{2}_{\perp}\rangle$ but $m^{s}_{z}=0$. When the staggered field is increasing, the system in Case B immediately enters into the $N\acute{e}el$ phase for $\alpha<\alpha_{2c}$, while for $\alpha>\alpha_{2c}$, the system first enters into the canted phase $\uppercase\expandafter{\romannumeral2}$ (where $m^{s}_{z}>0$ and $\langle\tilde{m}^{2}\rangle>0$) , and then enters into the $N\acute{e}el$ phase ($m^{s}_{z}>0$ but $\langle\tilde{m}^{2}\rangle=0$) when $\emph{h}_{s}>\emph{h}_{sc}$.
![(Color online) Phase diagram for the present system (Case A) and the system (Case B) considered in Ref. in the plane of the coupling ratio $\alpha_{1,2}$ versus staggered magnetic field $\emph{h}_{s}$.[]{data-label="phase-diagram"}](phase-diagram-comparing.eps){width="47.00000%"}
Temperature dependence of susceptibility and specific heat in magnetic fields
=============================================================================
In this section, we study the temperature dependence of the susceptibility $\chi_{u}$ and specific heat $C_{\nu}$ under different magnetic fields. The results are given in Figs. \[susceptibility-uniform-field\], \[specific-heat-uniform-field\] and \[susceptibility-staggered-field\], respectively.
![(Color online) Temperature dependence of the susceptibility $\chi_{u}$ of the system with $\alpha_{1}=-0.3$ under various uniform magnetic fields. The inset shows $\chi_{u} (T)$ for $\emph{h}<\emph{h}_{c}$ and $T/J<0.34$. $\chi_{u}$ behaves differently in low temperature region: when $\emph{h}/J<2.0$, $\chi_{u}$ first goes to sharp peaks, and then decreases quickly; when $\emph{h}/J=2.0$, $\chi_{u}$ diverges as $T/J$ decreases, characterizing a critical point; and when $\emph{h}/J>2.0$, $\chi_{u}$ starts from a vanishing point at $T/J=0$ and forms a round peak. We find that as $\emph{h}_{c}-\emph{h}>0$ gets smaller, the peaks of $\chi_{u}$ get larger at small temperatures, and at a given temperature, $\chi_{u}(\emph{h}<\emph{h}_{c})>\chi_{u}(\emph{h}>\emph{h}_{c})$. The accuracy here is as small as $10^{-4}$.[]{data-label="susceptibility-uniform-field"}](susceptibility-uniform-field.eps){width="50.00000%"}
In subsection A, it shows that for $\alpha_{1}=-0.3$ the system is polarized when $\emph{h}/J\geq2.0$, and when $\emph{h}/J<2.0$, the system stays in a canted stripe state with $m^{s}_{\bot}>0$ and $m_{z}>0$. In Fig. \[susceptibility-uniform-field\], one may see that for $\emph{h}/J<2.0$, $\chi_{u}$ increases from a finite value with increasing temperature, which becomes larger with the increase of the magnetic field, and after undergoing a maximum it decreases quickly at low temperature; when $\emph{h}$ gets higher, the peak is sharper; as $\emph{h}$ is close to the critical point, $\chi_{u}$ decays almost exponentially. When $\emph{h}/J=2.0$, $\chi_{u}$ diverges as $T$ decreases. For $\emph{h}/J>2.0$, $\chi_{u} (T)$ is suppressed by the magnetic field, leading to all curves are below those of $\emph{h}/J<=2.0$, showing the system enters into a different state. At high temperature, all curves coincide with each other owing to the domination of thermal fluctuations. At low temperature, when the system is partially polarized, $\chi_{u}$ is influenced mainly by the transverse quantum fluctuations in $xy$ plane, and closer to the critical point, stronger the quantum fluctuations and higher $\chi_{u}$.
![(Color online) Temperature dependence of specific heat $C_{\nu}$ for the system with $\alpha_{1}=-0.3$ under different uniform fields. The inset is the low temperature part. Before the system is polarized, $C_{\nu}$ exhibits an extra peak at low temperature besides the round peak at relatively high temperature. Errors here are of $10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="specific-heat-uniform-field"}](specitic-heat-uniform-field.eps){width="50.00000%"}
Fig. \[specific-heat-uniform-field\] shows temperature dependence of specific heat $C_{\nu}$ of the system with $\alpha_{1}=-0.3$ under uniform fields. It can be observed that besides a round peak as that for $\emph{h}/J>2.0$, in the range of $1.4<\emph{h}/J<2.0$, $C_{\nu}$ exhibits a sharp peak at lower temperature $T_{p}$, as shown in the inset of Fig. \[specific-heat-uniform-field\]. When $\emph{h}$ increases, $T_{p}$ and $C_{\nu}(T_{p})$ decrease. This could be understood in the following way. As indicated in Fig. \[interaction-pattern\], the spins along the zigzag chain form a continuous antiferromagnetic arrangement, dividing the system into two sublattices and producing two sets of degenerate spin wave spectra: $\hbar\omega_{k}=f(J,J^{\prime},S,\gamma_{k})$, where $S$ is the spin on each site, and $\gamma_{k}$ is the static structure factor. A uniform field $\emph{h}$ would split this overlapping spectra with a shift, $\hbar\omega_{k}^{\pm}=f(J,J^{\prime},S,\gamma_{k})\pm\emph{h}$, resulting in that two modes of low-lying excitations cause two minimums [@Klumper; @Su] in $C_{\nu}$. The part of $C_{\nu}$ contributed by lower frequency mode increases faster. $\emph{h}$ enlarges the difference of the increasing tendency between $\hbar\omega_{k}^{+}$ and $\hbar\omega_{k}^{-}$, making $C_{\nu}$ steeper and $T_{p}$ smaller for larger $\emph{h}<\emph{h}_{c}$ at low temperature. When $\emph{h}>\emph{h}_{c}$, the system enters into the polarized state, and $C_{\nu}$ versus $T/J$ exhibit only one round peak at a relatively higher temperature.
![(Color online) Temperature dependence of susceptibility $\chi_{u}$ of the system with (a) $\alpha_{1}$=-1.0 and (b) $\alpha_{2}$=-1.0 under various staggered magnetic fields. The order for the error bars are $10^{-3}$.[]{data-label="susceptibility-staggered-field"}](susceptibility-staggered-field.eps){width="50.00000%"}
In Fig. \[susceptibility-staggered-field\], it depicts the temperature dependence of susceptibility $\chi_{u}$ for systems with $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$ and $\alpha_{2}=-1.0$ under different staggered magnetic fields, which differ from those in a uniform magnetic field. We showed that a staggered field can induce a quantum phase transition in Sec. , which eliminates the off-diagonal long range order in the $xy$ plane at $\emph{h}_{sc}/J\simeq0.423$ for $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$ and $\emph{h}_{sc}/J^{\prime}\simeq0.5$ for $\alpha_{2}=-1.0$. Figs. \[susceptibility-staggered-field\] (a) and (b) illustrate that, as $\emph{h}_{s}<\emph{h}_{sc}$, $\chi_{u}$ would start from a non-vanishing value, while as $\emph{h}_{s}\geq\emph{h}_{sc}$, the susceptibility $\chi_{u}$ goes to zero at $T\rightarrow 0$, revealing that the system in this situation enters into distinct phases under different staggered magnetic fields, consistent with the observation in Fig. \[phase-diagram\].
Summary
=======
The spin-1/2 Heisenberg model with AF and F mixing interactions on honeycomb lattice has been studied by means of the continuous imaginary-time QMC with the worm update algorithm in uniform and staggered magnetic fields. It is found that so long as the F coupling on armchair bonds is tuned on, the system (Case A) is immediately crossover smoothly from 1D disordered AF zigzag spin chains to a stripe ordered 2D phase with $\langle m^{2}_{s}\rangle>0$. This is in contrast to the system considered in Ref. where the F interactions are presumed on zigzag bonds and AF interactions on armchair bonds. In this latter system (Case B), upon tuning on the F interactions on zigzag bonds, the system is crossover smoothly from a disordered dimerized phase to a stripe ordered 2D phase.
In the presence of uniform or staggered magnetic fields, it is shown that for a given coupling ratio (e.g. $\alpha_{1}=-0.3$ in a uniform field, and $\alpha_{1,2}=-1.0$ in a staggered field), with increasing the external magnetic fields, the system enters smoothly into a spin canted phase from a stripe order phase, and then undergoes a QPT into an out-of-plane polarized phase or $N\acute{e}el$ phase. This is also true for the system in Case B for the coupling ratio beyond a critical value (satisfying $-\alpha_{2}>0.93$). The whole phase diagrams in the plane of coupling ratio and staggered magnetic field for the systems in Case A and Case B are obtained. In Case A, there are three phases, including stripe order phase, canted phase and $N\acute{e}el$ phase, while in Case B, there are four phases, say, dimerized phase, stripe phase, canted phase and $N\acute{e}el$ phase.
In addition, by exploring the spin stiffness, the scaling behaviors in a staggered field for both systems are also discussed. The finite-size scaling analysis gives that the exponent $\nu$ of correlation length is $\nu$=0.677(2) and 0.693(0) for Case A and Case B, respectively, which is very close to $\nu=0.7112$ of classical Heisenberg O(3) universality, indicating that both systems fall into the O(3) universality. Besides, the scaling functions are different from the two systems.
The temperature dependence of susceptibility $\chi_{u}$ and specific heat $C_{\nu}$ have been studied for the system with $\alpha_{1}=-0.3$ under various uniform fields. When the system stays in the canted stripe phase as $\emph{h}/J<2.0$, at low temperature the partially polarized spins have a nonzero value of $\chi_{u}$ in the ground state and a sharp peak of $\chi_{u}(T)$ appears at low temperature, and meanwhile, the specific heat $C_{\nu}$ also presents a sharp peak starting from a vanishing value when $T/J\rightarrow0$. As $\emph{h}/J\geq2.0$, the polarized ferromagnetic state does not display such features because of nondegenerate spin wave spectra which could be separated by the uniform magnetic field. The behaviors of $\chi_{u}$ versus $T/J(J^{\prime})$ for $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$ and $\alpha_{2}=-1.0$ under different staggered fields are consistent with the phase diagram presented in Sec. .
The present study shows that the competition among mixing interactions, external probes such as staggered magnetic field and temperature as well as the topology of the lattice, altogether, results in more complex phenomena in quantum many-body systems. Our results would also be helpful for further understanding the physical properties and scaling behaviors in 2D magnetic materials with mixing AF and F interactions.
The authors acknowledge W. Li, B. Xin, X. Yan, and Z. C. Wang for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the MOST of China (Grant No. 2013CB933401), the NSFC (Grant No. 11474279), and the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDB07010100).
[99]{}
S. Yan, D. A. Huse, and S. R. White, Science **332**, 1173 (2011).
S. Depenbrock, I. P. McCulloch, and U. Schollw${\ddot{o}}$ck, Phys. Rev. Lett. **109**, 067201 (2012 ).
T. -H. Han, J. S. Helton, S. Chu, D. G. Nocera, J. A. Rodriguez-Rivera, C. Broholm, Y. S. Lee, Nature **492**, 406 (2012).
Y. Iqbal, F. Becca, S. Sorella, and D. Poilblanc, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 060405(R) (2013).
Z. Y. Xie, J. Chen, J. F. Yu, X. Kong, B. Normand, and T. Xiang, Phys. Rev. X **4**, 011025 (2014).
T. Liu, S.-J. Ran, W. Li, X. Yan, Y. Zhao, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B **89**, 054426 (2014).
T. Liu, W. Li, A. Weichselbaum, J. von Delft, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. B **91**, 060403(R) (2015).
T. Liu, W. Li, and G. Su, Phys. Rev. E **94**, 032114 (2016).
A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 227202 (2007).
K. J. Runge, Phys. Rev. B **45**, 7229(1992); **45**, 12292(1992); N. Trivedi and D. M. Ceperley, Phys. Rev. B **41**, 4552 (1990).
T. Oguchi, Phys. Rev. **117**, 117 (1960).
N. Majlis, S. Selzer, and G. C. Strinati, Phys. Rev. B. **45**, 7872 (1992); **48**, 957 (1993); H. Rosner, H. Eschrig, R. Hayn, S. -L. Drechsler, and J. Malek, Phys. Rev. B **56**, 3402 (1997).
H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. Lett. **77**, 2790 (1996); Z. Wang, ibid. **78**, 126 (1997).
A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. Lett. **83**, 3069 (1999).
K. Kojima, M. Larkin, B. Nachumi, Y. Uemura, H. Eisaki, M. Motoyama, S. Uchida, B. Sternlieb, and G. Shirane, Czech. J. Phys. **46 Suppl. S4**, 1945 (1996); K. Yamada, J. Wada, S. Hosoya, Y. Endoh, S. Noguchi, S. Kawamata, and K. Okuda, Physica C **253**, 135 (1995); K. M. Kojima, Y. Fudamoto, M. Larkin, G. Luke, J. Merrin, B. Nachumi,Y. Uemura, N. Motoyama, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, K. Yamada, Y. Endoh, S. Hosoya, B. Sternlieb, and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. Lett. **78**, 1787 (1997).
T. Sakai abd M. Takahashi, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. **58**, 3131 (1989).
A. H. Castro $N\acute{e}to$ and D. Hone, Phys. Rev. Lett **76**, 2165 (1996); D. Hone and A. H. Catro $N\acute{e}to$, J. Suppercond. **10**, 349 (1997).
I. Affleck, M.P.Gelfand, and R. R. P. Sirgh, J.Phys. A **27**, 7313 (1995).
T. Aoki, J. Phys. Soc, Jpn. **64**. 605 (1994).
D. Ihle, C. Schindelin, A. Weisse, and H. Fehske, condmat/.9904005; A. Parola, S. Sorella, and Q. F. Zhong, Phys. Rev. Lett. **71**, 4393 (1993).
W.Li, S.-S. Gong, Y.Zhao and G.Su, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 184427 (2010).
F. Jiang and U. Gerber, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory Exp. (2009), P09016.
Y.-Z.Huang, B. Xi, X.Chen, W.Li, Z.-C.Wang, and G.Su, Phys. Rev. E. **93**, 062110 (2016). Y. Zhao, W. Li, B. Xin, S-J. Ran, Y-Y. Zhu, B-W. Wang, S. Gao, and G. Su, EPL. **104**, 54009 (2013).
N.V. Prokof’ef , B.V. Svistunov, and I.S. Tupitsyn Sov. Phys.-JETP **87**, p. 310 (1998). M. E. Fisher, M. N. Barber, and D. Jasnow, Phys. Rev. A **8**, 1111 (1973).
B. D. Josephson, Phys. Lett. **21**, 608 (1966).
B.Xi, S.-J.Hu, J.-Z.Zhao. G.Su, B.Normand and X.-Q.Wang Phys. Rev. B **84**, 134407 (2011).
K. Binder, Phys. Rev. Lett. **47**, 693 (1981).
K. Binder, Z.Phys.B: Condens. Matter **43**, 119 (1981).
K. Binder, D.P.Landau, Phys. Rev. B **30**, 1477 (1984).
A. W. Sandvik, AIP conf. Proc. **1297**, 135 (2010).
N. Schultka and E. Manousakis, Phys. Rev. B **49**, 12071 (1994).
N. Schultka and E. Manousakis, Phys. Rev. B **51**, 11712 (1995).
L. Wang, K. S. D. Beach, and A. W. Sandvik, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 014431 (2006).
P. R. Gill,W. Murray, and M. H. Wright, *Practical Optimization* (Academic Press, San Diego, 1988).
M. E. Fisher and M. N. Barber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28 1516 (1972).
E. Br$\acute{e}$zin, J. Physique **43** 15 (1982).
M. N. Barber. Academic. in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz (eds.) Press, New York, 1983), Vol. 8.
E. Br$\acute{e}$zin, and J. Zinn-Justin, Nucl. Phys. B **257**, 867 (1985).
K. S. D. Beach, L. Wang, and A.W. Sandvik, cond-mat/0505194 (unpublished).
M. Campostrini, M. Hasenbusch, A. Pelissetto, P. Rossi, and E. Vicari, Phys. Rev. B **65**, 144520 (2002).
A. Kl$\ddot{u}$mper, Eur. Phys. J. B **5**, 677 (1998).
B. Gu, G. Su, S. Gao, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 134427 (2006); S. S. Gong, S. Gao, G. Su, Phys. Rev. B **80**, 014413 (2009).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A rattleback is a rigid, semi-elliptic toy which exhibits unintuitive behavior; when it is spun in one direction, it soon begins pitching and stops spinning, then it starts to spin in the opposite direction, but in the other direction, it seems to spin just steadily. This puzzling behavior results from the slight misalignment between the principal axes for the inertia and those for the curvature; the misalignment couples the spinning with the pitching and the rolling oscillations. It has been shown that under the no-slip condition and without dissipation the spin can reverse in both directions, and Garcia and Hubbard obtained the formula for the time required for the spin reversal $t_r$ \[Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A **418**, 165 (1988)\]. In this work, we reformulate the rattleback dynamics in a physically transparent way and reduce it to a three-variable dynamics for spinning, pitching, and rolling. We obtain an expression of the Garcia-Hubbard formula for $t_r$ by a simple product of four factors: (1) the misalignment angle, (2) the difference in the inverses of inertia moment for the two oscillations, (3) that in the radii for the two principal curvatures, and (4) the squared frequency of the oscillation. We perform extensive numerical simulations to examine validity and limitation of the formula, and find that (1) the Garcia-Hubbard formula is good for both spinning directions in the small spin and small oscillation regime, but (2) in the fast spin regime especially for the steady direction, the rattleback may not reverse and shows a rich variety of dynamics including steady spinning, spin wobbling, and chaotic behavior reminiscent of chaos in a dissipative system.'
author:
- Yoichiro
- Hiizu
title: Rattleback dynamics and its reversal time of rotation
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Spinning motions of rigid bodies have been studied for centuries and still are drawing interest in recent years, including the motions of Euler’s disks [@Moffatt2000], spinning eggs [@Moffatt2002], and rolling rings [@Jalali2015], to mention just a few. Also, macroscopic systems which convert vibrations to rotations have been studied in various context such as a circular granular ratchet [@Heckel2012], and bouncing dumbbells, which show a cascade of bifurcations [@Kubo2015]. Another interesting example of rigid body dynamics which involves such oscillation-rotation coupling is a rattleback, also called as a celt or wobble stone, which is a semi-elliptic spinning toy \[Fig. \[fig:notation\](a)\]. It spins smoothly when spun in one direction; however, when spun in the other direction, it soon starts wobbling or rattling about its short axis and stops spinning, then it starts to rotate in the opposite direction. One who has studied classical mechanics must be amazed by this reversal in spinning, because it apparently seems to violate the angular momentum conservation, and the chirality emerges from a seemingly symmetrical object.
There are three requirements for a rattleback to show this reversal of rotation: (1) the two principal curvatures of the lower surface should be different, (2) the two horizontal principal moments of inertia should also be different, and (3) the principal axes of inertia should be misaligned to the principal directions of curvature. These characteristics induce the coupling between the spinning motion and the two oscillations: the pitching about the short horizontal axis and the rolling about the long horizontal axis. The coupling is asymmetric, i.e., the oscillations cause torque around the spin axis and the signs of the torque are opposite to each other. This also means that either the pitching or the rolling is excited depending on the direction of the spinning. We will see that the spinning couples with the pitching much stronger than that with the rolling; therefore, it takes much longer time for spin reversal in one direction than in the other direction, and that is why most rattlebacks reverse only for one way before they stop by dissipation.
In the 1890s, a meteorologist, Walker, performed the first quantitative analysis of the rattleback motion [@Walker1896]. Under the assumptions that the rattleback does not slip at the contact point and that the rate of spinning speed changes much slower than other time scales, he linearized the equations of motion and showed that either the pitching or the rolling becomes unstable depending on the direction of the spin. More detailed analyses were performed by Bondi [@Bondi1986], and recently by Wakasugi [@WakasugiH23]. Case and Jalal [@Case2014] derived the growth rate of instability at slow spinning. Markeev [@Markeev1984], Pascal [@Pascal1983], and Blackowiak et al. [@Blackowiak1997] obtained the equations of the spin motion by extracting the slowly varying amplitudes of the fast oscillations of the pitching and the rolling. Moffatt and Tokieda [@MoffattTokieda2008] derived similar equations to those of Markeev [@Markeev1984] and Pascal [@Pascal1983], and pointed out the analogy to the dynamo theory. Garcia and Hubbard [@GarciaHubbard1988] obtained the expressions of the averaged torques generated by the pure pitching and the rolling, and derived the formula for spin reversal time.
As the first numerical study, Kane and Levinson [@Kane1982] simulated the energy-conserving equations and showed that the rattleback changes its spinning direction indefinitely for certain parameter values and initial conditions. They also demonstrated the coupling between the oscillations and the spinning by showing that it starts to rotate when it begins with pure pitching or rolling, but the direction of the rotation is different between pitching and rolling. Similar simulations were performed by Lindberg and Longman independently [@Lindberg1983]. Nanda *et al.* simulated the spin resonance of the rattleback on a vibrating base [@Nanda2016].
Energy-conserving dynamical systems usually conserve the phase volume, but the present rattleback dynamics does not explore the whole phase volume with a given energy because of a non-holonomic constraint due to the no-slip condition. Therefore, the Liouville theorem does not hold, and such a system has been shown to behave much like dissipative systems. Borisov and Mamaev in fact reported the existence of “strange attractor” for certain parameter values in the present system [@Borisov2003]. The no-slip rattleback system has been actively studied in the context of chaotic dynamics during the last decade [@Borisov2006; @Borisov2014].
Effects of dissipation at the contact point have been investigated in several works. Magnus [@Magnus1974] and Karapetyan [@Karapetyan1981] incorporated a viscous type of friction force proportional to the velocity. Takano [@Takano2014] determined the conditions under which the reversal of rotation occurs with the viscous dissipation. Garcia and Hubbard [@GarciaHubbard1988] simulated equations with aerodynamic force, Coulomb friction in the spinning, and dissipation due to slippage, then they compared the results with a real rattleback. The dissipative rattleback models based on the contact mechanics with Coulomb friction have been developed by Zhuravlev and Klimov [@Zhuravlev2008] and Kudra and Awrejcewicz [@Awrejcewicz2012; @Kudra2013; @Kudra2015].
This paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we reformulate the rattleback dynamics under the no-slip and no dissipation condition in a physically transparent way. In the small-spin and small-oscillation approximation, the dynamics is reduced to a simplified three-variable dynamics. We then focus on the time required for reversal, or what we call *the time for reversal*, which is the most evident quantity that characterizes rattlebacks, and obtain a concise expression for the Garcia-Hubbard formula for the time for reversal [@GarciaHubbard1988]. In Sec. \[sec:simulation\], the results of the extensive numerical simulations are presented for various model parameters and initial conditions in order to examine the validity and the limitation of the theory. Discussions and conclusion are given in Sec. \[sec:discussion\] and Sec. \[sec:conclusion\], respectively.
Theory {#sec:theory}
======
Equations of motion
-------------------
 A commercially available rattleback made of plastic. (b) Notations of the rattleback. (c) A schematic illustration of the shell-dumbbell model.](1.pdf){width="7cm"}
We consider a rattleback as a rigid body, whose configuration can be represented by the position of the center of mass G and the Euler angles; both of them are obtained by integrating the velocity of the center of mass $\bm{v}$ and the angular velocity $\bm{\omega}$ around it [@Goldstein2002].
We investigate the rattleback motion on a horizontal plane, assuming that it is always in contact with the plane at a single point C without slipping. We ignore dissipation, then all the forces that act on the rattleback are the contact force $\bm{F}$ exerted by the plane at C and the gravitational force $-Mg\bm{u}$, where $\bm{u}$ represents the unit vertical vector pointing upward \[Fig. \[fig:notation\](b)\]. Therefore, the equations of motion are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d(M\bm{v})}{dt} &= \bm{F} - Mg\bm{u},\label{eq:em-1}\\
\frac{d(\hat{I}\bm{\omega})}{dt} &= \bm{r} \times \bm{F}, \label{eq:em-2}\end{aligned}$$ where $M$ and $\hat{I}$ are the mass and the inertia tensor around G, respectively, and $\bm{r}$ is the vector from G to the contact point C.
The contact force $\bm{F}$ is determined by the conditions of the contact point; our assumptions are that (1) the rattleback is always in contact at a point with the plane, and (2) there is no slip at the contact point. The second constraint is represented by the relation $$\bm{v} = \bm{r} \times \bm{\omega}.\label{eq:no-slip}$$ Before formulating the constraint (1), we specify the co-ordinate system. We employ the body-fixed co-ordinate with the origin being the center of mass G, and the axes being the principal axes of inertia; the $z$ axis is the one close to the spinning axis pointing downward, and the $x$ and $y$ axes are taken to be $I_{xx} > I_{yy}$ (Fig. \[fig:coordinate\]). In this co-ordinate, the lower surface function of the rattleback is assumed to be given by $$f(x,y,z) = 0,\label{eq:def-z}$$ where $$f(x,y,z) \equiv \frac{z}{a} - 1 + \frac{1}{2a^2}(x,\,y)\hat{R}(\xi)\hat{\Theta}\hat{R}^{-1}(\xi)\begin{pmatrix}x\\y\\\end{pmatrix},$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{R}(\xi) \equiv
\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\xi, & -\sin\xi \\
\sin\xi, & \cos\xi \\
\end{pmatrix}, \quad
\hat{\Theta} \equiv
\begin{pmatrix}
\theta, & 0 \\
0 & \phi \\
\end{pmatrix}.\end{aligned}$$ Here $a$ is the distance between G and the surface at $x=y=0$, and $\xi$ is the *skew angle* by which the principal directions of curvature are rotated from the $x$-$y$ axes, which we choose as the principal axes of inertia (Fig. \[fig:coordinate\]). $\theta/a$ and $\phi/a$ are the principal curvatures at the bottom, namely at $(0,0,a)^{t}$. Now, we can formulate the contact point condition (1); the components of the contact point vector $\bm{r}$ should satisfy Eq. (\[eq:def-z\]), and the normal vector of the surface at C should be parallel to the vertical vector $\bm{u}$. Thus we have $$\bm{u} \parallel \nabla f,$$ which gives the relation $$\frac{\bm{r}_{\perp}}{a} = \frac{1}{u_{z}} \hat{R}(\xi)\hat{\Theta}^{-1}\hat{R}^{-1}(\xi)\bm{u}_{\perp} \label{eq:def-xy},$$ where $\bm{a}_{\perp}$ represents the $x$ and $y$ components of a vector $\bm{a}$ in the body-fixed co-ordinate.
Before we proceed, we introduce a dotted derivative of a vector $\bm{a}$ defined as the time derivative of the vector components in the body-fixed co-ordinate. This is related to the time derivative by $$\frac{d\bm{a}}{dt} = \dot{\bm{a}} + \bm{\omega} \times \bm{a}.$$ Note that the vertical vector $\bm{u}$ does not depend on time, thus we have $$\frac{d\bm{u}}{dt} = \dot{\bm{u}} + \bm{\omega} \times \bm{u} = \bm{0}. \label{eq:diff-u}$$ These conditions, i.e., the no-slip condition (\[eq:no-slip\]), the conditions of the contact point (\[eq:def-z\]) and (\[eq:def-xy\]), and the vertical vector condition (\[eq:diff-u\]), close the equations of motion (\[eq:em-1\]) and (\[eq:em-2\]).
Following Garcia and Hubbard [@GarciaHubbard1988], we describe the rattleback dynamics by $\bm{u}$ and $\bm{\omega}$. The evolution of $\bm{\omega}$ is obtained as $$\begin{gathered}
\hat{I} \dot{\bm{\omega}} - M\bm{r} \times (\bm{r} \times \dot{\bm{\omega}})
= - \bm{\omega} \times (\hat{I}\bm{\omega}) \\
+ M\bm{r}\times(\dot{\bm{r}}\times \bm{\omega} + \bm{\omega}\times (\bm{r} \times \bm{\omega})) + Mg\bm{r}\times\bm{u} \label{eq:diff-omega}\end{gathered}$$ by eliminating the contact force $\bm{F}$ from the equations of motion (\[eq:em-1\]) and (\[eq:em-2\]), and using the no-slip condition (\[eq:no-slip\]). The state variables $\bm{u}$ and $\bm{\omega}$ can be determined by Eqs. (\[eq:diff-u\]) and (\[eq:diff-omega\]) with the contact point conditions (\[eq:def-z\]) and (\[eq:def-xy\]).
![(color online) \[fig:coordinate\]A body-fixed co-ordinate viewed from below. The dashed lines indicate the principal directions of curvature, rotated by $\xi$ from the principal axes of inertia (the $x$-$y$ axes).](2r.pdf){width="8cm"}
The rattleback is characterized by the inertial parameters $M$, $I_{xx}$, $I_{yy}$, $I_{zz}$, the geometrical parameters $\theta$, $\phi$, $a$, and the skew angle $\xi$. For the stability of the rattleback, both of the dimensionless curvatures $\theta$ and $\phi$ should be smaller than $1$; without loss of generality, we assume $$0 < \phi < \theta < 1,$$ then, it is enough to consider $$-\frac{\pi}{2} < \xi < 0,$$ for the range of the skew angle $\xi$. The positive $\xi$ case can be obtained by the reflection with respect to the $x$-$z$ plane.
At this stage, we introduce the dimensionless inertial parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ for later use after Bondi [@Bondi1986] as $$\alpha \equiv \frac{I_{xx}}{Ma^{2}}+1, \ \beta \equiv \frac{I_{yy}}{Ma^{2}}+1, \ \gamma \equiv \frac{I_{zz}}{Ma^2},\label{eq:def-abg}$$ which are dimensionless inertial moments around the contact point C. Note that $$\alpha > \beta > 1,$$ because we have assumed $I_{xx} > I_{yy}$.
Small amplitude approximation of oscillations under $\omega_{z}=0$ {#subsec:linearization}
------------------------------------------------------------------
We consider the oscillation modes in the case of no spinning $\omega_{z} = 0$ in the small amplitude approximation, namely, in the linear approximation in $|\omega_{x}|,\,|\omega_{y}|\ll\sqrt{g/a}$, which leads to $|x|,\,|y| \ll a$, $|u_{x}|,\, |u_{y}| \ll 1 $, and $u_{z} \approx -1$. In this regime, the $x$ and $y$ components of Eq. (\[eq:diff-u\]) can be linearized as $$\dot{\bm{u}}_{\perp} \approx \hat{\varepsilon}\,\bm{\omega}_{\perp}, \quad
\hat{\varepsilon} \equiv
\begin{pmatrix}
0, & 1 \\
-1, & 0 \\
\end{pmatrix} = \hat{R}(-\pi/2).\label{eq:lin-u}$$ By using Eq. (\[eq:def-xy\]) with $u_{z} \approx -1$, Eq. (\[eq:diff-omega\]) can be linearized as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{J}\,\dot{\bm{\omega}}_{\perp} &\approx \frac{g}{a^2} (\bm{r}\times\bm{u})_{\perp}\notag\\
&= -\frac{g}{a}\hat{\varepsilon}\,[-\hat{R}(\xi)\hat{\Theta}^{-1}\hat{R}^{-1}(\xi) +1 ] \bm{u}_{\perp},\label{eq:lin-omg1}\end{aligned}$$ with the inertial matrix $$\hat{J} \equiv
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha, & 0 \\
0, & \beta \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ From the linearized equations (\[eq:lin-u\]) and (\[eq:lin-omg1\]), we obtain $$\hat{J}\ddot{\bm{\omega}}_{\perp}= - \frac{g}{a}(\hat{\Gamma} -1) \bm{\omega}_{\perp},\label{eq:lin-omg2}$$ where $$\hat{\Gamma} \equiv \hat{R}(\xi +\pi/2) \hat{\Theta}^{-1}\hat{R}^{-1}(\xi+\pi/2).$$ At this point, it is convenient to introduce the bra-ket notation for the row and column vector of $\bm{\omega}_{\perp}$ as $\bra{\omega_{\perp}}$ and $\ket{\omega_{\perp}}$, respectively. With this notation, Eq. (\[eq:lin-omg2\]) can be put in the form of $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\ddot{\tilde{\omega}}_{\perp}}= -\hat{H}\ket{\tilde{\omega}_{\perp}},
\label{eq:lin-omg3}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\tilde{\omega}_{\perp}} \equiv \hat{J}^{1/2}\ket{\omega_{\perp}},
\quad \hat{H} \equiv \frac{g}{a}\hat{J}^{-1/2}(\hat{\Gamma} -1 )\hat{J}^{-1/2},
\label{eq:lin-omg4}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{H}$ is symmetric. The eigenvalue equation $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H} \ket{\tilde{\omega}_{j}}= \omega_{j}^2 \ket{\tilde{\omega}_{j}}
\label{eq:def-omgpr}\end{aligned}$$ determines the two oscillation modes with $j=p$ or $r$, whose frequencies are given by $$\omega_{p,r}^2 = \frac{1}{2}\left[(H_{11}+H_{22})
\pm \sqrt{(H_{11}-H_{22})^2 + 4H_{12}^2}\right]
\label{eq:def-omega_pr}$$ with $$\omega_{p} \ge \omega_{r}.
\label{ineq:omega_pr}$$ Here, $H_{ij}$ denotes the $ij$ component of $\hat H$. The orthogonal condition for the eigenvectors $\ket{\tilde{\omega}_{p}}$ and $\ket{\tilde{\omega}_{r}}$ can be written using $\hat{\varepsilon}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{\tilde{\omega}_{p}} &= \hat{\varepsilon} \ket{\tilde{\omega}_{r}},\quad
\ket{\tilde{\omega}_{r}} = -\hat{\varepsilon} \ket{\tilde{\omega}_{p}}, \\
\bra{\tilde{\omega}_{r}} &= \bra{\tilde{\omega}_{p}}\hat{\varepsilon}, \quad
\bra{\tilde{\omega}_{p}} = -\bra{\tilde{\omega}_{r}}\hat{\varepsilon}. \end{aligned}$$ In the case of zero skew angle, $\xi=0$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_p^2 &=\left({g\over a}\right){1/\phi-1\over\alpha}\equiv \omega_{p0}^2,
\label{def:omega_p0}
\\
\omega_r^2 &=\left({g\over a}\right){1/\theta-1\over\beta}\equiv \omega_{r0}^2,
\label{def:omega_r0}\end{aligned}$$ and the eigenvectors $\ket{\omega_{p}}$ and $\ket{\omega_{r}}$ are parallel to the $x$ and the $y$ axes, thus these modes correspond to the pitching and the rolling oscillations, respectively. This correspondence holds for $|\xi|\ll 1$ and $\omega_{p0}>\omega_{r0}$ as for a typical rattleback parameter, the case we will discuss mainly in the following [^1].
Garcia and Hubbard’s theory for the time for reversal {#subsec:GHtheory}
-----------------------------------------------------
Based on our formalism, it is quite straightforward to derive Garcia and Hubbard’s formula for the reversal time of rotation.
### Asymmetric torque coefficients
Due to the skewness, the pitching and the rolling are coupled with the spinning motion. We examine this coupling in the case of $\omega_{z} = 0$ by estimating the averaged torques around the vertical axis caused by the pitching and the rolling oscillations. From Eqs. (\[eq:em-1\]) and (\[eq:em-2\]) and the no-slip condition Eq. (\[eq:no-slip\]), the torque around $\bm{u}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
T &\equiv \bm{u}\cdot(\bm{r} \times \bm{F})
\approx - Ma^2 [\dot{\bm{\omega}}_{\perp}\cdot\hat{\varepsilon}(\hat{\Gamma} - 1)\hat{\varepsilon} \,\bm{u}_{\perp}\,],\label{eq:ave-torque}\end{aligned}$$ within the linear approximation in $\bm{\omega}_{\perp}$, $\bm{u}_{\perp}$, and $\bm{r}_{\perp}$ discussed in Sec. \[subsec:linearization\].
We define the *asymmetric torque coefficients* $K_{p} $ and $K_{r}$ for each mode by $$-K_{p} \equiv \frac{\overline{T}_{p}}{\overline{E}_{p}}, \qquad
K_{r} \equiv \frac{\overline{T}_{r}}{\overline{E}_{r}},
\label{eq:def-kpr}$$ where $\overline{T}_{j}\ (j=p\text{~or~}r)$ is the averaged torque over the oscillation period generated by each mode, and $\overline{E}_{j}$ is the corresponding averaged oscillation energy which can be estimated within the linear approximation as $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{E} &\approx Ma^2 (\alpha \overline{\omega_{x}^2} + \beta \overline{\omega_{y}^2} ). \label{eq:ave-ene}\end{aligned}$$ The minus sign for the definition of $K_{p}$ is inserted in order that both $K_{p}$ and $K_{r}$ should be positive for typical rattleback parameters as can be seen below. Note that the asymmetric torque coefficients are dimensionless.
From Eqs. (\[eq:ave-torque\]) and (\[eq:ave-ene\]), $-K_{p}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
-K_{p} &= \frac{\braket{\omega_{p}|\,\hat{\varepsilon}(\hat{\Gamma} - 1)\hat{\varepsilon}\hat{\varepsilon}\,|\omega_{p}}}{\braket{ \omega_{p}|\hat{J}|\omega_{p}}}\notag\\
&= -\frac{(a/g)\braket{\tilde{\omega}_{p}|\,\hat{J}^{-1/2}\hat{\varepsilon}\hat{J}^{1/2}\hat{H}\,|\tilde{\omega}_{p}}}{\braket{\tilde{\omega}_{p}|\tilde{\omega}_{p}}}\label{eq:kp-1}\\
&= - \omega_{p}^2 \,\frac{(a/g)\braket{\tilde{\omega}_{p}|\,\hat{J}^{-1/2}\hat{\varepsilon}\hat{J}^{1/2}\,|\tilde{\omega}_{p}}}{\braket{\tilde{\omega}_{p}|\tilde{\omega}_{p}}}.
\label{eq:kp-2}\end{aligned}$$ In the same way, $K_{r}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
K_{r} &= -\frac{(a/g)\braket{\tilde{\omega}_{r}|\hat{J}^{-1/2}\hat{\varepsilon}\hat{J}^{1/2}\hat{H}|\tilde{\omega}_{r}}}{\braket{\tilde{\omega}_{r}|\tilde{\omega}_{r}}}\label{eq:kr-1}\\
&= \omega_{r}^2 \,\frac{(a/g)\braket{\tilde{\omega}_{p}|(\hat{J}^{-1/2}\hat{\varepsilon}\hat{J}^{1/2})^{\dagger}|\tilde{\omega}_{p}}}{\braket{\tilde{\omega}_{p}|\tilde{\omega}_{p}}}.
\label{eq:kr-2}\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[eq:kp-1\])–(\[eq:kr-2\]) yield simple relations for $K_{p}$ and $K_{r}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{K_{p}}{K_{r}} = \frac{\omega_{p}^2}{\omega_{r}^{2}} \label{eq:k-rat}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
K_{p} - K_{r}&= \frac{(a/g)}{\braket{\tilde{\omega}_{p}|\tilde{\omega}_{p}}}
\mathrm{Tr}\left[\hat{J}^{-1/2}\hat{\varepsilon}\hat{J}^{-1/2}\hat{H}\right]\notag\\
& = -\frac{1}{2}\sin(2\xi)\left(\frac{1}{\beta} - \frac{1}{\alpha}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\phi} - \frac{1}{\theta}\right). \label{eq:k-diff}\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[eq:k-rat\]) and (\[eq:k-diff\]) are enough to determine $$\begin{aligned}
K_{p} = -\frac{1}{2}\sin(2\xi)\left(\frac{1}{\beta} - \frac{1}{\alpha}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\phi} - \frac{1}{\theta}\right) \frac{\omega_{p}^2}{\omega_{p}^2 - \omega_{r}^2},\label{eq:Kp}\\
K_{r} = -\frac{1}{2}\sin(2\xi)\left(\frac{1}{\beta} - \frac{1}{\alpha}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\phi} - \frac{1}{\theta}\right) \frac{\omega_{r}^2}{\omega_{p}^2 - \omega_{r}^2}\label{eq:Kr}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that Eqs. (\[eq:Kp\]) and (\[eq:Kr\]) are consistent with the three requirements of rattlebacks: $\xi \neq 0$, $\alpha \neq \beta$, and $\theta \neq \phi$. Equations (\[eq:Kp\]) and (\[eq:Kr\]) are shown to be equivalent to the corresponding expressions Eq. (42a,b) in Garcia and Hubbard [@GarciaHubbard1988] although their expressions look quite involved. These results also show that $$K_{p}K_{r} > 0 \quad \text{and hence} \quad \overline{T}_{p}\overline{T}_{r} <0,$$ namely, the torques generated by the pitching and the rolling always have opposite signs to each other.
### Typical rattleback parameters
Typical rattleback parameters fall in the region that satisfies the following two conditions: (1) the skew angle is small, $$|\xi| \ll 1,$$ and (2) the pitch frequency is higher than the roll frequency. Under these conditions, the modes $p$ and $r$ of Eq. (\[eq:def-omgpr\]) correspond to the pitching and the rolling oscillations respectively, and $$\omega_{p}^2 \approx \omega_{p0}^2,\qquad
\omega_{r}^2 \approx \omega_{r0}^2
\label{eq:omg_pr-approx-omgpr0}
$$in accord with the inequality (\[ineq:omega\_pr\]) [@Note1]. From Eqs. (\[eq:def-kpr\]), (\[eq:Kp\]), and (\[eq:Kr\]), the signs of the asymmetric torque coefficients and the averaged torques for typical rattlebacks are given by $$K_{p}>0 \quad \text{and}\quad K_{r}>0, \label{eq:sign-typ-k}$$ and $$\overline{T}_{p}<0 \quad \text{and}\quad \overline{T}_{r}>0,$$ by noting $\xi<0$, $\alpha > \beta$, $\theta >\phi$. The fact that $\omega_{p0}>\omega_{r0}$ for a typical rattleback means that the shape factor, $1/\phi-1$ or $1/\theta-1$, contributes much more than the inertial factor, $1/\alpha$ or $1/\beta$, in Eqs. (\[def:omega\_p0\]) and (\[def:omega\_r0\]) although these two factors compete, i.e. $1/\phi-1>1/\theta-1$ and $1/\alpha<1/\beta$. This is a typical situation because the two curvatures of usual rattlebacks are markedly different, i.e., $\phi \ll \theta < 1$ as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:notation\](c). Moreover, we can show that the pitch frequency is always higher for an ellipsoid with a uniform mass density whose surface is given by $x^2/c^2
+ y^2/b^2+ z^2/a^2 = 1\ (b^2 > c^2 > a^2)$. This also holds for a semi-ellipsoid for $b^2 > c^2 > (5/8)a^2$, where the co-ordinate system is the same as the ellipsoid.
### Time for reversal
Now we study the time evolution of the *spin* $n$ defined as the vertical component of the angular velocity $$n \equiv \bm{u}\cdot\bm{\omega},$$ assuming that the expressions for the asymmetric torque coefficients, $K_p$ and $K_r$, obtained above are valid even when $\omega_{z}\ne 0$. We consider the quantities $\overline{n}$, $\overline{E}_p$, and $\overline{E}_r$, averaged over the time scale much longer than the oscillation periods, yet much shorter than the time scale for spin change. Then, these averaged quantities should follow the following evolution equations: $$\begin{aligned}
I_{\textrm{eff}} \frac{d\overline{n}(t)}{dt} &= - K_{p} \overline{E}_{p}(t) + K_{r} \overline{E}_{r}(t) , \label{eq:diff-ne-1}\\
\frac{d \overline{E}_{p}(t)}{dt} & = K_{p} \overline{n}(t) \overline{E}_{p}(t),\label{eq:diff-ne-2}\\
\frac{d \overline{E}_{r}(t)}{dt} & = - K_{r} \overline{n}(t) \overline{E}_{r}(t) \label{eq:diff-ne-3}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $I_{\textrm{eff}}$ is the effective moment of inertia around $\bm{u}$ under the existence of the oscillations, and is assumed to be constant; it should be close to $I_{zz}$. As can be seen easily, the total energy $E_{\textrm{tot}}$ defined by $$E_{\textrm{tot}} \equiv \frac{1}{2} I_{\textrm{eff}} \overline{n}(t)^2 + \overline{E}_{p}(t) + \overline E_{r}(t)$$ is conserved. It can be seen that there is another invariant, $$C_{I} \equiv \frac{1}{K_{p}}\ln \overline{E}_{p} + \frac{1}{K_{r}}\ln \overline{E}_{r},\label{eq:casimir}$$ which has been discussed in connection with a Casimir invariant [@MoffattTokieda2008; @Yoshida2016]. With these two conservatives, general solutions of the three-variable system (\[eq:diff-ne-1\])–(\[eq:diff-ne-3\]) should be periodic.
Let us consider the case where the spin is positive at $t=0$ and the sum of the oscillation energies are small compared to the spinning energy: $$\overline{n}(0) \equiv n_i >0, \quad
\overline{E}_{p}(0) + \overline{E}_{r}(0) \ll \frac{1}{2} I_{\textrm{eff}} n_{i}^2.$$ For a typical rattleback, the pitching develops and the rolling decays as long as $\overline n>0$ as can be seen from Eqs. (\[eq:sign-typ-k\]), (\[eq:diff-ne-2\]) and (\[eq:diff-ne-3\]). Thus the rolling is irrelevant and can be ignored, i.e., $\overline E_r(t) = 0$, to estimate the time for reversal. Then we can derive the equation $$\frac{d\overline{n}(t)}{dt} = -\frac{K_{p}}{2}\left(n_0^2- \overline{n}(t)^2\right) \label{eq:diff-n},$$ where the constant $n_0>0$ is defined by $$\frac{1}{2}I_{\textrm{eff}} n_{0}^2 \equiv E_{\textrm{tot}}.$$ This can be easily solved as $$\overline{n}(t) = n_{0}\frac{(n_{0} + n_{i})\exp(-n_{0}K_{p}t) - (n_{0} -n_{i}) }{(n_{0} + n_{i})\exp(-n_{0}K_{p}t) + (n_{0} -n_{i})},
\label{eq:gh-solution-p}$$ and we obtain the time for reversal $t_{rGH+}$ for the $n_{i} > 0$ case as $$t_{rGH+} = \frac{1}{n_0 K_p} \ln\left(\frac{n_{0}+n_{i}}{n_0 - n_i}\right),
\label{eq:trgh-p}$$ by just setting $\overline{n}=0$ in Eq. (\[eq:gh-solution-p\]).
Similarly, in the case of $n_i<0$, only the rolling develops and the pitching is irrelevant, thus we obtain $\overline{n}(t)$ and the time for reversal $t_{rGH-}$ as $$\overline{n}(t) = -n_{0}\frac{(n_{0} + |n_{i}|)\exp(-n_{0}K_{r}t) - (n_{0} - |n_{i}|) }{(n_{0} + |n_{i}|)\exp(-n_{0}K_{r}t) + (n_{0} - |n_{i}|)}
\label{eq:gh-solution-m}$$ and $$t_{rGH-} =\frac{1}{n_0 K_r} \ln\left(\frac{n_0+|n_i|}{n_0 - |n_i|} \right). \label{eq:trgh-m}$$ Equations (\[eq:trgh-p\]) and (\[eq:trgh-m\]) are Garcia-Hubbard formulas for the times for reversal [@GarciaHubbard1988].
From the expressions of $K_{p}$ and $K_{r}$ given by Eqs. (\[eq:Kp\]) and (\[eq:Kr\]), we immediately notice that (1) the time for reversal is inversely proportional to the skew angle $\xi$ in the small skewness regime, and (2) the ratio of the time for reversal $t_{rGH-}/t_{rGH+}$ is simply given by the squared ratio of the pitch frequency to the roll frequency $\omega_{p}^2 / \omega_{r}^2$, provided initial values $n_{0}$ and $n_{i}$ are the same except their signs.
For a typical rattleback, $\omega_{p}^2 \gg \omega_{r}^2$, thus $t_{rGH+} \ll t_{rGH-}$, i.e., the time for reversal is much shorter in the case of $n_{i}>0$ than in the case of $n_{i}<0$. Thus we call the spin direction of $n_{i} > 0$ the *unsteady direction* [@GarciaHubbard1988], and that of $n_i <0$ the *steady direction*.
In the small skewness regime, this ratio of the squared frequencies is estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\omega_{p}^2}{\omega_{r}^2} \approx \frac{\omega_{p0}^2}{\omega_{r0}^2}
= \frac{\beta}{\alpha}\frac{1/\phi - 1}{1/\theta -1}. \label{eq:ratomg}\end{aligned}$$ This becomes especially large as $\theta$ approaches $1$ or as $\phi$ approaches 0, namely, as the smaller radius of principal curvature approaches $a$, or as the larger radius of principal curvature becomes much larger than $a$. We remark that both of the inertial parameters $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are larger than $1$ by definition Eq. (\[eq:def-abg\]), and cannot be arbitrarily large for a typical rattleback.
Let us consider these two limiting cases: $\phi\to 0$ and $\theta \to 1$ with $|\xi| \ll 1$. In the case of $\phi \to 0$, $$K_{p} \to \infty,\quad
K_{r} \to (-\xi) \left(\frac{1}{\beta} - \frac{1}{\alpha}\right)\frac{\alpha}{\beta}\left(\frac{1}{\theta} - 1\right),$$ thus the time for reversal $t_{rGH-}$ remains constant while $t_{rGH+}$ approaches $0$. In the case of $\theta \to 1$, $$K_{p} \to (-\xi) \left(\frac{1}{\beta} - \frac{1}{\alpha}\right)\left(\frac{1}{\phi} - 1\right),\quad
K_{r} \to 0,$$ and thus $t_{rGH+}$ remains constant while $t_{rGH-}$ diverges to infinity, i.e., the negative spin rotation never reverses.
Simulation {#sec:simulation}
==========
We perform numerical simulations for the times for the first spin reversal and compare them with Garcia-Hubbard formulas (\[eq:trgh-p\]) and (\[eq:trgh-m\]).
Shell-dumbbell model
--------------------
To consider a rattleback whose inertial and geometrical parameters can be set separately, we construct a simple model of the rattleback, or the *shell-dumbbell model*, which consists of a light shell and two dumbbells: the light shell defines the shape of the lower part of the rattleback and the dumbbells represent the masses and the moments of inertia. The shell is a paraboloid given by Eq. (\[eq:def-z\]). The dumbbells consist of couples of weights, $m_{x}/2$ and $m_{y}/2$, fixed at $(\pm r_{x},0,0)$ and $(0,\pm r_{y},0)$ in the body-fixed co-ordinate, respectively \[Fig. \[fig:notation\](c)\]. Then the total mass is $$M = m_{x} + m_{y}$$ and the inertia tensor is diagonal with its principal moments $$\begin{aligned}
I_{xx} &= m_{y}r_{y}^{2},\quad I_{yy} = m_{x}r_{x}^{2}, \\
I_{zz} &= m_{y}r_{y}^{2} + m_{x}r_{x}^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that the simple relation $$I_{zz} = I_{xx} + I_{yy}$$ holds for the shell-dumbbell model. We define $$f_{sd} \equiv I_{yy}/I_{zz},$$ then the dimensionless parameters $\alpha,\,\beta,$ and $\gamma$ defined by Eq. (\[eq:def-abg\]) are given by, $$\gamma = I_{zz}/Ma^{2}, \, \alpha = (1-f_{sd})\gamma + 1, \, \beta = f_{sd}\gamma + 1.$$ The parameter $f_{sd}$ satisfies $0<f_{sd}<0.5$, since we have assumed $\alpha > \beta$. The shell-dumbbell model makes it easier to visualize an actual object represented by the model with a set of parameters, and is used in the following simulations for determining the parameter ranges.
Methods {#subsec:method}
-------
$\gamma$ $f_{sd}$ $\alpha,\ \beta$ $\theta$ $\phi$ $-\xi$ (deg)
---- ---------- --------------- ------------------ -------------- -------------- -------------- --
GH $12.28$ — 13.04, 1.522 0.6429 0.0360 1.72
SD $[5,15]$ $[0.05,0.15]$ — $[0.6,0.95]$ \[0.01,0.1\] (0,6\]
 (a) Cumulative distributions of the pitch and the roll frequencies for the parameter set SD in Table \[tab:parameters\]; $\omega_{p} \text{~and~}
\omega_{r}$ of Eq. (\[eq:def-omgpr\]) and their zeroth order approximation $\omega_{p0}$ and $\omega_{r0}$ by Eqs. (\[def:omega\_p0\]) and (\[def:omega\_r0\])](3r.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
are shown. The inset shows the cumulative distribution of $\omega_{p}/\omega_{r}$. The number of samples is $10^{6}$.
 (a) Cumulative distributions of the asymmetric torque coefficients $K_{p}$ and $K_{r}$ for SD (Table \[tab:parameters\]). The number of samples is ${10}^{5}$. (b) A 2D color plot for the distribution of ($K_{p}$,$K_{r}$). The color code shown is in the logarithmic scale for the relative frequency $P(K_{p},\,K_{r})$, i.e., $-9 \le \log_{10}P(K_{p},\,K_{r}) \le 0$. The number of samples is $10^{8}$.](4.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
The equations of motion (\[eq:diff-u\]) and (\[eq:diff-omega\]) with the contact point conditions (\[eq:def-z\]) and (\[eq:def-xy\]) are numerically integrated by the fourth-order Runge-Kutta method with an initial condition $\bm{\omega}(0)$ and $\bm{u}(0)$. In the simulations, we take $$\bm{u}(0) = (0,0,-1)^{t} \label{eq:sim-ic-1}$$ and specify $\bm{\omega}(0)$ as $$\bm{\omega}(0) = (|\omega_{xy0}|\cos\psi,\ |\omega_{xy0}|\sin\psi,\ -n_{i}) \label{eq:sim-ic-2}$$ in terms of $|\omega_{xy0}|$, $\psi$, and $n_{i}$. According to the simplified dynamics (\[eq:diff-ne-1\])–(\[eq:diff-ne-3\]), the irrelevant mode of oscillation does not affect the dynamics sensitively as long as the relevant mode exists and the initial spin energy is much larger than the initial oscillation energy. Thus we choose $\ket{\omega(0)}= (\omega_{x0}, \omega_{y0})^{t}$ in the direction of the relevant eigenmode, $$\psi = \psi_{p} \text{ for } n_{i}>0,\quad\text{and}\quad\psi = \psi_{r} \text{ for } n_{i}<0, \label{eq:sim-ic-3}$$ where $\psi_{p}$ and $\psi_{r}$ are the angles of the eigenvectors $\ket{\omega_{p}}$ and $\ket{\omega_{r}}$ from the $x$-axis, respectively.
Numerical results are presented in the unit system where $M$, $a$, and $$\tilde{t} \equiv 1/\tilde{\omega} \equiv \sqrt{a/g}$$ as units of mass, length, and time. The size of the time step for the numerical integration is taken to be $0.002\,\tilde{t}$. In numerics, we determine the time for reversal $t_{r}$ by the time at which $n=\bm{\omega}\cdot\bm{u}$ becomes zero for the first time, and they are compared with Garcia-Hubbard formulas (\[eq:trgh-p\]) and (\[eq:trgh-m\]); $n_0$ is determined as $$\frac{\gamma n_{0}^{2}}{2} = \frac{1}{2}(
\alpha\omega_{x0}^2 + \beta\omega_{y0}^2 + \gamma\omega_{z0}^2),
\label{eq:def-n0}$$ assuming $I_{\mathrm{eff}} = I_{zz}$ at $t=0$. Here the potential energy $U(\bm{u})$ is set to zero where $\bm{u}(0) = (0,0,-1)^{t}$.
The parameters used in the simulations are listed in Table \[tab:parameters\]. For the parameter set SD, the ranges are shown. When numerical results are plotted against $K_{p}$ or $K_{r}$, given by Eqs. (\[eq:Kp\]) or (\[eq:Kr\]), respectively, sets of parameters are chosen randomly from the ranges until resulting $K_{p}$ or $K_{r}$ falls within the range of $\pm0.1\%$ of a target value. The ranges of SD are chosen to meet the following two conditions: (1) $0<\phi \ll \theta <1$, $\beta < \alpha$, and $|\xi| \ll 1$ and (2) the pitch frequency should be higher than the roll frequency. As argued in Sec. \[subsec:GHtheory\], usual rattlebacks such as one in Fig. \[fig:notation\](a) satisfy these two conditions. Figure \[fig:omega-dist\] shows the cumulative distributions for the eigenfrequencies $\omega_{p}$ and $\omega_{r}$, and their approximate expressions $\omega_{p0}$ and $\omega_{r0}$ for the parameter set SD; it shows $(\omega_{p}/\omega_{r}) > 1.3$ in accordance with the condition (2).
The parameter set GH gives $K_{p} = 0.553$ and $K_{r}=0.0967$, and the distributions of $K_{p}$ and $K_{r}$ for SD are shown in Fig. \[fig:k-dist\], where one can see $K_{p}\gg K_{r}$. From Eq. (\[eq:k-rat\]), this corresponds to $\omega_{p}^2 \gg
\omega_{r}^2$, i.e., the pitch frequency is significantly faster than the roll frequency. Consequently, the time for reversal is much shorter for the unsteady direction $n_{i}>0$, where the pitching is induced, than for the steady direction $n_{i}<0$, where the rolling is induced. We denote the time for reversal for the unsteady direction as $t_{ru}$ and that for the steady direction as $t_{rs}$ when we consider a specific spinning direction.
Results
-------
### General behavior for the parameter set GH
![\[fig:gh-t-n\] A typical spin evolution and the corresponding $\omega_{x}$ and $\omega_{y}$ for GH (Table \[tab:parameters\]). (a) The case of the initial spin in the unsteady direction. The initial condition is specified by Eqs. (\[eq:sim-ic-1\])–(\[eq:sim-ic-3\]) with $n_{i} = 0.1\,\tilde{\omega}$ and $|\omega_{xy0}|=0.01\,\tilde{\omega}$. (b) The case of the initial spin in the steady direction with $n_{i} = -0.1\,\tilde{\omega}$ and $|\omega_{xy0}|=0.01\,\tilde{\omega}$. The dashed lines in (a-1) and (b-1) show Garcia and Hubbard’s solution $\overline{n}(t)$ given by Eqs. (\[eq:gh-solution-p\]) and (\[eq:gh-solution-m\]), respectively.](5r.pdf){width="8cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:gh-t-n\] we show a typical simulation result of the time evolution of the spin $n(t)$ along with the angular velocities $\omega_{x}(t)$ and $\omega_{y}(t)$ for the parameter set GH (Table \[tab:parameters\]) in the case of the unsteady direction $n_i > 0$ (a), and the steady direction $n_i < 0$ (b).
Figure \[fig:gh-t-n\](a-1) shows that the spin $n$ changes its sign from positive to negative at $t_{ru}\approx 112\,\tilde{t}$, and Fig. \[fig:gh-t-n\](b-1) shows the spin $n$ changes its sign from negative to positive at $t_{rs} \approx 810\,\tilde{t}$. Garcia and Hubbard’s solutions $\overline{n}(t)$ of Eqs. (\[eq:gh-solution-p\]) and (\[eq:gh-solution-m\]) are shown by the dashed lines in Figs. \[fig:gh-t-n\](a-1) and (b-1), respectively; they are in good agreement with the numerical simulations.
The angular velocities $\omega_{x}$ and $\omega_{y}$ oscillate in much shorter time scale, and their amplitudes evolve differently depending on the spin direction. In the case of Fig. \[fig:gh-t-n\](a), where the positive initial spin reverses to negative, the amplitude of $\omega_{x}$ becomes large and reaches its maximum around $t_{ru}$; the amplitude of $\omega_{y}$ also becomes large around both sides of $t_{ru}$ but shows the local minimum at $t_{ru}$. Both $\omega_{x}$ and $\omega_{y}$ oscillate at the pitch frequency $\omega_{p} \approx
1.44\,\tilde{\omega}$. In the case of Fig. \[fig:gh-t-n\](b) where the negative spin reverses to positive, the situation is similar but the amplitude of $\omega_{y}$ reaches its maximum around $t_{rs}$, and $\omega_{x}$ and $\omega_{y}$ oscillate at the roll frequency $\omega_{r} \approx 0.602\,\tilde{\omega}$.
These features can be understood based on the analysis in the previous section as follows. The positive spin induces the pitching, which is mainly represented by $\omega_{x}$ because the eigenvector of the pitching $\ket{\omega_{p}}$ is nearly parallel to the $x$ axis, i.e., $\psi_{p}
\approx -17^{\circ}$. Likewise, the negative spin induces the rolling, mainly represented by $\omega_{y}$, because $\psi_{r} \approx
88^{\circ}$. The local minima of the amplitude for $\omega_{y}$ in Fig. \[fig:gh-t-n\](a-3), or $\omega_{x}$ in Fig. \[fig:gh-t-n\](b-2), at the times for reversal are tricky; it might mean that the eigenvector of the pitching (rolling) deviates more from the $x$ axis ($y$ axis) for $\omega_{z} \neq 0$ than that for $\omega_{z} = 0$; as a result, the pitching (rolling) mode has a larger projection on the $y$ axis ($x$ axis) for $\omega_{z} \neq 0$.
Note that for given $|n_{i}|$, the maximum value of $\omega_{y}$ in Fig. \[fig:gh-t-n\](b-3) is larger than that of $\omega_{x}$ in (a-2). This is due to $\alpha \gg \beta$; the oscillation energy around zero spin for the both cases should be the same, which gives $\alpha \overline{{\omega}_{x}^2}\approx \beta \overline{{\omega}_{y}^2}$ thus $\sqrt{\overline{\omega_{x}^2}} < \sqrt{\overline{\omega_{y}^2}}$.
### Simulations with the parameter set SD
We present detailed results of the simulations for the ranges of the parameters given by SD in Table \[tab:parameters\].
#### Unsteady initial spin direction $(n_{i}>0)$.
In this case, the system behaves basically as we expect from the Garcia-Hubbard formula unless the initial spin or oscillation is too large. Figure \[fig:kptr\] shows the time for reversal $t_{ru}$ as a function of $K_{p}$ when spun in the unsteady direction. The results are plotted against $K_{p}$ by the procedure described in Sec. \[subsec:method\].
When the initial spin $n_{i}$ is $n_{i} \lesssim 0.2\,\tilde{\omega}$ with $|\omega_{xy0}|=0.001\tilde{\omega},\, 0.01\tilde{\omega}$, $t_{ru}$ is in good agreement with the Garcia-Hubbard formula $t_{rGH+}$ of Eq. (\[eq:trgh-p\]), i.e., almost inversely proportional to $K_{p}$ with small scatter around the average. For a given $n_i$, as the initial oscillation amplitude $|\omega_{xy0}|$ becomes large, the standard deviations of $t_{ru}$ become large, and the average of $t_{ru}$ deviates upward from the Garcia-Hubbard formula $t_{rGH+}$, which is derived with the small amplitude approximation of $\omega_{x}$ and $\omega_{y}$. For larger $n_i$, $t_{rGH+}$ also underestimates $t_{ru}$, as already noted by Garcia and Hubbard [@GarciaHubbard1988] for the parameter set GH. The underestimation can be also seen in Fig. \[fig:gh-t-n\](a-1), where one can see that Garcia and Hubbard’s solution $\overline{n}(t)$ of Eq. (\[eq:gh-solution-p\]) changes its sign earlier than the simulation.
For $n_i \gtrsim 0.4\,\tilde{\omega}$, $t_{ru}$ deviates notably upward from the Garcia-Hubbard formula $t_{rGH+}$. As $n_i$ increases, the average of $t_{ru}$ increases and the standard deviations become large. Figure \[fig:kptr\](b) shows a typical spin evolution with $n_{i} = 0.5\,\tilde{\omega}$. The spin oscillates widely at the pitch frequency, which is qualitatively different from typical spin behaviors at small $n_{i}$ and from Garcia and Hubbard’s solution $\overline{n}(t)$ of Eq. (\[eq:gh-solution-p\]) as in Fig. \[fig:gh-t-n\](a-1). In this region, the Garcia-Hubbard formula is no longer valid.
![(color online) \[fig:kptr\] (a) Time for reversal of the unsteady direction $t_{ru}$ for the parameter set SD (Table \[tab:parameters\]) as a function of the asymmetric torque coefficient $K_{p}$ in the logarithmic scale. The error bars indicate one standard deviation of $1000$ samples for each data point. The solid lines are $t_{rGH+}$ given by Eq. (\[eq:trgh-p\]), calculated using the mean values of $n_{0}$. (b) A typical spin evolution with $n_{i} = 0.5\,\tilde{\omega},\
|\omega_{xy0}|=0.01\,\tilde{\omega}$. The parameter set GH is used.](6r.pdf){width="8.4cm"}
#### Steady initial spin direction $(n_{i}<0)$.
{width="16.8cm"}
![(color online) \[fig:krtr-2\] Time for reversal $t_{rs}$ for the steady direction as a function of $K_{r}$ in the logarithmic scale. Each data point represents the average with the standard deviation of Type R samples out of $1000$ simulations from the parameter set SD (Table \[tab:parameters\]).](8r.pdf){width="8.4cm"}
Much more complicated phenomena are observed when spun in the steady direction. When the initial spin $|n_i|$ is small enough, the spin simply reverses as shown in Fig. \[fig:gh-t-n\](b-1). We call this simple reversal behavior Type R. For larger $|n_i|$, however, there appear some cases where the spin never reverses; in such cases there are two types of behaviors: steady spinning at $n_{ss}$ (Type SS), and spin wobbling around $n_{w}$ ($n_{ss}<n_{w}<0$, Type SW). For Type SS samples, $n_{ss}$ is slightly less than $n_{i}$, i.e., $n_{ss}<n_{i}<0$, because small initial rolling decays and its energy is converted to the spin energy. Typical spin evolutions of a Type SS sample and a Type SW sample are shown in Figs. \[fig:krtr\](b-1) and (b-2).
Figure \[fig:krtr\](a) shows the $K_{r}$ dependence of the fractions of Types R, SS, and SW for various initial conditions given by $n_{i}$ and $|\omega_{xy0}|$. For each sample, we wait up to $t = 5t_{rGH-}$; the spin evolution is classified as Type R if it reverses. If it does not, the spin evolution is classified as Type SS if the initial rolling amplitude decays monotonously, and classified as Type SW if the spin $n$ starts wobbling by the time $5t_{rGH-}$. The other samples, in which the rolling grows slowly yet shows no visible spin change by the time $5t_{rGH-}$, are labeled “unclassified" in Fig. \[fig:krtr\]. Such samples may show spin reversal or spin wobbling if we take a much longer simulation time. Type SS appears for $|n_i|\gtrsim 0.3\,\tilde{\omega}$ and its fraction increases as $|n_i|$ increases. The fraction is larger for smaller $K_{r}$ and smaller $|\omega_{xy0}|$, i.e., $|\omega_{xy0}|=0.001\,\tilde{\omega}$. Type SW appears for $|n_i| \gtrsim 0.1\,\tilde{\omega}$ and its fraction is also larger for smaller $K_{r}$, but stays around $0.2$ for $|n_i| \gtrsim
0.4\,\tilde{\omega}$.
Figure \[fig:krtr-2\] shows the $K_{r}$ dependence of $t_{rs}$ only for the samples of Type R, which shows a spin reversal behavior. For small $|n_{i}| \lesssim 0.2\,\tilde{\omega}$ with $|\omega_{xy0}|=0.01\,\tilde{\omega}, 0.001\,\tilde{\omega}$, $t_{rs}$ is in good agreement with Garcia-Hubbard formula $t_{rGH-}$ of Eq. (\[eq:trgh-m\]), and the average of $t_{ru}$ is almost inversely proportional to $K_{r}$. As in the case of the unsteady direction, the standard deviations of $t_{rs}$ become large, and the average $t_{rs}$ deviates downward from $t_{rGH-}$ as initial oscillation amplitude $|\omega_{xy0}|$ becomes large. Note that $t_{rGH-}$ tends to overestimate $t_{rs}$, in contrast to the case of the unsteady direction, where $t_{rGH+}$ underestimates $t_{ru}$. This has also been noted by Garcia and Hubbard [@GarciaHubbard1988] for the parameter set GH, and can be seen by Garcia and Hubbard’s solution $\overline{n}(t)$ in Fig. \[fig:gh-t-n\](b-1). For $|n_{i}| \gtrsim
0.3\,\tilde{\omega}$, one may notice the standard deviations are large for $K_{r}\ll 0.1$. In these cases, we find that some samples appear to spin stably for quite a long time, i.e., several times of $t_{rGH-}$, and then abruptly starts to reverse its sign. During the time period $t<t_{rs}$, the rolling grows much more slowly than it should as predicted by the theory in Sec. \[sec:theory\]. Such samples make both the average and standard deviation large as Fig. \[fig:krtr-2\].
Next we consider the Type SS samples. There always exists a steady solution, $\bm{\omega}(0)=(0,0,\mathrm{const.})^{t}$ and $\bm{u}(0) = (0,0,-1)^{t}$, and Bondi [@Bondi1986] has shown that for the steady direction, this solution is linearly stable for $n < n_{c1}<0$, where $n_{c1} (<0)$ is given by $$n_{c1}^2 \equiv \frac{g}{a}\frac{-(1-\theta)(1-\phi)}{2-(\theta+\phi) - (\alpha + \beta - \gamma)(\theta + \phi - 2\theta\phi)}. \label{eq:def-nc1}$$ When the denominator of Eq. (\[eq:def-nc1\]) is positive, such a threshold does not actually exist, and the steady solution is always unstable. Note that $n_{c1}$ does not depend on $\xi$.
In Fig. \[fig:krtr\], the filled triangles show the fraction of samples whose $|n_{c1}|$ is smaller than $|n_{i}|$, which should correspond with the ratio of Type SS. For $|\omega_{xy0}|=0.001\,\tilde{\omega}$, all samples whose $|n_{c1}|$ is smaller than $|n_{i}|$ actually show Type SS behaviors and vice versa. On the other hand, for $|\omega_{xy0}|=0.1\,\tilde{\omega}$, there are some samples whose $|n_{c1}|$ is smaller than $|n_{i}|$ yet do not show Type SS behavior; for $n_i = -0.3 \,\tilde{\omega}$, there are only several Type SS samples out of 8000 samples, which cannot be seen in Fig. \[fig:krtr\](a), and for $|n_i| \gtrsim 0.4\,\tilde{\omega}$, the fractions of Type SS for $|\omega_{xy0}|=0.1\,\tilde{\omega}$ are smaller than those for $|\omega_{xy0}|=0.001\,\tilde{\omega}$. This may be because $|\omega_{xy0}|=0.1\,\tilde{\omega}$ is not small perturbation, and the spin might have escaped from the basin of attractor of Type SS behavior.
Last we consider the Type SW samples. The time when the spin starts to wobble roughly corresponds with $t_{rs}$ of Type R in Fig. \[fig:krtr-2\]; the center of wobbling $n_{w}$ and its amplitude vary from sample to sample. As in the case of Type R, there are some samples which start to wobble after several times of $t_{rGH-}$ where $K_{r} \ll 0.1$. Wobbling behaviors of such samples are similar to those which start wobbling around $t_{rGH-}$. We remark that there are two qualitatively different Type SW behaviors. When $|n_i| \lesssim
0.4\,\tilde{\omega}$, the spin of Type SW sample oscillates almost periodically. However, when $n_i = -0.5\,\tilde{\omega}$ and $K_{r} \ll
0.1$, we find some samples that show “chaotic" oscillations as an example shown in Fig \[fig:krtr\](b-3).
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In the present work, we study the minimal model for the rattleback dynamics, i.e., a spinning rigid body with a no-slip contact ignoring any form of dissipation. We have reduced the original dynamics to the simplified dynamics (\[eq:diff-ne-1\])–(\[eq:diff-ne-3\]) with the three variables. The assumptions and/or approximations used in the derivation are (1) the amplitudes of the oscillations are small, (2) the coupling between the spin and the oscillations does not depend on the spin, and (3) the time scale for the spin change is much longer than the oscillation periods. It is interesting to note that the last assumption is apparently analogous to that used in the derivation of an adiabatic invariant for some systems under slow change of an external parameter if the spin variable is regarded as a slow parameter. In the present case with this separation of time scales, the dynamics conserves the “Casimir invariant" $C_{I}$ of Eq. (\[eq:casimir\]).
Our simplified dynamics can be compared with some previous works. Based on Bondi’s formulation [@Bondi1986], Case and Jalal obtained the growth rates $\delta_{x}$ and $\delta_{y}$ of the pitching and the rolling amplitudes around the $x$ and $y$ axes, respectively, at a small constant spin and small skewness [@Case2014]. Their results can be expressed as $$\delta_{x} = \frac{n}{2}K_{p},\label{eq:case-instab1}\quad
\delta_{y} = -\frac{n}{2}K_{r},$$ using our notations. The factor $1/2$ comes from the choice of the variables; they chose the contact point co-ordinates, while we choose the oscillation energies, which are second order quantities of their variables.
Moffatt and Tokieda [@MoffattTokieda2008] obtained equations for the oscillation amplitudes of pitching and rolling, $P$ and $R$, and the spinning $S$ for small spin and skewness as $$\frac{d}{d\tau}
\begin{pmatrix} P \\ R \\ S\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix} R \\ \lambda P \\ 0\end{pmatrix}\times
\begin{pmatrix} P \\ R \\ S\end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix} \lambda PS \\ -RS \\ R^2 - \lambda P^2\end{pmatrix}
, \label{eq:toki-prs}$$ where $\tau$ is rescaled time, and $\lambda$ is the squared ratio of the pitch frequency to the roll frequency. Equation (\[eq:toki-prs\]) is equivalent with Eqs. (\[eq:diff-ne-1\])–(\[eq:diff-ne-3\]); again the difference comes from choice of the variables. The mathematical structures of Eq. (\[eq:toki-prs\]) have been investigated recently in more detail by Yoshida *et al.* [@Yoshida2016] in connection with the Casimir invariant and chaotic behavior of the original dynamics.
![\[fig:periodic\] Three types of spin behaviors after the first reversal period in the small spin regime with $n_{i} =
0.1\tilde{\omega}$, $|\omega_{xy0}|=0.01\tilde{\omega}$. (a) A quasi-periodic behavior with the parameter set GH ($\theta = 0.6429$), (b) a chaotic behavior with $\theta = 0.82$, (c) a quasi-periodic behavior with a period shorter than the first one with $\theta =
0.9$. All the other parameters for (b) and (c) are the same as GH. The dashed lines show the spin evolutions for the corresponding simplified dynamics, where $\overline{E}_p(0) = Ma^2[\alpha (|\omega_{xy0}|\cos\psi_{p})^2 + \beta (|\omega_{xy0}|\sin\psi_{p})^2]/2$, $\overline{E}_r(0) = 3\times10^{-5}Ma^2\tilde{\omega}^2$, and $\overline{n}(0) = n_{i}$.](9r.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
After the first round of spin reversals, our simplified dynamics (\[eq:diff-ne-1\])–(\[eq:diff-ne-3\]) repeats itself and shows periodic behavior as well as the dynamics studied by Moffatt and Tokieda Eq. (\[eq:toki-prs\]) because the system with only three variables has two conservatives, i.e., the total energy and the Casimir invariant. However, the Casimir invariant is an approximate one in the original dynamics, and invariant only under the approximations given at the beginning of this section. The Casimir “invariant” actually varies and the original system shows aperiodic behaviors.
A few examples for longer time evolutions of spin $n(t)$ are given in Fig. \[fig:periodic\] for the system with the parameter set GH except for the curvature in the rolling direction $\theta=0.6429$ (a) for GH, $0.82$ (b), and $0.9$ (c) along with those by the corresponding simplified dynamics. The first example (a) almost shows a periodic spin reversal behavior as is expected by the simplified dynamics. It is, however, only quasi-periodic with fluctuating periodicity. The second example (b) does not show a periodic behavior; the initial spin reversal till $t/\tilde t\approx 100$ is nearly the same with (a), but after the time of the second spin reversal around $t/\tilde t\approx 3000$, it turns into chaotic, deviating from the simplified dynamics. The third example (c) may look similar to (a) but is peculiar; it shows a quasi-periodic behavior after the initial round of spin reversals, and its periodicity is much shorter than that by the simplified dynamics.
The simplified dynamics seems to work reasonably well for the case of smaller $\theta$ in (a) but fails for larger $\theta$ close to $1$ in (b) and (c). This indicates that the approximations or assumptions used to derive the simplified dynamics are not valid for the larger curvature in the rolling direction $\theta$; as the radius of curvature $1/\theta$ becomes small and close to 1, i.e., the height of the center of mass, the restoration force for the rolling oscillation becomes weak. This should result in the rolling oscillation with larger amplitude and the slower frequency, thus the assumptions (1) and (3) given at the beginning of this section may not be good enough. The fact that the system shows a different behavior after the first round of spin reversals is reminiscent of the existence of attractors, which is normally prohibited in a conserving system by Liouville theorem. In the present system, however, the theorem is invalidated by the non-holonomic constraint due to the no-slip condition Eq. (\[eq:no-slip\]) [^2]. As mentioned already, the existence of strange attractors in an energy conserving system with a non-holonomic constraint has been studied by Borizov et al. [@Borisov2014], and chaotic behavior in the rattleback system has been discussed in connection with the Casimir invariant by Yoshida *et al.* [@Yoshida2016].
Summary and conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
======================
We have performed the theoretical analysis and numerical simulations on the minimal model of rattleback. By reformulating Garcia and Hubbard’s theory [@GarciaHubbard1988], we obtained the concise expressions for the asymmetric torque coefficients, Eqs. (\[eq:Kp\]) and (\[eq:Kr\]), gave the compact proof to the fact that the pitching and the rolling generate the torques with the opposite sign, and reduced the original dynamics to the three-variable dynamics by a physically transparent procedure.
Our expressions for the asymmetric torque coefficients are equivalent to those by Garcia and Hubbard, but we explicitly elucidate that the ratio of the two coefficient for the pitching and the rolling oscillation is proportional to the squared ratio of those frequencies. Since the pitching frequency is significantly higher than that of the rolling for a typical rattleback, the time for reversal to one spin direction (or unsteady direction) is much shorter than that to the other direction (or steady direction); the spin reversal for the latter direction is not usually observed in a real rattleback due to dissipation.
The simulations on the original dynamics for various parameter sets demonstrate that Garcia-Hubbard formulas for the first spin reversal time (\[eq:trgh-p\]) and (\[eq:trgh-m\]) are good in the case of small initial spin and small oscillation for both the unsteady and the steady directions. The deviation from the formula is especially large for the steady direction in the fast initial spin and small $K_r$ regime, where the rattleback may not reverse and shows a variety of dynamics, that includes steady spinning, periodic and chaotic wobbling.
In conclusion, the rattleback is simple but shows fascinatingly rich dynamics, and keeps attracting physicists’ attention.
[29]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, Master’s thesis, , ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , in **, paper DETC97/VIB-4103 (ASME, ).
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , **, 3rd ed. (, New York, ).
Note1,
, , , ().
Note2,
[^1]: Note that in the atypical case of $\omega_{p0}<\omega_{r0}$, i.e. the pitching is slower than the rolling, we have $\omega_p\approx\omega_{r0}$ and $\omega_r\approx\omega_{p0}$ for $|\xi|\ll 1$ because $\omega_p>\omega_r$ by Eq. (\[ineq:omega\_pr\]).
[^2]: The no-slip condition should be violated in the situations where the ratio of the vertical and the inplane components of the contact force, i.e., $F_{\parallel}\equiv\bm F\cdot\bm u$ and $F_{\perp}\equiv|\bm{F} -
(\bm{F}\cdot \bm{u})\bm u|$, exceeds the friction coefficient. The ratio $F_\perp/F_\parallel$ becomes large when the angular momentum around $\bm u$ changes. In the cases given in Fig. \[fig:periodic\], its largest value is around 0.2.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Optical absorption spectra of Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair center in KZnF$_{3}$:Cr$^{3+}$,Cr$^{2+}$ crystal were investigated in wide temperature range. Broad band at 30800 cm$^{-1}$ is attributed to cation-cation $e_g$-electron transfer transition. Narrow lines with maxima at 16720 cm$^{-1}$ and 19880 cm$^{-1}$ have been assigned to purely electronic exchange-induced electric-dipole transitions from the ground (Cr$^{3+}$,$^4A_{2g}$;Cr$^{2+}$,$^5E_g$) state to excited (Cr$^{3+}$,$^4A_{2g}$;Cr$^{2+}$,$^3E_g^a$) and (Cr$^{3+}$,$^4A_{2g}$;Cr$^{2+}$,$^3E_g^b$) states, respectively. It’s vibronic satellites corresponding to $a_{1g}$ local mode of Cr$^{3+}$ fluorine octahedron of the pair are also observed. Energy of the local mode for the ground and mentioned excited states are 580, 540 and 530 cm$^{-1}$. Instead of expected double exchange for mixed valence pair ferromagnetic superexchange for Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair in KZnF$_{3}$ crystal is realized. Exchange integral $J=-14.9\pm0.4$ cm$^{-1}$ and Jahn-Teller splitting $\Delta_{JT}=340\pm40$ cm$^{-1}$ for the ground state of the pair were obtained by analysis of the temperature dependence of absorption lines. Important features of the crossover double exchange - ferromagnetic superexchange are discussed.'
address: 'Kazan State University, Kremlevskaya 18, 420008 Kazan, Russia'
author:
- 'M.V.Eremin, S.I.Nikitin, S.Yu.Prosvirnin,'
- 'N.I.Silkin, R.V.Yusupov'
title:
- 'Optical studies of Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair center in KZnF$_{3}$ crystal'
- Figure captions
---
[^1]
D. Exchange and superexchange, D. Valence fluctuations, D. Electronic states (localized). E. Light absorption and reflection
PACS: 87.64.Ni, 75.30.Et, 75.30.Mb
Introduction
============
Investigations of dynamic charge fluctuations in compounds like La$_{2-x}$Sr$_{x}$CuO$_{4}$, NaV$_{2}$O$_{5}$, La$_{1-x}$Ca$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$ are in the focus of condensed matter physics. Physical essence of charge-spin dynamics in these systems in our opinion can be revealed to some extent by investigations of simple model mixed valence systems containing small number of ions, the Hamiltonian of which may be solved exactly. For example in the small polaron theory [@ref4; @ref5] undoubtedly having relationship to this problem main characteristics are introduced in the two-site model.
In [@ref6; @ref7; @ref8] we have reported the observation of the optical absorption lines of Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ mixed valence pair center in KZnF$_{3}$:Cr$^{3+}$,Cr$^{2+}$ crystals (Fig.1,a). Optical piezospectroscopy investigations have shown that symmetry of the pair is tetragonal. The most plausible model is that chromium ions are located in neighboring sites along $C_4$-axis of crystal. Observation of linear Stark effect on the absorption lines of Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair [@ref8] yields evidence that the pair doesn’t have center of symmetry at studied time scale.
In this paper we report the energy level structure of the ground state of the pair. Several important characteristics as exchange integral, energy of e$_{g}$-electron localization, frequencies of local lattice vibrations near the pair center have been obtained. We also point out important features of the crossover double exchange - ferromagnetic superexchange in the ground state of Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair.
Results and discussion
======================
Symmetry of KZnF$_{3}$ crystals is [*Pm3m*]{}, lattice constant is [*a*]{}=4.055 Å. The samples were grown by Bridgman-Stockbarger method, for crystals doping CrF$_{3}$ and CrF$_{2}$ compounds were used. The concentrations of chromium ions were varied in the range 0.1$\div$2 wt.%. The concentrations of Cr$^{3+}$ and Cr$^{2+}$ ions in crystals were determined by measuring of absorption coefficients of the bands corresponding to $^{4}A_{2g}\rightarrow^{4}T_{2g}$ (14930 cm$^{-1}$) and $^{5}E_{g}\rightarrow^{5}T_{2g}$ (11900 cm$^{-1}$) transitions of single ions, respectively.
Absorption spectra were measured on the Specord-M40 spectrophotometer. For investigations of absorption spectra in temperature range 4.2$\div$300 K Oxford Instruments CF-1204 optical cryostat was used.
Absorption spectrum of KZnF$_{3}$:Cr$^{3+}$,Cr$^{2+}$ crystal with dopant’s concentrations n(Cr$^{3+}$)= 1.8$\cdot$10$^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ and n(Cr$^{2+}$)=9.2$\cdot$10$^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ is presented in Fig.2,a. On the wing of very intense band at $>$50000 cm$^{-1}$ a wide band at $\sim$43000 cm$^{-1}$ with the halfwidth $\sim$7000 cm$^{-1}$ is observed. Studies of crystals containing various concentrations of Cr$^{3+}$ and Cr$^{2+}$ ions have displayed that intensities of these bands depend on concentration of Cr$^{2+}$ ions only. Absorption bands observed at 59000 cm$^{-1}$ and 46300 cm$^{-1}$ in the spectrum of KMgF$_{3}$:Cr$^{2+}$ crystal were assigned to transitions from $3d$ to $4p$ and $4s$ states of Cr$^{2+}$ ions, respectively [@ref9; @ref10]. Since KMgF$_{3}$ crystal is isostructural to KZnF$_{3}$ it is natural to conclude that absorption bands of KZnF$_{3}$:Cr$^{3+}$,Cr$^{2+}$ crystal at $>$50000 cm$^{-1}$ and $\sim$43000 cm$^{-1}$ should be attributed to $3d\rightarrow4p$ and $3d\rightarrow4s$ transitions of single Cr$^{2+}$ ions, respectively.
In crystals with bigger concentrations of Cr$^{3+}$ ions (absorption spectrum of a sample with n(Cr$^{3+}$)=1.3$\cdot$10$^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$ and n(Cr$^{2+}$)=7.3$\cdot$10$^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ is shown in Fig.2,b) additional absorption band at 30800 cm$^{-1}$ with the halfwidth $\sim$7000 cm$^{-1}$ (except of well known $d-d$ transitions of single Cr$^{3+}$ ions [@ref16]) has been observed. Intensity of this band correlates to intensities of absorption lines of Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair center in the visible (Fig.1,a). It’s oscillator strength to our estimates is $f\sim10^{-1}$. These facts allowed us to assign absorption band with $\nu_{max}\sim30800$ cm$^{-1}$ to charge-transfer transition (Cr$^{2+}$, $t_{2g}^{3},e_{g}:$ $^{5}$E$_{g}$; Cr$^{3+}$, $t_{2g}^{3}:$ $^{4}$A$_{2g}$)$\rightarrow$ (Cr$^{3+}$, $t_{2g}^{3}:$ $^{4}$A$_{2g}$; Cr$^{2+}$, $t_{2g}^{3},e_{g}:$ $^{5}$E$_{g}$) of Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair center.
High energy of this transition reveals strong interaction of the pair center with the lattice. Indeed, let us consider the small polaron two-site model [@ref4; @ref5] taking into account the appropriate electronic states of Cr$^{3+}$ and Cr$^{2+}$ ions. Hamiltonian of the system in the second quantization form is written as: $$\label{Hamilton}
\hat{H}=\frac{p^{2}}{M}+\frac{M\omega^{2}}{2}q^{2}+
\frac{Vq}{2}(a^{+}a-b^{+}b)+t(a^{+}b+b^{+}a),$$ where [*q*]{} is a vibrational coordinate describing the difference in local surrounding displacements corresponding to the localization of “extra” [*e$_{g}$*]{}-electron at a or b Cr$^{3+}$ ion: $$\label{Qs}
q=Q_{a}-Q_{b},$$ [*p*]{} - momentum canonically conjugated to coordinate [*q*]{}; [*V*]{} is a parameter of linear vibronic interaction with [*Q$_{a}$*]{} and [*Q$_{b}$*]{} modes of fluorine octahedra of a and b ions; [*a, a$^{+}$, b, b$^{+}$*]{} - creation and annihilation operators of [*e$_{g}$*]{}-electron at ions a and b, respectively; [*t*]{} is a transfer integral.
In the case [*q=0*]{}, Hamiltonian (\[Hamilton\]) corresponds to usual double exchange, it’s diagonalization was described in [@ref11]. Energy level scheme of the system depends on total spin of the pair and is equidistant: $$\label{DE}
\varepsilon(S)=\pm\tilde{t}(S+\frac{1}{2}),$$ where $\tilde{t}=t/(2S_0+1)$ , [*S$_{0}$*]{} is ion core spin. In our case the ion core is $(t_{2g}^3:^4A_{2g})$ and [*S$_{0}$*]{}=3/2.
For [*q$\neq$0*]{}, diagonalization of (\[Hamilton\]) gives the following expression for adiabatic potentials: $$\label{Adiab}
E^{\pm}(q,S_{0})=\frac{M\omega^{2}q^{2}}{4}\pm
\sqrt{\frac{V^{2}q^{2}}{4}+\varepsilon^{2}(S_{0})}.$$ As one can see, when $\varepsilon(S)\gg Vq$ the adiabatic potential has a minimum at $q=0$. This case corresponds to modified double exchange, the energy spectrum is still equidistant. If the vibronic energy is larger than $\varepsilon(S)$ the adiabatic potential has two wells as it is shown in Fig.3 (vertical arrow indicates possible charge-transfer transition). This case corresponds to partial localization of “extra” $e_g$-electron at a or b centers. For adiabatic potential in Fig.3 the following set of parameters was used: the transfer integral between $(3z^2-r^2)$ orbitals via intermediate fluorine ion $t_{uu}=2400$ cm$^{-1}$ as it is found in [@ref12] from analysis of the optical spectra of exchange-coupled Cu$^{2+}$-Mn$^{2+}$ pairs in KZnF$_{3}$ crystal, $V$ was obtained from the energy of charge-transfer transition $Vq_0$=30800 cm$^{-1}$, where $q_0$ is equilibrium coordinate, $\hbar\omega=580$ cm$^{-1}$ and will be explained below.
In the minima of adiabatic potentials $e_g$-electron is mainly localized at one of the ions of the pair. Energy spectrum corresponding to minima of adiabatic potentials obeys Lande intervals rule $$\label{Lande}
E^{-}(q_{0},S)-E^{-}(q_{0},S-1)\approx-\frac{2\tilde{t}^{2}}
{Vq_{0}}S,$$ and hence can be described as superexchange.
We can say that electron-lattice interaction suppresses double exchange modifying it to ferromagnetic superexchange. As it can be easily seen from (\[Adiab\]), crossover double exchange - ferromagnetic superexchange happens rather sharply with vibronic coupling increase. These features of crossover haven’t been mentioned in literature before but are very important in our opinion.
The intensities of absorption lines 1 ($\nu_{max}$=16720 cm$^{-1}$, Fig.1), 2 (19880), 1$^{\prime}$ (17260), 2$^{\prime}$ (20410), 1$^{\prime\prime}$ (16140) and 2$^{\prime\prime}$ (19300) are proportional to the product of Cr$^{3+}$ and Cr$^{2+}$ ions concentrations and therefore these lines were assigned to Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair center [@ref6]. The estimate of oscillator strengths of lines 1 and 2 as $f\sim5\cdot10^{-4}$ shows that these lines can be attributed to electric-dipole transitions. Analysis of exchange-induced electric-dipole transitions of Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair center[^2] including relative intensities and selection rules according to [@ref13] permits us to unambiguously assign lines 1 and 2 to purely electronic transitions from the ground (Cr$^{3+}$:$^{4}$A$_{2g}$; Cr$^{2+}$:$^{5}$E$_{g}$) to excited (Cr$^{3+}$:$^{4}$A$_{2g}$; Cr$^{2+}$:$^{3}$E$_g^a$) and (Cr$^{3+}$:$^{4}$A$_{2g}$; Cr$^{2+}$:$^{3}$E$_g^b$) states, respectively. These excited states have nearly the same electronic configurations (Cr$^{3+}$,$t_{2g}^{3}$; Cr$^{2+}$,$t_{2g}^{3}e_g$) as the ground state, total spin is changed only. As a consequence the adiabatic potentials of the ground and given excited states are almost identical. In this way we explain why the absorption lines 1 and 2 are narrow.
Lines 1$^{\prime}$ and 2$^{\prime}$ are observed in the spectrum equal energy intervals apart from lines 1 and 2. Their temperature dependencies are within a constant factor the same as those for lines 1 and 2 (Fig.4). To the lower energies from absorption lines 1 and 2 lines 1$^{\prime\prime}$ and 2$^{\prime\prime}$ clearly displayed in the derivative of absorption spectrum (Fig.1, b) at T$=300$ K are observed. These lines disappear when temperature is lowered to T$\sim150$ K (Fig.1, c) and therefore can be assigned to transitions including excited vibronic states. Lines 1$^{\prime}$ and 2$^{\prime}$ correspond to transitions with $\Delta{n}=1$, where $n$ is vibrational quantum number, lines 1$^{\prime\prime}$ and 2$^{\prime\prime}$ - to transitions with $\Delta{n}=-1$. Energies of vibronic modes for the ground and the excited states can be easily determined from spectrum and are equal to $\hbar\omega_g$=580$\pm$20 cm$^{-1}$, $\hbar\omega_1$=540$\pm$20 cm$^{-1}$ and $\hbar\omega_2$=530$\pm$20 cm$^{-1}$, respectively. It is interesting to point that $\hbar\omega_g$ is equal to the energy of local vibration mode of $a_{1g}$ symmetry as it is reported for single Cr$^{3+}$ ion in KZnF$_{3}$ crystal (574 cm$^{-1}$, [@ref14]). This fact allows us to conclude that $Q_a$ and $Q_b$ in (\[Qs\]) are mainly “breathing” modes of the fluorine octahedra near the ions of the pair. It should be mentioned that condensation of local vibration due to localization of extra charge on the lattice site was expected and discussed in theory (see for example [@ref5]), but to our knowledge we report here their so clear experimental observation for the first time.
Intensities of absorption lines 1, 2, 1$^{\prime}$ and 2$^{\prime}$ depend strongly on temperature. They are not observable at T$<$15 K. When temperature increases intensities of these lines grow, show up a maximum at T$\sim$150 K and decrease slowly with further temperature increase (Fig.4). Strong temperature dependence of absorption lines of Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair center in the temperature range T$<$120 K can be naturally explained by ferromagnetic type of exchange interaction in the ground state. In this case total spin state with S=$\frac{7}{2}$ is the ground state. Electric-dipole transitions from this sublevel obeying the selection rule $\Delta{S}=0$ are forbidden because in excited states (Cr$^{3+}$:$^{4}$A$_{2g}$;Cr$^{2+}$:$^{3}$E$_{g}^{a,b}$) of the pair states with S=$\frac{7}{2}$ are absent. Absorption appears due to thermal occupation of the excited states with S=$\frac{5}{2}$, $\frac{3}{2}$ and $\frac{1}{2}$.
The quantitative analysis of temperature dependence of absorption lines was successfully performed under following conclusions. The localization energy (or polaronic shift) $Vq_0/4\sim7700$ cm$^{-1}$ is large enough with respect to $e_g$-electron transfer energy and as a result we have the case of ferromagnetic superexchange instead of expected double exchange. This conclusion is supported by the observation in absorption spectrum of vibronic satellites. Transitions from excited vibronic sublevel were also taken into account. Parameters $Vq_0$ and $t_{uu}$ for this state were taken the same as for the ground vibronic state. The splittings of the ground state spin multiplets $S=\frac{7}{2}$, $S=\frac{5}{2}$ and $S=\frac{3}{2}$ due to spin-orbit interaction and axial component of crystal field are small in respect to exchange splittings [@ref15] and were neglected. Relative probabilities of transitions from different total spin states were found in [@ref6]: $$W(\frac{5}{2}):W(\frac{3}{2}):W(\frac{1}{2})=21:16:5.$$ Result of the fit within the proposed model is shown in Fig.4 by dashed line. For the temperature range T$<$120 K observed temperature dependence is fairly well fitted, but at higher temperatures significant disagreement appears. This disagreement hints at the importance of Jahn-Teller nature of \[CrF$_6$\]$^{4-}$ fragment of the pair center, which was not treated here up to now. Due to the presence of Cr$^{3+}$ ion in the pair center three minima of adiabatic potential of \[CrF$_6$\]$^{4-}$ cluster have different energies. Minimum corresponding to elongation of the octahedron towards Cr$^{3+}$ ion is the deepest, $e_g$-electron resides at $(3z^2-r^2)$ orbital. Other two minima which correspond to perpendicular elongations of fluorine octahedron are equivalent and a little bit higher in energy (energy gap between the minima is $\Delta_{JT}$). It is obvious that the transfer integral between $(3x^2-r^2)$ and $(3y^2-r^2)$ orbitals of chromium ions due to their small overlapping with $p$-orbitals of intermediate F$^-$ ion will be much smaller than that for $(3z^2-r^2)$ orbital. For this reason exchange splitting of these Jahn-Teller states will be relatively small. Since $e_g-e_g$ kinetic exchange is the main mechanism of the exchange-induced optical absorption, it is clear that described Jahn-Teller excited states do not contribute to absorption spectrum. The excited state at energy $\Delta_{JT}$ is forty-fold degenerate. It’s thermal occupation yields to the drop of absorption lines intensities at T$>$150 K.
Final fit of the temperature dependence including Jahn-Teller states as considered above is shown in Fig.4 by solid line. The values of extracted parameters are: $J=-14.9\pm0.4$ cm$^{-1}$, $\Delta_{JT}=$340$\pm$40 cm$^{-1}$. As one can see, fitting curve fairly well follows experimental dependence in the whole temperature range.
Summary
=======
Main results of the paper can be summarized as follows. Absorption band with $\nu_{max}\sim30800$ cm$^{-1}$ in KZnF$_3$:Cr$^{3+}$,Cr$^{2+}$ crystal spectrum corresponds to cation-cation charge-transfer transition from Cr$^{2+}$ ion to Cr$^{3+}$. Large charge-transfer energy reveals high degree of extra charge localization at one of the ions of the pair caused by strong vibronic interaction. Energy of charge localization (or polaronic shift) is 7700 cm$^{-1}$. Absorption lines of Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair at 16720 cm$^{-1}$ and 19880 cm$^{-1}$ are associated with Cr$^{2+}$ ion excitation from the ground $^5$E$_g$ to excited $^3$E$_g^a$ and $^3$E$_g^b$ states. Energies of local vibrations in the ground and excited states of the pair are found to be 580$\pm$20 cm$^{-1}$, 540$\pm$20 cm$^{-1}$, 530$\pm$20 cm$^{-1}$, respectively.
Temperature dependence of integral intensities of absorption lines has been investigated. The evidence of Jahn-Teller effect in Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair has been found; energy gap between Jahn-Teller minima of adiabatic potential of the pair center has been estimated as $\Delta_{JT}=340\pm40$ cm$^{-1}$.
Important features of transitive region from double exchange to superexchange are pointed out. In particular it has been demonstrated that strong vibronic interaction in mixed valence pair center leads to crossover double exchange - ferromagnetic superexchange. Exchange integral for the ground state is $J=-14.9\pm0.4$ cm$^{-1}$.
The work was supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Researches, grant No.00-02-17597.
[999]{}
A.S. Alexandrov, N.F. Mott, [*Polarons and Bipolarons*]{}. World Scientific, Singapore, 1995.
A.Yu. Firsov, [*Polarons*]{}. Nauka, Moscow, 1975 \[[*in russian*]{}\].
M.V. Eremin, S.I. Nikitin, N.I. Silkin, A.I. Tsvetkov, R.V. Yusupov, [*SPIE Proc.*]{} [**2706**]{} (1996) 50.
M.V. Eremin, S.I. Nikitin, N.I. Silkin, S.Yu. Prosvirnin, R.V.Yusupov, [*JETP*]{}, [**87**]{} (1998) 771.
S.I. Nikitin, R.V. Yusupov, M.V. Eremin, N.I. Silkin, S.Yu. Prosvirnin, [*JETP Lett.*]{}, [**68**]{} (1998) 160.
J.F. Sabatini, A.E. Salwin, D.S. McClure [*Phys. Rev. B*]{}, [**11**]{} (1975) 3832.
J. Simonetti, D.S. McClure, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**16**]{} (1977) 3887.
U.Brauch, U.DØrr, [*Opt. Commun.*]{} [**49**]{} (1984) 61.
P.W. Anderson, H. Hasegawa, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**100**]{} (1955) 675.
M.V. Eremin, Yu.V. Rakitin, [*J. Phys. C*]{} [**14**]{} (1981) 247.
M.V.Eremin, S.I.Nikitin, R.V.Yusupov [*et al.*]{}, [*to be published*]{}.
Y. Tanabe, T. Moriya, S. Sugano, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**15**]{} (1965) 1023.
Y. Vaills, J.Y. Buzare, M. Rousseau, [*J. Phys.: Condens. Matter*]{} [**2**]{} (1990) 3997.
Fig.1. Absorption spectrum of KZnF$_3$:Cr$^{3+}$,Cr$^{2+}$ crystal at $T=300$ K (a); derivatives of absorption spectra at $T=300$ K (b) and $T=150$ K (c).
Fig.2. Absorption spectra of KZnF$_3$:Cr$^{3+}$,Cr$^{2+}$ crystals with chromium ions concentrations n(Cr$^{3+}$)=$1.8\cdot10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$, n(Cr$^{2+}$)=$9.2\cdot10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ (a,1) and n(Cr$^{3+}$)=$1.3\cdot10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$, n(Cr$^{2+}$)=$7.3\cdot10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ (b,1); $T=300$ K. Curves a,2 and b,2 are results of subtraction of the wing of absorption band with $\nu_{max}>50000$ cm$^{-1}$ (dashed line) and $d-d$ bands of Cr$^{3+}$ ions.
Fig.3. Adiabatic potential for Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair center in KZnF$_3$ crystal; charge-transfer transition is shown by the arrow.
Fig.4. Temperature dependence of integral intensity of Cr$^{3+}$-Cr$^{2+}$ pair absorption line at 16720 cm$^{-1}$ and its fitting by the models of the ground state with (a) and without (b) taking into account Jahn-Teller interaction.
[^1]: Corresponding author: Prof. M.V. Eremin, Kazan State University, Kremlevskaya 18, 420008 Kazan, Russia. E-mail: [email protected]; phone: (007 8432) 315116.
[^2]: Detailed analysis of transitions exceeds the limits of present work and will be reported elsewhere [@ref15]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Let $M$ be a $2\times2$ real matrix with both eigenvalues less than 1 in modulus. Consider two self-affine contraction maps from $\mathbb R^2 \to \mathbb R^2$, $$T_m(v) = M v - u \ \ \mathrm{and}\ \ T_p(v) = M v + u,$$ where $u\neq0$. We are interested in the properties of the attractor of the iterated function system (IFS) generated by $T_m$ and $T_p$, i.e., the unique non-empty compact set $A$ such that $A = T_m(A) \cup T_p(A)$. Our two main results are as follows:
- If both eigenvalues of $M$ are between $2^{-1/4}\approx 0.8409$ and $1$ in absolute value, and the IFS is non-degenerate, then $A$ has non-empty interior.
- For almost all non-degenerate IFS, the set of points which have a unique address is of positive Hausdorff dimension – with the exceptional cases fully described as well.
This paper continues our work begun in [@HS].
address:
- |
Department of Pure Mathematics\
University of Waterloo\
Waterloo, Ontario\
Canada N2L 3G1
- |
School of Mathematics\
The University of Manchester\
Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL\
United Kingdom.
author:
- 'Kevin G. Hare'
- Nikita Sidorov
title: 'Two-dimensional self-affine sets with interior points, and the set of uniqueness'
---
[^1] [^2]
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Consider two self-affine linear contraction maps $T_m, T_p: {\mathbb{R}}^2 \to {\mathbb{R}}^2$: $$\label{eq:main}
T_m(v) = M v - u \ \ \mathrm{and}\ \ T_p(v) = M v + u,$$ where $M$ is a $2\times2$ real matrix with both eigenvalues less than 1 in modulus and $u\neq0$. Here “$m$” is for “minus” and “$p$” is for “plus”. We are interested in the iterated function system (IFS) generated by $T_m$ and $T_p$. Then, as is well known, there exists a unique non-empty compact set $A$ such that $A = T_m(A) \cup T_p(A)$.
The properties that we are interested in (non-empty interior of $A$ and the set of uniqueness) do not change if we consider a conjugate of $T_m$ and $T_p$. That is, if we consider $g \circ T_i \circ g^{-1}$ instead of the $T_i$ where $g$ is any invertible linear map from ${\mathbb{R}}^2 \to {\mathbb{R}}^2$. As such, we can assume that $M$ is a $2 \times 2$ matrix in one of three forms: $$\begin{pmatrix} {\lambda}& 0 \\ 0 & \mu \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} \nu & 1 \\ 0 & \nu \end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ -b & a \end{pmatrix}.$$
We will call the first of these [*the real case*]{}, the second [*the Jordan block case*]{}, and the last [*the complex case*]{}.
We will say that the IFS is [*degenerate*]{} if it is restricted to a one-dimensional subspace of ${\mathbb{R}}^2$. This will occur if any of the eigenvalues are $0$. It will also occur if ${\lambda}= \mu$ in the real case, or (equivalently) if $b = 0$ in the complex case. If our IFS is non-degenerate, then $u$ can be chosen to be a cyclic vector for $M$, i.e., such that the span of $\{M^n u \mid n\ge0\}$ is all of $\mathbb R^2$ (which we will assume henceforth).
In [@HS] the authors studied the real case with ${\lambda}, \mu > 0$. Properties of the complex case have been studied extensively since the seminal paper [@BH] - see, e.g., [@Cal] and references therein. Note that most authors concentrate on the connectedness locus, i.e., pairs $(a,b)$ such that the attractor $A$ is connected.
In the present paper we study all three of the above cases, allowing us to make general claims. Our main result is
\[thm:interior\] If all eigenvalues of $M$ are between $2^{-1/4} \approx 0.8409$ and $1$ in absolute value, and the IFS is non-degenerate, then the attractor of the IFS has non-empty interior. More precisely,
- If $0.832 < {\lambda}< \mu < 1$ then $A_{{\lambda}, \mu}$, the attractor for the (positive) real case, has non-empty interior [@HS Corollary 1.3].
- If $2^{-1/2} \approx 0.707 < {\lambda}< \mu < 1$ then $A_{-{\lambda}, \mu}$, the attractor for the (mixed) real case, has non-empty interior.
- If $0.832 < \nu < 1$ then $A_{\nu}$, the attractor for the Jordan block case, has non-empty interior.
- If $2^{-1/4} \approx 0.841 < |\kappa| < 1$ with $\kappa = a+ b i \not\in {\mathbb{R}}$ then $A_{{\kappa}}$, the attractor for the complex case, has non-empty interior.
The remaining three cases are shown in Section \[sec:interior\]. The last case relies upon an argument of V. Kleptsyn [@MO].
Some non-explicit results are known in the complex case. Let $\kappa = a + b i$ and consider the attractor $A'_{\kappa}$ satisfying $A'_{\kappa}= {\kappa}A'_{\kappa}\cup ({\kappa}A'_{\kappa}+ 1)$ which is clearly similar to $A_{\kappa}$.
Let ${\kappa}\not\in {\mathbb{R}}$ be sufficiently close to $1$ in absolute value. Then $A'_{{\kappa}}\supset \{z : |z| \le 1\}$.
Since $A'_{\kappa}$ tends to a segment in $\mathbb R$ as the imaginary part of ${\kappa}$ tends to 0 in the Hausdorff metric (with any fixed real part), it is clear that there cannot be an absolute bound in a result like this. In fact, a detailed analysis of the proof indicates that the actual condition the authors use is $|{\kappa}|>1-C|\arg({\kappa})|$ with some absolute constant $C>0$. That is, “sufficiently close to 1” means “for any $\theta\in(0,\pi)\cup(\pi,2\pi)$ there exists $\delta$ such that $A_{\kappa}$ contains the closed unit disc for all ${\kappa}$ with $\arg({\kappa})=\theta$ and $|{\kappa}|>1-\delta$” [^3]. Theorem \[thm:interior\] overcomes this obstacle.
Given the two maps $T_m$ and $T_p$, there is a natural projection map from the set of all $\{m,p\}$ sequences to points on $A$. We define $\pi:\{m,p\}^{\mathbb{N}}\to A$ by $\pi(a_0 a_1 a_2 \dots) = \lim_{n\to\infty}T_{a_0} \circ T_{a_1} \circ\dots\circ T_{a_n}(0,0)$. Note that because both $T_m$ and $T_p$ are contraction maps, this yields a well defined point in $A$. We call $a_0a_1\dots$ an [*address*]{} for $(x,y)\in A$ if $\pi(a_0a_1\dots)=(x,y)$. We say that a point $(x,y) \in A$ is a [*point of uniqueness*]{} if it has a unique address.
The question on when this IFS has a large number of points of uniqueness depends somewhat on the nature of the eigenvalues. If $M$ has two complex eigenvalues, $\kappa$ and $\overline\kappa$ where $\mathrm{arg}(\kappa)/\pi \in {\mathbb{Q}}$ then it is possible for the IFS to have a small number of points of uniqueness (see Theorem \[thm:uniq-rational\]). With the exception of this case, all other IFS will have a continuum of points of uniqueness.
Our second result is
\[thm:uniq\] For all non-degenerate IFS not explicitly mentioned in Theorem \[thm:uniq-rational\], the set of points of uniqueness is uncountable, and with positive Hausdorff dimension.
Again, the real case where ${\lambda}>0, \mu > 0$ has been shown in [@HS]. We prove the remaining cases in Section \[sec:unique\].
\[ex:rauzy\]
![Points of uniqueness for the Rauzy fractal[]{data-label="fig:Dragon"}](rauzy-uniq.eps){width="350pt"}
As an example, consider the famous Rauzy fractal introduced in [@Rauzy]. Let ${\kappa}$ be one of the complex roots of $z^3-z^2-z-1$, i.e., ${\kappa}\approx -0.419 + 0.606i$. Consider the attractor $A_{\kappa}$ satisfying $A_{\kappa}= ({\kappa}A_{\kappa}-1) \cup ({\kappa}A_{\kappa}+ 1)$. It follows from the results of [@Mess] that the unique addresses in this case are precisely those which do not contain three consecutive identical symbols.
It is easy to show by induction that the number of $m$-$p$ words of length $n$ with such a property which start with $m$ is the $n$th Fibonacci number. Consequently, the set of unique addresses has topological entropy equal to $\log\tau$, where $\tau=\frac{1+\sqrt5}2$. Hence the Hausdorff dimension of the set of uniqueness is $-\frac{\log{\tau}}{\log{|\kappa|}} \approx 1.579354467$.
See Figure \[fig:Dragon\] for the attractor (grey) and points of uniqueness (black). It is interesting to note that since the Hausdorff dimension of the boundary here is approximately $1.093$ (see [@IK]), “most” points of uniqueness of the Rauzy fractal are interior points, whereas our general construction only uses boundary points - see Section \[sec:unique\].
\[ex:twindragon\]
![The twin dragon curve $A_{\frac{1+i}2}$[]{data-label="fig:twindragon"}](twindragon.eps){width="300pt"}
Another famous complex fractal is the twin dragon curve which in our notation is $A_{\kappa}$ with ${\kappa}=\frac{1+i}2$ – see Figure \[fig:twindragon\]. The grey half corresponds to all points in $A_{\kappa}$ whose address begins with $m$ and the black half – with $p$. Their intersection is a part of the boundary of either half, which has the same Hausdorff dimension as the boundary of $A_{\kappa}$, approximately $1.524$ (see, e.g., [@dragon]).
Clearly, if a point in $A_{\kappa}$ has a non-unique address $a_0a_1\dots$, then $\pi(a_na_{n+1}\dots)$ must lie in the aforementioned intersection for some $n$. This means that the complement of the set of uniqueness in this case has dimension $\approx1.524$; on the other hand, it is well known that $A_{\kappa}$ has non-empty interior (see, e.g. [@Gilbert] and references therein). Consequently, a.e. point of $A_{\kappa}$ has a unique address.
Notation {#sec:notation}
========
For the real case we will consider two subcases. Let $0 < {\lambda}\leq \mu < 1$ and consider $$M = \begin{pmatrix} {\lambda}& 0 \\ 0 & \mu \end{pmatrix}.$$ This we will call the [*positive real case*]{}. This was the case considered in [@HS]. The second subcase is $$M = \begin{pmatrix}-{\lambda}& 0 \\ 0 & \mu \end{pmatrix},$$ which we will call the [*mixed real case*]{}. In both cases we take $u = \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}$, which is clearly cyclic.
In the real positive case, $\pi: \{m,p\}^{\mathbb{N}}\to A_{{\lambda}, \mu}$, we have $\pi(a_0 a_1 a_2 \dots) = \left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}^i, \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i \mu^i\right) \in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, whereas in the real mixed case, $\pi: \{0,1\}^{\mathbb{N}}\to A_{-{\lambda}, \mu}$, we have $$\pi(a_0 a_1 a_2 \dots) = \left( \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i (-{\lambda})^i, \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i \mu^i\right).$$
It is easy to see that all other real cases can be reduced to one of these two. For example, there is a symmetry from $(-{\lambda}, \mu)$ to $({\lambda}, -\mu)$. To see this, write $(x,y) = \left(\sum a_i (-{\lambda})^i, \sum a_i \mu^i\right) \in A_{-{\lambda}, \mu}$. Taking $a'_i = (-1)^i a_i \in \{\pm1\}$ we see that $(x,y) = \left(\sum a'_i {\lambda}^i, \sum a'_i (-\mu)\right) \in A_{{\lambda}, -\mu}$.
For the Jordan block case we will assume that $0 < \nu < 1$. In this case we take $u = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}$, which is, again, clearly a cyclic vector. We have $$\pi(a_0 a_1 a_2 \dots) = \left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty i a_i \nu^{i-1},\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i\nu^i\right)$$ (see Lemma \[lem:jordan-exp\] below). There is a symmetry to the $\nu < 0$ case such that $A_{\nu}$ and $A_{-\nu}$ share all of the desired properties. To see this, write $(x,y) = (\sum i a_i \nu^{i-1} \sum a_i \nu^i) \in A_{-\nu}$. Taking $a'_i = (-1)^i a_i \in \{m, p\}$, we see that $(-x,y) = (\sum a'_i i (-\nu)^i, \sum a'_i (-\nu)) \in A_{-\nu}$. Hence $A_\nu$ and $A_{-\nu}$ are reflections of each other across the $y$-axis.
For the complex case, we let ${\kappa}= a+bi$ and consider $v = \begin{pmatrix} x\\ y \end{pmatrix}$ as $z = x+ yi$. We see that the maps in with $u = \begin{pmatrix}1 \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$, are equivalent to the maps in ${\mathbb{C}}$, namely, $$T_m (z) = {\kappa}z - 1 \ \ \mathrm{or}\ \ T_p(z) = {\kappa}z + 1.$$ In the complex case we have $\pi(a_0 a_1 a_2 \dots) = \sum_{j=0}^\infty a_j \kappa^j \in {\mathbb{C}}$, i.e., the attractor $A_{\kappa}$ is the set of expansions in complex base ${\kappa}$ with “digits” 0 and 1. Note that if ${\kappa}\in {\mathbb{R}}$ then the resulting IFS is real (and degenerate).
Throughout we will refer to $[i_1\dots i_k]$ as the [*cylinder*]{} of all $(a_i)_0^\infty\in\{m,p\}^{\mathbb N}$ such that $a_j = i_j$ for $j = 1, \dots, k$. We note that this is a compact subset of $\{m,p\}^{\mathbb{N}}$ under the usual product topology.
Attractors with interior {#sec:interior}
========================
The first question that we are interested in is, when does $A$ have interior. For the real and Jordan block case we look at a related, albeit somewhat easier, question: when is $(0,0)$ contained in the interior of $A$? We will say that $(-{\lambda}, \mu)$ for the mixed real case is in ${{\mathcal{Z}}}_{\mathbb{R}}$ if $(0,0) \in \mathrm{int}(A_{-{\lambda}, \mu})$. An equivalent definition is given for ${{\mathcal{Z}}}_J$ for the Jordan block case.
In fact, the real case (both mixed and positive) and the Jordan block case are both special cases of a more general result – see Theorem \[thm:tool2\] below.
Consider a contraction matrix $M$ with all real eigenvalues such that any duplicate eigenvalue is within the same Jordan block. That is, let $J_{{\lambda}, k}$ be the $k \times k$ Jordan block $$J_{{\lambda}, k} = \begin{pmatrix}
{\lambda}& 1 & & & 0 \\
& {\lambda}& \ddots & & \\
& & \ddots & \ddots& \\
& & & {\lambda}& 1 \\
0 & & & & {\lambda}\end{pmatrix}$$ and write $M$ as $$M = \begin{pmatrix}
J_{{\lambda}_1, k_1} & & & 0 \\
& J_{{\lambda}_2, k_2} & & \\
& & \ddots & \\
0 & & & J_{{\lambda}_r, k_r} \end{pmatrix},
\label{eq:M}$$ where all $\lambda_i$ are distinct and $0 < |\lambda_i| < 1$ for all $i$. Then $M$ will have dimensions $N \times N$ where $N = k_1 + k_2 + \dots + k_r$.
We consider the two affine maps $$T_m(v) = M v -
\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ \vdots \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ \vdots \\ \vdots \\ 0 \\ \vdots \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}
\ \ \mathrm{and} \ \
T_p(v) = M v +
\begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ \vdots \\ 0 \\ 1 \\ \vdots \\ \vdots \\ 0 \\ \vdots \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix}.$$ Here there are $k_1-1$ copies of $0$s follows by one $1$, then $k_2-1$ copies of $0$s follows by one $1$, and so on.
Consider the case with $M$ as a single $k \times k$ Jordan block $J_{{\lambda},k}$.
\[lem:jordan-exp\] We have $$\pi(a_0 a_1 a_2 \dots) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{(k-1)!}\frac{d^{k-1}}{d {\lambda}^{k-1}} \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}^i \\
\frac{1}{(k-2)!}\frac{d^{k-2}}{d {\lambda}^{k-2}} \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}^i \\
\vdots \\
\frac{d}{d {\lambda}} \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}^i \\
\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}^i
\end{pmatrix}.$$
It suffices to show that $$\label{eq:jordan}
T_{a_0}\dots T_{a_n}\begin{pmatrix} 0\\ \vdots \\ 0\end{pmatrix}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\sum_{i=0}^n \binom{i}{k-1} a_i{\lambda}^{i-k+1} \\
\sum_{i=0}^n \binom{i}{k-2} a_i{\lambda}^{i-k+2}\\
\vdots \\
\sum_{i=0}^n ia_i{\lambda}^{i-1}\\
\sum_{i=0}^n a_i {\lambda}^i
\end{pmatrix},$$ with the usual convention that $\binom ij=0$ if $i<j$. We prove this by induction: for $n=0$ we have $$T_{a_0}
\begin{pmatrix} 0\\ \vdots \\ 0 \\ 0\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 0\\ \vdots \\ 0 \\ a_0
\end{pmatrix},$$ which is what we need. Assume (\[eq:jordan\]) holds for $n-1$; then, given that $T_{a_0}(v)=Mv+a_0(0,0,\dots,0,1)^T$, $$\begin{aligned}
T_{a_0}\begin{pmatrix}
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \binom{i}{k-1} a_{i+1}{\lambda}^{i-k+1} \\
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \binom{i}{k-2} a_{i+1}{\lambda}^{i-k+2}\\
\vdots \\
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} ia_{i+1}{\lambda}^{i-1}\\
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} a_{i+1} {\lambda}^i
\end{pmatrix}
&=
\begin{pmatrix}
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left(\binom{i}{k-1}+\binom{i}{k-2}\right) a_{i+1}{\lambda}^{i-k+2} \\
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \left(\binom{i}{k-2}+\binom{i}{k-3}\right) a_{i+1}{\lambda}^{i-k+3}\\
\vdots \\
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} (i+1)a_{i+1}{\lambda}^i\\
\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} a_{i+1} {\lambda}^{i+1}+a_0
\end{pmatrix}
\\
&=\begin{pmatrix}
\sum_{i=0}^n \binom{i}{k-1} a_i{\lambda}^{i-k+1} \\
\sum_{i=0}^n \binom{i}{k-2} a_i{\lambda}^{i-k+2}\\
\vdots \\
\sum_{i=0}^n ia_i{\lambda}^{i-1}\\
\sum_{i=0}^n a_i {\lambda}^i
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ as required.
It is easy to see how this would generalize to multiple Jordan blocks.
Return to the general case of $M$ given by (\[eq:M\]). The following theorem is along the lines of [@HS Theorem 3.1] and is based on the ideas from [@Gunturk] (originally) and [@DJK].
\[thm:tool2\] Let $P(x) = x^n + b_{n-1} x_{n-1} + \dots + b_0$ with $n\ge N$. Assume that
1. $P(1/{\lambda}_i) = P'(1/{\lambda}_i) = \dots = P^{(k_i-1)}(1/{\lambda}_i) = 0$ for $i = 1, \dots, r$.
2. $\sum_{j=0}^{n-1} |b_j| \leq 2$.
3. There exists a non-singular $N \times N$ submatrix of the matrix $B$ (defined by (\[eq:B\]) below).
Then there exists a neighbourhood of $(\underbrace{0,0,\dots, 0}_{N})$ contained in $A$.
Let $$B_t(y) = \sum_{k=0}^t b_k y^{t-k}$$ for $t = 0, 1, \dots, n-1$.
Define the matrix $B$ as follows: $$\label{eq:B}
B := \begin{pmatrix}
B_{0}^{(k_1-1)}({\lambda}_1) & B_{1}^{(k_1-1)}({\lambda}_1) & \dots & B_{{n-1}}^{(k_1-1)}({\lambda}_1) \\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
B_0^{(1)}({\lambda}_1) & B_1^{(1)}({\lambda}_1) & \dots & B_{n-1}^{(1)}({\lambda}_1) \\
B_0({\lambda}_1) & B_1({\lambda}_1) & \dots & B_{n-1}({\lambda}_1) \\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
B_{0}^{(k_r-1)}({\lambda}_r) & B_{1}^{(k_r-1)}({\lambda}_r) & \dots & B_{{n-1}}^{(k_r-1)}({\lambda}_r) \\
\vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\
B_0^{(1)}({\lambda}_r) & B_1^{(1)}({\lambda}_r) & \dots & B_{n-1}^{(1)}({\lambda}_r) \\
B_0({\lambda}_r) & B_1({\lambda}_r) & \dots & B_{n-1}({\lambda}_r) \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Here $B^{(s)}_t(y) = \frac{1}{s!} \frac{d^s}{d y^s} B_t(y)$. Notice that $B$ is an $N \times n$ matrix.
Let $P$ have the required properties and let $u_{-n}, \dots, u_{-1}$ satisfy $$\label{eq:un}
\begin{pmatrix}x_1 \\ x_2 \\ \vdots \\ x_N \end{pmatrix} =
B
\begin{pmatrix}u_{-n} \\ u_{-n+1} \\ \vdots \\ u_{-1} \end{pmatrix}.$$ So long as some $N\times N$ sub-matrix of $B$ has non-zero determinant, we have that for all $x_i$ sufficiently close to $0$, there is a solution of (\[eq:un\]) with small $u_j$. Specifically, we can choose $\delta$ such that if $|x_i| < \delta$, then there is a solution with $|u_j| \leq 1$.
Fix a vector $(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_N)$ in the neighbourhood of $(0,\dots,0)$, where each $|x_i| < \delta$. We will construct a sequence $(a_j)$ with $a_j \in \{-1, 1\}$ such that $$\pi (a_1 a_2 a_3 \dots) = (x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n),$$ which will prove the result. To do this, we first solve equation for $u_{-n}, \dots, u_{-1}$ with $|u_i| \leq 1$. We will then choose the $u_j$ and $a_j$ for $j = 0, 1, 2, 3, \dots$ by induction, such that $$u_j := a_j - \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} b_{k} u_{j+k-n}$$ and such that $u_j \in [-1,1]$ and $a_j \in \{-1, +1\}$. We see that this is possible, as, by induction, all $u_j$ with $j < 0$ are such that $|u_j| \leq 1$. Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} b_j u_{j+k-n}\right| & \leq & \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} |b_k u_{j+k-n}| \\
& \leq & \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} |b_k| \\
& \leq & 2,\end{aligned}$$ by our assumption on the $b_k$. Hence there is a choice of $a_j$, either $+1$ or $-1$, such that $u_j = a_j - \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} b_k u_{j+k-n} \in [-1, 1]$.
We claim that this sequence of $a_j$ has the desired properties. To see this, we first consider the base case (we put $b_n = 1$ for ease of notation). Observe that: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j=0}^\infty a_j y^j
& = & \sum_{j=0}^\infty \left( \sum_{k=0}^n b_k u_{j+k-n} \right) y^j \\
& = & \sum_{k=0}^n b_k y^{-k} \sum_{j=0}^\infty u_{j+k-n} y^{j+k} \\
& = & \sum_{k=0}^n b_k y^{-k} \left(\sum_{t=k}^{n-1} u_{t-n} y^{t} +
\sum_{t=n}^\infty u_{t-n} y^{t} \right) \\
& = & \sum_{k=0}^n \sum_{t=k}^{n-1} b_k y^{t-k} u_{t-n} +
P(y^{-1}) \sum_{t=n}^\infty u_{t-n} y^{t}.\end{aligned}$$
Evaluating at $y = {\lambda}_i$ and observing that $P({\lambda}_i^{-1}) = 0$, this simplifies to $$\sum_{t=0}^{n-1} u_{t-n} B_t({\lambda}_i).
\label{eq:base}$$
We further see that $$\frac{1}{s!} \frac{d^s}{d y^s} \left( \sum_{j=0}^\infty a_j y^j \right)
= \frac{1}{s!} \frac{d^s}{d y^s} \left( \sum_{k=0}^n \sum_{t=k}^{n-1} b_k y^{t-k} u_{t-n} +
P(y^{-1}) \sum_{t=n}^\infty u_{t-n} y^{t} \right).$$ Taking derivatives and evaluating at ${\lambda}_i$, this simplifies to $$\sum_{t=0}^{n-1} u_{t-n} B_t^{(s)}({\lambda}_i),
\label{eq:induct}$$
Combining equations , with Lemma \[lem:jordan-exp\] gives $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(a_0 a_1 a_2 \dots) & =
\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{(k_1-1)!}\frac{d^{k_1-1}}{d {\lambda}_1^{k_1-1}} \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}_1^i \\
\frac{1}{(k_1-2)!}\frac{d^{k_1-2}}{d {\lambda}_1^{k_1-2}} \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}_1^i \\
\vdots \\
\frac{d}{d {\lambda}_1} \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}_1^i \\
\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}_1^i \\
\vdots \\
\frac{1}{(k_r-1)!}\frac{d^{k_r-1}}{d {\lambda}_r^{k_r-1}} \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}_r^i \\
\frac{1}{(k_r-2)!}\frac{d^{k_r-2}}{d {\lambda}_r^{k_r-2}} \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}_r^i \\
\vdots \\
\frac{d}{d {\lambda}_r} \sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}_r^i \\
\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i {\lambda}_r^i
\end{pmatrix}
& =
\begin{pmatrix}
\sum_{t=0}^{n-1} u_{t-n} B_t^{(k_1-1)}({\lambda}_1) \\
\sum_{t=0}^{n-1} u_{t-n} B_t^{(k_1-2)}({\lambda}_1) \\
\vdots \\
\sum_{t=0}^{n-1} u_{t-n} B_t^{(1)}({\lambda}_1) \\
\sum_{t=0}^{n-1} u_{t-n} B_t({\lambda}_1) \\
\vdots \\
\sum_{t=0}^{n-1} u_{t-n} B_t^{(k_1-1)}({\lambda}_r) \\
\sum_{t=0}^{n-1} u_{t-n} B_t^{(k_1-2)}({\lambda}_r) \\
\vdots \\
\sum_{t=0}^{n-1} u_{t-n} B_t^{(1)}({\lambda}_r) \\
\sum_{t=0}^{n-1} u_{t-n} B_t({\lambda}_r)
\end{pmatrix} \\
& = B \begin{pmatrix} u_{-n} \\ u_{-n+1} \\ \vdots \\ u_{-1} \end{pmatrix}
= \begin{pmatrix} x_1 \\ x_2 \\ \vdots \\ x_N \end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ which proves the desired result.
\[rmk:nonempty\] It is worth observing that if $M$ is an $N \times N$ matrix with distinct eigenvalues sufficiently close to (but less than) $1$ in absolute value, then the $N$-dimensional attractor $A$ will have non-empty interior. Here “sufficiently close” depends only on $N$. This follows from essentially the same proof as in [@HS Theorem 3.4] using the polynomial $$P(x) = x^{m n + 2} - x^{nm} + b_{m-1} x^{(m-1) n} + b_{m-2} x^{(m-2) n} + \dots + b_{0}$$ and $n$ even. We can choose the $b_i$ of this polynomial such that $\sum |b_i| < 2$ and $(x^2-1)^m | P(x)$. Letting $P(x) = Q(x) (x^2-1)^m$, we have for $\lambda_i$ sufficiently close to $1$ that $$\begin{aligned}
P^*(x) &=& Q(x) (x^2-1/\lambda_1^2) (x^2-1/\lambda_2^2) \cdots
(x^2-1/\lambda_m^2) \\
&=& x^{m n + 2} + b^*_{nm+1} x^{nm+1} + \cdots + b_0^*\end{aligned}$$ will also have $\sum |b_i^*| < 2$.
It seems highly likely that the same would be true for the case where $M$ contains non-trivial Jordan blocks, although the analysis becomes much messier.
The mixed real case
-------------------
Here we apply Theorem \[thm:tool2\] with roots $-\lambda$ and $\mu$ and $k_1 = k_2 = 1$. The polynomial we use is ($N=n=2$): $$P(x) = x^2 + \left(\frac{1}{{\lambda}}-\frac{1}{\mu}\right) x - \frac{1}{\mu{\lambda}}.$$
Observe that $P(-1/{\lambda}) = P(1/\mu) = 0$. The matrix $B$ in this case is $$B =
\begin{pmatrix}
B_0(-{\lambda}) & B_1(-{\lambda}) \\
B_0(\mu) & B_1(\mu)
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
- \frac{1}{{\lambda}\mu} & \frac{1}{{\lambda}} \\
- \frac{1}{{\lambda}\mu} & -\frac{1}{\mu}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ We see that this has determinant $\frac{{\lambda}+\mu}{{\lambda}^2 \mu^2} \neq 0$, as we are assuming both ${\lambda}, \mu > 0$. Since $$\left|\frac1{{\lambda}}-\frac1{\mu}\right|+\frac1{|\mu{\lambda}|}\le2, \quad \frac1{\sqrt2}\le {\lambda},\mu\le1,$$ we infer
For all $\frac1{\sqrt2} \leq {\lambda}, \mu \leq 1$ we have that $(0,0)$ lies in the interior of $A_{-{\lambda}, \mu}$.
The above gives us a sufficient condition for checking whether a point $(-{\lambda}, \mu) \in
{{\mathcal{Z}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}}$. To show a point $(-{\lambda}, \mu) \not\in {{\mathcal{Z}}}_{{\mathbb{R}}}$ it suffices to show that $(0,0) \not\in A$. This can be done utilizing information about the convex hull of $A$ and using the techniques described in [@HS]. In particular, let $K = K_0$ be the convex hull of $A$ and let $K_n = T_p(K_{n-1}) \cup T_m(K_{n-1})$. It is easy to see that $A \subset K_n$ for all $n$. Hence if there exists an $n$ such that $(0,0) \not\in K_n$ then $(0,0) \not\in A$. A precise description of $K$ is given in Section \[sec:unique\]. See Figure \[fig:Z2\] for illustration.
![Points in ${{\mathcal{Z}}}_{\mathbb R}$ (red) and points not in ${{\mathcal{Z}}}_{\mathbb R}$ (black)[]{data-label="fig:Z2"}](Z20.eps){width="275pt" height="275pt"}
The Jordan block case
---------------------
Consider the polynomial ($n=8, N=2$) $$P(x) = x^8 - \frac{8}{7 \nu} x^7 + \frac{1}{7 \nu^8}.$$ A quick check shows that $P(1/\nu) = P'(1/\nu) = 0$. Furthermore, for all $\nu \geq 0.831458513$ then we have $$\left| \frac{8}{7 \nu} \right| + \left|\frac{1}{7 \nu^8}\right| \leq 2.$$
In this case, the matrix from the Proof is $$B=\begin{pmatrix}
0 & \frac{1}{7 \nu^8} & \frac{2}{7 \nu^7} & \frac{3}{7 \nu^6} & \frac{4}{7 \nu^5} &
\frac{5}{7 \nu^4} & \frac{6}{7 \nu^3} & \frac{7}{7 \nu^2} \\
\frac{1}{7 \nu^8} & \frac{1}{7 \nu^7} & \frac{1}{7 \nu^6} & \frac{1}{7 \nu^5} &
\frac{1}{7 \nu^4} & \frac{1}{7 \nu^3} & \frac{1}{7 \nu^2} & -\frac{1}{\nu}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ Clearly, the first $2\times 2$ minor of $B$ in this case is non-zero.
It is shown in [@ShSo Theorem 2.6] that if $\nu < 0.6684$ that $A_\nu$ is disconnected, and hence totally disconnected, whence $\nu \not \in {{\mathcal{Z}}}_J$. Here we have that if $\nu > 0.8315$ then $\nu \in {{\mathcal{Z}}}_J$. Where exactly this dividing line is between these two conditions is still unclear. For that matter, it is not even clear if ${{\mathcal{Z}}}_J$ is a connected set, so the term “dividing line” might not be an accurate description of the boundary.
The complex case
----------------
Theorem \[thm:tool2\] does not seem to be applicable here, so we use a different method. Notice that this method works for the other three cases as well (and even higher-dimensional ones – see [@HS-multi]) but gives worse bounds.
If $A_{{\kappa}^2}$ is connected, then $A_{\kappa}$ has non-empty interior. In particular, this is the case if $|\kappa| \ge 2^{-1/4}$.
Note first that if $|\kappa^2| \ge 1/\sqrt{2}$ then $A_{\kappa^2}$ is connected – see [@BH Proposition 1]. Moreover, by the Hahn-Mazurkiewicz theorem, $A_{{\kappa}^2}$ is path connected. Let $a, b \in A_{{\kappa}^2}$ and $\gamma$ the path connecting them. Consider ${\kappa}a, {\kappa}b \in {\kappa}A_{{\kappa}^2}$ and let $\gamma'$ be the path between them. As ${\kappa}\not \in {\mathbb{R}}$, we see that $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ cannot be parallel lines. By observing that $\sum a_i \kappa^i = \sum a_{2i} \kappa^{2i} + {\kappa}\sum a_{2i +1} \kappa^{2i}$, we have $A_{\kappa}= A_{{\kappa}^2} + {\kappa}A_{{\kappa}^2}$ (the Minkowski sum). In particular, $A_{\kappa}$ will contain $\gamma + \gamma'$. By Theorem \[thm:Victor\] below, $\gamma+ \gamma'$ contains points in its interior, whence so does $A_{\kappa}$.
Hence if $|{\kappa}|\ge 2^{-1/4}$, then $A_{\kappa}$ has non-empty interior.
A great deal of information is known about the set $\mathcal{M}$ of all ${\kappa}$ for which $A_{\kappa}$ is connected – see [@Cal] and references therein.
The following proof is by V. Kleptsyn (via Mathoverflow [@MO]).
\[thm:Victor\] If $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are two paths in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$, not both parallel lines, then $\gamma + \gamma'$ has non-empty interior.
See Appendix.
Unique addresses and convex hulls {#sec:unique}
=================================
Recall that a point $(x,y) \in A$ has a unique address (notation: $(x,y)\in\mathcal U$) if there is a unique sequence $(a_i)_0^\infty \in \{p, m\}^{\mathbb N}$ such that $(x,y) = \pi (a_1 a_2 a_3 \dots)$. These have been studied in [@HS] for the positive real case and in [@GS] for the one-dimensional real case. We say the set of all such points in $A$ is the [*set of uniqueness*]{} and denote it by ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{-{\lambda}, \mu}$, ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{\nu}$ and ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{\kappa}$ for the mixed real case the Jordan block case, and the complex case respectively.
The purpose of this section is to provide a proof of Theorem \[thm:uniq\] by considering all three cases.
The main outline of all three of these proofs are the same:
- find the vertices for the convex hull of $A$;
- show that these vertices have unique addresses;
- using these vertices, in combination with Lemma \[thm:unique tool\] below, construct a set of points with unique addresses that have positive Hausdorff dimension.
\[thm:unique tool\] Denote $\overline m=p, \overline p=m$ and assume that $u = a_1 a_2 \dots a_\ell$, $v = b_1 b_2 \dots b_k$ and $w = c_1 c_2 \dots c_n$ satisfy
- $\pi [a_i a_{i+1} \dots a_\ell b_1 b_2 \dots b_k a_1 a_2 \dots a_\ell] \cap \pi [\overline{a_i}] = {\varnothing}$;
- $\pi [b_j b_{j+1} \dots b_k a_1 a_2 \dots a_\ell] \cap \pi [\overline{b_j}] = {\varnothing}$;
- $\pi [a_i a_{i+1} \dots a_\ell c_1 c_2 \dots c_n a_1 a_2 \dots a_\ell] \cap \pi [\overline{a_i}] = {\varnothing}$;
- $\pi [c_j c_{j+1} \dots c_n a_1 a_2 \dots a_\ell] \cap \pi [\overline{c_j}] = {\varnothing}$.
Then the images of $\{uv, uw\}^*$ under $\pi$ all have unique addresses. That is, the images of all infinite words of the form $t_1 t_2 t_3 \dots$ with $t_i \in \{uv, uw\}$ under $\pi$ all have unique addresses.
We see that any shift of a word from $\{uv, uw\}^*$ is such that it’s prefix will be of one of the four forms listed above. Further, by assumption, the first term is uniquely determined. By applying $T_m^{-1}$ or $T_p^{-1}$ as appropriate, we get that all terms are uniquely determined, which proves the result.
If the conditions of Lemma \[thm:unique tool\] are satisfied and $\{uv, uw\}^*$ is unambiguous, then $\dim_H\mathcal U>0$.
We recall that $\{uv, uw\}$ is ambiguous if there exists two sequences $(t_1, t_2, t_3, \dots) \neq (s_1, s_2, s_3, \dots)$ with $t_i, s_i \in \{uv, uw\}$ where $t_1 t_2 t_3 \dots = s_1 s_2 s_3 \dots$. If no such sequence exists, then this language is unambiguous. For example, $\{mpmp, mp\}^*$ would be ambiguous, whereas $\{m, pp\}^*$ would be unambiguous.
This is completely analogous to [@HS Corollary 4.3]. We say that a language $\mathcal{L}$ has positive topological entropy if the size of the set of prefixes of length $n$ of $\mathcal{L}$ grows exponentially in $n$. In brief, if we consider closure of all the shifts of sequences from $\{uv, uw\}^*$, then this set will clearly have positive topological entropy, and the injective projection $\pi$ of this set will have positive Hausdorff dimension.
The mixed real case
-------------------
We first assume that ${\lambda}\neq\mu$. The case when they are equal is considered in subsection \[sub:equal\] below.
Let $0 < {\lambda}< \mu < 1$. The vertices of the convex hull of $A_{-{\lambda}, \mu}$ are given by $\pi((pm)^k p^\infty), \pi((mp)^k p^\infty), \pi((pm)^k m^\infty)$, and $\pi((mp)^k m^\infty)$, where $k\ge0$.
It suffices to show that the lines from $\pi((pm)^k p^\infty)$ to $\pi((pm)^{k+1} p^\infty)$, and similarly from $\pi((mp)^k p^\infty)$ to $\pi((mp)^{k+1} p^\infty)$, from $\pi((pm)^k m^\infty)$ to $\pi((pm)^{k+1} m^\infty)$, and from $\pi((mp)^k m^\infty)$ to $\pi((mp)^{k+1} m^\infty)$ are support lines for $A_{-{\lambda}, \mu}$ and that their union is homeomorphic to a circle. We will do the first case only. The other cases are similar.
We will proceed by induction. Consider first the line from $\pi(p^\infty)$ to $\pi(pmp^\infty)$. This will be in the direction $\pi(p^\infty) - \pi(pmp^\infty) = (2 {\lambda}, -2\mu)$, with slope $-\mu/{\lambda}$. Consider now the line from $\pi(p^\infty)$ to any other point $(x,y)=\pi(a_0a_1\dots)\in A_{-{\lambda},\mu}$. This will have a direction of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(p^\infty) - \pi(a_0 a_1 \dots) &=
\left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty (1-a_i) (-{\lambda})^i, \sum_{i=0}^\infty (1-a_i) \mu^i\right)\\
&=
\left(\sum_{i\text{ even}} (1-a_i) {\lambda}^i, \sum_{i\text{ even}} (1-a_i) \mu^i\right) \\ &
+ \left(-\sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) {\lambda}^i, \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) \mu^i\right).\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, no point in $A_{-{\lambda},\mu}$ can have larger $y$-coordinate that $p^\infty$, whence the second coordinate is always non-negative. If the first coordinate is positive as well, then we are done; so, let us assume that it is negative. We notice that the slope has the form: $$\frac{ \sum_{i\text{ even}} (1-a_i) \mu^i + \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) \mu^i}
{ \sum_{i\text{ even}} (1-a_i) {\lambda}^i -\sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) {\lambda}^i }
\le -\frac{ \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) \mu^i} { \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) {\lambda}^i }$$ (since ${\lambda}<\mu$). We want $$\frac{ \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) \mu^i} { \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) {\lambda}^i } \le -\frac{\mu}{{\lambda}}.$$ Cross multiplying, this will occur if $${\lambda}\sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) \mu^i
\geq
\mu \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) {\lambda}^i$$ or, equivalently, $$\sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) \mu^{i-1}
\geq
\sum_{i\text{ odd}} (1-a_i) {\lambda}^{i-1}.$$ This is clearly true, as ${\lambda}< \mu$. This proves the base case $k=0$.
![Convex hull for $A_{-0.55, 0.8}$[]{data-label="fig:hull-mixed"}](conv-minus055-08.eps){width="275pt" height="275pt"}
Assume the line from $\pi((pm)^j p^\infty)$ to $\pi((pm)^{j+1} p^\infty)$ is a support hyperplane for $A_{-{\lambda},\mu}$ for all $j<k$. Consider the line from $\pi((pm)^k p^\infty)$ to $\pi((pm)^{k+1} p^\infty)$. This will have slope $-\frac{\mu^k}{{\lambda}^k}$ Consider any $(x,y)=\pi(a_0a_1\dots) \in A_{-{\lambda}, \mu}$. Note that without loss of generality we can assume that $a_0a_1\dots a_{2k}=(pm)^k$, in view of the fact that the sequence of slopes, $-\frac{\mu^k}{{\lambda}^k}$, is is a decreasing negative sequence, so if $a_0\dots a_{2k}\neq (pm)^k$, then we can apply the inductive hypothesis for some $j<k$.
As before, we see that the slope of this point is $$\frac{ \sum_{i\text{ even}} (1-a_i) \mu^i + \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) \mu^i}
{ \sum_{i\text{ even}} (1-a_i) {\lambda}^i -\sum_{i\text{ odd}} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) {\lambda}^i }
< -\frac{ \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) \mu^i} { \sum_{i\text{ odd}}(\varepsilon_i-a_i) {\lambda}^i },$$ where $\varepsilon_i = -1$ if $i < 2k$ and $1$ otherwise.
We want $$\frac{ \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) \mu^i} { \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) {\lambda}^i }
< -\frac{\mu^{2k}}{{\lambda}^{2k}}.$$ Cross multiplying, this will occur if $${\lambda}^{2k} \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) \mu^i
\geq
\mu^{2k} \sum_{i\text{ odd}} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) {\lambda}^i$$ or, equivalently, $$\sum_{i\text{ odd}} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) \mu^{i-2k}
\geq
\sum_{i\text{ odd}} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) {\lambda}^{i-2k}.$$ We see that ${\lambda}< \mu$ and hence $1/\mu < 1/{\lambda}$, from which it follows that $$\sum_{i\text{ odd}, i<2k} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) \mu^{i-2k} \geq \sum_{i\text{ odd}, i<2k} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) {\lambda}^{i-2k}$$ and $$\sum_{i\text{ odd}, i>2k} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) \mu^{i-2k} \geq \sum_{i\text{ odd}, i>2k} (\varepsilon_i-a_i) {\lambda}^{i-2k}.$$ Thus, we have shown that the line from $\pi((pm)^k p^\infty)$ to $\pi((pm)^{k+1} p^\infty)$ is a support line for $A_{-{\lambda},\mu}$ and that $A_{-{\lambda},\mu}$ lies below it. The remaining three cases (see the beginning of the proof) are similar, and once it is established whether $A_{-{\lambda},\mu}$ lies below or above these, the claim about their union being a topological circle becomes trivial. We leave the details to the reader.
See Figure \[fig:hull-mixed\] for illustration.
There exists an $L$ such that for all $k_1, k_2 > 0$ we have $u = m p^L$, $v = p^{k_1}$ and $w = p^{k_2}$ satisfy the conditions of Lemma \[thm:unique tool\].
We claim that there exists an $L$ such that for all $k \geq 0$ and $1 \leq i \leq L + k$ we have $$\label{eq:emp1}
\pi[m p^{L+k} m p^L] \cap \pi[p]={\varnothing}.$$ and $$\label{eq:emp2}
\pi[p^i m p^L] \cap \pi[m]={\varnothing}.$$ Consequently, using $u = m p^L$, $v = p^{k_1}$ and $w = p^{k_2}$ with $k_1, k_2 \geq 0$ in Lemma \[thm:unique tool\] proves the result.
To prove (\[eq:emp1\]), we observe that $\pi(m p^\infty)$ is a point of uniqueness. Therefore, there exists an $L_1$ such $\pi[m p^{L_1}]$ will be disjoint from $\pi[p]$.
To establish (\[eq:emp2\]), we observe that the point in $\pi[m]$ with maximal second coordinate is $\pi(mp^\infty)$. Denote this maximal second coordinate by $e$. We also observe that $\pi(p m p^\infty)$ has second coordinate strictly greater than $e$. Hence there exists an $L_2$ such that the minimal second coordinate of $\pi[p m p^{L_1}]$ is greater than $e$. By observing that the minimal second coordinate of $\pi[p^{i+1} m p^{L_2}]$ is always greater than that of $\pi[p^{i} m p^{L_1}]$, we see that $\pi[p^i m p^{L_2}]$ is disjoint from $\pi[m]$ for all $i$.
Taking $L = \max(L_1, L_2)$ proves the claim.
The set ${{\mathcal{U}}}_{-\mu, {\lambda}}$ has positive Hausdorff dimension.
The Jordan block case
---------------------
The vertices of the convex hull of $A_{\nu}$ are given by $\pi(m^k p^\infty)$, and $\pi(p^k m^\infty)$, where $k\ge0$.
Recall that $\pi(a_0 a_1 a_2 \dots) = (\sum i a_i \nu^{i-1}, \sum a_i \nu^i)$. Consider the map taking an address $a_0 a_1\dots$ to $(x+y, y)$, because it will simplify our argument. Thus, we have $${\widetilde\pi}(a_0a_1\dots)=\left(\sum_{i=1}^\infty i(a_i+1)\nu^{i-1},\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i\nu^i\right).$$ Note first that $${\widetilde\pi}(p m^\infty) - {\widetilde\pi}(m^\infty) = (0,2)$$ and for $w=a_0a_1\dots$, $${\widetilde\pi}(w) - {\widetilde\pi}(m^\infty) =
\left(\sum_{i=1}^\infty i (a_i+1)\nu^{i-1}, \sum_{i=0}^\infty (a_i+1)\nu^i\right).$$ We notice that the first coordinate of ${\widetilde\pi}(w)-{\widetilde\pi}(m^\infty)$ is clearly nonnegative, which is enough to prove that $w$ is to the right of the vertical line from ${\widetilde\pi}(m^\infty)$ to ${\widetilde\pi}(p m^\infty)$.
Proceed by induction and assume that for all $j<k$, the straight line passing through ${\widetilde\pi}(p^jm^\infty)$ and ${\widetilde\pi}(p^{j+1}m^\infty)$ is a support hyperplane for $A_\nu$ which lies to the left of the attractor – see Figure \[fig:jordan-hull\].
![Convex hull for $A_{0.7}$[]{data-label="fig:jordan-hull"}](conv-jordan-07.eps){width="300pt"}
Consider now the case $j=k$; we have $${\widetilde\pi}(p^{k+1} m^\infty) - {\widetilde\pi}(p^k m^\infty) = (2 k\nu^{k-1},2 \nu^k).$$ This sequence has the slopes $\nu/k$, which is clearly decreasing. Thus, we can assume that $a_i\equiv p,\ 0\le i\le k-1$, otherwise we appeal to a case $j<k$. We see that the desired result is true if the slope of ${\widetilde\pi}(w) - {\widetilde\pi}(p^k m^\infty)$ is less than or equal to $\nu/k$. After simplifying, this is equivalent to $$\frac{\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty (a_i+1)\nu^{i-k}}{\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty i(a_i+1)\nu^{i-k-1}}
\le \frac{\nu}k,$$ which is clearly true, since $i>k$.
The following claim is trivial.
\[lem:uniq-general\] There exists an $L$ such that for all $k_1, k_2 \geq L$ we have $u = m^{k_1}$, $v = p^{k_1}$ and $w = p^{k_2}$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem \[thm:unique tool\].
The set of uniqueness $A_\nu$ has positive Hausdorff dimension.
The complex case
----------------
For each $\phi \in [0, 2 \pi)$ define $p_\phi:{\mathbb{C}}\to {\mathbb{R}}$ by $p_\phi(z) = \Re(z {\mathrm{e}}^{-i \phi})$. This measures the distance of $z$ in the ${\mathrm{e}}^{i \phi}$ direction. We define the set $Z_\phi$ as those $z \in A$ such that $p_\phi(z)$ is maximized. We note that this set is well defined as $A$ is a compact set. If points $z \in Z_\phi$ then $z = \pi(a_1 a_2 a_3 \dots) = \sum_{j=0}^\infty a_{j}^{(\phi)} {\kappa}^j$, where $$a_j^{(\phi)} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
-1 & \mathrm{if}\ \Im({\kappa}^j {\mathrm{e}}^{i \phi}) < 0 \\
+1 & \mathrm{if}\ \Im({\kappa}^j {\mathrm{e}}^{i \phi}) > 0 \\
-1\ \mathrm{or}\ +1 & \mathrm{if}\ \Im({\kappa}^j {\mathrm{e}}^{i \phi}) = 0 \end{array} \right.
\ \ \mathrm{for\ all}\ j.$$ These have been studied in [@Mess Sections 5–7] in the cases of the Rauzy fractal and the twin dragon curve (see Examples \[ex:twindragon\] and \[ex:rauzy\] above).
We will distinguish two cases, depending on whether $\arg({\kappa})/\pi$ is irrational or rational.
### Case 1 – irrational
Let $\mathcal {E}_\phi = \{(a_1 a_2 a_3 \dots) \mid \pi(a_1 a_2 a_3 \dots) \in Z_\phi\}$. We see that $|\mathcal{E}_\phi| = 1$ or $2$, as there is at most one $j$ where $\Im({\kappa}^j {\mathrm{e}}^{i \phi}) = 0$. All points $z \in {{\mathcal{Z}}}_\phi$ are points of uniqueness.
Let $\bar{\mathcal{E}}_\phi$ denote the closure of the orbit of $\mathcal{E}_\phi$ under the shift transformation. Notice that any $z\in\pi(\bar{\mathcal{E}}_\phi)$ has a unique address, since for any $w\in A_{\kappa}$ we have $\Im (w e^{i\phi})\le \Im (z e^{i\phi})$, with the equality if and only if $w\in \bar{\mathcal{E}}_\phi$ (whose elements are all distinct).
\[prop:Ephi\] Put $\mathcal E=\bigcup_{\phi} \bar{\mathcal{E}}_\phi$. We have
- $\mathcal{E}$ is closed under the standard product topology.
- $\mathcal{E}$ is uncountable.
- $\mathcal{E}$ is a shift-invariant.
- For each $(a_i)$ in $\mathcal{E}$ we have that $(a_i)$ is recurrent.
- The image $\pi(\mathcal E)$ is a closed compact subset of $A_\kappa$.
Notice that $(a_j^{(\phi)})_0^\infty$ is closely related to the irrational rotation of the circle $\mathbb R/\mathbb Z$ by $\arg({\kappa})/2\pi$, namely, $$a_j^{(\phi)}=
\begin{cases}
+1, & j\arg({\kappa})/2\pi\in\left(-\frac{\phi}{2\pi}-\frac14,-\frac{\phi}{2\pi}+\frac14\right)\bmod1,\\
-1, & j\arg({\kappa})/2\pi\in\left(-\frac{\phi}{2\pi}+\frac14,-\frac{\phi}{2\pi}-\frac14\right)\bmod1,\\
+1\text{ or } -1, & \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}$$ (the third case can only occur for one $j$). In other words, each $(a_j^{(\phi)})$ is a hitting sequence for some semi-circle. Since our rotation is irrational, it is uniquely ergodic, whence $\bar{\mathcal{E}}_\phi$ is recurrent. The remaining properties are obvious.
The sequences $(a_j^{(\phi)})$ are known to have subword complexity $2n$ (for $n$ large enough). Such sequences are studied in detail in [@Rote]. In particular, $\pi(\mathcal E_\phi)$ has zero Hausdorff dimension for all $\phi$.
By the last property in Proposition \[prop:Ephi\], there exists $d > 0$ such that $$\mathrm{dist}(\pi(\mathcal{E} \cap [m]), \pi[p]) > d$$ and $$\mathrm{dist}(\pi(\mathcal{E} \cap [p]), \pi[m]) > d.$$ By taking $K$ such that $\frac{|\kappa|^{K+1}}{1-|\kappa|} < d$, we observe that for all $(a_i) \in \mathcal{E}$, $$\pi [a_0 a_1 \dots a_K] \cap \pi [\overline{a_0}] = {\varnothing}.$$ As the sequence is recurrent, for any $(a_i) \in \mathcal{E}$ there will exist two subwords of length $L > K$ of the form $b_1 b_2 \dots b_L b_{L+1}$ and $b_1 b_2 \dots b_L \overline{b_{L+1}}$. (If two such words did not exist, then the sequence would necessarily be periodic.) Since this sequence is recurrent, there exist $c_1 \dots c_m$ and $d_1 \dots d_n$ such that $$b_1 b_2 \dots b_L b_{L+1} c_1 \dots c_m b_1 b_2 \dots b_L$$ and $$b_1 b_2 \dots b_L \overline{b_{L+1}} d_1 \dots d_n b_1 \dots b_L$$ are both subwords of $(a_i)$.
It is easy to see that $u = b_1 \dots b_L$, $v = b_{L+1} c_1 \dots c_m$ and $w = \overline{b_{L+1}} d_1 \dots d_n$ satisfy the conditions of Lemma \[thm:unique tool\], from which it follows that the images of $\{uv, uw\}^*$ will all have unique address. As this set has positive topological entropy, we have that the set of uniqueness has positive Hausdorff dimension.
Thus, in this case the points $z_\phi$ are all points of uniqueness. Furthermore, they are the vertices of the convex hull of $A_{\kappa}$. The proof is essentially the same as that of [@Mess Théorème 7], so we omit it.
### Case 2 – rational {#sec:complex rational unique}
Let now ${\kappa}= \rho {\mathrm{e}}^{2\pi i p/q}$ with $(p,q)=1$. Put $$q'=\begin{cases}
q,& q\ \text{odd},\\
q/2,& q\ \text{even}
\end{cases}$$ and $$\label{eq:beta}
{\beta}=\rho^{-q'}>1.$$
If ${\beta}\le2$, then $A_{\kappa}$ is a convex polygon.
Put $$J=\left\{\sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k{\beta}^{-k}\mid b_k\in\{\pm1\}\right\}.$$ Since ${\beta}\le2$, we have $J=\bigl[-\frac{{\beta}}{{\beta}-1},\frac{{\beta}}{{\beta}-1}\bigr]$. Now the claim follows from the fact that $A_{\kappa}$ can be expressed as the following Minkowski sum: $$A_{\kappa}=J+{\kappa}J+\dots +{\kappa}^{q'-1} J.$$
Let $U_{\beta}$ denote the set of all unique addresses for $x=\sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k{\beta}^{-k}$ with $b_k\in\{\pm1\}$.
\[lem:uniq2uniq\]We have:
1. if $(a_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ is a unique address in $A_{\kappa}$, then $(a_{q'j+\ell})_{j=0}^\infty\in U_{\beta}$ for all $\ell\in\{0,1,\dots,q'-1\}$; \[i\]
2. if $(a_{q'j})_{j=0}^\infty$ belongs to $U_{\beta}$, then there exists $(b_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ such that $b_{q'j}=a_{q'j}$ for all $j\ge0$, and $(b_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ is a unique address in $A_{\kappa}$. \[ii\]
\(i) If $(a_{q'j+\ell})$ were not unique, there would exist $(b_{q'j+\ell})$ such that $\sum_{j=0}^\infty a_{q'j+\ell}{\beta}^{-j}=\sum_{j=0}^\infty b_{q'j+\ell}{\beta}^{-j}$, i.e., $\sum_{j=0}^\infty a_{q'j+\ell}{\kappa}^{q'j}=\sum_{j=0}^\infty b_{q'j+\ell}{\kappa}^{q'j}$, whence $(a_k)$ could not be a unique address.
\(ii) Let $q$ be odd; the even case is similar. Put for $k\not\equiv0\bmod q$, $$b_k=\begin{cases}
+1, & \Im({\kappa}^k)>0,\\
-1, & \Im({\kappa}^k)<0.
\end{cases}$$ Clearly, this sequence is well defined, since $\Im({\kappa}^k)\neq0$ if $k\not\equiv0\bmod q$. Now put $b_{qj}=a_{qj}$ for all $j\ge0$. We claim that the resulting sequence $(b_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ is a unique address.
Indeed, by our construction, $\Im(\sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k'{\kappa}^k)\le \Im(\sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k{\kappa}^k)$ for any $(b_k')$, with the equality if and only if $b_k'\equiv b_k$ for all $k\not\equiv0\bmod q$. If such an equality takes place, then $\sum_{k=0}^\infty (b_k'-b_k){\kappa}^k$ is real. Moreover, $\sum_{k=0}^\infty (b_k'-b_k){\kappa}^k=\sum_{j=0}^\infty (b'_{qj}-a_{qj}){\beta}^{-j}\neq0$, since $(a_{qj})_{j=0}^\infty\in U_{\beta}$.
This yields the following result.
\[lem:finite-finite\] The set of uniqueness $\mathcal U_{\kappa}$ is finite if and only if $U_{\beta}$ is. If these sets are infinite, then their cardinalities are equal. Furthermore, $\dim_H \mathcal U_{\kappa}>0$ if and only if the topological entropy of $U_{\beta}$ is positive.
By Lemma \[lem:uniq2uniq\] part \[i\], we see that the cardinality of $\mathcal{U}_\kappa$ is bounded above by the cardinality of $\underbrace{U_\beta \times \dots \times U_\beta}_{q'}$, and hence by the cardinality of $U_\beta$. By part \[ii\] we see that the cardinality of $\mathcal{U}_\kappa$ is bounded below by the cardinality of $U_\beta$. This proves the first two statements.
If $\dim \mathcal{U}_\kappa > 0$ then $\mathcal{U}_\kappa$ has positive topological entropy, and hence so does $\underbrace{U_\beta \times \dots \times U_\beta}_{q'}$. The other direction is similar.
Let ${\beta}_*=1.787231650\dots$ denote the *Komornik-Loreti constant* introduced by V. Komornik and P. Loreti in [@KL], which is defined as the unique solution of the equation $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\mathfrak{m}_{n}x^{-n+1}=1$, where $\mathfrak{m}=(\mathfrak{m}_n)_1^\infty$ is the Thue-Morse sequence $$\mathfrak{m}=0110\,\,1001\,\,1001\,\,0110\,\,1001\,\,0110\dots,$$ i.e., the fixed point of the substitution $0\to01,\ 1\to10$. Put $G=\frac{1+\sqrt5}2$. The following result gives a complete description of the set $U_{\beta}$.
\[thm:GS\] The set $U_{\beta}$ is:
1. $\bigl\{-\frac{{\beta}}{{\beta}-1},\frac{{\beta}}{{\beta}-1}\bigr\}$ if ${\beta}\in (1,G]$;
2. infinite countable for ${\beta}\in(G,{\beta}_*)$;
3. an uncountable set of zero Hausdorff dimension if ${\beta}={\beta}_*$; and
4. a set of positive Hausdorff dimension for ${\beta}\in ({\beta}_*,\infty)$.
Lemma \[lem:finite-finite\] and Theorem \[thm:GS\] yield
\[thm:uniq-rational\] Let ${\beta}$ be given by (\[eq:beta\]). Then the set of uniqueness $\mathcal U_{\kappa}$ for the rational case is:
1. finite non-empty if ${\beta}\in (1,G]$;
2. infinite countable for ${\beta}\in(G,{\beta}_*)$;
3. an uncountable set of zero Hausdorff dimension if ${\beta}={\beta}_*$; and
4. a set of positive Hausdorff dimension for ${\beta}\in ({\beta}_*,\infty)$.
![Convex hulls for $A_{0.7i}$ (a square), $A_{0.7 {\mathrm{e}}^{2 \pi i/5}}$ (a decagon), $A_{0.7 {\mathrm{e}}^{\pi i/3}}$ (a hexagon) and $A_{0.4 + 0.5i}$ (an “infinite polygon”)[]{data-label="fig:conv-complex"}](Picab07_4.eps "fig:"){width="175pt" height="175pt"} ![Convex hulls for $A_{0.7i}$ (a square), $A_{0.7 {\mathrm{e}}^{2 \pi i/5}}$ (a decagon), $A_{0.7 {\mathrm{e}}^{\pi i/3}}$ (a hexagon) and $A_{0.4 + 0.5i}$ (an “infinite polygon”)[]{data-label="fig:conv-complex"}](Picab07_5.eps "fig:"){width="175pt" height="175pt"}\
![Convex hulls for $A_{0.7i}$ (a square), $A_{0.7 {\mathrm{e}}^{2 \pi i/5}}$ (a decagon), $A_{0.7 {\mathrm{e}}^{\pi i/3}}$ (a hexagon) and $A_{0.4 + 0.5i}$ (an “infinite polygon”)[]{data-label="fig:conv-complex"}](Picab07_6.eps "fig:"){width="175pt" height="175pt"} ![Convex hulls for $A_{0.7i}$ (a square), $A_{0.7 {\mathrm{e}}^{2 \pi i/5}}$ (a decagon), $A_{0.7 {\mathrm{e}}^{\pi i/3}}$ (a hexagon) and $A_{0.4 + 0.5i}$ (an “infinite polygon”)[]{data-label="fig:conv-complex"}](Picab0405.eps "fig:"){width="175pt" height="175pt"}
Note that if $\arg({\kappa})/\pi \in {\mathbb{Q}}$ and ${\beta}>2$, then the convex hull of $A_{\kappa}$ is still a $2q'$-gon. This follows directly from [@SW Theorem 4.1]. See also [@SW2] for further discussion on the convex hull of $A$.
If ${\beta}\le G$, then we have a bound $\#\mathcal U_{\kappa}\le 2^{q'}$. In fact, one can show that $\#\mathcal U_{\kappa}=2q'$ - more precisely, only the extreme points of $A_{\kappa}$ are points of uniqueness. This is completely analogous to [@S07 Theorem 2.7] which deals with the self-similar IFS without rotations. We leave a proof to the interested reader.
See Figure \[fig:conv-complex\] for illustration.
The remaining mixed real case {#sub:equal}
-----------------------------
Finally let $$M = \begin{pmatrix} -{\lambda}& 0 \\ 0 & {\lambda}\end{pmatrix}$$ for $0 < {\lambda}< 1$.
\[lem:-la la\]
1. If $\lambda < 1/\sqrt{2}$ then $A_{-{\lambda}, {\lambda}}$ is totally disconnected.
2. If $\lambda \geq 1/\sqrt{2}$ then $A_{-{\lambda}, {\lambda}}$ is a parallelogram.
We have that $x = \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k (-{\lambda})^k$ and $y = \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k {\lambda}^k$. Make a change of coordinates $(x,y) \to \left(\frac{x+y}{2}, \frac{x-y}{2}\right)$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
x& = \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_{2k}\lambda^{2k} \\
y& = \sum_{k=0}^\infty a_{2k+1}\lambda^{2k+1},\end{aligned}$$ where $a_j\in\{0,1\},\ j\ge0$. If ${\lambda}< \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ then the set of $x$’s and $y$’s are both Cantor sets, and hence $A_{-{\lambda}, {\lambda}}$ is disconnected. If ${\lambda}> \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ then $x \in \left[ \frac{-1}{1-{\lambda}^2}, \frac{1}{1-{\lambda}^2}\right]$ and $y \in \left[ \frac{-{\lambda}}{1-{\lambda}^2}, \frac{{\lambda}}{1-{\lambda}^2}\right]$, with $x$ and $y$ independent, and taking all values in these intervals. Thus, under this change of variables, the attractor is a rectangle. Inverting the change of variables proves the result.
Lemma \[lem:-la la\] implies that the bound $1/\sqrt{2}$ in Theorem \[thm:interior\] is sharp for the mixed real case.
Let $\beta = {\lambda}^{-2}$. The set $U_{-{\lambda}, {\lambda}}$ is:
1. finite non-empty if ${\beta}\in (1,G]$;
2. infinite countable for ${\beta}\in(G,{\beta}_*)$;
3. an uncountable set of zero Hausdorff dimension if ${\beta}={\beta}_*$; and
4. a set of positive Hausdorff dimension for ${\beta}\in ({\beta}_*,\infty)$.
Notice that if $(a_{2k})_0^\infty \in U_{\beta}$, then $(a_k)_0^\infty\in U_{-{\lambda},{\lambda}}$ with $a_{2k+1}\equiv -1, k\ge0$. The rest of the proof goes exactly like in the previous subsection, so we omit it.
Appendix: proof of Theorem \[thm:Victor\]
=========================================
\[lem:Victor\] Let $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ be two paths in ${\mathbb{C}}$. Let $\delta$ be the diameter of $\gamma([s_1,s_2])$, and assume that there is no point with nonzero index with respect to the loop $\sigma=\{\gamma(s) + \gamma'(t) :s,t\in\partial([s_1, s_2] \times [0,1])$. Then the sets $\gamma(s_1) + \gamma'([0,1])$ and $\gamma(s_2) + \gamma'(([0,1])$ coincide outside $\delta$-neighbourhoods of $\gamma([s_1, s_2])+\gamma'(0)$ and $\gamma([s_1, s_2])+\gamma'(1)$.
Assume the contrary and let $z$ be a point of the curve $\widetilde\gamma:=\gamma([s_1,s_2])+\gamma(t_1)$ that lies outside the above neighbourhoods and that does not belong to the $\gamma([s_1,s_2])+\gamma(t_2)$. By continuity, there is $\varepsilon$-neighbourhood of $z$ that the latter curve does not intersect.
Now, by the Jordan curve Theorem, in this neighbourhood one can find two points “on different sides” with respect to $\widetilde\gamma$.
These two points have thus different indices with respect to the loop $\sigma$. Hence, for at least one of them this index is non-zero.
Let $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ be two paths in ${\mathbb{C}}$ with $\gamma(0) = a$, $\gamma(1) = b$, $\gamma'(0) = c$ and $\gamma'(1) = d$. Consider the loop $$\omega:=\{\gamma(s) + \gamma'(t) : (s,t)\in\partial([0,1] \times [0,1])\}.$$ Any point not on $\omega$ that has non-zero index with respect to this loop is contained in $\gamma([0,1]) + \gamma'([0,1])$. This yields a point in the interior of $\gamma([0,1]) + \gamma'([0,1])$. Hence it suffices to show that there exists a point of non-zero index.
Let $\delta=\delta(s_1,s_2)$ be the diameter of $\gamma([s_1, s_2])$ for $s_1, s_2 \in [0,1]$. Clearly, $\delta \to 0$ as $s_1 \to s_2$. Pick $s_1$ and $s_2$ sufficiently close so the diameter of $\gamma'([0,1])$ is greater than $2\delta$. Hence there exists a point on the curve $\gamma(s_1) + \gamma'([0,1])$ that is neither in the $\delta$-neighbourhood of $\gamma([s_1, s_2]) + \gamma'(0)$ nor in the $\delta$-neighbourhood of $\gamma([s_1, s_2]) + \gamma'(1)$. By Lemma \[lem:Victor\], either there exists a point not on this curve of non-zero index, or $\gamma(s_1) + \gamma'([0,1])$ and $\gamma(s_2) + \gamma'([0,1])$ coincide outside the $\delta$-neighbourhoods of $\gamma([s_1, s_2]) + \gamma'(0)$ and $\gamma([s_1, s_2]) + \gamma'(1)$.
Taking $s_1 \to s_2$ and assuming that there is never a point of non-zero index gives that $\gamma'([0,1])$ admits an arbitrarily small translation symmetry outside its endpoints, and hence is a straight line. Reversing the roles of $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ gives that either there is a point of non-zero index, or $\gamma([0,1])$ is also a straight line.
If $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are both straight lines, then $\gamma+\gamma'$ is a parallelogram, and will only have empty interior if $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are parallel. By assumption, $\gamma$ and $\gamma'$ are not parallel lines, and hence $\gamma + \gamma'$ contains a point in its interior.
Open questions {#sec:conc}
==============
[**1.**]{} Let $d\ge3$ and let $M$ be a $d\times d$ real matrix whose eigenvalues are all less than 1 in modulus. Denote by $A_M$ the attractor for the contracting self-affine iterated function system (IFS) $\{Mv-u, Mv+u\}$, where $u$ is a cyclic vector. The following result is proved in our most recent paper on the subject to date [@HS-multi].
If $$|\det M|\ge 2^{-1/d},$$ then the attractor $A_M$ has non-empty interior. In particular, this is the case when each eigenvalue of $M$ is greater than $2^{-1/d^2}$ in modulus.
Clearly, this is generalisation of Theorem \[thm:interior\] to higher dimensions (albeit with different constants).
Is it true that $A_M$ contains no holes if all the eigenvalues are close enough to 1?
[**2.**]{} Is there a closed description of $\mathcal B:=\partial A$? In particular, does $\mathcal B$ always have Hausdorff dimension greater than 1? The known examples for the complex case involve ${\kappa}$ which are Galois conjugates of certain Pisot numbers (algebraic integers greater than 1 whose other conjugates are less than 1 in modulus) – e.g. the Rauzy fractal for the tribonacci number or the fractal associated with the smallest Pisot number [@AkSad] – in which case one can generate the boundary via a self-similar IFS.
[**3.**]{} Denote $\mathcal B_m=\partial T_m(A), \mathcal B_p=\partial T_p(A)$ and $\mathcal B_0=\mathcal B \cap \mathcal B_m\cap \mathcal B_p$. If $z\in \mathcal B_0$, then clearly, $z\notin \mathcal U$.
![The attractor $A_{0.5+0.58i}$. It appears that $z$ and $z'$ are the only points in $\mathcal B_0$. If this is indeed the case, then all except a countable set of points of the boundary have a unique address.[]{data-label="fig:intersection"}](complex-05-058.eps){width="350pt"}
The set $$\mathcal B_0':=\bigcup_{\substack{n\ge0\\
(i_1,\dots,i_n)\in\{m,p\}^n}} T_{i_1}\dots T_{i_n}(\mathcal B_0)$$ lies in $\mathcal B$. Moreover, $\mathcal B\setminus \mathcal B_0'\subset \mathcal U$.
Note first that $T_i(\mathcal B)\subset \mathcal B$ for $i\in\{m,p\}$, whence follows the first claim. Now, suppose $z\in\mathcal B\setminus \mathcal B_p$, say. Then the first symbol of any address of $z$ has to be $m$. Let us shift this address, which corresponds to applying $T_m^{-1}$ to $z$ in the plane. If the resulting point is in $\mathcal B\setminus \mathcal B_p$ or $\mathcal B\setminus \mathcal B_m$, then the first symbol of its address is also unique, etc. Hence follows the second claim.
Thus, if we could somehow determine that the set $\mathcal B_0$ is “small” – countable, say – then “almost every” point of the boundary would be a point of uniqueness. See Figure \[fig:intersection\] for an example.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
A significant part of this work has been done during the first author’s stay and the second author’s short visit to Czech Technical University in Prague. The authors are indebted to Edita Pelantová and Zuzana Masáková for their hospitality. The authors would also like to thank Victor Kleptsyn for providing a proof for Theorem \[thm:Victor\].
[99]{}
Sh. Akiyama and T. Sadahiro, *A self-similar tiling generated by the minimal Pisot number*, Acta Math. Inform. Univ. Ostraviensis [**6**]{} (1998), 9-–26.
M.F. Barnsley and A.N. Harrington, *A Mandelbrot set for pairs of linear maps*, Phys. D [**15**]{} (1985), 421–-432.
D. Calegari, S. Koch and A. Walker, *Roots, Schottky semigroups, and a proof of Bandt’s conjecture*, http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.8542.
K. Dajani, K. Jiang and T. Kempton, *Self-affine sets with positive Lebesgue measure*, Indag. Math. [**25**]{} (2014), 774–784.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon\_curve
Z. Daróczy and I. Kátai, *Generalized number systems in the complex plane*, Acta Math. Hung. [**51**]{} (1988), 409–416.
P. Erdös, I. Joó and V. Komornik, *Characterization of the unique expansions $1 = \sum_{i=1}^\infty
q^{n_i}$ and related problems*, Bull. Soc. Math. Fr. [**188**]{} (1990), 377–390.
W. J. Gilbert, *Fractal geometry derived from complex bases*, Math. Intelligencer [**4**]{} (1982), 78–86.
P. Glendinning and N. Sidorov, *Unique representations of real numbers in non-integer bases*, Math. Res. Lett. **8** (2001), 535–543.
C. S. Güntürk, *Simultaneous and hybrid beta-encodings*, in Information Sciences and Systems, 2008. CISS 2008. 42nd Annual Conference on, pages 743-–748, 2008.
K. G. Hare and N. Sidorov, *On a family of self-affine sets: topology, uniqueness, simultaneous expansions*, to appear in Ergod. Th. Dynam. Sys., http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.4101.
K. G. Hare and N. Sidorov, *Multidimensional self-affine sets: non-empty interior and the set of uniqueness*, http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.08714.
S. Ito and M. Kimura, *On the Rauzy fractal*, Japan J. Indust. Appl. Math. [**8**]{} (1991), 461–-486.
V. Kleptsyn, *The Minkowski sum of two curves*, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/194350/the-minkowski-sum-of-two-curves
V. Komornik and P. Loreti, *Unique developments in non-integer bases*, Amer. Math. Monthly **105** (1998), 636–639.
V. Komornik and P. Loreti, *Expansions in complex bases*, Canad. Math. Bull. [**50**]{} (2007), 399–408.
A. Messaoudi, *Frontière du fractal de Rauzy et système de numération complexe*, Acta Arith. [**95**]{} (2000), 195–224.
G. Rauzy, *Nombres algébriques et substitutions*, Bull. Soc. Math. Fr. [**110**]{} (1982), 147–-178.
G. Rote, *Sequences with subword complexity $2n$*, J. Number Theory [**46**]{} (1972), 196-–213.
P. Shmerkin and B. Solomyak, *Zeros of $\{-1,0,1\}$ power series and connectedness loci for self-affine sets*, Exp. Math. [**15**]{} (2006), 499–511.
N. Sidorov, *Combinatorics of linear iterated function systems with overlaps*, Nonlinearity [**20**]{} (2007), 1299–1312.
R. S. Strichartz and Y. Wang, *Geometry of self-affine tiles I*, Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**48**]{} (1999), 1–-23.
R. Kenyon, J. Li, R. S. Strichartz and Y. Wang, *Geometry of self-affine tiles II*, Indiana Univ. Math. J. [**48**]{} (1999), 25–42.
[^1]: Research of K. G. Hare was supported by NSERC Grant RGPIN-2014-03154
[^2]: Computational support provided in part by the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the Ontario Research Fund.
[^3]: In [@KL2007] V. Komornik and P. Loreti obtained a similar result for the condition $A'_{{\kappa}}\supset \{z : |z| \le R\}$ for an arbitrary $R>1$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$ with finite edge stabilizers of bounded order. We provide, in some very interesting cases, upper bounds for the complexity of the intersection $H\cap K$ of two tame subgroups $H$ and $K$ of $G$ in terms of the complexities of $H$ and $K$. In particular, we obtain bounds for the Kurosh rank $Kr(H\cap K)$ of the intersection in terms of Kurosh ranks $Kr(H)$ and $Kr(K)$, in the case where $H$ and $K$ act freely on the edges of $T$.'
author:
- Konstantinos Lentzos and Mihalis Sykiotis
title: On the intersection of tame subgroups in groups acting on trees
---
Introduction
============
In 1954, Howson [@Ho] showed that the intersection of two finitely generated subgroups $H$ and $K$ of a free group $F$ is also finitely generated and provided an upper bound for the rank $r(H\cap
K)$ of $H\cap K$ in terms of $r(H)$ and $r(K)$. The Hanna Neumann conjecture, proved independently by Friedman [@Fr] and Mineyev [@Mi] in 2011, says that $\overline{r}(H\cap K)\leq
\overline{r}(H)\overline{r}(K)$, where $\overline{r}(A)=\max\{0,r(A)-1\}$ is the reduced rank of a free group $A$.
For free products the situation is analogous. Let $\Gamma$ be a group. The *Kurosh rank*, denoted $Kr(\Gamma)$, of a free product decomposition $\Gamma=\ast_{i\in I}G_{i}$ of $\Gamma$ is defined to be the number of (non-trivial) factors $G_{i}$. By the Kurosh subgroup theorem, any subgroup $H$ of $\Gamma$ inherits a free product decomposition $H=\ast_{j\in J}H_{j}\ast F$, where each $H_{j}$ is non-trivial and conjugate to a subgroup of a free factor of $\Gamma$ and $F$ is a free group. The (subgroup) Kurosh rank of $H$ of $\Gamma$ with respect to the above splitting of $\Gamma$, is the sum $|J|+r(F)$, which we again denote by $Kr(H)$. The reduced Kurosh rank of $H$ is defined to be $\overline{K}r(H)=\max\{0,Kr(H)-1\}$.
Free products also have the Howson property, in the following sense: if $H$, $K$ are subgroups of $\Gamma$ of finite Kurosh rank, then $H\cap K$ also has finite rank (see [@Sy Theorem 2.13 (1)] for a proof). In [@Iv], Ivanov proved that if $\Gamma$ is torsion free, then $\overline{K}r(H\cap K)\leq 2
\overline{K}r(H)\overline{K}r(K)$. It is shown in [@AnMS], that if $\Gamma$ is right-orderable, then the coefficient $2$ can be replaced by $1$.
The problem of finding bounds for the “rank" of the intersection of subgroups in free products and more generally in groups satisfying the Howson property has also been considered in [@So; @BCK; @Iv0; @DI; @DI1; @Za1; @Za2; @ArSS].
In this paper, we obtain, under appropriate hypotheses, bounds for the complexity of the intersection of tame subgroups in groups acting on trees with finite edge stabilizers.
Let $G$ be a group acting on a (simplicial) tree $T$ without inversions. A vertex $v$ of $T$ is called *($G$-) degenerate* if $G_{v} = G_{e}$ for some edge $e$ incident to $v$. The corresponding vertex $[v]_{G}$ of the quotient graph $T/G$ is also called degenerate. Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$. We denote by $r(T/H)$ the rank of the fundamental group of $T/H$ and by $V_{ndeg}(T/H)$ the set of $H$-non-degenerate vertices of $T/H$. The *complexity* $C_{T}(H)$ of $H$ with respect to $T$ is defined to be the sum $C_{T}(H)= r(T/H) + |V_{ndeg}(T/H)|\in [0,\infty]$, if $H$ contains hyperbolic elements, and $1$ otherwise. The *reduced complexity* of $H$ with respect to $T$, is defined as $\overline{C}_{T}(H)=max\{{C}_{T}(H)-1,0\}$. The subgroup $H$ of $G$ is called *tame* if either $H$ fixes a vertex, or $H$ contains a hyperbolic element and the quotient graph $T_{H}/H$ is finite, where $T_{H}$ is the unique minimal $H$-invariant subtree of $T$. By [@Sy Theorem 2.13], if each edge stabilizer is finite, then the intersection of two tame subgroups $H$, $K$ of $G$ is again tame. In the case where $H\cap K$ fixes a vertex, we obviously have $\overline{C}_{T}(H\cap K)\leq \overline{C}_{T}(H)\cdot
\overline{C}_{T}(K)$.
Finitely generated subgroups are examples of tame subgroups. In the case of free products, finite Kurosh rank implies tameness (see Lemma \[lem0\]) and the complexity of a non-trivial subgroup is exactly its Kurosh rank (see section \[prelim\] for more details). Our first main result is the following.
[thm]{}[firstThmOne]{}\[ThmOne\] Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$ with finite quotient and finite stabilizers of edges and let $H$, $K$ be tame subgroups of $G$ such that $H\cap K$ does not fix a vertex of $T$.
1. If $T_{H}/H$ and $T_{K}/K$ do not contain degenerate vertices of valence two, then $$\overline{C}_{T}(H\cap K)\leq \big(6NM+12(M-1)N\big)\cdot\overline{C}_{T}(H)\cdot
\overline{C}_{T}(K),$$ where $N=\max\big\{|G_{x}\cap HK |\,:\,x\in
ET\big\}$ and $M=\max\{M_{H},M_{K}\}\leq \max\big\{|G_{x}|\,:\,x\in
ET\big\}$.
2. Suppose $H$ and $K$ satisfy the following property: for each $H$-degenerate (resp. $K$-degenerate) vertex $v$ of $T$, the stabilizer $H_{v}$ (resp. $K_{v}$) stabilizes each edge in the star of $v$. Then $$\overline{C}_{T}(H\cap K)\leq 6N\cdot\overline{C}_{T}(H)\cdot
\overline{C}_{T}(K).$$ In particular, if $H,K$ act freely on the edges of $T$, then $$\overline{K}_{T}(H\cap K)\leq
6N\cdot\overline{K}_{T}(H)\cdot \overline{K}_{T}(K).$$
In the special case where both $H$ and $K$ act freely on $T$, the above inequality was proved by Zakharov in [@Za1].
Now let $G=\ast_{A}G_{i}\ast F$ be the free product of the amalgamated free product of $G_{i}$’s with a finite amalgamated subgroup $A$ and $F$, such that $A$ is normal in each $G_{i}$. Following Dicks and Ivanov [@DI], we define $a_{3}(G_{i}/A)=\min\big\{|\Gamma|\,:\,\Gamma \textrm{ is a subgroup
of } G_{i}/A \textrm{ with } |\Gamma|\geq 3 \big\}$ and $\theta(G_{i}/A)=\Big\{\frac{a_{3}(G_{i}/A)}{a_{3}(G_{i}/A)-2}\Big\}\in
[1,3]$, where $\frac{\infty}{\infty-2}:=1$.
We represent $G$ as the fundamental group of a graph of groups $(\mathcal{G},\Psi)$, where $\Psi$ is the wedge of copies of $[0,1]$ (one copy for each factor $G_{i}$) and a bouquet of circles (one for each free generator of $F$). To each copy of $[0,1]$ and to the wedge point we associate the group $A$, and to each circle we associate the trivial group. To each of the remaining vertices we associate a factor $G_{i}$. Let $T$ be the corresponding universal tree.
[thm]{}[firstThmTwo]{}\[thm2\] Let $G=\ast_{A}G_{i}\ast F$ be the free product of the amalgamated free product of $G_{i}$’s with a finite amalgamated subgroup $A$ and $F$, such that $A$ is normal in each $G_{i}$. We consider the natural action of $G$ on $T$ defined above. Suppose that $H$ and $K$ are tame subgroups (with respect to $T$) of $G$ which act freely on the edges of $T$. Then $H\cap K$ is tame and $$\overline{K}_{T}(H\cap K)\leq 2\cdot \theta\cdot
N\cdot\overline{K}_{T}(H)\cdot \overline{K}_{T}(K)\leq 2\cdot \theta
\cdot |A|\cdot\overline{K}_{T}(H)\cdot \overline{K}_{T}(K)\,,$$ where $\theta=\max\{\theta(G_{i}/A)\,:\,i\in I\}$ and $N=\max\big\{|gAg^{-1}\cap HK |\,:\,g\in G\big\}$.
As an immediate corollary we obtain the main result of [@Iv] mentioned above.
It should be noted that the arguments in the proof of Theorem \[thm2\], work in a slightly more general setting as well. Thus, with essentially the same proof, we obtain Theorem \[thm3\] (see also Remark \[rem2\]): If $H$, $K$ are tame subgroups of a free product $\ast_{A}G_{i}$ with a finite and normal amalgamated subgroup $A$, then $\overline{C}_{T}(H\cap K)\leq 2\cdot \theta
\cdot |A\cap HK|\cdot\overline{C}_{T}(H)\cdot \overline{C}_{T}(K),$ where $\theta=\max\{\theta(G_{i}/A)\,:\,i\in I\}$ and $T$ is defined as above for $F=1$.
After posting the first version of this paper on the arXiv, the authors learned from A. Zakharov that he, in collaboration with S. Ivanov, had also recently obtained (unpublished) upper bounds for the Kurosh rank of the intersection of free product subgroups in groups acting on trees with finite edge stabilizers.
**Acknowledgements.** We are grateful to Dimitrios Varsos for many useful discussions and comments. We are also grateful to the anonymous referee for careful reading of the manuscript and pointing out a mistake in an earlier version.
Preliminaries {#prelim}
=============
To fix our notation, we first recall the definition of a graph.
A *graph* $X$ consists of a (nonempty) set of vertices $VX$, a set of edges $EX$, a fixed-point free involution $^{-1}:EX \rightarrow EX$ ($e\mapsto
e^{-1}$) and a map $i:EX\rightarrow VX$. The vertex $i(e)$ is called the *initial* vertex of the edge $e$. The *terminal* vertex $t(e)$ of $e$ is defined by $t(e)=i(e^{-1})$.
Throughout, let $G$ be a group acting on a (simplicial) tree $T$ (without inversions, i.e. $ge\neq e^{-1}$ for any $g\in G$ and $e\in
EX$). By Bass-Serre theory, for which we refer to [@DicksDun; @Se], this is equivalent to saying that $G$ is the fundamental group of the corresponding graph of groups $(\mathcal{G},T/G)$. If $x\in T$, we denote by $[x]_{G}$ the $G$-orbit of $x$ and by $G_{x}$ its stabilizer. An element $g\in G$ is *elliptic* if it fixes a vertex of $T$ and *hyperbolic* otherwise. If $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ containing a hyperbolic element, then there is a unique minimal $H$-invariant subtree $T_{H}$ which is the union of the axes of the hyperbolic elements of $H$.
We recall that a subgroup $H$ of $G$ is called *tame* if either $H$ fixes a vertex, or $H$ contains a hyperbolic element and the quotient graph $T_{H}/H$ is finite. By [@Sy Prop. 2.2], the subtree $T_{H}$ is a “core" for the action of $H$ on $T$ in the sense that $r(T/H)+|V_{ndeg}(T/H)| =
r(T_{H}/H)+|V_{ndeg}(T_{H}/H)|$, i.e. $C_{T}(H)=C_{T_{H}}(H)$. From this it follows that the complexity of a tame subgroup is finite.
Finitely generated subgroups of $G$ are examples of tame subgroups, since a finitely generated group $\Gamma$ acting by isometries on $T$, either fixes a point of $T$ or else contains a hyperbolic isometry and the quotient graph $T_{\Gamma}/\Gamma$ is finite.
\[rem1\] We note that if the $G$-stabilizer of each edge is finite and there is a bound on their orders, then any subgroup of $G$ consisting of elliptic elements fixes a vertex of $T$ ([@Sy Lem. 2.5]).
If we restrict attention to subgroups $H$ of $G$ that act edge-freely on $T$, then the *Kurosh rank* $K_{T}(H)$ of $H$ (with respect $T$) is defined to be the complexity $C_{T}(H)$ of $H$.
Let $\Gamma=\ast_{i\in I}G_{i}$ be a free product and $H$ a subgroup of $\Gamma$. By the Kurosh subgroup theorem, $H=\ast_{i\in
I,g_{i}}(H\cap g_{i}G_{i}g_{i}^{-1})\ast F$, where for each $i$, $g_{i}$ ranges over a set of double coset representatives in $G_{i}\backslash \Gamma/H$ and $F$ is a free group intersecting each conjugate $gG_{i}g^{-1}$ trivially. The *(subgroup) Kurosh rank* of $H$ with respect the above free product decomposition of $\Gamma$, denoted by $Kr(H)$, is the sum $|\Lambda| +rank(F)$, where $|\Lambda|$ is the number of all non-trivial factors $H\cap
g_{i}G_{i}g_{i}^{-1}$. Note that the Kurosh rank of $\Gamma$ is the number of non-trivial factors $G_{i}$.
It is not difficult to verify that the numbers $|\Lambda|$, $rank(F)$ depend only on $H$ and the given free product decomposition of $\Gamma$. In fact, if $T$ is any $\Gamma$-tree corresponding to the given decomposition of $\Gamma$, then the Kurosh rank of $H$ with respect to $\Gamma=\ast_{i\in I}G_{i}$ is equal to the Kurosh rank $K_{T}(H)$ of the associated free product decomposition of $H$ coming from the action of $H$ on $T$. Thus, if $H$ is non-trivial, then $Kr(H)=K_{T}(H)=C_{T}(H)$.
\[lem0\] Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$ and $H$ a subgroup of $G$ that act edge-freely on $T$. If $K_{T}(H)<\infty$, then $H$ is tame.
It suffices to consider the case when $H$ contains a hyperbolic element. Let $\pi:T\rightarrow T/H$ be the natural projection given by $\pi(x)=[x]_{H}$. Since $K_{T}(H)<\infty$, there are finitely many vertices $v_{1},\ldots,v_{n}$ of $T/H$ with non-trivial group and finitely many edges $e_{1},\ldots,e_{m}$ of $T/H$ such that $X=T/H\setminus \{e_{1},\ldots,e_{m}\}$ is a maximal tree of $T/H$. Let $Y$ be the finite subgraph of $T/H$ consisting of $\{e_{1},\ldots,e_{m}\}$ and all geodesics in $X$ between endpoints of the $e_{i}'s$ and $v_{1},\ldots,v_{n}$. We claim that $\pi^{-1}(Y)$ is connected. To see this, let $p=x_{1}\cdots x_{k}$ be a reduced path connecting vertices of $\pi^{-1}(Y)$ such that no edge of $p$ lies in $\pi^{-1}(Y)$. Then $\pi(p)$ is contained in the complement $T/H\setminus Y$ of $Y$. Since $Y$ contains the edges $e_{1},\ldots,e_{m}$, each component $C$ of $T/H\setminus Y$ is a tree, and it is not difficult to see that $C$ intersects $T/H\setminus Y$ in only one vertex. It follows that there is an index $i$ such that $\pi(x_{i})=\pi(x_{i+1})^{-1}$. This means that $hx_{i}=x_{i+1}^{-1}$ for some $h\in H$ and hence $h$ fixes the initial vertex $v$ of $x_{i}$. From the construction of $Y$, $v$ is degenerate and therefore $h=1$, which contradicts the choice of $p$.
Thus, $\pi^{-1}(Y)$ is a connected $H$-invariant subgraph of $T$. It follows that $T_{H}\subseteq \pi^{-1}(Y)$. We conclude that $T_{H}/H$ is finite, being a subgraph of $Y$.
Proofs of the main results
==========================
Let $Y$ be a graph and $v$ a vertex of $Y$. The *star* of $v$, denoted $Star_{Y}(v)$, is the set of edges of $Y$ with initial vertex $v$, i.e. $Star_{Y}(v)=\{e\in EY\,|\,i(e)=v\}$. The *valence* or *degree* of $v$ in $Y$, denoted $\deg_{Y}(v)$, is the number of edges in the star of $v$.
\[lem1\] Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$, let $H$ be a tame subgroup of $G$ containing hyperbolic elements and let $\widetilde{X}$ be the graph obtained from $X=T_{H}/H$ by attaching a loop at each $H$-non-degenerate vertex. Then $$\overline{C}_{T}(H)=\overline{r}(\widetilde{X})=\frac{1}{2}\sum\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}([v]_{H})-2\big)\,,$$ where the sum is taken over all vertices $[v]_{H}$ of $\widetilde{X}$.
The reduced rank of a graph is equal to the number of its (geometric-oriented) edges minus the number of its vertices. The minimality of $T_{H}$ implies that each vertex of $X$ of valence one is $H$-non-degenerate. Therefore, every vertex of $\widetilde{X}$ has valence at least two. Now an easy calculation shows that the sum $\sum\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}([v]_{H})-2\big)$, over all vertices $[v]_{H}$ of $\widetilde{X}$, is equal to 2$\overline{r}(\widetilde{X})$. By construction of $\widetilde{X}$, we have $\overline{r}(\widetilde{X})=\overline{C}_{T}(H)$ which completes the proof.
\[lem2\] Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$ and let $A$ and $B$ be subgroups of $G$ such that $A\subseteq B$. Suppose that $A$ and $B$ contain hyperbolic elements and that $v$ is a vertex of $T_{B}$. We consider the graph map $\pi_{B}:T_{A}/A \longrightarrow T_{B}/B$ given by $\pi([x]_{A})=[x]_{B}$.
1. $|Star([v]_{A})|\leq |G_{v}\cap
B|\cdot |Star([v]_{B})|$ (provided that they are finite).
2. If, moreover, $B_{v}$ is $B$-degenerate and stabilizes each edge in $Star_{T_{B}}(v)$, then the restriction $\pi_{B}: Star([v]_{A}) \longrightarrow Star([v]_{B})$ is an embedding.
Suppose that $[e_{1}]_{A}$ and $[e_{2}]_{A}$ are two edges in the star of $[v]_{A}$ with $\pi([e_{1}]_{A})=\pi([e_{2}]_{A})$. Then there are $a_{1},a_{2}\in A$ and $b\in B$ such that $i(e_{1})=a_{1}v$, $i(e_{2})=a_{2}v$ and $e_{1}=be_{2}$. It follows that $i(e_{1})=bi(e_{2})$ and thus $a_{1}v=ba_{2}v$. Hence $a_{1}^{-1}ba_{2}\in G_{v}\cap B=B_{v}$. Now, if $[x]_{A}$ is an edge in the star of $[v]_{A}$ with $\pi([x]_{A})=\pi([e_{1}]_{A})=\pi([e_{2}]_{A})$, then as before $i(x)=a_{x}v$ and $x=b_{x}e_{2}$ for some $a_{x}\in A$ and $b_{x}\in
B$. If we assume further that $a_{1}^{-1}ba_{2}=a_{x}^{-1}b_{x}a_{2}$, then $a_{1}^{-1}b=a_{x}^{-1}b_{x}$ and so $[e_{1}]_{A}=[be_{2}]_{A}=[a_{1}a_{x}^{-1}b_{x}e_{2}]_{A}=[b_{x}e_{2}]_{A}=[x]_{A}$. This means that each fiber of the restriction (on stars) has at most $|G_{v}\cap B|$ elements, and the first assertion follows.
Now, if $B_{v}$ stabilizes each edge in $Star_{T_{B}}(v)$, then $a_{1}^{-1}ba_{2}$ stabilizes $a_{2}^{-1}e_{2}$ and therefore $[e_{1}]_{A}=[be_{2}]_{A}=[a_{1}a_{2}^{-1}e_{2}]_{A}=[e_{2}]_{A}$.
In view of this lemma, we define $M_{B}:=\max\{|G_{v}\cap B|\,:\,v
\textrm{ is a B-degenerate vertex of T }\}$.
The following is our first main result.
Since $H\cap K$ does not fix a vertex, it follows from Remark \[rem1\] that $H\cap K$, $H$ and $K$ contain hyperbolic elements. Let $T_{H\cap K}$, $T_{H}$, $T_{K}$ be the minimal subtrees of $T$ invariant under $H\cap K$, $H$, $K$, respectively. Let $\pi_{H}:T_{H\cap K}/H\cap K \longrightarrow
T_{H}/H$ and $\pi_{K}:T_{H\cap K}/H\cap K \longrightarrow T_{K}/K$ be the natural projections (defined as in Lemma \[lem2\]). We consider the map $\pi=(\pi_{H},\pi_{K}):T_{H\cap K}/H\cap K
\longrightarrow T_{H}/H \times T_{K}/K$ given by $\pi([x]_{H\cap
K})=([x]_{H},[x]_{K})$. By [@Ba Proposition 8.7], each fiber $\pi^{-1}([x]_{H},[x]_{K})$, where $x$ is an edge or a vertex, has exactly $|H_{x}\backslash G_{x}\cap HK / K_{x}|$ elements. It follows that for each edge $x$ the fiber $\pi^{-1}([x]_{H},[x]_{K})$ has at most $N$ elements.
For convenience we simplify notation by setting $X=T_{H\cap K}/H\cap
K$, $Y=T_{H}/H$ and $Z=T_{K}/K$. As in Lemma \[lem1\], we construct graphs $\widetilde{X}$, $\widetilde{Y}$ and $\widetilde{Z}$, by attaching a loop at each non-degenerate vertex of $X$, $Y$ and $Z$, respectively.
1\) By Lemma \[lem1\], it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq1}
\sum_{V\widetilde{X}}\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}([v]_{H\cap
K})-2\big)& \leq \big(3NM+6N(M-1)\big)
\sum_{V\widetilde{Y}}\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}([v]_{H})-2\big) \cdot
\sum_{V\widetilde{Z}}\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}([v]_{K})-2\big).\end{aligned}$$ For any pair of vertices $(a,b)\in Y\times Z$, we will show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq2} \sum_{v\in
\pi^{-1}(a,b)}\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v)-2\big)&\leq
\big(3NM+6N(M-1)\big)\cdot \big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a)-2\big) \cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b)-2\big)\end{aligned}$$ from which (\[ineq1\]) follows. The rest of the proof follows similar arguments to those given in [@BCK], [@DI] and [@Iv]. Let $\{v_{1},\ldots, v_{n}\}$ be the vertices of $\pi^{-1}(a,b)$. Since the fiber of any edge of $Y\times Z$ contains at most $N$ edges, we have $$\label{ineq3}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \deg_{X}(v_{i}) \leq N \cdot \deg_{Y}(a) \cdot
\deg_{Z}(b).$$
We consider three cases depending on whether or not $a$ and $b$ are degenerate.\
**Case 1.** Suppose that $a$ is $H$-non-degenerate and $b$ is $K$-non-degenerate. Then $\deg_{Y}(a) =\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2$, $\deg_{Z}(b) = \deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b) -2$ while $\deg_{X}(v_{i})$ is equal to $\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i}) -2$ or $\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})$. Hence $$\sum_{i=1}^{n} \big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big) \leq {\displaystyle}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \deg_{X}(v_{i})
\leq N \cdot \deg_{Y}(a)\cdot\deg_{Z}(b)= N\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big)\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b) -2\big)\,.$$ **Case 2.** Exactly one of $a$, $b$, say $b$, is degenerate. Then each $v_{i}$ is $(H\cap K)$-degenerate as well, and thus $\deg_{Y}(a) =\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2$, $\deg_{X}(v_{i}) =
\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})$ and $\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b)=\deg_{Z}(b)
>2$. Also, by Lemma \[lem2\], for each $i$ we have $\deg_{X}(v_{i})\leq M\deg_{Z}(b)$.
If $n\leq N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n}
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big)&=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\big(\deg_{X}(v_{i})-2\big)
\leq n\cdot \big(M\deg_{Z}(b)-2\big)\leq N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a) \big(M\deg_{Z}(b)-2\big)\nonumber \\
&\leq N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a)\Big(M\big(\deg_{Z}(b)-2\big)+2(M-1)\Big)\nonumber \\
& = NM
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big) \big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b)
-2\big)+2N(M-1)\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big)\label{2a}\\
&\leq \big(NM+2N(M-1)\big)\cdot \big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a)
-2\big)\cdot \big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b) -2\big),\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ where the last inequality follows because $\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b)>2$.
On the other hand, if $n\geq N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a)$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n}
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big)&=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\deg_{X}(v_{i})-2n
\leq N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a)\cdot \deg_{Z}(b)-2N \cdot \deg_{Y}(a) \nonumber\\
&=
N \deg_{Y}(a)\cdot\big(\deg_{Z}(b)-2\big)
= N
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big)\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b)
-2\big)\label{2b}.\end{aligned}$$ **Case 3.** Finally, suppose that $a$, $b$ are degenerate in $Y$, $Z$, respectively. Then each vertex $v_{i}$ is $(H\cap
K)$-degenerate as well and $\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a)=\deg_{Y}(a)
>2$, $\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})=\deg_{X}(v_{i})$, $\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b)=\deg_{Z}(b)>2$. Moreover, by Lemma \[lem2\], $\deg_{X}(v_{i})\leq \min\{M\deg_{Y}(a),M\deg_{Z}(b)
\}$. Suppose that $\deg_{Z}(b)=\min\{\deg_{Y}(a),\deg_{Z}(b) \}$ and hence $\deg_{Y}(a)=\max\{\deg_{Y}(a),\deg_{Z}(b) \}$ (the other case is handled in the same way).
If $n\leq N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a)$, then $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big)
=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\big(\deg_{X}(v_{i})-2\big) \leq n\cdot
\big(M\deg_{Z}(b)-2\big)\leq N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a)\cdot
\big(M\deg_{Z}(b)-2\big).$$
On the other hand, if $n\geq N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a)$, then $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big)
=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\deg_{X}(v_{i})-2n \leq N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a)\cdot
\deg_{Z}(b)-2N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a) \leq N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a)\cdot
\big(\deg_{Z}(b)-2\big)\,.$$
Thus, in each case we have $$\label{3a}\sum_{i=1}^{n}
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big)\leq N\cdot \deg_{Y}(a)\cdot
\big(M\deg_{Z}(b)-2\big)\,.$$ Since $\deg_{Y}(a)\geq
3$, or equivalently, $\deg_{Y}(a)\leq 3\big(\deg_{Y}(a)-2\big)$, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n}
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big)&\leq 3N\cdot
\big(\deg_{Y}(a)-2\big)\cdot
\big(M\deg_{Z}(b)-2\big)\nonumber\\
&\leq 3N\cdot
\big(\deg_{Y}(a)-2\big)\cdot\Big(M\big(\deg_{Z}(b)-2\big)+2(M-1)\Big)\nonumber \\
&= 3NM\cdot \big(\deg_{Y}(a)-2\big)\cdot
\big(\deg_{Z}(b)-2\big)+6N(M-1)\cdot \big(\deg_{Y}(a)-2\big)\nonumber\\
&\leq\big(3NM+6N(M-1)\big)\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a)-2\big)\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b)-2\big)\label{3b}.\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof of part 1) of the theorem.
2\) To prove the second part, again by Lemma \[lem1\], it suffices to show that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ineq5} \sum_{v\in
\pi^{-1}(a,b)}\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v)-2\big)&\leq 3N
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a)-2\big) \cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b)-2\big),\end{aligned}$$ for each pair of vertices $(a,b)\in Y\times Z$. Proceeding exactly as before, we distinguish three cases. In Case 1, where both $a$ and $b$ are non-degenerate, we get the same inequality. In Cases 2 and 3, by Lemma \[lem2\] (2), we can now use $1$ instead of $M$. Thus in Cases 2 and 3, we obtain respectively (from \[2a\]-\[2b\] and \[3b\]) the inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n}\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big)&\leq N
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a)-2\big) \cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b)-2\big)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n}\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big)&\leq 3N
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a)-2\big) \cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b)-2\big).\end{aligned}$$ It remains only to consider the case when both $a$ and $b$ are degenerate (in which case we are in Case 3) and $\deg_{Y}(a)=2$, where $a$ is the vertex of maximal degree. If $\deg_{Y}(a)=2$, then $\deg_{Z}(b)=2$ too, and inequality \[ineq5\] follows since, by Lemma \[lem2\] (2), $\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})=\deg_{X}(v_{i})\leq
\min\{\deg_{Y}(a),\deg_{Z}(b) \}$ for each $i$.
([@Za1 Theorem 1]) Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$ with finite quotient and finite stabilizers of edges and let $H$, $K$ be finitely generated subgroups of $G$ which intersect trivially each vertex stabilizer (and hence they are free groups). Then $H\cap K$ is finitely generated and $$\overline{r}(H\cap K)\leq 6N\cdot\overline{r}(H)\cdot
\overline{r}(K),$$ where $N=\max\big\{|G_{x}\cap HK |\,:\,x\in
ET\big\}$.
Let $G$ be a group acting on a tree $T$ with finite quotient, finite stabilizers of edges and infinite vertex stabilizers. If $H$ and $K$ are subgroups of finite index in $G$, then $$\overline{C}_{T}(H\cap K)\leq 2N\cdot\overline{C}_{T}(H)\cdot
\overline{C}_{T}(K).$$
If the $G$-stabilizer of every vertex is infinite and both $H$ and $K$ are of finite index in $G$, then each vertex stabilizer is also infinite under the action of $H$ or $K$ (being of finite index in the corresponding $G$-stabilizer) and thus Cases 2 and 3 do not occur.
Following [@DI], given a group $G$, we define $a_{3}(G)=\min\big\{|\Gamma|\,:\,\Gamma \textrm{ is a subgroup of }
G \textrm{ with } |\Gamma|\geq 3 \big\}$ and $\theta(G)=\Big\{\frac{a_{3}(G)}{a_{3}(G)-2}\Big\}\in [1,3]$, where $\frac{\infty}{\infty-2}:=1$.
In the sequel, we prove that if $H,K$ act freely on the edges, then the coefficient $6$ in the above theorem can be replaced by a number $2\theta$, where $\theta\in [1,3]$, by imposing some extra hypotheses on the structure of $G$.
Let $G_{i}$, $i\in I$, be a family of groups together with a group $A$, let $\phi_{i}:A\longrightarrow G_{i}$ be a family of monomorphisms and let $\ast_{A}G_{i}$ be the amalgamated free product of $G_{i}$’s with amalgamated subgroup $A$ (with respect to $\phi_{i}$). We can think of each $\phi_{i}$ as an inclusion. Let $F$ be a free group and let $G=\ast_{A}G_{i}\ast F$ be the free product of $F$ and $\ast_{A}G_{i}$. We construct a graph of groups $(\mathcal{G},\Psi)$ with fundamental group $G$ as follows. The graph $\Psi$ consists of a wedge of open edges $e_{i}=[u_{0},u_{i}],i\in I$ (i.e. one for each factor $G_{i}$ and distinct endpoints $u_{0}$ and $u_{i},i\in I$, $0\notin I$), together with a wedge of loops $l_{j}$, one for each free generator of $F$, attached at a vertex $u_{0}$ with vertex group $A$. To each edge $e_{i}$ we associate the group $A$, to each loop $l_{j}$ we associate the trivial group and to each vertex $u_{i}$ we associate the group $G_{i}$. We denote by $T$ the corresponding universal tree.
We proceed as in the proof of Theorem \[ThmOne\]. With the notation of that proof, we have to prove that $$\label{ineq4}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big) \leq
\theta \cdot N \cdot \big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big)\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b) -2\big)$$ for any pair of vertices $(a,b)\in Y\times Z$ (recall that $\{v_{1},\ldots, v_{n}\}$ denotes the vertices of $\pi^{-1}(a,b)$). Since $H$, $K$ act freely on the edges of $T$, it follows, by Lemma \[lem2\] (2), that we can use $1$ instead of $M$. Suppose first that at least one of $a$ and $b$ is non-degenerate. Then the arguments of Cases 1, 2 of the proof of Theorem \[ThmOne\] apply to show that $$\label{ineq6}\sum_{i=1}^{n} \big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big) \leq
N \cdot \big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big)\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b) -2\big)$$ and inequality \[ineq4\] holds. Thus it suffices to consider the case where $a$ is $H$-degenerate and $b$ is $K$-degenerate (i.e. Case 3 in the proof of Theorem \[ThmOne\]). In this case we have $\deg_{Y}(a)
=\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a)$, $\deg_{Z}(b) = \deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b)$ and $\deg_{X}(v_{i}) = \deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})$, while by Lemma \[lem2\] (2), $\deg_{X}(v_{i})\leq \min\{\deg_{Y}(a),\deg_{Z}(b)
\}$. For each $i\in\{1,\ldots, n\}$, choose a vertex, $w_{i}$, of $T$, so that $[w_{i}]_{H\cap K}=v_{i}\in \pi^{-1}(a,b)$. Note that all $w_{1},\ldots,w_{n}$ lie in the same $G$-orbit. There are two subcases to consider.
\(i) $w_{i}$ and $u_{0}$ are in the same $G$-orbit, i.e. $w_{i}=g_{i}u_{0}$ for some $g_{i}\in G$. Notice that $H_{w_{i}}=K_{w_{i}}=g_{i}Ag_{i}^{-1}\cap H=g_{i}Ag_{i}^{-1}\cap
K=1$. If one of the vertices $a$ or $b$ has valence $2$, then (each) $v_{i}$ has valence $2$ as well and inequality \[ineq4\] is obvious. If both $a$ and $b$ have valence at least $3$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big)& \leq
n\cdot \big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big)\leq |H_{w_{i}}\backslash
G_{w_{i}}\cap HK / K_{w_{i}}| \big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a)
-2\big)\cdot (3 -2)\nonumber \\
&\leq N\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big)\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b) -2\big)\leq \theta(G)\cdot N\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big)\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b) -2\big).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
\(ii) $w_{i}$ and $u_{j}$ are in the same $G$-orbit for some $j\in
I$, i.e. there exists $g_{i}\in G$ such that $w_{i}=g_{i}u_{j}$. As before, we may assume that both $a$ and $b$ have valence at least $3$.
If $n\leq N$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=1}^{n} \big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{i})-2\big)\leq N\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big)\cdot (3-2)\leq N\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big)\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b) -2\big). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Suppose now that $n>N$. Let $\mathcal{R}=\{g_{\lambda}\}_{\lambda\in
\Lambda}$ be a set of representatives of left cosets of $A$ in $G_{j}$. From the construction of $X=T/G$, the stars of different vertices of $\pi^{-1}(a,b)$ are disjoint, while each edge in the star of $[g_{i}u_{j}]_{\Gamma}$, where $\Gamma=H\cap K,H \textrm{ or
} K$, is of the form $[xe_{j}]_{\Gamma}$ and its terminal vertex is $[g_{i}u_{j}]_{\Gamma}$. It follows that there is $\gamma\in \Gamma$ such that $\gamma x u_{j}=g_{i}u_{j}$ and thus $g_{i}^{-1}\gamma
x\in G_{j}$. If we write $g_{i}^{-1}\gamma x$ as $g_{\lambda(x)}a$, where $g_{\lambda(x)}\in \mathcal{R}$ and $a\in A$, then $[xe_{j}]_{\Gamma}=[\gamma^{-1}g_{i}g_{\lambda(x)}a
e_{j}]_{\Gamma}=[g_{i}g_{\lambda(x)}a
e_{j}]_{\Gamma}=[g_{i}g_{\lambda(x)} e_{j}]_{\Gamma}$. It follows that there exists a subset $\mathcal{R}^{i}_{\Gamma}$ of $\mathcal{R}$ such that $Star([w_{i}]_{\Gamma})=\big\{[g_{i}g_{\lambda}
e_{j}]_{\Gamma}\,:\,g_{\lambda}\in\mathcal{R}^{i}_{\Gamma}\big\}$ and $|\mathcal{R}^{i}_{\Gamma}|=|Star([w_{i}]_{\Gamma})|$. In particular, $|\mathcal{R}^{i}_{H}|=|Star_{Y}(a)|$ and $|\mathcal{R}^{i}_{K}|=|Star_{Z}(b)|$.
Fix $i\in \{1,\ldots,n\}$. For any $k\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$, let $C_{k}$ be the subset of $\mathcal{R}_{H}\times
\mathcal{R}_{K}:=\mathcal{R}^{i}_{H}\times \mathcal{R}^{i}_{K}$ consisting of all pairs $(g_{\lambda},g_{\mu})$ such that $\big([g_{i}g_{\lambda} e_{j}]_{H},[g_{i}g_{\mu} e_{j}]_{K}\big)$ is the image under $\pi$ of some edge $[xe_{j}]_{H\cap K}$ in the star of $[g_{k}u_{j}]_{H\cap K}=v_{k}$ in $X$. Let $\phi:G_{j}\rightarrow
G_{j}/A$ denote the natural epimorphism. Note that the restriction of $\phi$ on $\mathcal{R}$ is a bijection.
We will show that $\phi(C_{k})=\big\{\big(\phi(g_{\lambda}),\phi(g_{\mu})\big):\,
(g_{\lambda},g_{\mu})\in C_{k}\big\}$ is a *single-quotient* subset of $\phi(\mathcal{R}_{H})\times \phi(\mathcal{R}_{K})$, in the terminology of [@DI], i.e. that the product $\phi(g_{\lambda})\cdot \phi(g_{\mu})^{-1}$ is constant for all pairs $(g_{\lambda},g_{\mu})\in C_{k}$. Suppose that $y_{1}$ and $y_{2}$ are edges in the star of $v_{k}$ and that $\pi(y_{t})=\big([g_{i}g_{\lambda(t)} e_{j}]_{H},[g_{i}g_{\mu(t)}
e_{j}]_{K}\big)$, $t=1,2$. We want to show that $\phi(g_{\lambda(1)})\cdot
\phi(g_{\mu(1)})^{-1}=\phi(g_{\lambda(2)})\cdot
\phi(g_{\mu(2)})^{-1}$. From the above analysis, we can write $y_{t}=[g_{k}g_{s(t)} e_{j}]_{H\cap K}$ for some $g_{s(t)}\in\mathcal{R}^{k}_{H\cap K}$, $t=1,2$, and thus $\pi(y_{t})=\big([g_{k}g_{s(t)} e_{j}]_{H},[g_{k}g_{s(t)} e_{j}]_{
K}\big)$. It follows that $\big([g_{k}g_{s(1)}
e_{j}]_{H},[g_{k}g_{s(1)} e_{j}]_{ K}\big)=\big([g_{i}g_{\lambda(1)}
e_{j}]_{H},[g_{i}g_{\mu(1)} e_{j}]_{K}\big)$, and that $\big([g_{k}g_{s(2)} e_{j}]_{H},[g_{k}g_{s(2)} e_{j}]_{
K}\big)=\big([g_{i}g_{\lambda(2)} e_{j}]_{H},[g_{i}g_{\mu(2)}
e_{j}]_{K}\big)$. Hence there are $h_{1},h_{2}\in H$, $k_{1},k_{2}\in K$ and $a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},a_{4}\in A$ such that $$\begin{array}{ll}
g_{k}g_{s(1)}=h_{1}g_{i}g_{\lambda(1)}a_{1}, & g_{k}g_{s(2)}=h_{2} g_{i}g_{\lambda(2)}a_{3} \\
g_{k}g_{s(1)}=k_{1}g_{i}g_{\mu(1)}a_{2}, & g_{k}g_{s(2)}=k_{2}g_{i}g_{\mu(2)}a_{4} \\
\end{array}$$ By normality of $A$ in $G_{j}$, the stabilizer of any edge in the star of $w_{i}$ is equal to $g_{i}Ag_{i}^{-1}$. Therefore our assumption that $w_{i}$ is $H,K$ degenerate implies that $H\cap
G_{w_{i}}=H\cap g_{i}Ag_{i}^{-1}$ and $K\cap G_{w_{i}}=K\cap
g_{i}Ag_{i}^{-1}$. Now, from the first two equalities above we deduce that $$\label{eq5} h_{2}^{-1}h_{1}=
g_{i}g_{\lambda(2)}a_{3}g_{s(2)}^{-1}g_{s(1)}a_{1}^{-1}g_{\lambda(1)}^{-1}g_{i}^{-1}\in
H\cap g_{i}G_{j}g_{i}^{-1}=H\cap G_{w_{i}}=H\cap
g_{i}Ag_{i}^{-1}=1,$$ while from the last two $$\label{eq6} k_{2}^{-1}k_{1}=g_{i}g_{\mu(2)}a_{4}g_{s(2)}^{-1}g_{s(1)}a_{2}^{-1}g_{\mu(1)}^{-1}g_{i}^{-1}\in
K\cap g_{i}G_{j}g_{i}^{-1}=K\cap G_{w_{i}}=K\cap
g_{i}Ag_{i}^{-1}=1.$$ The above relations imply that $g_{\lambda(2)}a_{3}g_{s(2)}^{-1}g_{s(1)}a_{1}^{-1}g_{\lambda(1)}^{-1}=1$ and $g_{\mu(2)}a_{4}g_{s(2)}^{-1}g_{s(1)}a_{2}^{-1}g_{\mu(1)}^{-1}=1$. Thus, $g_{\lambda(1)}g_{\mu(1)}^{-1}=g_{\lambda(2)}a_{3}g_{s(2)}^{-1}g_{s(1)}a_{1}^{-1}
a_{2}g_{s(1)}^{-1}g_{s(2)}a_{4}^{-1}g_{\mu(2)}^{-1}$, from which it follows that $\phi(g_{\lambda(1)})\cdot
\phi(g_{\mu(1)})^{-1}=\phi(g_{\lambda(2)})\cdot
\phi(g_{\mu(2)})^{-1}$.
Our aim is to apply [@DI Corollary 3.5], which requires pairwise-disjoint, single-quotient subsets. Note that if the intersection $C_{k}\cap C_{s}$ is nonempty, then there are edges $y_{1}$ and $y_{2}$ in $Star_{X}(v_{k})$ and $Star_{X}(v_{s})$, respectively, such that $\pi(y_{1})=\pi(y_{2})$. Thus, for each $k=1,\ldots,n$, we choose a subset $F_{k}$ of $Star_{X}(v_{k})$ with $|F_{1}|+\cdots+|F_{n}|$ maximum such that the restriction of $\pi$ on the union $\cup_{k=1}^{n}F_{k}$ is an injection. In particular, they are pairwise-disjoint. Since the inverse image of any edge of $Y\times Z$ under $\pi$ contains at most $N$ elements, we have $|Star_{X}(v_{1})|+\cdots +|Star_{X}(v_{n})|\leq N
\big(|F_{1}|+\cdots+|F_{n}|\big)$. If $C_{F(k)}$ denotes the subset of $C_{k}$ corresponding to edges of $F_{k}$, then $C_{F(1)},\ldots,C_{F(n)}$ are pairwise-disjoint. It follows that $\phi(C_{F(1)}),\ldots,\phi(C_{F(n)})$ are pairwise-disjoint, single-quotient subsets of $\phi(\mathcal{R}_{H})\times
\phi(\mathcal{R}_{K})$ and [@DI Corollary 3.5] applies to show that $$\sum_{k=1}^{n}\big(|\phi(C_{F(k)})|-2\big)\leq
\theta(G_{j}/A)\cdot \big(|\phi(\mathcal{R}_{H})|-2 \big)\cdot
\big(|\phi(\mathcal{R}_{K})|-2 \big).$$ Finally $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{k=1}^{n}
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{X}}(v_{k})-2\big)&= \sum_{k=1}^{n}
\big(\deg_{X}(v_{k})-2\big)= \sum_{k=1}^{n} |Star_{X}(v_{k})|-2n
\leq N\cdot \sum_{k=1}^{n} |F_{k}|-2N \nonumber \\
&= N\cdot \sum_{k=1}^{n} \big(|C_{F(k)}|-2\big)=N\cdot
\sum_{k=1}^{n} \big(|\phi(C_{F(k)})|-2\big)\nonumber
\\
& \leq N\cdot \theta(G_{j}/A)\cdot \big(|\phi(\mathcal{R}_{H})|-2
\big)\cdot \big(|\phi(\mathcal{R}_{K})|-2 \big)\nonumber \\
& =N\cdot \theta(G_{j}/A)\cdot \big(|\mathcal{R}_{H}|-2 \big)\cdot
\big(|\mathcal{R}_{K}|-2 \big) \nonumber \\
&\leq N \cdot \theta \cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Y}}(a) -2\big)\cdot
\big(\deg_{\widetilde{Z}}(b) -2\big).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
\[rem2\] The analogous theorem with the same proof is valid for fundamental groups of graphs of groups $(\mathcal{G},\Psi)$ defined as follows. The subject graph $\Psi$ is the same as the one defined previously (prior to Theorem \[thm2\]). To the terminal vertex $u_{i}$ of $e_{i}$ we associate the group $G_{i}$, to the common initial vertex of $e_{i}$’s we associate the finite group $A$, and to each open edge $e_{i}$ we associate a subgroup $A_{i}$ of $A$ normally embedded in $G_{i}$ such that $A_{i_{0}}=A$ for some $i_{0}$ (this means that the “central" vertex is $G$-degenerate and thus $G_{w_{i}}=gAg^{-1}$ in Case (i) of the proof). To each loop we associate the trivial group. We need normality of $A_{i}$ in $G_{i}$ in order to make the natural map $G_{i}\rightarrow G_{i}/A_{i}$ a homomorphism (and thus the same arguments in Case (ii) work equally well to this more general setting).
As a corollary, we obtain the main result of Ivanov in [@Iv] (in fact our proof can be slightly modified to generalize [@DI Theorem 6.3] as well).
Suppose that $H_{1}$, $H_{2}$ are subgroups of a free product $G=\ast_{a\in I}G_{a}$ and $H_{1}$, $H_{2}$ have finite Kurosh rank $K(H_{1})$, $K(H_{2})$. Then the intersection $H_{1}\cap H_{2}$ also has finite Kurosh rank and $$\overline{K}r(H_{1}\cap H_{2})\leq 2\cdot \theta(G) \cdot \overline{K}r(H_{1})\cdot \overline{K}r(H_{2}).$$ In particular, if $G$ is torsion-free (or more generally, every finite subgroup of $G$ has order at most $2$), then $$\overline{K}r(H_{1}\cap H_{2}) \leq 2\cdot \overline{K}r(H_{1})\cdot
\overline{K}r(H_{2}).$$
By Lemma \[lem0\] and the comments preceding it, the subgroup Kurosh rank is equal to the Kurosh rank with respect to $T$ (i.e. $Kr(\cdot)=K_{T}(\cdot)$, where $T$ is as above) and finite Kurosh rank implies tameness.
In the case of free products with a finite, normal subgroup amalgamated, we can use the same arguments to improve the bound for the complexity of the intersection of tame subgroups.
Let $G_{i}$, $i\in I$, be a family of groups together with a group $A$ and let $G=\ast_{A}G_{i}$ be the amalgamated free product of $G_{i}$’s with amalgamated subgroup $A$ (with respect to a family of monomorphisms, regarded as inclusions). We construct a tree of groups $(\mathcal{G},T_{0})$ with fundamental group $G$ as usual. The tree $T_{0}$ consists of a wedge of open edges $e_{i}=[u_{0},u_{i}],i\in I$ (one for each factor $G_{i}$) attached at a vertex $v_{0}$ (where $0\notin I$) with vertex group $A$. To each edge we associate the group $A$ and to each vertex $v_{i}$ we associate the group $G_{i}$. We denote by $T$ the corresponding universal tree.
\[thm3\] Let $G=\ast_{A}G_{i}$ be the amalgamated free product of $G_{i}$’s with a finite and normal amalgamated subgroup $A$. We consider the action of $G$ on $T$ defined above. If $H$ and $K$ are tame subgroups (with respect to $T$) of $G$, then $H\cap K$ is tame and $$\overline{C}_{T}(H\cap K)\leq 2\cdot \theta \cdot |A\cap HK|\cdot\overline{C}_{T}(H)\cdot
\overline{C}_{T}(K),$$ where $\theta=\max\{\theta(G_{i}/A)\,:\,i\in
I\}$.
The proof is exactly the same as the proof of Theorem \[thm2\]. There are two things to note:
- The normality of $A$ in $G$ and the fact that $v_{0}$ is a $G$-degenerate vertex imply that for each subgroup $B$ of $G$ the $B$-stabilizer of the star of any $B$-degenerate vertex $v$ of $T$ is equal to $B_{v}$ and therefore Lemma \[lem2\] (2) applies (i.e we can again use $1$ instead of $M$ to obtain inequality \[ineq6\]).
- Using the notation of the proof of Theorem \[thm2\], the relations \[eq5\] and \[eq6\] now give $g_{\lambda(2)}a_{3}g_{s(2)}^{-1}g_{s(1)}a_{1}^{-1}g_{\lambda(1)}^{-1}\in
A$ and $g_{\mu(2)}a_{4}g_{s(2)}^{-1}g_{s(1)}a_{2}^{-1}g_{\mu(1)}^{-1}\in
A$. Since $A$ is the kernel of $\phi$, we again conclude that $\phi(g_{\lambda(1)})\cdot
\phi(g_{\mu(1)})^{-1}=\phi(g_{\lambda(2)})\cdot
\phi(g_{\mu(2)})^{-1}$.
In general, there are examples (see [@Iv; @Za1]) showing that the bounds obtained in the previous two theorems are sharp.
[ABC]{} Y. Antolín, A. Martino and I. Schwabrow, Kurosh rank of intersections of subgroups of free products of right-orderable groups, Math. Res. Lett. **21**, No. 4 (2014), 649–661. V. Araújo, P. V. Silva and M. Sykiotis. Finiteness results for subgroups of finite extensions, J. Algebra **423** (2015), 592–614. H. Bass, Covering theory for graphs of groups, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **89** (1993), no. 1-2, 3–47. R. G. Burns, T. C. Chau and S.-M. Kam, On the rank of intersection of subgroups of a free product of groups, J. Pure App. Algebra **124** (1998), 31–45. W. Dicks and M.J. Dunwoody, “Groups acting on graphs", Cambridge University Press, 1989. W. Dicks and S. V. Ivanov, On the intersection of free subgroups in free products of groups, Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. **144** (2008), 511–534. W. Dicks and S. V. Ivanov, On the intersection of free subgroups in free products of groups with no $2$-torsion, Illinois J. Math. **54** (2010), 223–248. J. Friedman, Sheaves on graphs, their homological invar iants, and a proof of the Hanna Neumann conjecture: with an appendix by Warren Dicks, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. **233**, no. 1100 (2014). A. G. Howson, On the intersection of finitely generated free groups, J. London Math. Soc. **29** (1954), 428–434. S. V. Ivanov, Intersecting free subgroups in free products of groups. Internat. J. Algebra Comput. **11** (2001), no. 3, 281–290. S. V. Ivanov, On the Kurosh rank of the intersection of subgroups in free products of groups, Adv. Math. **218** (2008), no. 2, 465–484. I. Mineyev, Submultiplicativity and the Hanna Neumann conjecture. Ann. of Math. (2) **175** (2012), 393–414. J.-P. Serre, “Trees", Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1980. T. Soma, Intersection of finitely generated surface groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra **66** (1990), no. 1-3, 81–95. M. Sykiotis, On subgroups of finite complexity in groups acting on trees, J. Pure Appl. Algebra **200** (2005), 1–23. A. Zakharov, On the rank of the intersection of free subgroups in virtually free groups, J. Algebra **418** (2014), 29–43. A. Zakharov, Intersecting free subgroups in free amalgamated products of two groups with normal finite amalgamated subgroup, Mat. Sb. **204** (2) (2013), 223–236.
Department of Mathematics\
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens\
Panepistimioupolis, GR-157 84, Athens, Greece\
[*e-mail*]{}: [email protected]\
[*e-mail*]{}: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We review the current status of theories and experiments aiming at an understanding and a determination of the properties of light vector and scalar mesons inside strongly interacting hadronic matter. Starting from a discussion of the relevant symmetries of QCD and their connection with the hadronic description through QCD sum rules we then discuss hadronic models used to calculate the in-medium self-energies of hadrons and their spectral functions. The difficulties to link these calculated properties to actual observables are emphasized. Finally, we review in detail all the running experiments searching for in-medium changes of vector and scalar mesons, both with relativistic heavy-ion reactions as well as with elementary reactions on (cold) nuclei. Inconsistencies among experimental results are discussed. While almost all experiments observe a considerable broadening of vector mesons inside the nuclear medium, no evidence for mass changes is observed in the majority of the experiments.'
address: |
a: Institut fuer Theoretische Physik\
b: II. Physikalisches Institut\
Universitaet Giessen, Giessen, D-35392, Germany
author:
- |
STEFAN LEUPOLD$^a$, VOLKER METAG$^b$ AND ULRICH MOSEL$^a$\
[email protected]
title: HADRONS IN STRONGLY INTERACTING MATTER
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this paper, using computations done through the LiE software, we compare tensor product of irreducible selfdual representations of the special linear group with those of classical groups to formulate some conjectures relating the two. In the process a few other phenomenon present themselves which we record as questions.
More precisely, under the natural correspondence of irreducible finite dimensional selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ with those of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$, it is easy to see that if the tensor product of three irreducible representations of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ contains the trivial representation, then so does the tensor product of the corresponding representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$. The paper formulates a conjecture in the reverse direction. We also deal with the pair $(\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}}), \Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}}))$.
address:
- 'Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai-400076'
- 'Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Colaba, Mumbai-400005.'
- 'Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, Guwahati-781039'
author:
- Dipendra Prasad and Vinay Wagh
title: Multiplicities for tensor products on Special linear versus Classical groups
---
[[Ad]{}]{}[[Ad]{}]{} [H]{}
[[U]{}]{} Ø[[O]{}]{} [[Ad]{}]{}[[Ad ]{}]{}
Introduction
============
There is by now a well-known theory relating irreducible, finite dimensional representations of a group such as $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ which are selfdual, equivalently, invariant under the outer automorphism $g \rightarrow \theta(g) = {}^t\! g^{-1}$, with irreducible, finite dimensional representations of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$, call this correspondence $\pi^{\SL} \leftrightarrow \pi^{\Spin}$, which has the following character relationship relating character of the representation $\pi$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ extended to $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}}) \rtimes \langle \theta \rangle$ on the disconnected component with character theory of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$: $$\Theta(\pi^{\SL})(t \cdot \theta) = \Theta(\pi^{\Spin})(t');$$ here the map $t \rightarrow t'$ is a surjective homomorphism from, say the diagonal torus $T $ in $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ to the corresponding diagonal torus $T_\sigma$ in $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ with kernel the subgroup of $T$ given by $t/\sigma(t)$, where $\sigma$ is the involution on $T \subset \SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ given by $(t_1,t_2,\cdots, t_{2n}) \rightarrow (t^{-1}_{2n},\cdots, t^{-1}_2,t^{-1}_1)$. We refer to the paper [@KLP] for the general context of a group together with a diagram automorphism where such character relationships can be proved.
The paper was conceived to understand the decomposition of the tensor products of two selfdual representations $\pi_1^{\SL}$ and $\pi_2^{\SL}$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ versus corresponding decomposition of the representations $\pi_1^{\Spin}$ and $\pi_2^{\Spin}$ of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$. It is easy to see — and has been observed by others, see for example [@HS], as well as Theorem 5.6 in [@H] — that for any representation $$\pi_3^{\Spin} \subset \pi_1^{\Spin} \otimes \pi_2^{\Spin},$$ of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$, appearing with multiplicity $m(\pi_3^{\Spin}, \pi_1^{\Spin} \otimes \pi_2^{\Spin}) \not = 0,$ we have: $$\pi_3^{\SL} \subset \pi_1^{\SL} \otimes \pi_2^{\SL},$$ for the representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, appearing with multiplicity $m(\pi_3^{\SL}, \pi_1^{\SL} \otimes \pi_2^{\SL}) \not = 0$.
However, what came as quite a bit of surprise, after much computer assisted checks, that the converse of the above assertion, i.e., $$m(\pi_3^{\Spin}, \pi_1^{\Spin} \otimes \pi_2^{\Spin}) \not = 0 \iff
m(\pi_3^{\SL}, \pi_1^{\SL} \otimes \pi_2^{\SL}) \not = 0,$$ holds, or rather, almost holds, which egged our curiosity on, and in the process we hope we have found something of some interest.
We end the introduction by mentioning that irreducible components of the tensor product of two irreducible representations of a simple group are reasonably well understood through the ‘Saturation conjecture’, a theorem for $\SL_n({\mathbb{C}})$ due to Knutson and Tao [@KT], and due to several works of P. Belkale, J. Hong, S. Kumar and L. Shen, among others, for classical groups, see e.g. [@BK], [@HS], [@H], [@Ku2], [@Ku-St], and [@Ku] for a general survey. However, the more precise question on what the multiplicities look like has not been attempted as much. Looking at tables of tensor product multiplicities, one is dazzled by the wealth of data on statistical behaviour of multiplicities it contains. No precise question has been attempted as far as we know. In our work relating tensor product of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ and $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ (and more generally a pair of groups $G,G_\sigma$ that we will soon come to), we are concerned (though not this very precise question) with how often are multiplicities in the tensor product for $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ are even versus odd: a well-known question in the theory of partition functions which is very much present in representation theory of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ through Kostant partition function.
Relating multiplicities {#bc}
=======================
Let $ G$ be a connected reductive algebraic group over ${\mathbb{C}}$. Assume that $\sigma$ is a diagram automorphism of $G$ of order 2. Thus we assume that $(B,T, S)$ is a fixed Borel subgroup $B$ in $G$, containing a maximal torus $T$, and with $S$ a fixed pinning on $B$, which is an identification of each simple root of $T$ on the Lie algebra of $B$ with the additive group ${\mathbb{C}}$, and that $(B,T, S)$ is left invariant under $\sigma$.
Suppose that $\pi$ is an irreducible representation of $G$ which is invariant under $\sigma$, and thus extends to a natural representation of $\tilde{G}=G \rtimes \langle \sigma\rangle$ by demanding that the action of $\sigma$ on the highest $B$-weight of $\pi$ is trivial. Denote the representation of $\tilde{G}$ so obtained as $\tilde{\pi}$. The representation $\tilde{\pi}$ of $\tilde{G}$ gives rise to an irreducible representation of the group $G_\sigma$ constructed in [@KLP] that we will call $\pi'$, such that: $$\Theta(\pi)(t \cdot \sigma) = \Theta(\pi')(t'), \tag{0}$$ where $t \in T$ and $t'$ is the image of $T$ under the natural surjective map from $T$ to $T_\sigma$, which is a maximal torus in $ G_\sigma$, and is the maximal quotient of $T$ on which $\sigma$ operates trivially.
The following proposition is due to [@HS], see also Theorem 5.6 in [@H], and Remark 1.3 in the introduction of [@H].
\[mult\] Suppose that $\pi_1,\pi_2,\cdots, \pi_n$ are irreducible representations of $G$ which are all invariant under $\sigma$, giving rise to irreducible representations $\tilde{\pi}_1,\tilde{\pi}_2,\cdots, \tilde{\pi}_n$ of $\tilde{G}$, as well as representations $\pi'_1,\pi'_2,\cdots, \pi'_n$ of $G_\sigma$. Let $m (\pi_1,\pi_2,\cdots, \pi_n)$ be the multiplicity of the trivial representation of $G$ in $\pi_1 \otimes \pi_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes \pi_n$, $m (\tilde{\pi}_1, \tilde{\pi}_2,\cdots, \tilde{\pi}_n)$ be the multiplicity of the trivial representation of $\tilde{G} $ in $\tilde{\pi}_1 \otimes \tilde{\pi}_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes \tilde{\pi}_n$, and $m (\pi'_1,\pi'_2,\cdots, \pi'_n)$ be the multiplicity of the trivial representation of $G_\sigma$ in $\pi'_1 \otimes \pi'_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes \pi'_n$. Then, $$2 m (\tilde{\pi}_1, \tilde{\pi}_2,\cdots, \tilde{\pi}_n)
= m (\pi'_1,\pi'_2,\cdots, \pi'_n)
+ m(\pi_1,\pi_2,\cdots, \pi_n).$$
Decompose the tensor product of the representations: $$\tilde{\pi}_1 \otimes \tilde{\pi}_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes \tilde{\pi}_n = \sum m(\pi) \pi, \tag{1}$$ where $\pi$ runs over all irreducible representations of $G$. Since each of the representations $\pi_i$ is invariant under $\sigma$, so is their tensor product, thus we can write the equation (1) as: $$\tilde{\pi}_1 \otimes \tilde{\pi}_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes \tilde{\pi}_n
= \sum_{\tilde{\pi}|_G {\rm ~ irreducible} }
m(\tilde{\pi}) \tilde{\pi} +\sum_{\tilde{\pi}|_G {\rm ~not ~ irreducible} } m(\tilde{\pi}) \tilde{\pi}
. \tag{2}$$ In equation (2), both sides are representations of $\tilde{G}=G \rtimes \langle \sigma\rangle$. In the first sum on the right side of the equality, $\sum m(\tilde{\pi}) \tilde{\pi}$ can be replaced by $\sum M(\pi) \tilde{\pi}$ where $M(\pi)$ is the $\pi$-isotypique piece in the tensor product of dimension $m(\pi)$ which carries the action of $\sigma$. (If $\tilde{\pi}|_G$ is irreducible, then there are two distinct irreducible representations of $\tilde{G}$: $\tilde{\pi}$ and $ \tilde{\pi}\otimes \epsilon$ where $\epsilon$ is the sign character of $\tilde{G}$, which have the same restriction to $G$.) Calculating the character of the representations appearing on the left and on the right hand side of equation (2) at elements of the form $t \cdot \sigma \in T\rtimes \langle \sigma\rangle \subset G \rtimes \langle \sigma\rangle$, using equation (0) with $t'=t/\sigma(t) \in T_\sigma$, we find that: $$\Theta(\pi'_1 \otimes \pi_2' \otimes \cdots \pi_n')(t') = \sum_{\pi'} {\rm tr}[\sigma \circlearrowleft M(\pi) ]
\Theta(\pi')(t'), \tag{3}$$ where ${\rm tr}[\sigma \circlearrowleft M(\pi) ]$ denotes trace of the action of $\sigma$ on $M(\pi)$. If in the tensor product $\tilde{\pi}_1 \otimes \tilde{\pi}_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes \tilde{\pi}_n$ of $\tilde{G}=G \rtimes \langle \sigma\rangle$, we have $m$ copies of the trivial representation of $\tilde{G}$, and $n$ copies of the sign character of $\tilde{G}$, it follows from equation (3) and linear independence of irreducible characters of $G_\sigma$ that: $$m (\pi'_1,\pi'_2,\cdots, \pi'_n) = m-n = 2m-(m+n),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
m & = & m(\tilde{\pi}_1, \tilde{\pi}_2,\cdots, \tilde{\pi}_n) \\
(m+n) & = & m (\pi_1,\pi_2,\cdots, \pi_n), \end{aligned}$$ proving the proposition.
\[mult-cor\] With the notation as above, $$m-n = m({\pi'_1}, {\pi'_2},\cdots, \pi_n')
\leq m({\pi_1}, {\pi_2}, \cdots, \pi_n) = m+n,$$ and $$m({\pi'_1}, {\pi'_2},\cdots, \pi_n') \equiv m({\pi_1}, {\pi_2}, \cdots, \pi_n)
\bmod 2.$$ In particular, if $m({\pi_1}, {\pi_2}, \cdots, \pi_n) \leq 1$ then $m({\pi'_1}, {\pi'_2},\cdots, \pi_n') \leq 1$, and $$m({\pi'_1}, {\pi'_2},\cdots, \pi_n') = m({\pi_1}, {\pi_2}, \cdots, \pi_n).$$
The Proposition \[mult\] above has essentially the same formulation as Proposition 2.1 in [@Pr] although Proposition 2.1 in [@Pr] appears to be more general in that it applies to a general pair $(G,H)$ of algebraic groups over finite fields, whereas in our Proposition \[mult\], we have shied away from formulating it for general pairs, such as $(\GL_{n+1},\GL_n)$ since no diagram automorphism preserves such pairs, and have contented ourselves to have a formulation only for $(G\times \cdots \times G, \Delta G)$.
Review of the group $G_\sigma$
==============================
In this section we follow [@KLP] to discuss the relationship between representations of the groups $G$ and $G_\sigma$ which requires first a review of the group $G_\sigma$.
Fix a Borel subgroup $B$ of $G$ and a maximal torus $T$ contained in $B$. Let $X$ be the character group of $T$, $Y$ the co-character group of $T$. Let $R\subset X$ be the set of roots of $T$ in $G$, $R_+$ the set of positive roots defined by $B$ and $\Pi= \{\alpha_i: i \in I\}$ the set of simple roots in $R_+$. For each $i\in I$, let $\check{\alpha}_i \in Y$ be the corresponding co-root. Thus $(Y,X, \check{\alpha}_i, \alpha_i, i \in I)$ is the root datum for $G$. For $i \in I,$ let $x_i: {\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow G$, $y_i: {\mathbb{C}}\rightarrow G$ be a pinning on $G$ corresponding to root spaces $\alpha_i, -\alpha_i$.
Now we assume that the automorphism $\sigma$ of $G$ preserves $B,T$, and there is a permutation $i \rightarrow
\sigma(i)$ on the index set $I$ such that $\sigma(x_i(a)) = x_{\sigma(i)}(a),$ and $\sigma(y_i(a)) = y_{\sigma(i)}(a)$ for $a \in {\mathbb{C}}$.
Set, $$Y_\sigma = Y/(1-\sigma)Y, \,\,\, {}^\sigma X= \{\lambda \in X| \sigma(\lambda)=\lambda \}.$$
We note that the natural perfect pairing $\langle -,- \rangle : Y \times X \rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}$ induces a perfect pairing $\langle -,- \rangle: Y_\sigma \times {}^\sigma X \rightarrow {\mathbb{Z}}$; more precisely, if $j: Y \rightarrow Y_\sigma$, and $\iota: {}^\sigma X \rightarrow X$, then, $$\langle j(a), b\rangle = \langle a, \iota(b) \rangle, \tag{1}$$ for all $a \in Y, b \in {}^\sigma X.$
Let $I_\sigma$ be the set of $\sigma$-orbits on $I$. For any $\eta \in I_\sigma$, let $\check{\alpha}_\eta$ be the image of $\check{\alpha}_i$ under $Y \rightarrow Y_\sigma$ where $i$ is any element of $\eta$. For any $\eta \in I_\sigma$, let $\alpha_\eta = 2^h\sum_{i \in \eta} \alpha_i\in {}^ \sigma X$ where $h$ is the number of unordered pairs $i,j \in \eta $ such that $\alpha_i+\alpha_j \in R$. We have $h =0$ unless $G$ is of type $A_{2n}$, when $h=0$ for all but one, and $h=1$ for one simple root.
The following proposition is proved in [@KLP].
$(Y_\sigma, {}^\sigma X, \check{\alpha}_\eta, \alpha_\eta, \eta \in I_\sigma)$ is a root datum, defining the group $G_\sigma$ which is simply connected if $G$ is.
All the above preliminaries recalled from [@KLP] were done for the purpose of the following proposition which is of basic importance when we make the explicit computations using LiE software.
\[Gsigma\] For $i \in I$, let $\varpi_i$ be the fundamental dominant weight for $G$ (defined by the property $\langle \check{\alpha}_j, \varpi_i \rangle = \delta_{i,j}$). Similarly, for $\eta \in I_\sigma$, let $\varpi_\eta$ be the fundamental dominant weight for $G_\sigma$ (defined by the property $\langle \check{\alpha}_\eta, \varpi_{\eta'} \rangle =
\delta_{\eta,\eta'}$). Then, under the inclusion of ${}^\sigma X \subset X$, we have: $$\varpi_\eta = \sum_{i \in \eta} \varpi_i.$$
It suffices to prove that $$\langle \check{\alpha}_i, \varpi_{\eta} \rangle = \begin{cases}
1, & \text{if $ i \in \eta$} \\
0, & \text{ otherwise},
\end{cases}$$ which is just equation (1) above together with the fact that $\langle \check{\alpha}_i, \varpi_{\eta} \rangle \geq 0$, and belongs to ${\mathbb{Z}}$.
An example of twisted character
===============================
A consequence of the Proposition \[Gsigma\] for the pair $(G, G_\sigma)=(\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}}), \Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}}))$, is that the fundamental representation $\Lambda^i({\mathbb{C}}^{2n+1}), i \leq n-1$ of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}}))$ goes to the selfdual representation of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ of highest weight $\varpi_i + \varpi_{2n+1-i}$ where $\varpi_i$ is the highest weight of the irreducible representation $\Lambda^i({\mathbb{C}}^{2n})$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, and the spin representation (a fundamental representation of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ of dimension $2^n$) goes to the representation $\Lambda^n({\mathbb{C}}^{2n})$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$. We discuss this last case as an example relating an irreducible representation of a group $G$ invariant under a diagram automorphism $\sigma$ with an irreducible representation of $G_\sigma$ through the twisted character identity.
Thus our example will be for the group $G=\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ realized on its natural representation on a vector space $V$ of dimension $2n$, $\sigma$ will be the involution, $$g\rightarrow \sigma(g)=J {\,}^t\!g^{-1} J^{-1},$$ where $J$ is the $(2n) \times (2n)$ anti-diagonal matrix (with respect to a basis of $V$ that we will denote as $\{e_1,\cdots, e_n, e_{n+1},\cdots, e_{2n} \}$): $$\left ( \begin{array}{cccccccc}
{}& {} & {} & {} & {} & {} &{} & 1 \\
{}& & {} & {} & {} & {} & -1 & \\
{}& {} & & {} & {} & 1 & {} &\\
{}& {} & & & {} & {} &{} & \\
{}& {} & & {} \cdot& & {} &{} &\\
{} & & {\cdot} & & & & & \\
{}& 1 & & {} & {} & & & \\
-1 & {} & {} & {} & & & &
\end{array} \right),$$
We will take the representation of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ to be $\Lambda^n(V) = \Lambda^n({\mathbb{C}}^{2n})$ which we know is selfdual, thus invariant under $\sigma$. We will prove the following.
The twisted character of the representation $\Pi=\Lambda^n(V)
=\Lambda^n({\mathbb{C}}^{2n})$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ is the character of the spin representation of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ of dimension $2^n$.
Let $\psi: \Pi \rightarrow \Pi$ be the unique linear map such that, $$\psi(gv) = \sigma(g) \psi(v), \tag{1}$$ such that $\psi$ fixes the highest weight vector $v_0= e_1\wedge e_2 \wedge \cdots\wedge e_n \in \Pi$. (We will work with the group of diagonal matrices in $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ as the maximal torus, and the group of upper triangular matrices as the Borel subgroup of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ both of which are left invariant under $\sigma$.) It is easily seen that $\psi^2=1$, and we will content ourselves with calculating the trace of $\psi$ (which we expect to find to be $2^n$!), the twisted trace is exactly the same calculation.
Since $\sigma$ leave $T$-invariant, it operates on characters of $T$, denoted as $\chi\rightarrow \chi^\sigma$. For $i \leq n$, let $\chi_i$ denote the character of $T$ sending $(t_1,\cdots, t_n, \cdots, t_{2n})$ to $t_i$. Similarly, let $\eta_i$ denote the character of $T$ sending $(t_1,\cdots, t_n, \cdots, t_{2n})$ to $t_{2n+1-i}$. For $I \subset E= \{1,2,\cdots, n\}$, let $\chi_I$ be the character $\chi_I = \prod_I \chi_i$. Similarly, define the character $\eta_J$ for $J \subset \{n+1,n+2,\cdots, 2n\}$.
Any character of $T$ appearing in $\Pi$ is of the form $\chi_I \cdot \eta_J$ for uniquely determined $I,J$ with $|I| +|J|=n$.
Let $w_0 = (1,2n)(2,2n-1)\cdots (n,n+1)$ be the element in the Weyl group ${\mathbb{S}}_{2n}$ represented by conjugation of the element $J$ on the diagonal torus $T$.
By the equation (1), a $\chi$-eigenspace for the torus $T$ goes to the $(\chi^{-1})^{w_0}$-eigenspace under $\psi$. Writing $\chi = \chi_I \cdot \eta_J$, we find that $\psi$ preserves $\chi = \chi_I \cdot \eta_J$, eigenspace of $T$ if and only if: $$\chi_I \cdot \eta_J = \chi^{-1}_J \cdot \eta_I^{-1},$$ equivalently, $$\chi_I \cdot \eta_J = \chi_{E-J} \cdot \eta_{E-I},$$ where we have used the fact that $\chi_E\cdot \eta_E$ is the trivial character on $T$. It follows $\chi = \chi_I \cdot \eta_J$ eigenspace of $T$ is preserved under the action of $\psi$ if and only if $I= E-J$.
Clearly, $\chi_I \cdot \eta_{E-I}$ is obtained from the character $\chi_E$ be applying the element of $({\mathbb{Z}}/2)^n \subset {\mathbb{S}}_{2n}$ which permutes $e_i$ and $e_{2n+1-i}$ for all elements of $I \subset E =
\{1,\cdots, n\}$, and acts trivially on all other basis elements of $V$.
Next observe that if for an element $w \in {\mathbb{S}}_{2n}$, $\sigma(w)=w$, as is the case for these elements coming from the subgroup $({\mathbb{Z}}/2)^n \subset {\mathbb{S}}_{2n}$, from equation (1), it follows that: $$\psi(w\cdot v_0) = w \cdot \psi(v_0) = w\cdot v_0,$$ where we used the fact that $\psi(v_0) = v_0$.
To conclude, either $\psi$ permutes two different eigenspaces of $T$, or if it fixes an eigenspace (parametrized by $({\mathbb{Z}}/2)^n$) of $T$, it acts by 1 on it. This completes the proof of the assertion that the character of $\psi$ is $2^n$. The general twisted character too is calculated to be: $$\sum_{I \subset E} \chi_I \cdot \eta_{E-I} .$$
The pair $(\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}}), \Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}}))$
===============================================================
In this section we will focus attention on the pair $(G,H)=(\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}}),
\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}}))$ which are related to each other through fixed points of a diagram automorphism on the bigger group, to be more precise, the $L$-group of $H$ has an embedding into the $L$-group of $G$, with image which is the fixed points of a diagram automorphism on the $L$-group of $G$, see [@KLP] for the precise statements.
We will follow the notations of the [LiE]{} software [@lie] for denoting representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ and $ \Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}}))$.
Let $\varpi_i$ denote the highest weights of the fundamental representations realized on the $i$-th exterior powers of the standard representation $V={\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$, thus: $$\begin{aligned}
\varpi_1 & = & e_1 \\
\varpi_2 & = & e_1 +e_2\\
\varpi_3 & = & e_1 +e_2+e_3\\
& \cdot & \\
\varpi_i & = & e_1+e_2+\cdots+ e_i \\
& \cdot & \\
\varpi_{2n-1} & = & e_1+e_2+\cdots +e_{2n-1}.\end{aligned}$$
[LiE]{} software denotes an irreducible representation of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ by $[a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{2n-1}]$ with $a_i$ integers $\geq 0$, which stands for the irreducible representation of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ with highest weight $$a_1\varpi_1 + a_2\varpi_2+ \cdots + a_{2n-1}\varpi_{2n-1}.$$
Since in our work we are looking only at selfdual representations, we will have:
$$[a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{2n-1}] = [a_{2n-1},a_{2n-2},\cdots, a_{1}],$$ thus, $$[a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{2n-1}] = [a_{1},a_{2},\cdots,a_{n-1}, a_n, a_{n-1}, \cdots, a_2, a_{1}].$$
Next we come to the spin group $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$. Let $\varpi_i$, $1 \leq i \leq (n-1)$ denote the highest weights of the fundamental representations realized on the $i$-th exterior powers of the standard representation $V={\mathbb{C}}^{2n+1}$ of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$, and let $\varpi_n$ be the highest weight of the spin representation of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ (of dimension $2^n$), thus: $$\begin{aligned}
\varpi_1 & = & e_1 \\
\varpi_2 & = & e_1 +e_2\\
\varpi_3 & = & e_1 +e_2+e_3\\
& \cdot & \\
\varpi_i & = & e_1+e_2+\cdots + e_i \\
& \cdot & \\
\varpi_{n-1} & = & e_1+e_2+\cdots + e_{n-1}\\
\varpi_n &=& (e_1+e_2+\cdots +e_n)/2.\end{aligned}$$
[LiE]{} software denotes an irreducible representation of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ by $[a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{n}]$ with $a_i$ integers $\geq 0$, which stands for the irreducible representation of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ with highest weight $$a_1\varpi_1 + a_2\varpi_2+ \cdots + a_{n}\varpi_{n}.$$
We note the following lemma which implies that the transfer of representations between $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ and $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ preserves central characters (which are the finite order characters by which the center of these groups operate on the respective representations). The straightforward proof of the lemma will be omitted.
\[central1\] A selfdual representation $[a_{1},a_{2},\cdots,a_{n-1}, a_n, a_{n-1}, \cdots, a_2, a_{1}] $ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ has central character of order $\leq 2$, and has trivial central character if and only if $a_n$ is even.
The representation $[a_{1},a_{2},\cdots,a_{n-1}, a_n] $ of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ has central character of order $\leq 2$, and has trivial central character if and only if $a_n$ is even.
Recall first that by Proposition \[mult\], if for three irreducible representations of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_1 & = & [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{n}], \\
\pi_2 & = & [b_1,b_2,\cdots, b_{n}], \\
\pi_3 & = & [c_1,c_2,\cdots, c_{n}],\end{aligned}$$ with corresponding selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, $$\begin{aligned}
V_1 & = & [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{n-1}, a_{n}, a_{n-1}, \cdots, a_2,a_1] \\
V_2 & = & [b_1,b_2,\cdots, b_{n-1}, b_{n},b_{n-1}, \cdots, b_2,b_1], \\
V_3 & = & [c_1,c_2,\cdots, c_{n-1},c_{n},c_{n-1}, \cdots, c_2,c_1]\end{aligned}$$ $$1_{\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset \pi_1 \otimes \pi_2 \otimes \pi_3 \implies 1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3.$$
We propose that if at least two of the three $a_n,b_n,c_n$ are nonzero, then the converse holds:
$$1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3
\iff 1_{\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset \pi_1 \otimes \pi_2 \otimes \pi_3.$$
Our next conjecture asserts that even with the condition $a_n=b_n=0$, for a density one set of irreducible selfdual representations $(V_1,V_2,V_3)$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$,
$$1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3
\iff 1_{\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset \pi_1 \otimes \pi_2 \otimes \pi_3.$$
To make the assertion precise, define the height $h(V)$ of a selfdual representation $V = [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{n}, \cdots, a_2,a_1]$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ to be the maximum of the integers $a_i$.
Let $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_1 & = & [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{n} ], \\
\pi_2 & = & [b_1,b_2,\cdots, b_{n}], \\
\pi_3 & = & [c_1,c_2,\cdots, c_{n}],\end{aligned}$$ be three irreducible representations of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ with $a_n=b_n=0$ with corresponding selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, $$\begin{aligned}
V_1 & = & [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{n-1}, a_{n}, a_{n-1}, \cdots, a_2,a_1] \\
V_2 & = & [b_1,b_2,\cdots, b_{n-1}, b_{n},b_{n-1}, \cdots, b_2,b_1], \\
V_3 & = & [c_1,c_2,\cdots, c_{n-1},c_{n},c_{n-1}, \cdots, c_2,c_1]\end{aligned}$$
Call a triple of such irreducible selfdual representations $(V_1,V_2,V_3)$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ (with $a_n,b_n=0$) to be [*missing*]{} if $1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3$, but $ 1_{\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})} \not \subset \pi_1 \otimes \pi_2 \otimes \pi_3$.
Considering only irreducible selfdual representations $V_1,V_2,V_3$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ as above (with $a_n=b_n=0$),
$$\lim_{X \rightarrow \infty}
\frac{ |{\rm~ missing ~triples~} (V_1,V_2,V_3) {\rm ~of ~height~} \leq X|}
{ |(V_1,V_2,V_3) {\rm ~of ~height~} \leq X,
1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3|} = 0.$$
On the other hand we expect that there are some sporadic choices $(V_1,V_2)$ for which as many as half — and no more — of $V_3$ for which $ 1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3$, go missing, made precise in the following question:
$$\limsup_{V_1,V_2 \rightarrow \infty}
\frac{ | V_3 {\rm ~such ~that~}
(V_1,V_2,V_3) {\rm~ is ~ a ~missing ~triple~}|}
{ |V_3 {\rm~such ~that~} 1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3|} = 1/2?$$ Here $\limsup$ is taken over the set of irreducible selfdual representations $V_1,V_2$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ as their heights tend to infinity. (That there is about half of them missing seems to happen for the tensor product $[k, 0, \cdots, 0, k] \otimes [\ell, 0, \cdots, 0, \ell]$ although we have not proved this.)
Presumably, the proof of saturation conjecture due to Knutson and Tau, cf. [@KT] allows one to calculate the asymptotic behavior (as a polynomial in $X$: its degree and the leading coefficient) of the number of irreducible (not necessarily selfdual) representations $V_1,V_2,V_3$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ of height $\leq X$ with $1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3$. Next one would want to do similar asymptotic estimates for number of selfdual representations $V_1,V_2,V_3$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ with $1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3$. Our data are quite insufficient to predict these asymptotic behaviours (degree of the polynomial in $X$, and the leading term) for which there might well be an existing theorem, though we have not seen one.
\[odd\] A special case of the Conjecture 1 asserts that if $ \pi_1 = [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{n}]$ with $a_n$ [*odd*]{}, then $$1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3 \iff 1_{\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset \pi_1 \otimes \pi_2 \otimes \pi_3,$$ because in this case as $1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3$, both $b_n,c_n$ cannot be zero for central character reasons (calculated in Lemma \[central1\]).
With notation as above, for a representation $\pi = [a_1, \cdots, a_n]$ of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$, let $\pi(c)$ denote the representation of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ given by $[ca_1,ca_2, \cdots, ca_n]$. Then a weaker form of our Conjecture 1 is true by [@HS], Proposition 1.4 (c): $$1_{\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3 \iff 1_{\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset \pi_1(c) \otimes \pi_2(c) \otimes \pi_3(c),$$ for $c = c_\sigma$, the ‘saturation factor’, known to be 2 in this case. This also follows by combining [@BK], Theorem 5, and [@Ku-St] Theorem 4.2. Thus our conjecture is a strengthening of these known results. In this regard, a conjecture of Kapovich in [@Kap], the Saturation conjecture, part 3, at the very end of his paper, seems related to Conjecture 1 above, although we do not see any direct relationship between his work and ours since his work is for any reductive group whereas we are dealing with reductive groups with a diagram automorphism. Also, his conditions are related to ‘regular highest weights’, i.e., one which are not fixed by any nontrivial element of the Weyl group which in our notation for a representation $[a_{1},\cdots,a_{n-1}, a_n, a_{n-1}, \cdots, a_{1}] $ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ will mean that each of the coefficients $a_i$ are nonzero, whereas our condition is only that $a_n$ is nonzero.
In this paper, we have tried to understand the relationship of multiplicities for selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ with those of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$. Notice however that $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}}) \subset \SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ arises as the fixed points of a diagram involution defined using the symplectic structure on the underlying vector space $V = {\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$ which allows for natural choices (up to conjugation by $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$) for a Borel subgroup and a maximal torus in the two groups given by taking a basis $\{e_1,e_2,\cdots, e_n, e_{n+1}, e_{n+2},\cdots, e_{2n}\}$ for $V$ with $\langle e_i,e_{2n+1-i}\rangle =1$, and all other products zero; the Borel subgroups in both $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ and $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ is defined as the stabilizer of the flag: $$\{e_1\} \subset \{e_1,e_2\} \subset \cdots \subset \{e_1, \cdots, e_n\} \subset \{e_1, \cdots, e_{n+1}\} \subset \cdots \subset \{e_1, \cdots, e_{2n}\},$$ and the tori in the two groups $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ and $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ defined as the stabilizer of the corresponding lines $\{e_i\}$.
Any highest weight for $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ gives rise to a highest weight for $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, thus there is a natural map from the set of irreducible finite dimensional representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ to the set of irreducible finite dimensional representations of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, denote this map of representations as $\pi_\lambda \rightarrow V_\lambda$. Unlike our situation, the map $\pi_\lambda \rightarrow V_\lambda$ from the set of irreducible representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ to the set of irreducible representations of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, is defined on [*all*]{} irreducible representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$.
Theorem 23 of [@BK] asserts that if $\pi_{\lambda_1} \otimes \pi_{\lambda_2} \otimes \cdots \otimes \pi_{\lambda_m}$ has a $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ invariant vector, then so does the representation $V_{\lambda_1} \otimes V_{\lambda_2} \otimes \cdots \otimes V_{\lambda_m}$ of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, seems related, but very different from ours! We refer to [@Ku] for a survey of many other instances of similar relationships on multiplicities of tensor products on different groups, but different from the one considered in this work.
If $\pi_\lambda$ is a selfdual representation of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, given by highest weight $\lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \cdots \geq \lambda_n \geq -\lambda_n \geq \cdots \geq -\lambda_1 $ where we assume that $$\lambda_i \in \begin{cases}
{\mathbb{Z}}^{\geq 0}, & \text{if $ i \leq n-1$} \\
\frac{1}{2} {\mathbb{Z}}^{\geq 0}, & \text{ if $i =n$},
\end{cases}$$ then the representation $V_\lambda$ of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ considered in [@BK] has highest weight $ 2\lambda_1 \geq 2\lambda_2 \geq \cdots \geq 2\lambda_n$, whereas the representation of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ considered in this paper has highest weight $ \lambda_1 \geq \lambda_2 \geq \cdots \geq \lambda_n$.
Tensor product of two irreducible representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ typically decomposes with high multiplicities. Here is a nice class of selfdual representations where multiplicity one holds.
\[example1\] For the representation $V_{\varpi_n}$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\varpi_n} & = & [0,0,\cdots, 0, 1, 0, \cdots, 0, 0] = \Lambda^n({\mathbb{C}}^{2n}),
\end{aligned}$$ we have $$V_{\varpi_n} \otimes V_{\varpi_n} = V_0 +V_1+ \cdots + V_n, \tag{1}$$ where $V_i$, for $0\leq i \leq n$, are the irreducible selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ with highest weights $\varpi_i + \varpi_{2n-i}$, where we take $\varpi_0=0$. Under the correspondence of irreducible selfdual representation of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ with irreducible representations of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ that we are considering, the representation $V_i$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ with highest weight $\varpi_i + \varpi_{2n-i}$ corresponds to the irreducible representation of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ with highest weight $\varpi_i$ for $i<n$, but for $i=n$, the representation $V_n$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ with highest weight $2\varpi_n$ corresponds to the irreducible representation of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ with highest weight $2\varpi_n$, thus to the representation $\Lambda^n(V)$ where $V$ is the standard $(2n+1)$ dimensional representation of $\SO_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$.
Under the correspondence of irreducible selfdual representation of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ with irreducible representations of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ that we are considering, the representation $V_{\varpi_n}$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ corresponds to the Spinor representation of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$, which let’s denote by $S_n$. We have the following well-known decomposition for the tensor product of the Spinor representation:
$$S_n \otimes S_n = V + \Lambda^2(V) + \Lambda^3(V) + \cdots + \Lambda^n(V), \tag{2}$$ where $V$ is the standard $(2n+1)$ dimensional representation of $\SO_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$, and the $\Lambda^i(V)$ are the fundamental irreducible representations of $\SO_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ (or, $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$) of highest weight $\varpi_i$ for $i <n$; finally $\Lambda^n(V)$ is the irreducible representations of $\SO_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ (or, $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$) of highest weight $2\varpi_n = (e_1+e_2+\cdots + e_n)$. We thus see that in the decomposition (1) for $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, each irreducible component appears with multiplicity 1, and is selfdual, and the decomposition (1) for $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ and (2) for $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ match perfectly as suggested by Proposition \[mult\].
More generally, for the selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, $$\begin{aligned}
V_a & = & [0,0,\cdots, 0, a, 0, \cdots, 0, 0] {\rm~~ of ~~ highest ~ weight~~} a {\rm~~ times ~ that ~ of~~}
\Lambda^n({\mathbb{C}}^{2n}), \\
V_b & = & [0,0,\cdots, 0, b,0, \cdots, 0,0] {\rm~~ of ~~ highest ~ weight~~} b {\rm~~ times ~ that ~ of~~}
\Lambda^n({\mathbb{C}}^{2n}), \end{aligned}$$ (where $a,b$ are positioned at the $n$th place with all other entries zero) $V_a \otimes V_b$ decomposes as a sum of distinct selfdual irreducible representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ each with multiplicity 1. Multiplicity 1, and hence selfduality, follows from:
1. $V_a \otimes V_b$ is realized as space of sections of a line bundle on $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})/P_{n,n} \times \SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})/P_{n,n}$ where $P_{n,n}$ is the parabolic in $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ stabilizing an $n$-dimensional subspace of ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$
2. $X=\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})/P_{n,n} \times \SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})/P_{n,n}$ is a spherical variety for $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, i.e., any Borel subgroup in $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ has an open orbit on $X$, for instance because $X$ contains $\GL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})/ [\GL_n({\mathbb{C}}) \times
\GL_{n}({\mathbb{C}})]$ as an open orbit which is one of the well-known spherical varieties for $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$.
However, explicit decomposition, as in Example \[example1\] seems not clear from this point of view. The author thanks N. Ressayre for the argument in this example.
\[example:1\_0\_0\] For the representation $V_{\varpi_1 +\varpi_{2n-1}}$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, $$\begin{aligned}
V_{\varpi_1 + \varpi_{2n-1}} & = & [1,0,\cdots, 0, 0, \cdots, 0, 1]
= {{{\rm End}\,}} ({\mathbb{C}}^{2n}) - {\mathbb{C}},
\end{aligned}$$ and $W$ any selfdual representation of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ given by: $$W= [\underline{a}]
= [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_n, a_{n-1}, \cdots, a_2, a_1],$$ we split the calculation of $ (V_{\varpi_1 + \varpi_{2n-1}}) \otimes W$ into two cases:
1. $a_n\not = 0$. In this case, number of nonzero entries, say $d$, in $[\underline{a}]$ is odd, and $ (V_{\varpi_1 + \varpi_{2n-1}}) \otimes W$ contains $d$ distinct selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ which are not $W$ each with multiplicity 1, and $W$ itself appears with multiplicity $d$. This follows by calculating tensor product $ V_{\varpi_1} \otimes W$ and then $ V_{\varpi_{2n-1}} \otimes ( V_{\varpi_1} \otimes W) $, and noting that $$V_{\varpi_1 + \varpi_{2n-1}} = {{{\rm End}\,}} ({\mathbb{C}}^{2n}) - {\mathbb{C}}= V_{\varpi_1} \otimes V_{\varpi_{2n-1}} - {\mathbb{C}}.$$
2. $a_n = 0$. In this case, number of nonzero entries, say $d$, in $[\underline{a}]$ is even, and $ (V_{\varpi_1 + \varpi_{2n-1}}) \otimes W$ contains $d$ selfdual representations which are not $W$, and $W$ itself appears with multiplicity $d$, by an argument similar to the one used in the first case.
In case 1, since the multiplicity of all selfdual constituents of $ (V_{\varpi_1 + \varpi_{2n-1}}) \otimes W$ is odd, they appear in the corresponding tensor product $ (V_{\varpi_1} ) \otimes W'$ of the $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ where $W'= [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_n]$.
In case 2, the representation $W$ of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ appears with even multiplicity in $ (V_{\varpi_1 + \varpi_{2n-1}}) \otimes W$, but the corresponding tensor product $ V_{\varpi_1}\otimes W'$ of the $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ where $W'= [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_n]$ does not contain $W'$. Because the zero weight space of $ V_{\varpi_1}$ has dimension 1, $ V_{\varpi_1}\otimes W'$ contains $W'$ with multiplicity $\leq 1$. But by Proposition \[mult\], multiplicity of $W'$ in $ V_{\varpi_1}\otimes W'$ has the same parity as the multiplicity of the representation $W$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ in $ (V_{\varpi_1 + \varpi_{2n-1}}) \otimes W$ which we have analyzed above to be even. Thus the multiplicity of $W'$ in $ V_{\varpi_1}\otimes W'$ must be zero. (This must surely have a direct proof!)
The pair $(\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}}), \Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}}))$
=============================================================
In this section we will focus attention on the pair $(G,H)=(\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}}),
\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}}))$ which are related to each other through fixed points of a diagram automorphism on the bigger group, to be more precise, the $L$-group of $H$ has an embedding into the $L$-group of $G$, with image which is the fixed points of a diagram automorphism on the $L$-group of $G$, see [@KLP] for the precise statements.
We will continue to follow the notations of the [LiE]{} software for denoting representations of $\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ and $ \Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}}))$.
Let $\varpi_i$ denote the highest weights of the fundamental representations of $\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ realized on the $i$-th exterior powers of the standard representation $V={\mathbb{C}}^{2n+1}$, thus: $$\begin{aligned}
\varpi_1 & = & e_1 \\
\varpi_2 & = & e_1 +e_2\\
\varpi_3 & = & e_1 +e_2+e_3\\
& \cdot & \\
\varpi_i & = & e_1+e_2+\cdots+ e_i \\
& \cdot & \\
\varpi_{2n} & = & e_1+e_2+\cdots +e_{2n}.\end{aligned}$$
The [LiE]{} software denotes an irreducible representation of $\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ by $[a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{2n}]$ with $a_i$ integers $\geq 0$, which stands for the irreducible representation of $\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ with highest weight $$a_1\varpi_1 + a_2\varpi_2+ \cdots + a_{2n}\varpi_{2n}.$$
Since in our work we are looking only at selfdual representations, we will have:
$$[a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{2n}] = [a_{2n},a_{2n-1},\cdots, a_{1}],$$ thus, $$[a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{2n}] = [a_{1},a_{2},\cdots,a_{n-1}, a_n, a_n, a_{n-1}, \cdots, a_2, a_{1}].$$
Next we come to the symplectic group $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$. Let $\varpi_i$, $1 \leq i \leq (n-1)$ denote the highest weights of the fundamental representations realized on a subspace of the $i$-th exterior powers of the standard representation $V={\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$ of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, thus: $$\begin{aligned}
\varpi_1 & = & e_1 \\
\varpi_2 & = & e_1 +e_2\\
\varpi_3 & = & e_1 +e_2+e_3\\
& \cdot & \\
\varpi_i & = & e_1+e_2+\cdots + e_i \\
& \cdot & \\
\varpi_{n-1} & = & e_1+e_2+\cdots + e_{n-1}\\
\varpi_n &=& (e_1+e_2+\cdots +e_n).\end{aligned}$$
The [LiE]{} software denotes an irreducible representation of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ by $[a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{n}]$ with $a_i$ integers $\geq 0$, which stands for the irreducible representation of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ with highest weight $$a_1\varpi_1 + a_2\varpi_2+ \cdots + a_{n}\varpi_{n}.$$
We note the following lemma whose straightforward proof will be omitted.
\[central2\] A selfdual representation $[a_{1},a_{2},\cdots, a_n, a_n, \cdots, a_2, a_{1}] $ of $\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ has trivial central character.
The representation $[a_{1},a_{2},\cdots,a_{n-1}, a_n] $ of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ has central character of order $\leq 2$, and has trivial central character if and only if $ a_1+ a_3 + a_5 + \cdots $ is even.
Recall first that by Proposition \[mult\], if for three irreducible representations of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_1 & = & [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{n}], \\
\pi_2 & = & [b_1,b_2,\cdots, b_{n}], \\
\pi_3 & = & [c_1,c_2,\cdots, c_{n}],\end{aligned}$$ with corresponding selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$, $$\begin{aligned}
V_1 & = & [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_{n-1}, a_{n}, a_n, a_{n-1}, \cdots, a_2,a_1] \\
V_2 & = & [b_1,b_2,\cdots, b_{n-1}, b_{n},b_n, b_{n-1}, \cdots, b_2,b_1], \\
V_3 & = & [c_1,c_2,\cdots, c_{n-1},c_{n},c_n, c_{n-1}, \cdots, c_2,c_1]\end{aligned}$$ $$1_{\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset \pi_1 \otimes \pi_2 \otimes \pi_3 \implies 1_{\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})} \subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3.$$
We propose that if at least two of the three $a_1,b_1,c_1$ are nonzero, and the central character of the representation $\pi_1 \otimes \pi_2 \otimes \pi_3$ of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ is trivial, then the converse holds:
$$1_{\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})}
\subset V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3
\implies 1_{\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})}
\subset \pi_1 \otimes \pi_2 \otimes \pi_3.$$
We note the following curious proposition.
If the central character of the representation $\pi_1 \otimes \pi_2 \otimes \pi_3,$ (given by Lemma \[central2\]) of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ is nontrivial, then for the corresponding representation $V_1 \otimes V_2 \otimes V_3$ of $\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$, $$m_{\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})}[V_1, V_2\otimes V_3] \in 2 {\mathbb{Z}}.$$
Because of central character consideration, $m_{\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})}[\pi_1, \pi_2 \otimes \pi_3] =0$. On the other hand, by Corollary \[mult-cor\], $$m_{\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})}[V_1, V_2\otimes V_3] \equiv m_{\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})}[\pi_1, \pi_2 \otimes \pi_3] \bmod 2.$$ The proof of the proposition is therefore clear.
Some questions relating $B_n, C_n$ and $A_{2n}, A_{2n+1}$
=========================================================
In many ways although the groups $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ and $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ are similar, their tensor products tends to be quite different. However, we noticed experimentally an interesting class of examples where the tensor products agree. We pose this as a question. In this question, we parametrize representations of both the groups — just as before — by an $n$-tuple of non-negative integers $\underline{a}
= [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_n]$, denoted as $V_{\underline{a}}$ for $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ and $W_{\underline{a}}$ for $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ as done in the last section.
For integers $k \geq 0$, let $V_k = [k,0,0,\cdots, 0]$ be the irreducible representations of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$, and $W_k = [k,0,0,\cdots, 0]$ be the irreducible representations of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$. Then for any two non-negative integers $k,\ell$, both the representations $V_k \otimes V_\ell$ of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ and the representations $W_k \otimes W_\ell$ of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ decompose with multiplicity 1. Further,
1. If $n>2$, the irreducible constituents of the two tensor products are the same, i.e., $V_{\underline{a}} \subset V_k \otimes V_\ell$ if and only if $W_{\underline{a}} \subset W_k \otimes W_\ell$.
2. If $n=2$, an irreducible representation $V_{\underline{a}}$ for ${\underline{a}} = [a_1,a_2]$ appears in $ V_k \otimes V_\ell$ if and only if $W_{\underline{a}}$ for ${\underline{a}}
= [a_1, 2a_2] $ appears in $ W_k \otimes W_\ell$ (and the second co-ordinate of $\underline{a}$ for any $W_{\underline{a}} \subset W_k \otimes W_\ell$ is even).
The assertion that the representations $W_k \otimes W_\ell$ of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ decompose with multiplicity 1 is a simple consequence of the fact that for the natural action of $\Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ on ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n} \oplus {\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$, for any Borel subgroup $ B \subset G = \Sp_{2n}({\mathbb{C}}) \times ({\mathbb{C}}^\times \times {\mathbb{C}}^\times)$, where the two ${\mathbb{C}}^\times$ correspond to scaling on the two copies of ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$ (inside ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n} \oplus {\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$), $B$ has an open orbit on ${\mathbb{C}}^{2n} \oplus {\mathbb{C}}^{2n}$. But this argument does not apply, at least immediately, to prove multiplicity 1 for $V_k \otimes V_\ell$; however, it is one of the multiplicity 1 pairs of Stembridge in [@St].
The above question is closely related to the following question on special linear groups.
For integers $k \geq 0$, let $V_k = [k,0,0,\cdots, 0, 0, k]$ be the irreducible selfdual representation of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$, and $W_k = [k,0,0,\cdots, 0,0, k]$ be the irreducible selfdual representation of $\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$. Then for any two non-negative integers $k,\ell$, irreducible selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ which appear with odd multiplicity inside the representation $V_k \otimes V_\ell$ of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ are in bijective correspondence with irreducible selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ which appear with odd multiplicity inside the representation $W_k \otimes W_\ell$ of $\SL_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ given by the correspondence:
$$[a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_n, a_{n-1}, \cdots, a_1] \longleftrightarrow [a_1,a_2,\cdots, a_n, a_n, a_{n-1}, \cdots, a_1],$$ if $n>2$, in which case all $a_i, i>2$ are zero. If $n=2$, then $$[a_1,2a_2, a_1] \longleftrightarrow [a_1,a_2, a_2, a_1].$$
Further, under the above correspondence, multiplicities (we are only looking at odd multiplicities) are preserved.
We note that multiplicity free tensor products (of $\sigma$-invariant representations) for $G$ are especially useful for our purposes, since they exactly reflect a similar decomposition of the tensor product for $G_\sigma$. Thus one is led to ask for any simple group $G$, all pairs of irreducible representations $V,W$ of $G$ such that $V \otimes W$ decomposes with multiplicity 1. In fact this question has been fully answered by J. Stembridge in [@St], and the answer is closely related to a classical problem of classifying spaces of the form $G/P_1 \times G/P_2$ which are spherical,i.e., $B$ has an open orbit on it. A stronger question of classifying representations whose restriction to a maximal torus decomposes with multiplicity $\leq 1$ has also been known, see the introduction of the paper [@St] for a very small list (due to R. Howe in [@Ho], Theorem 4.6.3.); one can also use the work [@BZ] to give a proof of the theorem of Howe.
Sample computations {#sec:observations}
===================
Tables representing sample computations {#sec:tables .unnumbered}
---------------------------------------
We use the following notations in the two tables below (Table \[tab:tableA3\] and \[tab:tableA5\] ).
- The row and column headers $\{a_1,a_2\}$ in Table 1 represent the irreducible selfdual representations of $\SL_4({\mathbb{C}})$ which were earlier represented by $[a_1,a_2,a_1] = a_1\varpi_1 + a_2\varpi_2 + a_{1}\varpi_{3},$ with $\varpi_i$ the $i$-th fundamental weight. Similarly, the row and column headers ${\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}}$ in Table 2 represent the selfdual representations $[a_1,a_2,a_3,a_2,a_1] = a_1\varpi_1 + a_2\varpi_2+ \cdots + a_{1}\varpi_{5}$ of $\SL_6({\mathbb{C}})$.
- For the cell appearing in the row corresponding to a representation ${V}$ and column corresponding to a representation ${W}$, there are 4 numbers: $\begin{matrix} n_1&n_4\\n_2&n_3
\end{matrix}$, where
- number of representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ appearing in the tensor product ${V} \otimes {W}$.
- number of selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ appearing in the tensor product ${V} \otimes {W}$.
- number of representations of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ appearing in the tensor product of the representations of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ corresponding to ${V'}$ and ${W'}$.
- number of selfdual representations of $\SL_{2n}({\mathbb{C}})$ in the tensor product ${V}\otimes {W}$, such that the corresponding representation of $\Spin_{2n+1}({\mathbb{C}})$ is not appearing in the tensor product of the corresponding representations.
### Comments on table \[tab:tableA3\] {#sec:table_A3_comments .unnumbered}
- Observe that $n_4$ is often zero in this table as predicted by Conjecture 1. For example, the column corresponding to $\{5,9\}$ has $n_4$ identically zero by Remark \[odd\]. In fact Remark \[odd\] allows us to showcase many pairs of representations of $\SL_4({\mathbb{C}})$ for which $n_4$ is zero, but our work has tried to uncover how often $n_4$ is nonzero, and the reader will agree with us by looking at this table that almost all entries in the table have either $n_4$ equal to zero, or (comparatively) very small value for $n_4$ except for the bottom corner entry corresponding to tensor product: $$[8,0,8] \otimes [7,0,7],$$ of irreducible selfdual representations of $\SL_4({\mathbb{C}})$ which decomposes with 400 irreducible representations (with various multiplicities not discussed in the table), out of which only 64 are selfdual. The corresponding tensor product $[8,0] \otimes [7,0]$ of $\Spin_5({\mathbb{C}})$ has 36 entries, thus there are $n_4=28$ many irreducible selfdual representations of $\SL_4({\mathbb{C}})$ which go ‘missing’ in $\Spin_5({\mathbb{C}})$.
### Comments on table \[tab:tableA5\] {#sec:table_A5_comments .unnumbered}
- Observe that just as in table 1, $n_4$ is often zero in this table too as predicted by Conjecture 1. For example, the columns corresponding to $\{5,9,9\}$ and $\{9,8,7\}$ has $n_4$ identically zero by Remark \[odd\]. In fact if the last entry is odd, either in a row or in a column, then $n_4$ identically zero by Remark \[odd\].
- In this table too we find that either $n_4$ equal to zero, or (comparatively) very small value for $n_4$ except for the bottom corner entry corresponding to tensor product: $$[8,7,0,7,8] \otimes [9,3,0,3,9],$$ of irreducible selfdual representations of $\SL_6({\mathbb{C}})$ which decomposes with 178101 irreducible representations (with various multiplicities not discussed in the table), out of which only 1569 are selfdual. The corresponding tensor product $[8,7,0] \otimes [9,3,0]$ of $\Spin_7({\mathbb{C}})$ has 1414 entries, thus there are $n_4=155$ many irreducible selfdual representations of $\SL_4({\mathbb{C}})$ which go ‘missing’ in $\Spin_7({\mathbb{C}})$. There are similar conclusions of for representations $V=[a_1,a_2,a_3,a_2,a_1]$ and $W=[b_1,b_2,b_3,b_2,b_1]$ of $\SL_6({\mathbb{C}})$ when for both, the middle terms $a_3=b_3=0$.
- If $v=[1,0,0,0,1]$, then for any $w=[b_1,b_2,b_3,b_2,b_1]$ there is exactly one representation is missing if and only if $b_3=0$. In such case, the missing representation is necessarily $w$. This is a special case of the Example \[example:1\_0\_0\] above.
### Special case of representations of the form $[m,0,0,0,m]$ {#sec:special_case_m-0-0 .unnumbered}
Here, we consider the tensor product of the representations of the form $V_m=[m,0,0,0,m]$ and $V_n=[n,0,0,0,n]$ of $\SL_6({\mathbb{C}})$. Here is a summary of some of the observations made regarding the tensor product $V_m\otimes V_n$ of $\SL_6({\mathbb{C}})$ and the corresponding tensor product of the representations $W_m=[m,0,0]$ and $W_n=[n,0,0]$ of $\Spin_7({\mathbb{C}})$.
- total number of distinct irreducible representations in $V_m \otimes V_n$ is at most $(m+1)^3$, for all $n\leq 2m$. Further, for $n=m$, this number is equal to $\frac{m\left(2m^2 + 1\right)}{3}$.
- total number of distinct selfdual representations in $V_m \otimes V_n$ = $(n+1)^2$, for all $n\leq m$.
- total number of distinct selfdual representations in $V_m \otimes V_n$ missing in the corresponding tensor product in $\Spin_7({\mathbb{C}})$ is = $\frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ for all $n\leq m$.
- $V_p \subset V_m \otimes V_n$ (where $V_i=[i,0,0,0,i]$ is an irreducible representation of $\SL_6({\mathbb{C}})$) if and only if $ m-n \leq p \leq m+n$.
- $W_p \subset W_m \otimes W_n$ (where $W_i=[i,0,0]$ is an irreducible representation of $\Spin_7({\mathbb{C}})$) if and only if $ m-n \leq p \leq m+n$ and $p$ has the same parity as $m+n$.
Our next table is the summary of some results about the tensor products for the selfdual irreducible representations of $\SL_5({\mathbb{C}})$ using the notation $\{a_1,a_2\} = [a_1,a_2,a_2,a_1] = a_1\varpi_1 + a_2\varpi_2+ a_2\varpi_3 +
a_{1}\varpi_{4}$, otherwise we use the same notation as in earlier tables, except with the important difference that now $n_2$ represents the number of selfdual representations of $\SL_5({\mathbb{C}})$ represented say by $[c_1,c_2,c_2,c_1]$ with $c_1$ of the same parity as that of $a_1+b_1$ which is the central character condition which appears in Lemma \[central2\]. The table now compares tensor products of irreducible selfdual representations of $\SL_5({\mathbb{C}})$ with those of $\Sp_4({\mathbb{C}})$.
### Comments on table \[tab:tableA4\] {#sec:table_A4_comments .unnumbered}
- Observe that just as in table 1, and table 2, $n_4$ is often zero in this table too as predicted by Conjecture 3. For example, the columns corresponding to $\{5,9\}$ or row corresponding to $\{9,7\}$ has $n_4$ identically zero by Remark \[odd\]. In fact if the first entry is odd, either in a row or in a column, then $n_4$ identically zero by Remark \[odd\].
- In this table too we find that either $n_4$ equal to zero, or (comparatively) very small value for $n_4$ except for the bottom corner entry corresponding to tensor product where both row and column vector have first entry 0, for example $$[0,7,7,0] \otimes [0,9,9,0],$$ of irreducible selfdual representations of $\SL_5({\mathbb{C}})$ which decomposes with 5342 irreducible representations (with various multiplicities not discussed in the table), out of which only 64 are selfdual. The corresponding tensor product $[0,7] \otimes [0,9]$ of $\Sp_4({\mathbb{C}})$ has 28 entries, thus there are $n_4=28$ many irreducible selfdual representations of $\SL_4({\mathbb{C}})$ which go ‘missing’ in $\Spin_7({\mathbb{C}})$. There are similar conclusions of for representations $V=[a_1,a_2,a_2,a_1]$ and $W=[b_1,b_2,b_2,b_1]$ of $\SL_5({\mathbb{C}})$ when for both, the first terms $a_1=b_1=0$.
[**Acknowledgement:**]{} The authors thank CS Rajan for bringing the paper of Kapovitch [@Kap] and that of S. Kumar [@Ku2] to their notice. The authors also thank J. Hong, S. Kumar and N. Ressayre for very useful comments on this work.
[MVW]{}
P. Belkale and S. Kumar, [*Eigencone, saturation and Horn problems for symplectic and odd orthogonal groups.*]{} J. Algebraic Geom. 19 (2010), no. 2, 199-242.
A. Berenshtein and A. Zelevinskii, [ *When is the multiplicity of a weight equal to 1?*]{} (Russian) Funktsional. Anal. i Prilozhen. 24 (1990), no. 4, 1-13, 96; translation in Funct. Anal. Appl. 24 (1990), no. 4, 259–269 (1991).
J. Hong; L. Shen, [*Tensor invariants, saturation problems, and Dynkin automorphisms.*]{} Adv. Math. 285 (2015), 629–657. J. Hong, [*Conformal blocks, Verlinde formula and diagram automorphisms.*]{} Adv. Math. 354 (2019), 106731, 50 pp.
R. Howe, [ *Perspectives on invariant theory: Schur duality, multiplicity-free actions and beyond,*]{} The Schur lectures (1992) (Tel Aviv), Israel Math. Conf. Proc. 8, Bar-Ilan Univ., Ramat Gan, 1995, pp. 1-182.
S. Kumar; G. Lusztig; D. Prasad, [*Characters of simplylaced nonconnected groups versus characters of nonsimplylaced connected groups.*]{} Representation theory, 99–101, Contemp. Math., 478, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2009.
M. Kapovich: [*Buildings and tensor product multiplicities*]{}, appendix to the article of S. Kumar: [*A survey of the additive eigenvalue problem*]{}, Transformation Groups 19, 1051-1148 (2014)
A. Knutson; T. Tao: [*The honeycomb model of $\GL_n({\mathbb{C}})$ tensor products. I. Proof of the saturation conjecture.*]{} J. Amer. Math. Soc. 12 (1999), no. 4, 1055¡V1090.
S. Kumar [*Tensor Product Decomposition*]{}, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Hyderabad, India, 2010.
S. Kumar: [*A survey of the additive eigenvalue problem (with an appendix by M. Kapovich)*]{}, Transformation Groups 19, 1051-1148 (2014)
S. Kumar and J. Stembridge; [*Special isogenies and Tensor product multiplicities*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not., IMRN (2007), no. 20.
D. Prasad, [*Multiplicities under basechange: finite field case*]{}, arXiv:1909.01850.
J. Stembridge, [*Multiplicity-free products and restrictions of Weyl characters.*]{} Represent. Theory 7 (2003), 404-439.
, A Computer algebra package for Lie group computations, available at\
<http://wwwmathlabo.univ-poitiers.fr/~maavl/LiE/>
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose modulation protocols designed to generate, store and transfer compact localized states in a quantum network. Induced by parameter tuning or local reflection symmetries, such states vanish outside selected domains of the complete system and are therefore ideal for information storage. Their creation and transfer is here achieved either via amplitude phase flips or via optimal temporal control of inter-site couplings. We apply the concept to a decorated, locally symmetric Lieb lattice where one sublattice is dimerized, and also demonstrate it for more complex setups. The approach allows for a flexible storage and transfer of states along independent paths in lattices supporting flat energetic bands. The generic network and protocols proposed can be utilized in various physical setups such as atomic or molecular spin lattices, photonic waveguide arrays, and acoustic setups.'
author:
- 'M. Röntgen'
- 'C. V. Morfonios'
- 'I. Brouzos'
- 'F. K. Diakonos'
- 'P. Schmelcher'
title: Quantum network transfer and storage with compact localized states induced by local symmetries
---
[*Introduction*.—]{}The Storage and transfer of information in quantum systems is a task of great importance for the realization of quantum computers and simulators. Storage of a quantum state implies that it is effectively decoupled from surrounding building blocks of a system, thus not affected by its environment. In contrast, transfer of a state requires a successive interaction with its environment leading to its directed propagation. We here propose a quantum state that can be easily prepared and robustly stored and present protocols that transfer it through a quantum network. We thereby merge key ingredients of three different fields of research: (i) compact localized states in flat band lattices [@Maimaiti2017PRB95115135CompactLocalizedStatesFlatband; @Leykam2018APX31473052ArtificialFlatBandSystems; @Mukherjee2015PRL114245504ObservationLocalizedFlatBandState; @Taie2015SA1CoherentDrivingFreezingBosonic; @Apaja2010PRA8241402FlatBandsDiracCones; @Mukherjee2015OLO405443ObservationLocalizedFlatbandModes; @Derzhko2015IJMPB291530007StronglyCorrelatedFlatbandSystems; @Vicencio2015PRL114245503ObservationLocalizedStatesLieb; @Morales-Inostroza2016PRA9443831SimpleMethodConstructFlatband; @Rontgen2018PRB9735161CompactLocalizedStatesFlat; @Wan2017SR715188HybridInterferenceInducedFlat; @Shen2010PRB8141410SingleDiracConeFlat; @Real2017SR715085FlatbandLightDynamicsStub; @Rojas-Rojas2017PRA9643803QuantumLocalizedStatesPhotonic], (ii) perfect state transfer [@Christandl2004PRL92187902PerfectStateTransferQuantum; @Christandl2005PRA7132312PerfectTransferArbitraryStates; @Bose2007CP4813QuantumCommunicationSpinChain; @Kay2010IJQI08641PerfectEfficientStateTransfer; @Cirac1997PRL783221QuantumStateTransferEntanglement; @Yung2005PRA7132310PerfectStateTransferEffective; @Wojcik2005PRA7234303UnmodulatedSpinChainsUniversal; @Osborne2004PRA6952315PropagationQuantumInformationSpin; @Chapman2016NC711339ExperimentalPerfectStateTransfer], and (iii) optimal control theory [@Brif2010NJP1275008ControlQuantumPhenomenaPast; @Glaser2015EPJD69279TrainingSchrodingersCatQuantum; @Murphy2010PRA8222318CommunicationQuantumSpeedLimit; @Zhang2016AoP375435OptimalControlFastHighfidelity; @Nakao2017JPBAMOP5065501OptimalControlPerfectState]. A compact localized state (CLS) is a Hamiltonian eigenstate defined by its strictly vanishing amplitudes outside a spatial subdomain of the system. This compact localization originates from destructive interference caused by the right combination of lattice geometry and Hamiltonian matrix elements. Such a combination is possible in a broad range of physical systems [@Leykam2018APX31473052ArtificialFlatBandSystems], and CLSs have been realized in, e.g., photonic waveguide arrays [@Mukherjee2015PRL114245504ObservationLocalizedFlatBandState; @Vicencio2015PRL114245503ObservationLocalizedStatesLieb; @Mukherjee2015OLO405443ObservationLocalizedFlatbandModes; @Real2017SR715085FlatbandLightDynamicsStub], ultracold atomic ensembles [@Taie2015SA1CoherentDrivingFreezingBosonic; @Apaja2010PRA8241402FlatBandsDiracCones], and optomechanical setups [@Wan2017SR715188HybridInterferenceInducedFlat]. Though typically residing in dispersionless—or ‘flat’—energy bands of periodic lattices with macroscopic degeneracy [@Mukherjee2015PRL114245504ObservationLocalizedFlatBandState; @Taie2015SA1CoherentDrivingFreezingBosonic; @Vicencio2015PRL114245503ObservationLocalizedStatesLieb; @Mukherjee2015OLO405443ObservationLocalizedFlatbandModes; @Shen2010PRB8141410SingleDiracConeFlat; @Apaja2010PRA8241402FlatBandsDiracCones; @Real2017SR715085FlatbandLightDynamicsStub; @Rojas-Rojas2017PRA9643803QuantumLocalizedStatesPhotonic], CLSs can exist in non-periodic setups just as well.
By their defining property, CLSs are ideally suited for storage: Due to their compactness, they can be stored using only a very small number of physical sites and, being Hamiltonian eigenstates, they can in principle be stored for an infinite amount of time. Moreover, their compactness protects CLSs against a wide range of imperfections. In particular, CLSs remain unaffected by changes of the Hamiltonian outside their localization domain. Furthermore, there is a class of CLSs which are protected by spatial *local symmetry* of the Hamiltonian against *any* perturbations preserving this local symmetry and the geometry within their localization domain [@Rontgen2018PRB9735161CompactLocalizedStatesFlat]. As a side note, the more general study of local symmetries has recently been put on new grounds by introducing a framework of non-local currents [@Kalozoumis2013PRA8732113LocalSymmetriesOnedimensionalQuantum; @Kalozoumis2015AP362684InvariantCurrentsScatteringLocally; @Spourdalakis2016PRA9452122GeneralizedContinuityEquationsTwofield; @Morfonios2017AP385623NonlocalDiscreteContinuityInvariant; @Rontgen2017AP380135NonlocalCurrentsStructureEigenstates; @Zampetakis2016JPA49195304InvariantCurrentApproachWave] by means of which the parity and Bloch-theorem are generalized to locally symmetric systems [@Kalozoumis2014PRL11350403InvariantsBrokenDiscreteSymmetries]. Recently, it has been shown that CLSs may result from particular local symmetries which commute with the Hamiltonian in discrete systems [@Rontgen2018PRB9735161CompactLocalizedStatesFlat].
While favoring their storage, the compactness and consequent decoupling of CLSs from their surroundings poses the challenge of how to *transfer* them controllably across a lattice. We here demonstrate how transfer of local-symmetry induced CLSs can be achieved using two different approaches, based on free and driven time-evolution. The first approach utilizes the common perfect (i.e., with unit fidelity) quantum state transfer scenario, where static inter-site couplings are tailored such that a selected state evolves freely from one location to another. Quantum state transfer techniques are especially explored in connection with entanglement transfer [@Kay2010IJQI08641PerfectEfficientStateTransfer; @Bose2007CP4813QuantumCommunicationSpinChain], while engineered coupling conditions for perfect transfer are also applied to network setups [@Christandl2004PRL92187902PerfectStateTransferQuantum; @Christandl2005PRA7132312PerfectTransferArbitraryStates]. As we show here, a CLS can be perfectly transferred under free evolution after a suitable local phase flip in its amplitude or in selected inter-site hoppings. The second approach uses optimal control theory [@Brif2010NJP1275008ControlQuantumPhenomenaPast; @Glaser2015EPJD69279TrainingSchrodingersCatQuantum; @Murphy2010PRA8222318CommunicationQuantumSpeedLimit; @Zhang2016AoP375435OptimalControlFastHighfidelity; @Nakao2017JPBAMOP5065501OptimalControlPerfectState], where the system is dynamically driven to the target state. For the tight-binding systems treated here, it aims at maximizing the fidelity of the transfer of CLS across the system by designing smooth time-dependent modulations of the couplings. The main advantage is its applicability in cases where instantaneous changes, like the phase flips above, are not feasible in practice. A special representative of optimal control is, e.g., the celebrated stimulated adiabatic Raman passage [@Vitanov2017RMP8915006StimulatedRamanAdiabaticPassage] (STIRAP) in three level systems. Recently [@Taie2017ACPSpatialAdiabaticPassageMassive], CLSs in Lieb lattices have been used, in the form of “dark states” [@Scully1997QuantumOptics], as a transfer channel between two local states during a spatial STIRAP process. We here take an orthogonal viewpoint, since our aim is to transfer the dark state (CLS) itself to other dark states through the network.
For definiteness, we shall apply the proposed concept of storage and transfer of CLSs to a decorated Lieb lattice (DLL); see \[fig:decoratedLieb\]. It is derived from the original Lieb lattice [@Lieb1989PRL621201TwoTheoremsHubbardModel] by replacing the sites of one sublattice with dimers. The resulting network can be extended to more complex geometries and to higher dimensions, and different CLSs can be routed independently across the network.
[*Star graph subsystem*.—]{}The basic building block for CLS transfer in the DLL is its isolated unit cell. It represents a five-point star graph and is shown in the lower inset of \[fig:decoratedLieb\]. It is governed by the Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:starHamiltonian}
H = \begin{pmatrix}
v_1 & 0 & J_{1} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & v_2 & J_{2} & 0 & 0 \\
J_{1} & J_{2} & v_c & J_{3} & J_{4} \\
0 & 0 & J_{3} & v_3 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & J_{4} & 0 & v_4 \\
\end{pmatrix}$$ with on-site potentials $v_n$ and outer nodes $n=1,2,3,4$ coupled to the central node $c$ by real hoppings $J_{n,c} = J_{c,n} \equiv J_n$. The above Hamiltonian can be physically realized in various contexts. One possibility is a coupled waveguide array [@Garanovich2012PR5181LightPropagationLocalizationModulated; @Szameit2012DiscreteOpticsFemtosecondLaser], with each node representing a waveguide cross-section and neighboring waveguides evanescently coupled through the overlap of their fundamental modes. The system is then effectively described by a discrete Schrödinger equation in terms of single-site excitations $\ket{n}$, with time $t$ replaced by the coordinate along the waveguide axis [@Szameit2012DiscreteOpticsFemtosecondLaser]. Another possible physical realization of $H$ is in terms of spins, with each node representing a spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ qubit (measured up or down). The Heisenberg XYZ interaction Hamiltonian reduces to this simple description within the Hilbert subspace where total spin is 1 [@Bose2007CP4813QuantumCommunicationSpinChain]. This subspace is spanned by the state vectors $|k\rangle=|0...010...0\rangle$ where only one spin at position $k$ is up (1) and all others down (0). Without loss of generality it is possible to consider also any superposition of $|k\rangle$ with $|0...0\rangle$ with all spins down. In this case, the CLS is a two qubit state.
In the presence of local symmetry under permutation only of sites $1$ and $2$, that is, $J_{1} = J_{2} \equiv J$ and $v_{1} = v_{2} \equiv v$, the star Hamiltonian $H$ hosts the eigenstate $\ket{I} = \frac{\ket{1} - \ket{2}}{\sqrt{2}}$. This is a CLS with opposite amplitudes on sites $1$ and $2$ and vanishing amplitudes on all other sites. It is thus decoupled by local symmetry from the rest of the star system. For example, its hopping rate $J_{1} I_{1} + J_{2} I_{2} = J_{1} - J_{2}$ (with $I_{n} = \braket{n|I}$) to the central site vanishes. It is therefore “stored” for an arbitrary time interval until the local symmetry condition is violated. Crucially, this local-symmetry induced decoupling persists even if $J$ and $v$ are time-dependent, allowing for a gradual modulation $J(t)$ or $v(t)$ without perturbing the CLS \[up to a global phase $\ket{I(t)} = e^{i\phi(t) t/\hbar} \ket{I}$ given by $\phi(t) = \int_{t_{0}}^{t} v(t') dt'$\]. Moreover, $\ket{I}$ is unaffected by any change of the remainder of the Hamiltonian, i.e, of $v_{c},v_{3},v_{4},J_{3}$ or $J_{4}$. In complete similarity, for $J_{3} = J_{4}$ and $v_{3} = v_{4}$ the star hosts a second compact localized eigenstate $\ket{F} = \frac{\ket{3} - \ket{4}}{\sqrt{2}}$. Both $\ket{I}$ and $\ket{F}$ are also dark states since they are the only eigenstates of the Hamiltonian \[eq:starHamiltonian\] which have non zero coefficients only in two sites. An important fact is that $\ket{I}$ and $\ket{F}$ are also eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian when the star subsystem is repeatedly connected to form the DLL (see \[fig:decoratedLieb\]). In fact, *different* locally symmetric star subsystems, each with its own parameters $v_{n}, J_{n}$, can be connected in a suitable way to form a network hosting multiple independent CLSs, each stored on only two sites with opposite amplitude.
In the following, we first present different protocols transferring a CLS in the star-subsytem. These can easily be extended to the full DLL, as we will show afterwards. For the state transfer within the time $T$, the two CLSs $\ket{I}$ and $\ket{F}$ will serve as the initial and final state. Throughout the rest of this work, we set $v_{n} = v$, but $J_{n}$ are not necessarily equal to each other and may also be time-dependent during the pulse. However, we impose the symmetry condition $J_{3} = J_{4}$ at the end of the transfer to ensure that $\ket{F}$ is an energy eigenstate. The initially stored CLS is thus transfered to the target location and can be stored again indefinitely. In a spin network setting, the initial state can be realized as $\ket{I} = \frac{\ket{10\mathbf{0}} - \ket{01\mathbf{0}}}{\sqrt{2}}$, which is a *maximally entangled state* between the spins at sites 1 and 2 of a dimer (while the others summarized by $\mathbf{0}$ are decoupled). In this context, transfer of state $\ket{I}$ to the corresponding state $\ket{F} = \frac{\ket{\mathbf{0}10} - \ket{\mathbf{0}01}}{\sqrt{2}}$ constitutes transfer of maximal entanglement.
[*Transfer by phase flips*.—]{}For the transfer protocol visualized in \[fig:flipProtocol\] (a), we set $J_{n} = J$ and consider the possibility to instantaneously imprint a phase flip by $\pi$ (that is, a sign change) on one of the components of $\ket{I}$ at $t = 0$, turning it into $\ket{L} \equiv \frac{\ket{1} + \ket{2} }{\sqrt{2}}$. This new state $\ket{L}$ is no longer an eigenstate of $H$, and will evolve freely and with unit fidelity within time $T$ to the state $\ket{R} \equiv \frac{\ket{3} + \ket{4}}{\sqrt{2}}$ for suitable chosen on-site potentials and couplings. Exactly at $t = T$ another sign flip is applied to one of the components of $\ket{R}$ in order to turn it into the desired target CLS $\ket{F}$. For the choice $J = 1/4$ energy units and $v = 2J$, the transfer time is $T = \frac{\hbar \pi}{2J} =2\pi$ (setting $\hbar = 1$). General analytical derivations for the evolution $\ket{\psi(t)} = e^{-iHt}\ket{I}$ are given in \[appendix:calculations\], exploiting the so-called ‘equitable partition theorem’ [@BarrettEquitabledecompositionsgraphs2017; @FrancisExtensionsapplicationsequitable2017; @Rontgen2018PRB9735161CompactLocalizedStatesFlat]. As an alternative version of this transfer protocol, we can apply the instantaneous sign flips at $t = 0$ and $T$ to the hoppings $J_1,J_3$ (or $J_2,J_4$) instead, as depicted in \[fig:flipProtocol\] (b). The free time evolution is then essentially equivalent to the previous one in \[fig:flipProtocol\] (a).
[*Transfer by optimal control*.—]{}Now we turn to optimal control solutions in order to design smooth pulses to avoid instantaneous operations. Taking into account that the initial state $\ket{I}$ is an eigenstate of $H(t=0)$, we need to smoothly drive it out of stationarity in order to end up with the final state $\ket{F}$ as an eigenstate of the final Hamiltonian $H(t=T)$. To find smooth optimal driving pulses for the couplings $J_n$ we apply the chopped random-basis[@Doria2011PRL106190501OptimalControlTechniqueManyBodya; @Caneva2011PRA8422326ChoppedRandombasisQuantumOptimizationa] (CRAB) optimal control method to the functional form $$\label{eq:crabJ}
J_{n}(t) = J \left\{ 1+\sin\frac{t}{2}\left[x_n\sin(\omega_n t)+x_n'\cos(\omega_n t)\right]^2 \right\} .$$ This determines the optimal parameters $x_n,x_n',\omega_n$ ($n=1,2,3,4$) for transferring $\ket{I}$ to $\ket{F}$ in time $T$, with the same initial and final conditions as previously (that is, $J_n = J$). More information on the CRAB procedure and the specific optimizations performed here can be found in \[appendix:calculations\]. For this particular case, we further impose $J = 1/4$ as a minimum value for all $J_n$. Sign changes in the $J_n$ are thus avoided, which can be advantageous in practice depending on the model’s realization (e.g., in the case of waveguide arrays). The resulting optimal $J_n$-driving pulses are presented in \[fig:crabProtocol\] together with the state evolution. The infidelity $1 - |\braket{F|\Psi(T_{f})}|^2$ of these pulses is approximately $10^{-10}$.
[*CLS generation*.—]{}In the above transfer protocols, we assumed that the initial CLS $\ket{I}$ already exists at $t=0$. Depending on the system realization, it may indeed be feasible to imprint the CLS directly onto the dimer. In waveguide arrays, e.g., the two sites could be excited with light of phase difference $\pi$ at the input. Under some circumstances, however, it is easier to imprint a local excitation only on *one* lattice site rather than to excite the dimer CLS directly. In particular for spin lattices, the CLS is a (maximally) entangled state, as mentioned above, which may be challenging to imprint directly. Therefore, we now propose protocols that start with state $\ket{c}$ (occupying only the central site in the star) at $t=0$ and end with $\ket{I}$ at a desired generation time $T_g$. To this aim, we initially decouple all outer sites from $\ket{c}$ by setting $J_{n}(t=0)=0$ and turn on only $J_1$ and $J_2$ to a common value $J'$. The on-site potentials are $v_{n} = 2 J = 1/2$ as above.
Analogously to the transfer protocols above, the CLS generation can be done either by instantaneous phase or hopping flips, or by continuous modulation via optimal control. In the first case, $J_{1}=J_{2}$ are switched on at $t=0$ to the value $J'=3\sqrt{2}$, for which the system evolves freely from $\ket{c}$ to $\ket{L}$ in time $T_g = T/2 = \pi$ (analytical details given in the SM). Then, at $t=T_g$ a phase flip is applied to obtain $\ket{I}$. In the second case we use optimal control to evolve the system from $\ket{c}$ directly to $\ket{I}$ by gradually turning on $J_1,J_2$ (from $0$ to $J'$) according to a temporal profile produced via the CRAB method (with an infidelity of approximately $10^{-10}$), graphically depicted in \[fig:crabProtocolCLSCreation\]. Here, a linear rise has been chosen for $J_2$, while $J_1$ oscillates and necessarily also becomes negative, as shown in \[appendix:calculations\]. With these conditions we prepare and store (due to the equal final couplings) the CLS $\ket{I}$.
As easily anticipated, these CLS generation protocols can also be used in order to perform the state transfer from $\ket{I}$ to $\ket{F}$, now in two steps. In the first step $\ket{I}$ is evolved to $\ket{c}$ within time $T/2$ using one of the generation protocols *time-reversed*. In the second step $\ket{F}$ is generated from $\ket{c}$ within time $T/2$, just like $\ket{I}$ was above.
[*Transfer across a network*.—]{} By exploiting the robustness of CLS, the state transfer schemes established above can now be used in the full DLL. The elementary process to transfer a compact localized eigenstate within the network is shown in \[fig:networkTransfer\] (a). Starting from the upper left, it consists in (i) separating the star subsystem hosting the initial CLS $\ket{I}$ from the remainder of the lattice, (ii) perform the transfer to the final CLS $\ket{F}$ within the star, and (iii) reconnect the star to the remainder. The process can then start anew to transport the state over longer distances.
To separate the star while keeping $\ket{I}$ unaffected, we ramp down its outer couplings to surrounding sites to zero within time $\delta t$ such that the local symmetry protecting $\ket{I}$ is *preserved*. With the site indexing in \[fig:networkTransfer\] (a), starting at $t=0$ this means that $J_{1,5} (t) = J_{2,5} (t)$ for $0 \leqslant t \leqslant \delta t$ with $J_{1,5}(\delta t)=0$. This modulation does not perturb $\ket{I}$, even in the limit $\delta t \rightarrow 0$. The other couplings of the star to its surroundings ($J_{3,8}$, $J_{4,8}$ and $J_{n,c}$ with $n = 6,7,9,10$) can be ramped down in an *arbitrary* way, since they do not connect to the localization domain of $\ket{I}$. In particular, this can be done even before $J_{1,5}$ and $J_{2,5}$ are ramped down. Within the separated star, the actual state transfer can be performed according to one of the above protocols over time $T$. Afterwards, we ramp up the outer couplings again, now preserving the local symmetry which protects $\ket{F}$; that is, increasing $J_{3,8}$ and $J_{4,8}$ symmetrically, and the other couplings arbitrarily, from zero to their final values.
Transfer of a CLS to a distant dimer (not in the same star subsystem) is achieved via consecutive “dimer-jumps” like the one just described, as depicted in \[fig:networkTransfer\](b). This procedure can be employed simultaneously along different paths in the network. These may also intersect in space, as long as in each instant in time the different paths use different star-subsystems; see orange and green paths in \[fig:networkTransfer\](b). Once a CLS has reached its final destination, it is stored for arbitrary time. In this sense, the proposed network becomes a simple model for a hybrid setup functioning simultaneously as a directional transfer device and as a multiple quantum memory unit.
In practice, an actual realization of an equivalent network will depend on the limitations of underlying physical platform. We emphasize that the DLL operated on here is a very basic lattice geometry enabling the proposed CLS transfer concept, but can be generalized to other geometries in a straightforward way. For instance, if intra-dimer coupling is non-negligible due to the small spatial separation (which may be the case in coupled photonic waveguides), an alternative CLS transfer unit can be used, with essentially the same procedure applied, as shown in \[appendix:modifiedNetwork\]. This transfer unit consists of seven instead of five sites, which allows for a bigger spatial separation between waveguides.
[*Conclusion*.—]{}We have demonstrated how local symmetries in a decorated Lieb lattice (DLL) can be exploited to generate, store and transfer compact localized states (CLSs) via different, easily realizable, modulation protocols. This provides a powerful prototype for a quantum device which simultaneously performs flexible transfer and robust storage of information within the same physical platform. The transfer protocols utilize either instantaneous phase flips (with unit fidelity) or optimal temporal control of inter-site couplings with near-unit fidelity. They can thus be adapted to the needs of different potential realizations in, e.g., electronics, atom-optics, photonics, or acoustics. An exciting prospect is the application of the concept to decoherence-free transfer and storage of maximally entangled spin states, represented here by CLSs. Under the very weak requirement of local symmetries protecting the CLSs, extension of the proposed concept to alternative network geometries and different dimensionality is straightforward. Based on multiple intersecting CLS transfer paths as proposed here, a future vision would be the design of a dynamical network with switchable quantum gates and embedded quantum memories.
Financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under grant DFG Schm 885/29-1 is gratefully acknowledged. M.R. gratefully acknowledges financial support by the ‘Stiftung der deutschen Wirtschaft’ in the framework of a scholarship. I.B gratefully acknowledges financial support by IKY (Greek State Scholarship Foundation).
State transfer and CLS-creation protocols presented in the main part {#appendix:calculations}
====================================================================
State transfer (phase flip)
---------------------------
For $v_{n} = v$, $n \in \{1,2,3,4,c\}$ and $J_{n} = J$, $n \in \{1,2,3,4\}$, \[eq:starHamiltonian\] can be analyzed analytically by means of the so-called equitable partition theorem [@Rontgen2018PRB9735161CompactLocalizedStatesFlat; @BarrettEquitabledecompositionsgraphs2017; @FrancisExtensionsapplicationsequitable2017]. This theorem gives a block-partitioning of a locally symmetric Hamiltonian, allowing for a simpler computation of both eigenvectors and eigenvalues. The underlying local symmetry is restricted to be a permutation that commutes with the Hamiltonian and which acts non-trivially only on a subset of sites. For the Hamiltonian treated here, the underlying symmetry is described by the operator $S$ performing the cyclic permutation $1 \to 2 \to 3 \to 4 \to 1$ and mapping $c$ to itself. Then, $[H,S] = 0$, and by the equitable partition theorem, the eigenvectors are $$\ket{\phi^{(i)}} = \left\{ \begin{pmatrix}
-1/\sqrt{2}\\1/\sqrt{2}\\0\\0\\0
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\0\\0\\-1/\sqrt{2}\\1/\sqrt{2}
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
1/2\\1/2\\0\\-1/2\\-1/2
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
1/(2\sqrt{2})\\1/(2\sqrt{2})\\-1/\sqrt{2}\\1/(2\sqrt{2})\\1/(2\sqrt{2})
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
1/(2\sqrt{2})\\1/(2\sqrt{2})\\1/\sqrt{2}\\1/(2\sqrt{2})\\1/(2\sqrt{2})
\end{pmatrix} \right\}$$ with corresponding eigenvalues $E^{(i)} = \{ v,v,v,v-2J,v+2J \}$. In terms of these eigenvectors, the two states $\ket{L} = (1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2},0,0,0)^{T}$ and $\ket{R} = (0,0,0,1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2})^{T}$ are expanded as $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{L} &= \sum_{i} a^{(i)}_{l} \ket{\phi^{(i)}} = \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(3)}} + \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(4)}} + \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(5)}} \\
\ket{R} &= \sum_{i} a^{(i)}_{r} \ket{\phi^{(i)}} = -\frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(3)}} + \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(4)}} + \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(5)}}\end{aligned}$$ with coefficients $a^{(i)}_{l,r} = \braket{\phi^{(i)}|l,r}$. To achieve a unitary time-evolution of state $\ket{L}$ at $t = 0$ to $\ket{R}$ at $t = T_{f}$, the conditions $a^{(i)}_{l} e^{-i E^{(i)} T_{f} /\hbar}= a^{(i)}_{r}$ must hold, leading to $$\label{eq:timeEvolutionSystem}
e^{-i E^{(3)} T_{f} /\hbar} = -1,\; e^{-i E^{(3)} T_{f} /\hbar} = 1,\; e^{-i E^{(5)} T_{f}/\hbar} = 1$$ which is fulfilled for $$\label{eq:solutionsProtocol1}
v = J \left( \frac{4 k_{1}}{1+2k_{2}} -2\right),\; T_{f} = \frac{\pi \hbar (1 + 2k_{2})}{2J},\; k_{1,2} \in \mathbb{Z}.$$ For $k_{1} =1,\; k_{2} = 0$, one finds $v = 2 J, T_{f} = \frac{\pi \hbar}{2 J}$ which was given in the main part of this work.
State transfer (hopping flip)
-----------------------------
For $v_{n}$ as above and $J_{1} = J_{3} = J$ and $J_{2} = J_{4} = -J$, the eigenvectors of $H$ are $$\ket{\phi^{(i)}} = \left\{ \begin{pmatrix}
1/\sqrt{2}\\1/\sqrt{2}\\0\\0\\0
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\0\\0\\1/\sqrt{2}\\1/\sqrt{2}
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
1/2\\-1/2\\0\\-1/2\\1/2
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
1/(2\sqrt{2})\\-1/(2\sqrt{2})\\-1/\sqrt{2}\\1/(2\sqrt{2})\\-1/(2\sqrt{2})
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
1/(2\sqrt{2})\\-1/(2\sqrt{2})\\1/\sqrt{2}\\1/(2\sqrt{2})\\-1/(2\sqrt{2})
\end{pmatrix} \right\}$$ with corresponding eigenvalues $E^{(i)} = \{ v,v,v,v-2J,v+2J \}$. In order to enable a unitary time-evolution of state $\ket{L} = (1/\sqrt{2},-1/\sqrt{2},0,0,0)^{T}$ at $t = 0$ to $\ket{R} = (0,0,0,1/\sqrt{2},-1/\sqrt{2})^{T}$ at $t = T_{f}$, one must solve $a^{(i)}_{l} e^{-i E^{(i)} T_{f} /\hbar}= a^{(i)}_{r}$. This system of equations is equal to \[eq:timeEvolutionSystem\], and the parameters needed to achieve perfect transfer are thus identical to that of the phase flip protocol.
Preparation-storage and piecewise transfer (phase flip)
-------------------------------------------------------
Let us now show how one can yield $\ket{L}$ from initially exciting the state $\ket{c} = (0,0,1,0,0)^{T}$ for $J_{3}= J_{4} = 0$ and $J_{1} = J_{2} = J'$. In this case, the Hamiltonian \[eq:starHamiltonian\] is block-diagonal, and the eigenvectors split into two subspaces. The eigenvectors relevant for the expansion of $\ket{L}$ and $\ket{c}$ are $$\ket{\phi^{(i)}} = \left\{
\begin{pmatrix}
1/\sqrt{2}\\-1/\sqrt{2}\\0\\0\\0
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
-1/2\\-1/2\\1/\sqrt{2}\\0\\0
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
1/2\\1/2\\1/\sqrt{2}\\0\\0
\end{pmatrix}
\right\}$$ with eigenvalues $E^{(i)}= \{v,v-\sqrt{2}J,v + \sqrt{2}J\}$. By expanding $\ket{c}$ and $\ket{L}$ into the eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian, one can show that for perfect state transfer $$e^{-i E^{(2)} T_{f} /\hbar} = -1,\; e^{-i E^{(3)} T_{f} /\hbar} = 1$$ must be fulfilled. This is the case for $$v = \frac{\sqrt{2}J' (4k'_{1} -1)}{1 + 4k'_{2}},\, T_{f} = \frac{\pi \hbar (4k'_{1} -1)}{2v}\;\;\; \text{or} \;\;\; v = \frac{\sqrt{2}J' (4k'_{1} + 1)}{-1 + 4k'_{2}},\, T_{f} = \frac{\pi \hbar (4k'_{1} + 1)}{2v}$$ where in both equations $k'_{1,2} \in \mathbb{Z}$. The special form $v = \frac{\sqrt{2} J'}{3}, t = \frac{\pi \hbar}{2 v}$ given in the main part of this work is obtained by taking the second solution as well as setting $k'_{1} = 0,k'_{2} = 1$ and $J' = 3\sqrt{2}J$.
Preparation-storage and piecewise transfer (hopping flip)
---------------------------------------------------------
In this case, we have $J_{2} = -J = - J_{1}$. The eigenvectors relevant for the expansion of $\ket{L}$ and $\ket{c}$ are thus $$\ket{\phi^{(i)}} = \left\{
\begin{pmatrix}
1/\sqrt{2}\\1/\sqrt{2}\\0\\0\\0
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
-1/2\\1/2\\1/\sqrt{2}\\0\\0
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
1/2\\-1/2\\1/\sqrt{2}\\0\\0
\end{pmatrix}
\right\}$$ with eigenvalues $v,v-\sqrt{2}J,v + \sqrt{2}J$. The expansion of $\ket{c}$ and $\ket{L}$ is equal to that of the phase flip protocol, with identical parameters needed to achieve perfect transfer.
Methods and calculations for optimal control protocols
------------------------------------------------------
The optimal control method Chopped Random-Basis quantum optimization CRAB [@Doria2011PRL106190501OptimalControlTechniqueManyBodya; @Caneva2011PRA8422326ChoppedRandombasisQuantumOptimizationa] is based on expressing the time-dependent driving functions/pulses for the control fields (here the couplings J) on a truncated randomized basis. This recasts the problem of a functional minimization (of the infidelity function) to a multi-variable function minimization that can be performed, for example, via a direct-search method. Here we use Nelder-Mead optimization for the parameters of the function. To achieve state transfer within the star-subsystem, we assume an initial and final $J_0=1/4$ which is also the minimum threshold for all couplings, and we have chosen the following (CRAB-inspired) expressions for the driving functions: $$J_{n}(t) = J_{0} \left\{ 1+\sin\left(\frac{t}{2}\right)\left[x_n\sin(\omega_n t)+x_n'\cos(\omega_n t)\right]^2 \right\}$$ The method essentially starts with a random set of frequencies $w_i$ ($i=1,...,4$) which is different in every iteration and optimizes $8$ amplitude parameters $x_i,x'_{i}$. The set $\{w_i,x_i,x'^{i}\}$ which minimizes the infidelity is defining the optimal pulses. For the pulses presented in \[fig:crabProtocol\] we have $x_{n} = \{0.5850, 2.4015, 2.5033, 0.2199\}$, $x'_{n} = \{2.9997,0.5954, 0.4555, 2.8103 \}$ and $\omega_{n} = \{1.4452, 1.3069, 1.1680, 1.3510 \}$.
For the preparation storage and piecewise transfer protocol with optimal control, shown in \[fig:crabProtocolCLSCreation\], we use $$\begin{aligned}
J_{1} &= \Big\{ 1+x \sin(\omega t)+x' \sin(\omega' t) \Big\} 3 \sqrt{2} (1 - t/\pi ) \\
J_{2} &= 3 \sqrt{2} (1 - t/\pi ) .\end{aligned}$$ Here we have a set of 4 parameters to optimize (both frequencies and amplitudes) and we allow the $J_{n}$ to take also negative values. For \[fig:crabProtocolCLSCreation\], the optimal parameter values are $x = 0.8292$, $x' = 1.5246$, $\omega = 1.7638$, $\omega' = 1.9434$. The necessity of negative values for $J_{n}$ is apparent if we see the system of differential equations which governs the dynamics which simplifies to: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\psi}_1=i(J_{1}\psi_c+v_1 \psi_1)\\
\dot{\psi}_2=i(J_{2}\psi_c+v_2 \psi_2)\\
\dot{\psi}_c=i(J_{1}\psi_1+J_{2}\psi_2+v_c \psi_c)\end{aligned}$$ With $\ket{\psi(t=0)} = \ket{c}$ and $v_1=v_2=v_c=1/2$, the amplitude $\psi_1$ or $\psi_2$ can acquire the desired negative value $-1/\sqrt{2}$ only if $J_1$ or $J_2$ becomes negative (for some $t$-intervals) as well, respectively.
Modified network for evanescently coupled waveguide arrays {#appendix:modifiedNetwork}
==========================================================
We here provide a modified network, along with some transfer protocols, for cases where the five-point Hamiltonian \[eq:starHamiltonian\] is not suitable for a physical realization. The basis for these protocols is the seven-point graph, described by the Hamiltonian $$\label{eq:sevenPointGraph}
H_{7}=\begin{pmatrix}
v_1 & 0 & J_{1} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & v_2 & J_{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
J_{1} & J_{2} & v_{3} & J_{3} & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & J_{3} & v_{4} & J_{4} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & J_{4} & v_{5} & J_{5} & J_{6} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & J_{5} & v_6 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & J_{6} & 0 & v_7 \\
\end{pmatrix}.$$ For $v_{1} = v_{2}, J_{1} = J_{2}$ and $v_{3} = v_{4}, J_{3} = J_{4}$, this Hamiltonian hosts two compact localized states, $\ket{I} = (1/\sqrt{2},-1/\sqrt{2},0,0,0,0,0)^{T}$ and $\ket{F} = (0,0,0,0,0,1/\sqrt{2},-1/\sqrt{2})^{T}$. We assume that at $t = 0$, the state $\ket{I}$ is excited and one wants to transfer it to the CLS $\ket{F}$ at $t = T_{f}$.
### Phase flip protocol
Similar to protocol 1 for the five-point Hamiltonian, we assume that at $t = 0$, a phase flip is applied, changing the state $\ket{I}$ into $\ket{L} = (1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2},0,0,0,0,0)^{T}$. Our aim is to transfer this into $\ket{R} = (0,0,0,0,0,1/\sqrt{2},1/\sqrt{2})^{T}$ at $t = T_{f}$, where we apply another phase flip, turning $\ket{R}$ into $\ket{F}$. In the following, we will choose $v_{i} = 0, \; i = \{1,\ldots{},7\}$, $J_{1} = J_{2} = J_{5} = J_{6} = J$. With this choice of parameters, $H_{7}$ is globally symmetric w.r.t. to a left-right flip with site $4$ as a center for $J_{3} = J_{4}$, but only locally symmetric for $J_{3} \ne J_{4}$. In both cases, the so-called ‘nonequitable partition theorem’ [@Rontgen2018PRB9735161CompactLocalizedStatesFlat; @Fritscher2016SJMAA37260ExploringSymmetriesDecomposeMatrices] allows to obtain analytical expressions for both the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $H_{7}$. This theorem is similar to the equitable partition theorem, but allows for the treatment of a greater class of local symmetries. For the current example, the eigenvalues of $H_{7}$ are the union of the eigenvalues of $$R = \begin{pmatrix}
v & \sqrt{\xi} J_{3} & 0 & 0\\
\sqrt{\xi} J_{3} & v & J & J\\
0 & J & v & 0\\
0 & J & 0 & v
\end{pmatrix},\;\;
C_{0} = \begin{pmatrix}
v & J & J\\
J & v & 0\\
J & 0 & v
\end{pmatrix}$$ with $\xi = J_{3}^2 + J_{4}^2$. If we denote the eigenvectors $\textbf{x}^{\nu}, \; \nu \in \{1,\ldots{},4\}$ of $R$ as $(x_{1}^{\nu},\ldots{},x_{4}^{\nu})^T$ and those of $C_{0}$ as $(w_{1}^{\mu},w_{2}^{\mu},w_{3}^{\mu})^{T},\; \mu \in \{1,2,3\}$, with $T$ denoting the transpose, then the (unnormalized) eigenvectors of $H_{7}$ are $$\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{J_{3}}{\sqrt{\xi}} x_{4}^{\nu}\\
\frac{J_{3}}{\sqrt{\xi}} x_{3}^{\nu}\\
\frac{J_{3}}{\sqrt{\xi}} x_{2}^{\nu}\\
x_{1}^{\nu}\\
\frac{J_{4}}{\sqrt{\xi}} x_{2}^{\nu}\\
\frac{J_{4}}{\sqrt{\xi}} x_{3}^{\nu}\\
\frac{J_{4}}{\sqrt{\xi}} x_{4}^{\nu}
\end{pmatrix},\;\;
\begin{pmatrix}
w_{3}^{\mu}\\
w_{2}^{\mu}\\
w_{1}^{\mu}\\
0\\
-\frac{J_{3}}{J_{4}} w_{1}^{\mu}\\
-\frac{J_{3}}{J_{4}} w_{2}^{\mu}\\
-\frac{J_{3}}{J_{4}} w_{3}^{\mu}
\end{pmatrix}.$$ For $J_{3} = J_{4} = J' = \sqrt{3}$, $J= 1$, we find that $$\ket{\phi^{(i)}} = \left\{ \begin{pmatrix}
1/\sqrt{2}\\-1/\sqrt{2}\\0\\0\\0\\0\\0
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\0\\0\\0\\0\\1/\sqrt{2}\\-1/\sqrt{2}
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
-\sqrt{3}/4\\-\sqrt{3}/4\\0\\1/2\\0\\-\sqrt{3}/4\\-\sqrt{3}/4
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
-{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\\ -{1/\left(2\sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)} \\1/2\\0\\-1/2\\{1/\left(2\sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)} \\ {1/\left(2\sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
-{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\-{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\-1/2\\0\\1/2\\{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\-1/2\\\sqrt{3/8}\\-1/2\\{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\1/2\\ \sqrt{3/8}\\1/2\\{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}
\end{pmatrix}
\right\}$$ are normalized eigenvectors of \[eq:sevenPointGraph\] with corresponding eigenvalues $E^{(i)} = \{0,0,0,-\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2},-2\sqrt{2},2\sqrt{2}\}$. In terms of $\ket{\phi^{(i)}}$, the initial and final state $\ket{l,r}$ are written as $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{L} &= \sum_{i} a^{(i)}_{l} \ket{\phi^{(i)}} = - \sqrt{\frac{3}{8}} \ket{\phi^{(3)}} - \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(4)}} - \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(5)}} + \frac{1}{4} \ket{\phi^{(6)}} + \frac{1}{4} \ket{\phi^{(7)}} \\
\ket{R} &= \sum_{i} a^{(i)}_{r} \ket{\phi^{(i)}} = - \sqrt{\frac{3}{8}} \ket{\phi^{(3)}} + \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(4)}} + \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(5)}} + \frac{1}{4} \ket{\phi^{(6)}} + \frac{1}{4} \ket{\phi^{(7)}}\end{aligned}$$ where $a^{(i)}_{l,r} = \braket{\phi^{(i)}|l,r}$. Then, for $T_{f} = \frac{\pi \hbar}{\sqrt{2}}$, the state $\ket{L}$ has evolved into $\ket{R}$. We then apply another instantaneous phase flip, turning $\ket{R}$ into the CLS $\ket{F}$.
### Hopping flip protocol
This protocol is similar to the hopping flip protocol presented in the main part of this work for the five-point Hamiltonian. We initially set $v_{i} = 0, \;i = \{1,\ldots{},7\}$, $J_{1} = J_{2,} = J_{5} = J_{6} = J$ and $J_{3} = J_{4} = J'$ as for protocol 1b. Then, at $t = 0$, the couplings $J_{2}$ and $J_{6}$ are instantaneously changed to $-J$. After this change, the new eigenvectors of \[eq:sevenPointGraph\] are $$\ket{\phi^{(i)}} = \left\{ \begin{pmatrix}
1/\sqrt{2}\\1/\sqrt{2}\\0\\0\\0\\0\\0
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
0\\0\\0\\0\\0\\1/\sqrt{2}\\1/\sqrt{2}
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
-\sqrt{3}/4\\\sqrt{3}/4\\0\\1/2\\0\\-\sqrt{3}/4\\\sqrt{3}/4
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\-{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\-1/2\\0\\1/2\\-{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\-{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\1/2\\0\\-1/2\\-{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\{1/\left(2 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
-{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\1/2\\-\sqrt{3/8}\\1/2\\-{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}
\end{pmatrix},
\begin{pmatrix}
-{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\-1/2\\ -\sqrt{3/8}\\-1/2\\-{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}\\{1/\left(4 \sqrt{2} \kern 0.05em \right)}
\end{pmatrix}
\right\}$$ with corresponding eigenvalues $E^{(i)} = \{ 0,0,0,-\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2},-2\sqrt{2},2\sqrt{2} \}$. In terms of these eigenvectors, the initial and final states $\ket{I,F}$ are expanded as $$\begin{aligned}
\ket{I} &= \sum_{i} a^{(i)}_{I} \ket{\phi^{(i)}} = - \sqrt{\frac{3}{8}} \ket{\phi^{(3)}} + \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(4)}} + \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(5)}} - \frac{1}{4} \ket{\phi^{(6)}} - \frac{1}{4} \ket{\phi^{(7)}} \\
\ket{F} &= \sum_{i} a^{(i)}_{F} \ket{\phi^{(i)}} = - \sqrt{\frac{3}{8}} \ket{\phi^{(3)}} - \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(4)}} - \frac{1}{2} \ket{\phi^{(5)}} - \frac{1}{4} \ket{\phi^{(6)}} - \frac{1}{4} \ket{\phi^{(7)}} \end{aligned}$$ where $a^{(i)}_{I,F} = \braket{\phi^{(i)}|I,F}$. Then, for $T_{f} = \frac{\pi \hbar}{\sqrt{2}}$, the state $\ket{I}$ has evolved into $\ket{F}$. We then perform another flip such that the couplings $J_{2} = J_{6} = J$, and $\ket{F}$ becomes a CLS again.
### State transfer with CRAB
This protocol is similar to the five-site optimal control protocol presented in the main part of this work. It is graphically depicted in \[fig:sevensiteCLSTransfer\]. We start with an initial CLS $\ket{I}$, with Hamiltonian parameters $v_{i} = 1/2$ and $J_{1} = J_{2} = J_{5} = J_{6} = \frac{1}{4 \sqrt{2}} = J$ as well as $J_{3} = J_{4} = 3$. We then vary $J_{n}, n = \{1,2,5,6\}$ in time according to $$\label{eq:sevenSiteCRABJ}
J_{n} = J \Big\{ 1+\sin \frac{t}{4} \Big[ x_{n} \sin(\omega_{n} t)+x_{n}' \cos(\omega_{n} t)\Big] ^2 \Big\}.$$ The optimal parameters are $x_{n} = \{ 4.1435, 3.2435, 2.5509, 4.7169\}$, $x'_{n} = \{2.2124, 3.3942, 3.3221, 1.9491 \}$ and $\omega_{n} = \{1.9171, 0.9476, 0.4496, 0.9671\}$, and the infidelity $1 - |\braket{F|\Psi(T_{f})}|^2$ of these pulses is approximately $10^{-8}$.
### Piecewise transfer and CLS creation with CRAB
This protocol is similar to the three-site optimal control protocol presented in the main part of this work used to prepare a CLS, as was shown in \[fig:crabProtocolCLSCreation\]. It is graphically depicted in \[fig:sevensiteCLSCreation\], with an infidelity of approximately $10^{-8}$. We start with an excitation of site $4 \equiv c$, which is decoupled from the remainder of the graph. The coupling $J_{3} = t/(2\pi)$ to the left half of the graph is then linearly ramped up, and the couplings $J_{1,2}(t)$ are varied as well. At time $T_{g} = 2 \pi$, the CLS $\ket{I}$ is created. The on-site potentials $v_{i} = 1/2$ are constant throughout the process, and the ansatz for $J_{1,2}(t)$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fourSiteCRABJ}
J_{n} &= J \Big\{ 1+\sin \frac{t}{2} \Big[ (x_{n} \sin(\omega_{n} t)+x'_{n} \cos(\omega_{n} t)) \Big] \Big\},\; n \in \{1,2\}\end{aligned}$$ with $J = \frac{1}{4 \sqrt{2}}$ as above and final parameters $x_{n} = \{6.9763, 4.1098\}$, $x'_{n} = \{2.1072,6.4490 \} $ and $\omega_{n} = \{1.7465,0.7946 \}$. Again, as for the protocol shown in the main part, one could use this protocol also to transfer $\ket{I}$ to $\ket{F}$ by first transferring $\ket{I}$ to $\ket{c}$ by means of a time-reversed reversal of the protocol shown, and then transfer $\ket{c}$ to $\ket{F}$ via its forward version.
[46]{} ifxundefined \[1\][ ifx[\#1]{} ]{} ifnum \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ifx \[1\][ \#1firstoftwo secondoftwo ]{} ““\#1”” @noop \[0\][secondoftwo]{} sanitize@url \[0\][‘\
12‘\$12 ‘&12‘\#12‘12‘\_12‘%12]{} @startlink\[1\] @endlink\[0\] @bib@innerbibempty [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.115135) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1080/23746149.2018.1473052) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.245504) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/sciadv.1500854) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.82.041402) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1364/OL.40.005443) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1142/S0217979215300078) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.245503) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.94.043831) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.97.035161) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/s41598-017-15381-x) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.81.041410) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/s41598-017-15441-2) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.96.043803) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.187902) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.032312) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1080/00107510701342313) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1142/S0219749910006514) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.3221) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.032310) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.034303) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.69.052315) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/ncomms11339) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1367-2630/12/7/075008) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1140/epjd/e2015-60464-1) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.022318) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.aop.2016.10.020) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1361-6455/aa5257) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevA.87.032113) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.aop.2015.09.003) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.94.052122) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.aop.2017.07.019) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.aop.2017.03.011) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1751-8113/49/19/195304) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.050403) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015006) @noop [ ()]{}, @noop [**]{} (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.1201) [, ****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.physrep.2012.03.005) @noop [**]{}, Topics in Applied Physics (, ) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.laa.2016.10.017) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1016/j.laa.2017.06.045) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.190501) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.022326) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1137/15M1013262)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'As an application of a general left-definite spectral theory, Everitt, Littlejohn and Wellman, in 2002, developed the left-definite theory associated with the classical Legendre self-adjoint second-order differential operator $A$ in $L^{2}(-1,1)$ which has the Legendre polynomials $\{P_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ as eigenfunctions. As a consequence, they explicitly determined the domain $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ of the self-adjoint operator $A^{2}.$ However, this domain, in their characterization, does not contain boundary conditions. In fact, this is a general feature of the left-definite approach developed by Littlejohn and Wellman. Yet, the square of the second-order Legendre expression is in the limit-4 case at each end point $x=\pm1$ in $L^{2}(-1,1)$ so $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ should exhibit four boundary conditions. In this paper, we show that this domain can, in fact, be expressed using four separated boundary conditions using the classical GKN (Glazman-Krein-Naimark) theory. In addition, we determine a new characterization of $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ that involves four *non-GKN* boundary conditions. These new boundary conditions are surprisingly simple - and natural - and are equivalent to the boundary conditions obtained from the GKN theory.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Baylor University, One Bear Place \#97328, Waco, TX 76798-7328'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Baylor University, One Bear Place \#97328, Waco, TX 76798-7328'
author:
- 'Lance L. Littlejohn'
- Quinn Wicks
date: 'September 26, 2015 (Square of Legendre Operator-LW. tex)'
title: 'Glazman-Krein-Naimark Theory, Left-Definite Theory and the Square of the Legendre Polynomials Differential Operator '
---
Introduction
============
The analytical study of the classical second-order Legendre differential expression $$\ell\lbrack y](x)=-\left( (1-x^{2})y^{\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}$$ has a long and rich history stretching back to the seminal work of H. Weyl in 1910 [@Weyl] and E. C. Titchmarsh in 1940 [@Titchmarsh]. Part, if not most, of the reason for the importance of this second-order expression lies in the fact that the Legendre polynomials $\{P_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ are solutions. More specifically, the Legendre polynomial $y=P_{n}(x),$ for $n\in\mathbb{N}_{0},$ is a solution of the eigenvalue equation$$\ell\lbrack y](x)=n(n+1)y(x).$$ In the Hilbert space $L^{2}(-1,1),$ there is a continuum of self-adjoint operators generated by $\ell\lbrack\cdot].$ One such operator $A$ stands out from the rest: this is the Legendre polynomials operator, so named because the Legendre polynomials $\{P_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ are eigenfunctions of $A.$ We review properties of this operator in Section \[Legendre SA Operator\].
In the mid 1970’s, Å. Pleijel wrote two papers (see [@Pleijel1] and [@Pleijel]) on the Legendre expression from a left-definite spectral point of view. W. N. Everitt’s contribution [@Everitt-1980] continued this left-definite study in addition to detailing an in-depth analysis of the Legendre expression in the right-definite setting $L^{2}(-1,1)$ where he discovered new properties of functions in the domain $\mathcal{D}(A)$ of $A.$ In [@Krall-Littlejohn], A. M. Krall and Littlejohn considered properties of the Legendre expression under the left-definite energy norm. In 2000, R. Vonhoff extended Everitt’s results in [@Vonhoff] with an extensive study of $\ell\lbrack\cdot]$ in its (first) left-definite setting. In 2002, Everitt, Littlejohn and Marić [@Everitt-Littlejohn-Maric] published further results in which they gave several equivalent conditions for functions to belong to $\mathcal{D}(A);$ this result is given below in Theorem \[ELM\]. We also refer the reader to the paper [@Littlejohn; @and; @Zettl] by Littlejohn and Zettl where the authors determine all self-adjoint operators, generated by the Legendre expression $\ell\lbrack\cdot],$ in the Hilbert spaces $L^{2}(-1,1),$ $L^{2}(-\infty,-1),$ $L^{2}(1,\infty)$ and $L^{2}(\mathbb{R}).$
Littlejohn and Wellman [@Littlejohn; @and; @Wellman], in 2002, developed a general left-definite theory for an unbounded self-adjoint operator $T$ bounded below by a positive constant in a Hilbert space $H=(V,(\cdot,\cdot)),$ where $V$ denotes the underlying (algebraic) vector space and $H$ is the resulting topological space induced by the norm $\left\Vert \cdot\right\Vert $ and inner product $(\cdot,\cdot).$ In a nutshell, the authors construct a continuum of Hilbert spaces $\{H_{r}=(V_{r},(\cdot,\cdot)_{r})\}_{r>0}$, forming a Hilbert scale, generated by positive powers of $T$. The authors called these Hilbert spaces *left-definite spaces*; they are constructed using the Hilbert space spectral theorem (see [@Rudin]) for self-adjoint operators.
It is a difficult problem, in general, to explicitly determine the domain of a power of an unbounded operator. However, the authors in [@Littlejohn; @and; @Wellman] prove that $V_{r}=\mathcal{D}(T^{r/2})$ and $(f,g)_{r}=(T^{r/2}f,T^{r/2}g).$ Furthermore, in many practical applications, as the authors demonstrate in [@Littlejohn; @and; @Wellman], the computation of the vector spaces $V_{r}$ and inner products $(\cdot,\cdot)_{r}$ is surprisingly not difficult. In a subsequent paper, Everitt, Littlejohn and Wellman [@Everitt-Littlejohn-Wellman] applied this theory to the Legendre polynomials operator $A$. Among other results, the authors explicitly compute the domains of $\mathcal{D}(A^{n/2})$ for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$. Specifically, they proved $$\mathcal{D}(A^{n/2})=\{f:(-1,1)\rightarrow\mathbb{C\mid}f,f^{\prime},\ldots,f^{(n-1)}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);(1-x^{2})^{n/2}f^{(n)}\in
L^{2}(-1,1)\}\quad(n\in\mathbb{N}). \label{LD Representation General}$$ In particular, we see that $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ is explicitly given by$$B=\{f:(-1,1)\rightarrow\mathbb{C}\mid f,f^{\prime},f^{\prime\prime},f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{(4)}\in
L^{2}(-1,1)\}; \label{LD Representation}$$ the reason for using the notation $B,$ instead of $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$, will be made clear shortly. Of course, for $f\in B,$ we have $A^{2}f=\ell^{2}[f], $ where $\ell^{2}[\cdot]$ is the square of the Legendre differential expression given by$$\ell^{2}[y](x)=\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}y^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime
\prime}-2\left( (1-x^{2})y^{\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}.
\label{Legendre squared expression}$$ Notice that, curiously, there are no ‘boundary conditions’ given in (\[LD Representation\]). From the Glazman-Krein-Naimark (GKN) theory [@Naimark Theorem 4, Section 18.1], there should be *four* such boundary conditions. This begs an obvious question: how can we ‘extract’ boundary conditions from the representation of $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ in (\[LD Representation\])? In this paper, we will answer this question. It is interesting that the condition $(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{(4)}\in L^{2}(-1,1)$ seems to ‘encode’ these boundary conditions. In fact, along the way, we will characterize $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ in four different ways. Of course, we have the algebraic definition $$\mathcal{D}(A^{2}):=\{f\in\mathcal{D}(A)\mid Af\in\mathcal{D}(A)\}
\label{Algebraic Definition of Squared Domain}$$ (we will show that $\mathcal{D}(A^{2}),$ given in (\[Algebraic Definition of Squared Domain\]), is equal to $B,$ defined in (\[LD Representation\])). We will also prove that $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ is characterized by GKN boundary conditions associated with a self-adjoint operator $S$, generated by $\ell^{2}[\cdot],$ in $L^{2}(-1,1)$. Specifically, we prove that $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{D}(S):=\{f:(-1,1)\rightarrow\mathbb{C}\mid & f,f^{\prime},f^{\prime\prime},f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);f,\ell
^{2}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1);\label{D(S)}\\
& \lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,1]_{2}(x)=0;\text{ }\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm
1}[f,x]_{2}(x)=0\},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $[\cdot,\cdot]_{2}$ is the sesquilinear form associated with Green’s formula and $\ell^{2}[\cdot]$ in $L^{2}(-1,1);$ this form will be defined in Section \[GKN Operator\]. In this paper, we also show that $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
D:=\{f:(-1,1)\rightarrow\mathbb{C}\mid & f,f^{\prime},f^{\prime\prime
},f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);f,\ell^{2}[f]\in
L^{2}(-1,1);\label{New Domain D}\\
& \lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)=0;\text{ }\lim_{x\rightarrow
\pm1}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}=0\}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ This characterization of $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ is surprising since the boundary conditions in (\[New Domain D\]) are *not* GKN boundary conditions; we say that $D$ is a GKN-like domain. The boundary conditions in (\[New Domain D\]) are remarkably simple; indeed, they are obtained as limits from each of the two terms in (\[Legendre squared expression\]) minus one derivative.
In [@Everitt-Chisholm-Littlejohn], the authors first showed the smoothness condition $$f\in\mathcal{D}(A)\Rightarrow f^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1).
\label{Smoothness of D(A)}$$ As a consequence of our results in this paper, we are able to generalize (\[Smoothness of D(A)\]) by proving$$f\in\mathcal{D}(A^{2})\Rightarrow f^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1)\text{ and
}\ell\lbrack f]\in AC[-1,1];$$ see Corollary \[Smoothness of D(A\^2)\] below.
The contents of this paper are as follows. In Section \[Legendre SA Operator\], we discuss properties of the Legendre expression and the Legendre polynomials operator $A$ in $L^{2}(-1,1).$ Section \[The Square of the Legendre Operator\] deals briefly with the *algebraic* definition of the square $A^{2}$ of $A.$ In Section \[GKN Operator\], we define a self-adjoint operator $S$ using the GKN Theory; this operator $S$ will ultimately be shown to be $A^{2}.$ The main theorems proven in this paper are stated in Section \[Main Theorems\]. A key and indispensable analytic tool - the Chisholm-Everitt Theorem - used in the proofs of these theorems is discussed in Section \[Key Integral Inequality\]. The proof that $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})=\mathcal{D}(S)$ is given in Section \[Proof of Main Theorem 1\]. Section \[Proof of Main Theorem 2\] establishes the proof that $B=\mathcal{D}(S)$. In Section \[Proof of Main Theorem 3\], we show that $\mathcal{D}(S)=D$. The proofs of the theorems in these last three sections establish our main result, Theorem \[Main Theorem 4\], which we state in Section \[Main Theorems\]. Lastly, in Section \[Concluding Remarks\], we conjecture a generalization of our main results. Further details on all of the results contained in this manuscript can be found in the Ph.D. thesis [@Wicks] of Quinn Wicks.
One final remark: to summarize, in this paper we show that our left-definite characterization (\[LD Representation\]) of $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ can be rewritten as a GKN domain (Theorem \[Main Theorem 2\]) and as a GKN-like domain (Theorem \[Main Theorem 3\]). Presumably, techniques developed in this paper will establish, for $n\in\mathbb{N},$ that the left-definite characterization $\mathcal{D}(A^{n}),$ given in (\[LD Representation General\]), can be expressed as both a GKN domain and a GKN-like domain. However, it is important to note - see (\[LD Representation General\]) - that the left-definite theory also explicitly determines the domains $\mathcal{D}(A^{n/2})$ of $A^{n/2}$ for odd, positive integers $n.$ The GKN theory was not built to handle these operators or domains.
The Legendre Differential Expression and the Legendre Polynomials Self-Adjoint Operator $A$\[Legendre SA Operator\]
===================================================================================================================
The classic second-order Legendre differential expression is defined by $$\ell\lbrack y](x):=-\left( (1-x^{2})y^{\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}\quad(\text{a.e. }x\in(-1,1)). \label{Legendre DE}$$
The maximal operator, associated with $\ell\lbrack\cdot]$ in $L^{2}(-1,1), $ is defined by$$\begin{aligned}
T_{1,\max}f & =\ell\lbrack f]\\
f & \in\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}}$ is the maximal domain, defined by $$\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}}:=\{f:(-1,1)\rightarrow\mathbb{C\mid}f,f^{\prime}\in
AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);f,\ell\lbrack f]\in L^{2}(-1,1)\}.
\label{Delta_1, max}$$ The corresponding minimal operator $T_{1,\mathrm{\min}}$ is defined to be $$\begin{aligned}
T_{1,\min}f & =\ell\lbrack f]\\
f & \in\mathcal{D}(T_{1,\min}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{D}(T_{1,\min})$ is the minimal domain given by $$\mathcal{D}(T_{1,\min}):=\{f\in\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}}\mid\left. \lbrack
f,g]_{1}(x)\right\vert _{\alpha}^{\beta}=0\text{ for all }g\in\Delta
_{1,\mathrm{\max}}\}.$$ We note that this operator $T_{1,\min}$ is a closed, symmetric operator. Furthermore, $T_{1,\mathrm{\max}}$ and $T_{1,\mathrm{\min}}$ are adjoints of each other.
Green’s formula, for an arbitrary compact subinterval $[\alpha,\beta]$ of $(-1,1)$ and $f,g\in\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}},$ is given by $$\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}\ell\lbrack f](x)\overline{g}(x)dx-\int_{\alpha}^{\beta
}f(x)\overline{\ell\lbrack g]}(x)dx=\left. [f,g]_{1}(x)\right\vert _{\alpha
}^{\beta},$$ where the sesquilinear form $[\cdot,\cdot]_{1}$ is defined by$$\lbrack f,g]_{1}(x):=-(1-x^{2})(f^{\prime}(x)\overline{g}(x)-f(x)\overline
{g}^{\prime}(x))\quad(f,g\in\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}}).
\label{Sesquilinear form for Legendre}$$ By definition of $\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}}$ and Hölder’s inequality, we see that the limits$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,g](x)$$ exist and are finite for all $f,g\in\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}}.$
The endpoints $x=\pm1$ are both regular singular endpoints, in the sense of Frobenius, of $\ell\lbrack\cdot]$ and it is well-known that this expression is in the limit-circle case at each endpoint. Consequently, the deficiency index of the minimal operator $T_{1,\mathrm{\min}}$ is $(2,2).$ This implies that there is a continuum of self-adjoint restrictions of $T_{1,\mathrm{\max}}.$ The GKN Theorem [@Naimark Theorem 4, Section 18.1] (see also [@Akhieser; @and; @Glazman Volume II, Chapter 8] and [@Dunford; @and; @Schwartz Chapter XIII]) provides a ‘recipe’ for determining each of these operators. We are interested in that particular self-adjoint restriction $A$ which has the Legendre polynomials $\{P_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty} $ as eigenfunctions.
This Legendre polynomials operator $A:\mathcal{D}(A)\subset L^{2}(-1,1)\rightarrow L^{2}(-1,1)$ is specifically given by$$\begin{aligned}
Af & =\ell\lbrack f]\label{The operator A}\\
f & \in\mathcal{D}(A),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where$$\mathcal{D}(A):=\{f\in\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}}\mid\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm
1}(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)=0\}. \label{D(A)}$$ We note that the boundary conditions expressed in (\[D(A)\]) are equivalent to $$\lbrack f,1]_{1}(\pm1)=0\quad(f\in\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}}).$$ Furthermore, it is well known that the Legendre polynomials $\{P_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ form a complete (orthogonal) set of eigenfunctions of $A$ and the spectrum $\sigma(A)$ is discrete and given explicitly by$$\sigma(A):=\{n(n+1)\mid n\in\mathbb{N}_{0}\}.$$ For our purposes, it is the case that$$(Af,f)=\int_{-1}^{1}\ell\lbrack f](x)\overline{f}(x)dx=\int_{-1}^{1}(1-x^{2})\left\vert f^{\prime}(x)\right\vert ^{2}dx\geq0\quad(f\in
\mathcal{D}(A));\nonumber$$ that is to say, $A$ is a positive operator. The positivity of $A$ implies that the left-definite theory developed by Littlejohn and Wellman in [@Littlejohn; @and; @Wellman] can be used to determine $\mathcal{D}(A^{n})$ for each $n\in\mathbb{N};$ indeed, see (\[LD Representation General\]).
The following theorem, shown by Everitt, Littlejohn and Marić in [@Everitt-Littlejohn-Maric], lists several equivalent conditions for a function $f$ to belong to $\mathcal{D}(A).$ Note the surprising, and remarkable, equivalence of conditions (ii) and (iii) (and (ii) and (v)) below; parts (ii) and (v) will be of particular use to us in this paper.
\[ELM\]Let $f\in\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}}$, where $\Delta_{1,\mathrm{\max}}$ is given in $($\[Delta\_1, max\]$).$ The following conditions are equivalent:
1. $f\in\mathcal{D}(A);$
2. $f^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1);$
3. $f^{\prime}\in L^{1}(-1,1);$
4. $f$ is bounded on $(-1,1);$
5. $f\in AC[-1,1];$
6. $(1-x^{2})^{1/2}f^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1);$
7. $(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1).$
The Square of the Legendre Polynomials Operator \[The Square of the Legendre Operator\]
=======================================================================================
The square $A^{2}:\mathcal{D}(A^{2})\subset L^{2}(-1,1)\rightarrow
L^{2}(-1,1)$ of the Legendre polynomials operator $A$ in $L^{2}(-1,1)$ is *algebraically* defined by$$A^{2}f:=\ell^{2}[f] \label{A^2}$$ for $f\in\mathcal{D}(A^{2}),$ where $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ is defined in (\[Algebraic Definition of Squared Domain\]), and where $$\begin{aligned}
\ell^{2}[y](x) & :=\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}y^{\prime\prime}(x)\right)
^{\prime\prime}-2\left( (1-x^{2})y^{\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime
}\label{Square of Legendre DE}\\
& =(1-x^{2})^{2}y^{(4)}(x)-8x(1-x^{2})y^{\prime\prime\prime}(x)+(14x^{2}-6)y^{\prime\prime}(x)+4xy^{\prime}(x).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By standard results from functional analysis (specifically, the Hilbert space spectral theorem), it can be shown that $A^{2}$ is a self-adjoint operator in $L^{2}(-1,1)$, the spectrum of $A^{2}$ is given by $\sigma(A^{2})=\{n^{2}(n+1)^{2}\mid n\in\mathbb{N}_{0}\}$ and the Legendre polynomials $\{P_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ are eigenfunctions of $A^{2}.$
It is natural to ask whether we can explicitly describe the functions in the domain $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ similar to how we characterize elements in $\mathcal{D}(A)$ as in $($\[D(A)\]$)$ (or by Theorem \[ELM\]). In the next section, we identify $A^{2}$ with a self-adjoint operator $S$ obtained through an application of the GKN theory.
A GKN Self-Adjoint Operator Generated by the Square of the Legendre Differential Expression\[GKN Operator\]
===========================================================================================================
The maximal domain $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$ in $L^{2}(-1,1)$ associated with the square of the Legendre expression $\ell^{2}[\cdot],$ defined in (\[Square of Legendre DE\]), is given by $$\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}:=\{f:(-1,1)\rightarrow\mathbb{C\mid}f,f^{\prime
},f^{\prime\prime},f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);f,\ell
^{2}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1)\}. \label{Maximal Domain for Square}$$ The sesquilinear form $[\cdot,\cdot]_{2}(\cdot):$ $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$ x $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$ x $(-1,1),$ associated with $\ell^{2}[\cdot],$ is defined by$$\begin{aligned}
\lbrack f,g]_{2}(x) & :=\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right)
^{\prime}\overline{g}(x)-\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}\overline{g}^{\prime\prime
}(x)\right) ^{\prime}f(x)\nonumber\\
& -(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\overline{g}^{\prime}(x)+(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime}(x)\overline{g}^{\prime\prime}(x)\label{Sesquilinear Form for Square}\\
& -2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)\overline{g}(x)+2(1-x^{2})f(x)\overline{g}^{\prime
}(x)\quad(x\in(-1,1)).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For $f,g\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$ and $[\alpha,\beta]\subset(-1,1),$ Green’s formula for $\ell^{2}[\cdot]$ is given by$$\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}\ell^{2}[f](x)\overline{g}(x)dx-\int_{\alpha}^{\beta
}f(x)\overline{\ell^{2}[g]}(x)dx=[f,g]_{2}(x)\mid_{\alpha}^{\beta}.
\label{Green's Formula for the Legendre Square}$$ By definition of $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$ and Hölder’s inequality, we see that the limits $$\lbrack f,g]_{2}(\pm1):=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,g]_{2}(x)$$ exist and are finite for all $f,g\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}.$ Clearly$$P_{n}\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}\quad(n\in\mathbb{N}_{0}),
\label{P_n in Maximal Domain for Square}$$ where $P_{n}(x)$ is the $n^{th}$ degree Legendre polynomial. In particular, the functions $1$ and $x$ belong to $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}.$
The endpoints $x=\pm1$ are both regular singular points, in the sense of Frobenius, of $\ell^{2}[\cdot].$ The Frobenius indicial equation, at either endpoint, is given by$$r^{2}(r-1)^{2}=0.$$ It follows, from the general Weyl theory, that each endpoint is in the limit-4 case so the deficiency index of the minimal operator $T_{2,\min},$ generated by $\ell^{2}[\cdot],$ in $L^{2}(-1,1)$ is $(4,4).$ Consequently, each self-adjoint operator, generated by $\ell^{2}[\cdot],$ in $L^{2}(-1,1) $ is determined by restricting $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$ to four boundary conditions of the form $$\lbrack f,f_{j}]_{2}(1)-[f,f_{j}]_{2}(-1)=0, \label{Form of GKN BCs}$$ where $[\cdot,\cdot]_{2}$ is given in (\[Sesquilinear Form for Square\]) and where $\{f_{1},f_{2},f_{3},f_{4}\}\subset\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$ is linearly independent modulo the minimal domain $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\min}}$ defined by$$\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\min}}:=\{f\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}\mid\left. \lbrack
f,g]_{2}\right\vert _{-1}^{1}=0\text{ for all }g\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}\}.$$
We now identify a particular self-adjoint operator restriction $S$ of $T_{\mathrm{\max}}$, generated by $\ell^{2}[\cdot],$ having the Legendre polynomials $\{P_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ as a complete set of eigenfunctions.
For $j=1,2,3,4,$ define $f_{j}\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}\cap C^{4}[-1,1]$ by$$\begin{array}
[c]{ll}f_{1}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}1 & \text{near }x=1\\
0 & \text{near }x=-1,
\end{array}
\right. \bigskip & f_{2}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}0 & \text{near }x=1\\
1 & \text{near }x=-1,
\end{array}
\right. \\
f_{3}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}x & \text{near }x=1\\
0 & \text{near }x=-1,
\end{array}
\right. & f_{4}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}0 & \text{near }x=1\\
x & \text{near }x=-1,
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}
\label{BC functions}$$
\[Proposition about LI modulo Minimal Domain of Square\] The functions $\{f_{j}\}_{j=1}^{4},$ defined in $($\[BC functions\]$),$ are linearly independent modulo $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\min}}.$
Calculations show that the functions $\ln(1\pm x)$ and $(1\pm x)\ln(1\pm x)$ belong to $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}.$ We modify these functions by defining the four functions $g_{j}\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}\cap C^{4}(-1,1)$ $(j=1,2,3,4)$ $$\begin{array}
[c]{ll}g_{1}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}\ln(1-x) & \text{near }x=1\\
0 & \text{near }x=-1,
\end{array}
\right. & g_{2}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}0 & \text{near }x=1\\
\ln(1+x) & \text{near }x=-1,
\end{array}
\right. \bigskip\\
g_{3}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}(1-x)\ln(1-x) & \text{near }x=1\\
0 & \text{near }x=-1,
\end{array}
\right. & g_{4}(x)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{ll}0 & \text{near }x=1\\
(1+x)\ln(1+x) & \text{near }x=-1.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{array}$$ Suppose that $$\sum_{j=1}^{4}\alpha_{j}f_{j}\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\min}};$$ then, by definition of $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\min}},$ we see that$$\left. \left[ \sum_{j=1}^{4}\alpha_{j}f_{j},g\right] _{2}\right\vert
_{-1}^{1}=0\text{\qquad}(g\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}),
\label{Minimal Domain Condition}$$ where $[\cdot,\cdot]_{2}$ is the sesquilinear form defined in $($\[Sesquilinear Form for Square\]$)$. A calculation shows that $$0=\left. \left[ \sum_{j=1}^{4}\alpha_{j}f_{j},g_{1}\right] _{2}\right\vert
_{-1}^{1}=-4\alpha_{3}$$ so $\alpha_{3}=0.$ Similarly, we find that $\alpha_{1}=\alpha_{2}=\alpha
_{4}=0$ after substituting $g=g_{2,}$ $g_{3},$ $g_{4}$ into $($\[Minimal Domain Condition\]$).$ This completes the proof.
It is clear that the boundary conditions$$\lbrack f,f_{1}]_{2}(1)=[f,f_{3}]_{2}(1)=[f,f_{2}]_{2}(-1)=[f,f_{4}]_{2}(-1)=0$$ are equivalent to the boundary conditions$$\lbrack f,1]_{2}(\pm1)=[f,x]_{2}(\pm1)=0.$$
We are now in position to define the operator $S$ which we show later (see Section \[Proof of Main Theorem 1\]) to be equal to the operator $A^{2},$ given in (\[A\^2\]) and (\[Algebraic Definition of Squared Domain\]). Indeed, let $S:\mathcal{D}(S)\subset L^{2}(-1,1)\rightarrow L^{2}(-1,1)$ be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
Sf & =\ell^{2}[f]:=\ell\lbrack\ell\lbrack f]]\label{The Operator S}\\
f & \in\mathcal{D}(S),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the domain $\mathcal{D}(S)$ of $S$ is defined in (\[D(S)\]). By the GKN Theorem [@Naimark Theorem 4, Section 18.1], $S$ is self-adjoint in $L^{2}(-1,1).$ Moreover, notice that for $f\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}},$ $$\lbrack f,1]_{2}(x)=\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime
}-2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x) \label{[f,1]_2}$$ and$$\begin{aligned}
\lbrack f,x]_{2}(x) & =\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right)
^{\prime}x-(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)-2x(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)+2(1-x^{2})f(x)\label{[f,x]_2}\\
& =x[f,1]_{2}(x)-(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)+2(1-x^{2})f(x).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ From (\[\[f,1\]\_2\]) and (\[\[f,x\]\_2\]), it is easy to see that the Legendre polynomials $\{P_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ satisfy$$\lbrack P_{n},1]_{2}(\pm1)=[P_{n},x]_{2}(\pm1)=0.$$ That is to say, the Legendre polynomials $\{P_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ $\subset\mathcal{D}(S).$ Moreover $\ell^{2}[P_{n}]=\ell\lbrack\ell\lbrack
P_{n}]]=n(n+1)\ell\lbrack P_{n}]=n^{2}(n+1)^{2}P_{n}\quad(n\in\mathbb{N}_{0}).$
From [@Naimark] and standard results in spectral theory, the following result holds.
\[Self-Adjointness and Spectrum of S\] The operator $S,$ defined in $($\[The Operator S\]$)$ and $($\[D(S)\]$),$ is an unbounded self-adjoint operator in $L^{2}(-1,1).$ The Legendre polynomials $\{P_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ form a complete set of $($orthogonal$)$ eigenfunctions of $S$ in $L^{2}(-1,1).$ The spectrum $\sigma(S)$ of $S$ is discrete and given explicitly by $$\sigma(S)=\{n^{2}(n+1)^{2}\mid n\in\mathbb{N}_{0}\}.$$
Statements of the Main Theorems\[Main Theorems\]
================================================
There are four main theorems that we prove in this paper.
\[Main Theorem 1\]Let $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ and $\mathcal{D}(S)$ be given, respectively, as in $($\[Algebraic Definition of Squared Domain\]$)$ and $($\[D(S)\]$). $ Then$$\mathcal{D}(A^{2})=\mathcal{D}(S).$$
see Section \[Proof of Main Theorem 1\].
\[Main Theorem 2\]Let $B$ and $\mathcal{D}(S)$ be given, respectively, as in $($\[LD Representation\]$)$ and $($\[D(S)\]$).$ Then $$B=\mathcal{D}(S).$$
see Section \[Proof of Main Theorem 2\].
\[Main Theorem 3\]Let $\mathcal{D}(S)$ and $D$ be given, respectively, as in $($\[D(S)\]$)$ and $($\[New Domain D\]$).$ Then$$D=\mathcal{D}(S).$$
see Section \[Proof of Main Theorem 3\].
From these three theorems, we obtain our main result, namely
\[Main Theorem 4\]Let $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$, given in $($\[Maximal Domain for Square\]$),$ be the maximal domain of the formal square $\ell^{2}[\cdot]$ of the Legendre differential expression defined by $$\ell^{2}[y](x)=\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}y^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime
\prime}-2\left( (1-x^{2})y^{\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}\quad(x\in(-1,1))$$ and let $[\cdot,\cdot]_{2}$ be the associated sequilinear form for $\ell
^{2}[\cdot]$ given in $($\[Sesquilinear Form for Square\]$).$ Define the operator $T:\mathcal{D}(T)\subset L^{2}(-1,1)\rightarrow L^{2}(-1,1)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
(Tf)(x) & =\ell^{2}[f](x)\quad(\text{a.e. }x\in(-1,1))\\
f & \in\mathcal{D}(T):=\mathcal{D}(A^{2}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{D}(A^{2}),$ algebraically defined in $($\[Algebraic Definition of Squared Domain\]$),$ is the domain of the square of the Legendre polynomials operator $A$ defined in $($\[D(A)\]$).$ That is to say, $T$ is the square of the classical Legendre polynomials operator $A,$ given in $($\[The operator A\]$)\ $and $($\[D(A)\]$).$ Then the following statements are equivalent:
1. $f\in\mathcal{D}(T);\medskip$
2. $f,f^{\prime},f^{\prime\prime},f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in
AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1)$ and $(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{(4)}\in L^{2}(-1,1);\medskip$
3. $f\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$ and $[f,1]_{2}(\pm1)=[f,x]_{2}(\pm1)=0;\medskip$
4. $f\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$ and $\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm
1}(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}=0.$
Moreover, $T$ is a self-adjoint operator in $L^{2}(-1,1)$ having the Legendre polynomials $\{P_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ as a complete set of eigenfunctions in $L^{2}(-1,1)$ and having discrete spectrum $\sigma(T^{2})$ explicitly given by$$\sigma(T^{2})=\{n^{2}(n+1)^{2}\mid n\in\mathbb{N}_{0}\}.$$
A Key Integral Inequality\[Key Integral Inequality\]
====================================================
A key result in our analysis below is the following operator inequality established by Chisholm and Everitt (CE) in [@Chisholm-Everitt].
\[CE Theorem\]$($The CE Theorem$)$ Let $(a,b)$ be an open interval of the real line $($bounded or unbounded$)$ and let $w$ be a Lebesgue measurable function that is positive $a.e.$ $x\in(a,b).$ Suppose $\varphi,\psi
:(a,b)\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ satisfy the conditions$(i)$ $\varphi
,\psi\in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{2}((a,b);w);$$(ii)$ there exists $c\in(a,b)$ such that $\varphi\in L^{2}((a,c];w)$ and $\psi\in L^{2}([c,b);w);$$(iii)$ for all $[\alpha,\beta]\subset(a,b)$$$\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}\left\vert \varphi(x)\right\vert ^{2}w(x)dx>0\text{ and
}\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}\left\vert \psi(x)\right\vert ^{2}w(x)dx>0.$$ Define the linear operators $A,$ $B$ $:L^{2}((a,b);w)$ $\rightarrow
L_{\mathrm{loc}}^{2}((a,b);w)$ by$$(Af)(x)=\varphi(x)\int_{x}^{b}\psi(t)f(t)w(t)dt\quad(t\in(a,b);f\in
L^{2}((a,b);w)),$$ and$$(Bf)(x)=\psi(x)\int_{a}^{x}\varphi(t)f(t)w(t)dt\quad(t\in(a,b);f\in
L^{2}((a,b);w)).$$ Let $K:(a,b)\rightarrow(0,\infty)$ be given by$$K(x):=\left( \int_{a}^{x}\left\vert \varphi(t)\right\vert ^{2}w(t)dt\right)
^{1/2}\left( \int_{x}^{b}\left\vert \psi(t)\right\vert ^{2}w(t)dt\right)
^{1/2}\quad(t\in(a,b)), \label{5.1}$$ and define $K\in\lbrack0,\infty]$ by$$K:=\sup\{K(x)\mid x\in(a,b)\}. \label{5.2}$$ Then a necessary and sufficient condition that $A$ and $B$ are both bounded operators from $L^{2}((a,b);w)$ into $L^{2}((a,b);w)$ is that $$0<K<\infty.$$ Moreover, the following inequalities hold$$\left\Vert Af\right\Vert \leq2K\left\Vert f\right\Vert \quad(\,f\in
L^{2}(\,(a,b);w)\,) \label{eq1.15}$$$$\left\Vert Bg\right\Vert \leq2K\left\Vert g\right\Vert \quad(\,g\in
L^{2}(\,(a,b);w)\,) \label{eq1.16}$$ where the number $K$ is defined by $($\[5.2\]$).$ In general, the number $2K$ appearing in both $($\[eq1.15\]$)$ and $($\[eq1.16\]$)$ is best possible for these inequalities to hold.
Theorem \[CE Theorem\], proven by Chisholm and Everitt in 1970, was extended in 1999 by Chisholm, Everitt and Littlejohn to the spaces $L^{p}((a,b);w)$ and $L^{q}((a,b);w)$ where $p,q>1$ are conjugate indices; see [@Everitt-Chisholm-Littlejohn]. Both Theorem \[CE Theorem\] and its generalization in [@Everitt-Chisholm-Littlejohn] have seen several applications including a new proof of the classical Hardy integral inequality [@Hardy-Littlewood-Polya Section 9.8, Theorem 327] $($see [@Everitt-Chisholm-Littlejohn Example 1]$)$ and numerous applications to orthogonal polynomials $($for example, see [@Everitt-Chisholm-Littlejohn Section 6]$).$ Several more applications of the CE Theorem will be given in this paper. Indeed, Theorem \[CE Theorem\] proves to be an indispensable tool in our analysis below.
Proof of Theorem \[Main Theorem 1\]\[Proof of Main Theorem 1\]
==============================================================
We now prove Theorem \[Main Theorem 1\], namely that $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})=\mathcal{D}(S),$ where $\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ is defined in (\[Algebraic Definition of Squared Domain\]) and $\mathcal{D}(S)$ is given in (\[D(S)\]). Throughout this section, we assume that $f$ is a real-valued function on $(-1,1).$
$:$ Let $f\in
D(S).$ We know that
1. $f,f^{\prime},f^{\prime\prime},f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in
AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);$
2. $f\in L^{2}(-1,1);$
3. $\ell^{2}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1)$ where $\ell^{2}[\cdot]$ is defined by $($\[Square of Legendre DE\]$);$
4. $[f,1]_{2}(\pm1)=0,$ where $[\cdot,1]_{2}(\cdot)$ is given in $($\[\[f,1\]\_2\]$);$
5. $[f,x]_{2}(\pm1)=0,$ where $[\cdot,x]_{2}(\cdot)$ is given in $($\[\[f,x\]\_2\]$).$
Taking into account the definition of $\mathcal{D}(A)$ in $($\[D(A)\]$)$ and $\mathcal{D(}A^{2})$ in $($\[Algebraic Definition of Squared Domain\]$),$ we need to show that
1. $f,f^{\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);$
2. $f\in L^{2}(-1,1);$
3. $\ell\lbrack f]=-\left( (1-x^{2})f^{\prime}\right) ^{\prime
}=-(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime}+2xf^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1);$ in fact we will show that $\ell\lbrack f]\in AC[-1,1];$
4. $\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)=0;$
5. $\ell\lbrack f],$ $\ell^{\prime}[f]\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1); $
6. $\ell^{2}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1);$
7. $\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})\ell^{\prime}[f]=\lim
_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})\left( (1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime
}(x)-4xf^{\prime\prime}(x)-2f^{\prime}(x)\right) =0.$
Clearly, $(\mathrm{a}),$ $(\mathrm{b})$ and $(\mathrm{f})$ are satisfied. As for $(\mathrm{g}),$ note that$$\begin{aligned}
-(1-x^{2})\ell^{\prime}[f](x) & =(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime\prime
}(x)-4x(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime}(x)-2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)\nonumber\\
& =\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}-2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)\label{A^2=S-1}\\
& =[f,1]_{2}(x)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ so $(\mathrm{g})$ follows from $(\mathrm{iv})$ above. Moreover, by $(\mathrm{i})$ and the fact that the product of a polynomial and a function $g\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1)$ also belongs to $AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1),$ we see that $(\mathrm{e})$ follows. To show $(\mathrm{c})$ note that, by $(\mathrm{iii}),$ $$\ell^{2}[f](x)=\ell\lbrack\ell\lbrack f]](x)=-\left( (1-x^{2})\ell^{\prime
}[f](x)\right) ^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1). \label{ell^2 identity}$$ We now apply the CE Theorem on the interval $[0,1)$ with $\psi(x)=1,\varphi
(x)=1/(1-x^{2})$ and $w(x)=1;\ $ note that $\varphi\in L^{2}(0,1/2]$ and $\psi\in L^{2}[1/2,1).$ A calculation shows that $$K^{2}(x)=\int_{0}^{x}\frac{dt}{(1-t^{2})^{2}}\cdot\int_{x}^{1}dt\quad
(x\in(0,1))$$ is bounded on $(0,1).$ Hence we see, from Theorem \[CE Theorem\], that $$\varphi(x)\int_{x}^{1}\psi(t)\ell^{2}[f](t)w(t)dt=\dfrac{1}{1-x^{2}}\int
_{x}^{1}\ell^{2}[f](t)dt\in L^{2}[0,1).$$ That is to say, by (\[ell\^2 identity\]), $$\dfrac{1}{1-x^{2}}\left( (1-x^{2})\ell^{\prime}[f](x)-\lim_{x\rightarrow
1}(1-x^{2})\ell^{\prime}[f](x)\right) \in L^{2}[0,1). \label{A^2=S-2}$$ By $(\mathrm{iv})$ and $($\[A\^2=S-1\]$),$ we know $$\lim_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})\ell^{\prime}[f](x)=0.$$ Hence, $($\[A\^2=S-2\]$)$ simplifies to $$\ell^{\prime}[f]\in L^{2}[0,1).$$ A similar application of the CE Theorem on $(-1,0]$ reveals that $\ell
^{\prime}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,0]$ and thus we see that$$\ell^{\prime}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1).$$ It follows that$$\ell\lbrack f]\in AC[-1,1]\subset L^{2}(-1,1),$$ establishing $(\mathrm{c}).$ It remains to show that $(\mathrm{d})$ holds. To this end, observe, from $($\[Legendre DE\]$)$ and $($\[Square of Legendre DE\]$)$ that$$\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime\prime}=\ell
^{2}[f](x)-2\ell\lbrack f](x).$$ Consequently, from $(\mathrm{c})\ $and $(\mathrm{f}),$ $$\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime\prime}\in
L^{2}(-1,1)$$ from which we see that $$\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime},\text{ }(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\in AC[-1,1].$$ In particular, we see that the limits$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right)
^{\prime} \label{Limit 2}$$ and $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x) \label{Limit 1}$$ exist and are finite. Moreover, from $(\mathrm{iv})$, $(\mathrm{v})$ and $($\[\[f,x\]\_2\]$),$ we see that $$0=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( x[f,1]_{2}(x)-[f,x]_{2}(x)\right)
=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)-2(1-x^{2})f(x)\right) . \label{Crucial Limit}$$ In concert with $($\[Limit 1\]$),$ we can say that$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})f(x):=r$$ exists and is finite. We claim that $r=0;$ to show this, we deal with the limit as $x\rightarrow1;$ a similar proof can be made as $x\rightarrow-1.$ Suppose, to the contrary, that $r\neq0;$ without loss of generality, suppose $r>0.$ Then there exists $x^{\ast}>0$ such that$$(1-x^{2})f(x)\geq\dfrac{r}{2}\text{ for }x\in\lbrack x^{\ast},1).$$ However, in this case, we see that$$\infty>\int_{-1}^{1}\left\vert f(x)\right\vert ^{2}dx\geq\int_{x^{\ast}}^{1}\left\vert f(x)\right\vert ^{2}dx\geq\left( \dfrac{r}{2}\right) ^{2}\int_{x^{\ast}}^{1}\dfrac{dx}{(1-x^{2})^{2}}=\infty,$$ contradicting $(\mathrm{ii})$. Hence it follows that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})f(x)=0.$$ Consequently, we see from $($\[Crucial Limit\]$),$ that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)=0$$ and, hence $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x)^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)=0. \label{Crucial Limit 2}$$ We are now in position to prove part $(\mathrm{d}).$ We show that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)=0; \label{Limit 3}$$ a similar argument establishes the limit as $x\rightarrow-1.$ Let $\varepsilon>0.$ From $($\[Crucial Limit 2\]$),$ there exists $x^{\ast}\in(0,1)$ such that$$\left\vert (1-x)^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right\vert <\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\text{ for }x\in\text{ }[x^{\ast},1).$$ Integrating this inequality over $[x^{\ast},x]\subset\lbrack x^{\ast},1)$ yields$$\frac{\varepsilon}{2(1-x^{\ast})}+f^{\prime}(x^{\ast})-\frac{\varepsilon
}{2(1-x)}<f^{\prime}(x)<\frac{\varepsilon}{2(1-x)}+f^{\prime}(x^{\ast})-\frac{\varepsilon}{2(1-x^{\ast})}\text{ for }x\in\text{ }[x^{\ast},1).$$ Multiplying this inequality by $(1-x^{2})$ yields$$(1-x^{2})\left( f^{\prime}(x^{\ast})+\frac{\varepsilon}{2(1-x^{\ast})}\right) -\frac{\varepsilon(1+x)}{2}<(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)<\frac
{\varepsilon(1+x)}{2}+(1-x^{2})\left( f^{\prime}(x^{\ast})-\frac{\varepsilon
}{2(1-x^{\ast})}\right) . \label{Important Inequality}$$ Letting $x\rightarrow1,$ we obtain$$-\varepsilon\leq\lim_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)\leq\varepsilon$$ and this establishes $($\[Limit 3\]$).$ This completes the proof that $\mathcal{D}(S)\subset\mathcal{D}(A^{2}).\medskip$$:$Let $f\in
\mathcal{D}(A^{2}).$ Then $f\in\mathcal{D}(A)$ so $$f,f^{\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1) \label{A^2=S-5}$$ and$$f\in L^{2}(-1,1). \label{A^2=S-6}$$ Moreover, since $\ell\lbrack f]\in\mathcal{D}(A)$, it follows that $$\ell^{2}[f]=\ell\lbrack\ell\lbrack f]]\in L^{2}(-1,1), \label{A^2=S-7}$$$$\ell\lbrack f]=-(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime}+2xf^{\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1) \label{A^2=S-8}$$ and$$\ell^{\prime}[f]=-(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}+4xf^{\prime}+2f^{\prime}\in
AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1). \label{A^2=S-9}$$ It is clear that if $f,g\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1)$ then
1. $f+g\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);$
2. $fg\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);$
3. If $g>0$ on $(-1,1)$ then $f/g\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1).$
In particular, from $($\[A\^2=S-5\]$)$ and $(\mathrm{b})^{\prime},$ we see that $2xf^{\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1).$ Combining this with ()$^{\prime}$ and $($\[A\^2=S-8\]$),$ we obtain $(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1).$ Since $1-x^{2}>0$ on $(-1,1)$ we infer from $(\mathrm{c})^{\prime}$ that $$f^{\prime\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1). \label{A^2=S-10}$$ Continuing, $-4xf^{\prime\prime}-2f^{\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1)$ so from $(\mathrm{a})^{\prime}$ and $($\[A\^2=S-9\]$),$ we have $(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1)$ and it then follows that$$f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1). \label{A^2=S-11}$$ By definition of $\mathcal{D}(A)$ and the fact that $\ell\lbrack
f]\in\mathcal{D}(A),$ we see that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})\ell^{\prime}[f](x)=0;$$ consequently, in view of $($\[A\^2=S-1\]$),$ we see that $$0=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,1]_{2}(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( \left(
(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}-2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime
}(x)\right) . \label{A^2=S-12}$$ Furthermore since $f\in\mathcal{D}(A),$ we have $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)=0 \label{A^2=S-13}$$ so, from $($\[A\^2=S-12\]$),$ we see that$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right)
^{\prime\prime}=0. \label{A^2=S-14}$$ To finish the proof, we need to show that$$\begin{aligned}
0 & =[f,x]_{2}(\pm1)=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( x[f,1]_{2}(x)-(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)+2(1-x^{2})f(x)\right) \label{A^2=S-15}\\
& =\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( -(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)+2(1-x^{2})f(x)\right) \text{ by }(\text{\ref{A^2=S-12}}).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ We note again, from Green’s formula $($\[Green’s Formula for the Legendre Square\]$),$ that the limits in $($\[A\^2=S-15\]$)$ exist and are finite. Since $f\in\mathcal{D}(A),$ we see from Theorem \[ELM\], part $(\mathrm{v})$ that $f\in AC[-1,1]$ and hence$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})f(x)=0. \label{A^2=S-16}$$ Thus, proving $($\[A\^2=S-15\]$)$ reduces to showing$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)=0. \label{A^2=S-17}$$ We show that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)=0; \label{A^2=S-18}$$ a similar argument will show $$\lim_{x\rightarrow-1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)=0.$$ Suppose, to the contrary, that$$\lim_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)=c\neq0;$$ without loss of any generality, we can suppose that $c>0.$ Then there exists $x^{\ast}\in(0,1)$ such that$$(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\geq r:=\dfrac{c}{2}\text{ on }[x^{\ast},1);$$ that is, $$f^{\prime\prime}(x)\geq\dfrac{R}{(1-x)^{2}}\text{ on }[x^{\ast},1)$$ for some $R>0.$ Integrating this inequality over $[x^{\ast},x]\subset\lbrack
x^{\ast},1)$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
f^{\prime}(x) & \geq R\int_{x^{\ast}}^{x}\dfrac{dt}{(1-t)^{2}}+f^{\prime
}(x^{\ast})\\
& =\dfrac{R}{1-x}+f^{\prime}(x^{\ast})-\frac{R}{1-x^{\ast}}.\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x) & \geq R(1+x)+(1-x^{2})\left( f^{\prime}(x^{\ast
})-\frac{R}{1-x^{\ast}}\right) \\
& \rightarrow2R>0\quad(\text{as }x\rightarrow1)\end{aligned}$$ contradicting $($\[A\^2=S-13\]$).$ It follows that $($\[A\^2=S-18\]$)$ holds and this proves $($\[A\^2=S-15\]$).$ Combining $($\[A\^2=S-5\]$),$ $($\[A\^2=S-6\]$),$ $($\[A\^2=S-7\]$),$ $($\[A\^2=S-10\]$),$ $($\[A\^2=S-11\]$),$ $($\[A\^2=S-12\]$)$ and $($\[A\^2=S-15\]$),$ we see that $f\in\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ implies $f\in\mathcal{D}(S)$. This completes the proof of the theorem.
Proof of Theorem \[Main Theorem 2\]\[Proof of Main Theorem 2\]
==============================================================
In order to prove Theorem \[Main Theorem 2\], we first need to establish three preliminary facts, the first of which is the following result.
If $f\in\mathcal{D}(S),$ then $$\dfrac{1}{1-x^{2}}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime
}\in L^{2}(-1,1). \label{L^2 condition}$$
Let $f\in\mathcal{D}(S)=\mathcal{D}(A^{2})$ so $f^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1)$, $[f,1]_{2}(\pm1)=0$ and $\ell^{2}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1).$ We apply the CE Theorem on $[0,1)$ with $\psi(x)=1$, $\varphi(x)=-1/(1-x^{2})$ and $w(x)=1. $ These functions satisfy the conditions of this theorem on $[0,1)$ so$$\frac{-1}{1-x^{2}}\int_{x}^{1}\ell^{2}[f](t)dt\in L^{2}(0,1).$$ However, using (\[\[f,1\]\_2\]), a calculation shows $$\begin{aligned}
\dfrac{-1}{1-x^{2}}\int_{x}^{1}\ell^{2}[f](t)dt & =\dfrac{-1}{1-x^{2}}\int_{x}^{1}\left[ \left( \left( 1-t^{2}\right) ^{2}f^{\prime\prime
}(t)\right) ^{\prime\prime}-2\left( (1-t^{2})f^{\prime}(t)\right) ^{\prime
}\right] dt\\
& =\dfrac{-1}{1-x^{2}}\left[ \lim_{x\rightarrow1}\left( \left( \left(
1-x^{2}\right) ^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}-2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime
}(x)\right) \right] \\
& \qquad\qquad+\frac{1}{1-x^{2}}\left[ \left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime
}(x)\right) ^{\prime}-2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)\right] \\
& =\dfrac{-1}{1-x^{2}}\left[ \lim_{x\rightarrow1}\text{ }[f,1]_{2}(x)-\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}+2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)\right] \\
& =\dfrac{1}{1-x^{2}}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right)
^{\prime}-2f^{\prime}(x)\text{.}$$ A similar calculation shows that $$\dfrac{1}{1-x^{2}}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime
}-2f^{\prime}(x)\in L^{2}(-1,0]$$ and hence$$\dfrac{1}{1-x^{2}}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime
}-2f^{\prime}(x)\in L^{2}(-1,1).$$ Since $f^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1),$ we see, by linearity, that $$\dfrac{1}{1-x^{2}}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime
}\in L^{2}(-1,1).$$
\[A\_2 limit\]For $f\in\mathcal{D}(S),$ we have $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)=0.
\label{A_2 limit = 0}$$
Let $f\in\mathcal{D}(S)=\mathcal{D}(A^{2}).$ Since $f\in\mathcal{D}(A),$ we have $f\in AC[-1,1]$ so$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})f(x)=0. \label{Simple Limit}$$ Furthermore, we have $$0=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,1]_{2}(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( \left(
(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}-2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime
}(x)\right) . \label{D(S) limit}$$ Consequently, from $($\[Simple Limit\]$)$ and $($\[D(S) limit\]$),$ we find that $$0=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,x]_{2}(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left(
x[f,1]_{2}(x)-(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)+2(1-x^{2})f(x)\right)
=-\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x).$$
The last preliminary result is the following theorem. Since $\mathcal{D}(S)=\mathcal{D}(A^{2}),$ this next result generalizes the well-known result for $\mathcal{D}(A)$ established in Theorem \[ELM\], part (v).
\[f” in L\^2\]If $f\in\mathcal{D}(S),$ then$$f^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1).$$ Moreover, $$pf^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1)\label{pf'' is in L^2(-1,1)}$$ for any bounded, Lebesgue measurable function $p$, including any polynomial$.$
Once we establish $f^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1),$ the statement in $($\[pf” is in L\^2(-1,1)\]$),$ for any bounded measurable function, follows clearly. Let $f\in\mathcal{D}(S).$ We prove that $f^{\prime\prime}\in
L^{2}(0,1);$ a similar proof will establish $f^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,0)$ and prove the theorem. We again use the CE Theorem with $\psi(x)=1-x^{2}$, $\varphi(x)=1/(1-x^{2})^{2}$ and $w(x)=1$ on $[0,1).$ Indeed, from the CE Theorem and $($\[L\^2 condition\]$)$, we find that$$\dfrac{-1}{(1-x^{2})^{2}}\int_{x}^{1}(1-t^{2})\left( \dfrac{1}{1-t^{2}}\left( (1-t^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(t)\right) ^{\prime}\right) dt\in
L^{2}(0,1).$$ However, from Lemma \[A\_2 limit\], $$\begin{aligned}
& \dfrac{-1}{(1-x^{2})^{2}}\int_{x}^{1}(1-t^{2})\left( \dfrac{1}{1-t^{2}}\left( (1-t^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(t)\right) ^{\prime}\right) dt\\
& =\frac{-1}{(1-x^{2})^{2}}\left( \lim_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)-(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) \\
& =f^{\prime\prime}(x).\end{aligned}$$
We are now in position to prove Theorem \[Main Theorem 2\], specifically $B=\mathcal{D}(S),$ where $B$ is defined in (\[LD Representation\]) and $\mathcal{D}(S)$ is given in (\[D(S)\]).
:
Let $f\in B.$ We assume that $f$ is real-valued on $(-1,1).$ We begin by showing, using the CE Theorem, that the condition $$(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{(4)}\in L^{2}(-1,1)$$ implies the two conditions $$(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1) \label{f''' condition}$$ and$$f^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1). \label{f'' condition}$$ Regarding $($\[f”’ condition\]$),$ we will show $$(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(0,1); \label{f''' condition on (0,1)}$$ a similar proof will yield $$(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,0)
\label{f''' condition on (-1,0)}$$ and, together, they establish $($\[f”’ condition\]$).$ Since $(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{(4)}\in L^{2}(0,1),$ we use the CE Theorem on $[0,1)$ with$$\varphi(x)=(1-x^{2})^{-2},\text{ }\psi(x)=1-x^{2}\text{ and }w(x)=1\quad
(x\in\lbrack0,1)).$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned}
(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}(x) & =(1-x^{2})\int_{0}^{x}\dfrac
{1}{(1-t^{2})^{2}}(1-t^{2})^{2}f^{(4)}(t)dt+f^{\prime\prime\prime}(0)(1-x^{2})\\
& \in L^{2}(0,1).\end{aligned}$$ To see $($\[f” condition\]$),$ we apply the CE Theorem once again on $[0,1)$ to prove that $$f^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(0,1);$$ a similar argument will show that $f^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,0).$ To this end, let $$\varphi(x)=(1-x^{2})^{-1},\text{ }\psi(x)=1\text{ and }w(x)=1\quad(x\in
\lbrack0,1)).$$ In this case, we see that$$f^{\prime\prime}(x)=\int_{0}^{x}\dfrac{1}{1-t^{2}}\left( (1-t^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}(t)\right) dt+f^{\prime\prime}(0)\in L^{2}(0,1).$$ Consequently, we see that $$f,f^{\prime}\in AC[-1,1]\subset L^{2}(-1,1).$$ Moreover, it is clear that $g(x)(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}(x),$ $g(x)f^{\prime\prime}(x)$ and $g(x)f^{\prime}(x)$ all belong to $L^{2}(-1,1)$ for any bounded, measurable function $g$ on $(-1,1).$ Hence$$\begin{aligned}
\ell^{2}[f](x) & =(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{(4)}(x)-8x(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime
}(x)+(14x^{2}-6)f^{\prime\prime}(x)+4xf^{\prime}(x)\\
& \in L^{2}(-1,1)\end{aligned}$$ and, in particular, $$4xf^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1). \label{2xf' is in L^(-1,1)}$$ It remains to show that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,1]_{2}(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,x]_{2}(x)=0.
\label{Two limits}$$ Since $1,x\in$ $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}},$ we see from Green’s formula in $($\[Green’s Formula for the Legendre Square\]$)$ that the limits in $($\[Two limits\]$)$ both exist and are finite. Now $f^{\prime}\in
AC[-1,1]\ $so$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)=0.$$ Consequently, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,1]_{2}(x) & =\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left(
((1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x))^{\prime}-2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)\right) \\
& =\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}((1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x))^{\prime}.\end{aligned}$$ We claim that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow1}((1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x))^{\prime}=0; \label{BC1}$$ a similar proof will establish$$\lim_{x\rightarrow-1}((1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x))^{\prime}=0.$$ Suppose to the contrary that$$\lim_{x\rightarrow1}((1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x))^{\prime}=c\neq0;$$ we can assume that $c>0.$ It follows that there exists $x^{\ast}\in(0,1)$ such that$$((1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x))^{\prime}\geq r:=\frac{c}{2}>0\quad
(x\in\lbrack x^{\ast},1)). \label{B_2 contained in D(S) inequality}$$ Note that since $$((1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x))^{\prime}=(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime
\prime}(x)-4x(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime}(x),$$ we see that the inequality in $($\[B\_2 contained in D(S) inequality\]$)$ can be rewritten as$$(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}(x)-4xf^{\prime\prime}(x)\geq\frac{r}{1-x^{2}}\text{ on }[x^{\ast},1). \label{Key inequality}$$ However, from (\[pf” is in L\^2(-1,1)\]) and (\[f”’ condition\]), we see that$$(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}(x)-4xf^{\prime\prime}(x)\in L^{2}(-1,1)$$ so the inequality in (\[Key inequality\]) is not possible. Hence $($\[BC1\]$)$ is established and thus$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,1]_{2}(x)=0.$$ We now show that$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,x]_{2}(x)=0.$$ Since the argument for $x\rightarrow-1$ mirrors the proof for $x\rightarrow1,$ we will only show that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow1}[f,x]_{2}(x)=0. \label{BC2}$$ Now, since $f\in AC[-1,1],$ we see that $\lim_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})f(x)=0;$ moreover, using $($\[BC1\]$),$ $$\lim_{x\rightarrow1}[f,x]_{2}(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow1}\left( x[f,1]_{2}(x)-(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)+2(1-x^{2})f(x)\right) =-\lim
_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x).$$ Suppose that$$\lim_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)=d\neq0;$$ we can assume that $d>0.$ Then, with possibly different $x^{\ast}$ as given in the above argument, there exists a $x^{\ast}\in(0,1)$ with$$(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\geq d^{\prime}:=\frac{d}{2}\quad(x\in\lbrack
x^{\ast},1)).$$ Hence$$f^{\prime\prime}(x)\geq\frac{d^{\prime}}{(1-x^{2})^{2}}\quad(x\in\lbrack
x^{\ast},1)).$$ However, this implies that $f^{\prime\prime}\notin L^{2}(0,1),$ contradicting $($\[f” condition\]$)$. Thus $($\[BC2\]$)$ is established and this completes the proof that $B\subset\mathcal{D}(S).\medskip$
:Let $f\in\mathcal{D}(S)$. We need only to show that $$(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{(4)}\in L^{2}(-1,1). \label{Theorem condition}$$ Since, by Theorem \[f” in L\^2\], $f^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1),$ we see that $gf^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1)$ for any bounded, measurable function $g$ on $(-1,1).$ In particular, it is the case that$$4xf^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1) \label{L^2 condition 1}$$ and$$(14x^{2}-6)f^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1). \label{L^2 condition again}$$ By $($\[L\^2 condition\]$)$, $$(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}(x)-4xf^{\prime\prime}(x)=\dfrac{1}{1-x^{2}}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1).
\label{Another L^2 condition}$$ By linearity, it follows from $($\[L\^2 condition 1\]$)$ and $($\[Another L\^2 condition\]$)$ that$$(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1).$$ Consequently, $g(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1)$ for every bounded, measurable function $g$ on $(-1,1);$ in particular, $$8x(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1).
\label{Yet another L^2 condition}$$ Furthermore, since $f^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1),$ it follows that $$4xf^{\prime}(x)\in L^{2}(-1,1). \label{Yet yet another L^2 condition}$$ Finally, since $\ell^{2}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1),$ we see from $($\[Square of Legendre DE\]$),$ $($\[L\^2 condition again\]$)$, $($\[Yet another L\^2 condition\]$)$ and $($\[Yet yet another L\^2 condition\]$)$ that$$\begin{aligned}
(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{(4)} & =\ell^{2}[f]+8x(1-x^{2})f^{\prime\prime\prime
}-(14x^{2}-6)f^{\prime\prime}-4xf^{\prime}\\
& \in L^{2}(-1,1).\end{aligned}$$ This establishes $($\[Theorem condition\]$)$ and proves $\mathcal{D}(S)\subset B.$ This completes the proof of Theorem \[Main Theorem 2\].
Proof of Theorem \[Main Theorem 3\]\[Proof of Main Theorem 3\]
==============================================================
We now prove Theorem \[Main Theorem 3\], namely $\mathcal{D}(S)=D,$ where $\mathcal{D}(S)$ is given in (\[D(S)\]) and $D$ is defined in (\[New Domain D\]).
Since functions $f$ in both $\mathcal{D}(S)$ and $D$ satisfy the ‘maximal domain’ conditions $f^{(j)}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1)$ $(j=0,1,2,3),$ $f\in
L^{2}(-1,1)$ and $\ell^{2}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1),$ we need only to prove that the other properties in their definitions hold.
$:\medskip$Let $f\in\mathcal{D}(S)=\mathcal{D}(A^{2}).$ Then $f\in\mathcal{D}(A)$ so $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)=0. \label{NC-1}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
0 & =[f,1]_{2}(\pm1)\nonumber\\
& =\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( \left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime
}(x)\right) ^{\prime}-2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)\right) \nonumber\\
& =\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right)
^{\prime}. \label{NC-2}$$ The identities in $($\[NC-1\]$)$ and $($\[NC-2\]$)$ prove that $\mathcal{D}(S)\subset D.$$:\medskip$Let $f\in D.$ Clearly, $$\begin{aligned}
\lbrack f,1]_{2}(\pm1) & =\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left( \left(
(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}-2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime
}(x)\right) \label{NC-3}\\
& =0\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ so we need to show that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,x]_{2}(\pm1)=0. \label{NC-4}$$ We remark that the limits in $($\[NC-4\]$)$ exist (by Green’s formula) and are finite. $\ell^{\prime}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1).$To see this, recall the two representations of $\ell
^{2}[\cdot]$: the one given in $($\[Square of Legendre DE\]$)$ and the one given in $($\[ell\^2 identity\]$).$ Since $\ell^{2}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1)$, we apply the CE Theorem on $[0,1)$ with $\varphi(x)=(1-x^{2})^{-1},$ $\psi(x)=1$ and $w(x)=1$ to obtain$$\frac{1}{1-x^{2}}\int_{x}^{1}\ell^{2}[f](t)dt\in L^{2}(0,1).$$ However, from $($\[Square of Legendre DE\]$)$ and $($\[ell\^2 identity\]$),$ we see that $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{1-x^{2}}\int_{x}^{1}\ell^{2}[f](t)dt\\
& =\frac{1}{1-x^{2}}\left( \lim_{x\rightarrow1}\left( \left( (1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)\right) ^{\prime}-2(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)\right)
+(1-x^{2})\ell^{\prime}[f](x)\right) \\
& =\ell^{\prime}[f](x)\text{ by }(\text{\ref{NC-3}});\end{aligned}$$ a similar calculation shows that $\ell^{\prime}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,0).$ It follows that $\ell\lbrack f]\in AC[-1,1]\subset L^{2}(-1,1).$ We again apply the CE Theorem on $[0,1)$ with $\varphi(x)=(1-x^{2})^{-1},$ $\psi(x)=1$ and $w(x)=1$ to obtain$$\frac{1}{1-x^{2}}\int_{x}^{1}\ell\lbrack f](t)dt\in L^{2}(0,1).$$ Another calculation shows that $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{1}{1-x^{2}}\int_{x}^{1}\ell\lbrack f](t)dt=\frac{-1}{1-x^{2}}\int
_{x}^{1}\left( (1-t^{2})f^{\prime}(t)\right) ^{\prime}dt\\
& =\frac{-1}{1-x^{2}}\left( \lim_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})f^{\prime
}(x)-(1-x^{2})f^{\prime}(x)\right) \\
& =f^{\prime}(x)\text{ by definition of }D;\end{aligned}$$ a similar argument shows that $f^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,0)$. Hence$$f^{\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1). \label{NC-6}$$ Thus, $f\in AC[-1,1]$ and $$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})f(x)=0. \label{NC-7}$$ From $($\[NC-3\]$)$ and $($\[NC-7\]$),$ we see that$$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}[f,x]_{2}(x) & =\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left(
x[f,1](x)-(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)+2(1-x^{2})f(x)\right) \\
& =-\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x).\end{aligned}$$ To establish $($\[NC-4\]$),$ it now suffices to prove that$$\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)=0. \label{NC-8}$$ Since the proof as $x\rightarrow-1$ is similar to the proof that $x\rightarrow1,$ we will only show that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)=0;$$ By way of contradiction, suppose that $$\lim_{x\rightarrow1}(1-x^{2})^{2}f^{\prime\prime}(x)=c\neq0;$$ without loss of generality, we may assume that $c>0.$ Then there exists $x^{\ast}\in(0,1)$ such that$$f^{\prime\prime}(x)\geq\frac{c}{2(1-x^{2})^{2}}\geq\frac{c}{8(1-x)^{2}}\quad(x\in\lbrack x^{\ast},1)).$$ Integrating this inequality over $[x^{\ast},x]\subset\lbrack x^{\ast},1)$ yields$$f^{\prime}(x)\geq\frac{c}{8(1-x)}+f^{\prime}(x^{\ast})-\dfrac{c}{8(1-x^{\ast
})}\quad(x\in\lbrack x^{\ast},1)).\quad$$ But this contradicts $($\[NC-6\]$).$ It follows that $($\[NC-8\]$)$ holds and this, in turn, establishes $($\[NC-4\]$).$ Consequently, $D\subset
\mathcal{D}(S)$ and this completes the proof of the theorem.
As revealed in the proofs of Theorems \[Main Theorem 1\], \[Main Theorem 2\], \[Main Theorem 3\] and \[f” in L\^2\], we have the following interesting result.
\[Smoothness of D(A\^2)\]If $f\in\mathcal{D}(A^{2})=\mathcal{D}(S)=B=D,$ then
1. $f^{\prime\prime}\in L^{2}(-1,1)$ so $f,f^{\prime}\in AC[-1,1]; $
2. $\ell^{\prime}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1)$ and $\ell\lbrack f]\in
AC[-1,1].$
As discussed in Section \[GKN Operator\], the minimal operator $T_{2,\mathrm{\min}}$ in $L^{2}(-1,1)$ generated by $\ell^{2}[\cdot]$ has deficiency index $(4,4).$ From the GKN Theorem $($see [@Naimark Theorem 4, Section 18.1]$),$ GKN boundary conditions for any self-adjoint extension of $T_{2,\mathrm{\min}}$ in $L^{2}(-1,1)$ are restrictions of the maximal domain $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$ and have the appearance $($see $( $\[Form of GKN BCs\]$))$ $$\lbrack f,f_{j}]_{2}(1)-[f,f_{j}]_{2}(-1)=0\quad(f\in\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}},j=1,2,3,4),$$ where $\{f_{j}\}_{j=1}^{4}\subset\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\max}}$ are linearly independent modulo the minimal domain $\Delta_{2,\mathrm{\min}}.$ Taking into account $[\cdot,\cdot]_{2}$, defined in $($\[Sesquilinear Form for Square\]$),$ it is clear that the boundary conditions given in $($\[New Domain D\]$)$ are not GKN boundary conditions.
Concluding Remarks\[Concluding Remarks\]
========================================
In [@Everitt-Littlejohn-Wellman], the authors showed that, for $n\in\mathbb{N},$ the $n^{th}$ composite power of the Legendre differential expression $\ell\lbrack\cdot]$ is explicitly given by$$\ell^{n}[y](x)=\sum_{j=1}^{n}(-1)^{j}\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}n\\
j
\end{array}
\right\} _{1}\left( (1-x^{2})^{j}y^{(j)}(x)\right) ^{(j)},
\label{nth power of Legendre expression}$$ where the numbers $$\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{c}n\\
j
\end{array}
\right\} _{1}:=\sum_{r=0}^{j}(-1)^{r+j}\frac{(2r+1)\left( r^{2}+r\right)
^{n}}{(j-r)!(j+r+1)!}$$ are the so-called Legendre-Stirling numbers, a subject of current study in combinatorics (for example, see [@AEGL], [@AGL], [@Andrews-Littlejohn], [@Egge] and [@GLN]). The expression in (\[nth power of Legendre expression\]) is the key in generating the domain $\mathcal{D}(A^{n})$ of $A^{n}$ given in (\[LD Representation General\]).
We conjecture:
Let $A$ denote the Legendre polynomials self-adjoint operator defined in $($\[The operator A\]$)$ and $($\[D(A)\]$).$ For $n\in\mathbb{N}$, let $\ell^{n}[\cdot]$ be given as in $($\[nth power of Legendre expression\]$)$ and let $[\cdot,\cdot]_{n}$ be the sequilinear form associated with the maximal domain $\Delta
_{n,\mathrm{\max}}$ of $\ell^{n}[\cdot]$ in $L^{2}(-1,1)$. Then $A_{n}=B_{n}=C_{n}=D_{n}$, where
$\begin{array}
[c]{l}\text{(i) \ }A_{n}:=\mathcal{D}(A^{n})\medskip,\\
\text{(ii) \thinspace}B_{n}:=\{f:(-1,1)\rightarrow\mathbb{C\mid}f,f^{\prime
},\ldots,f^{(2n-1)}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);(1-x^{2})^{n}f^{(2n)}\in
L^{2}(-1,1)\},\medskip\\
\text{(iii) }C_{n}:=\{f:(-1,1)\rightarrow\mathbb{C}\mid f,f^{\prime},\ldots,f^{(2n-1)}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);f,\ell^{n}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1);\smallskip\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\lbrack f,x^{j}]_{n}(\pm1)=0\text{ for
}j=0,1,2,\ldots,n-1\},\smallskip\\
\text{(iv) }D_{n}:=\{f:(-1,1)\rightarrow\mathbb{C}\mid f,f^{\prime},\ldots,f^{(2n-1)}\in AC_{\mathrm{loc}}(-1,1);f,\ell^{n}[f]\in L^{2}(-1,1);\smallskip\\
\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\lim_{x\rightarrow\pm1}\left(
(1-x^{2})^{j}y^{(j)}(x)\right) ^{(j-1)}=0\text{ for }j=1,2,\ldots
,n\}.\medskip
\end{array}
$
By repeated applications of the CE Theorem, it is not difficult to establish that if $f\in B_{n},$ then $f^{(n)}\in L^{2}(-1,1);$ this result generalizes Theorem \[ELM\], part (iii) ($n=1)$ and Corollary \[Smoothness of D(A\^2)\], part (i) ($n=2)$.
We remark that, in (iii) above, we can replace the monomials $\{x^{j}\}_{j=0}^{n-1}$ by the Legendre polynomials $\{P_{j}\}_{j=0}^{n-1}.$ One of the difficulties in our efforts to try and prove this conjecture lies in the fact that the corresponding sesquilinear form $[\cdot,\cdot]_{n},$ associated with the $n^{th}$ power $\ell^{n}[\cdot]$, is unwieldy at the present time.
The author LLL would like to recognize the many years of mentoring from W. N. $($Norrie$)$ Everitt, who passed away on July 17, 2011 at the age of 87. The Legendre differential expression and Legendre polynomials were among the favorites of Norrie’s many mathematical interests. Quinn and I both felt we were guided by the hand of Norrie in the writing of this paper.
[99]{}
N. I. Akhiezer and I. M. Glazman, *Theory of linear operators in Hilbert space,* Vol. I and II, Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, London, 1981.
G. E. Andrews, E. S. Egge, W. Gawronski and L. L. Littlejohn, *The Jacobi-Stirling numbers,* J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. A, 120 (2013), 288-303.
G. E. Andrews, W. Gawronski and L. L. Littlejohn, *The Legendre-Stirling numbers,* Discrete Math. 311 (2011), no. 14, 1255-1272.
G. E. Andrews and L. L. Littlejohn, *A combinatorial interpretation of the Legendre-Stirling numbers,* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 137 (2009), no. 8, 2581-2590.
R. S. Chisholm and W. N. Everitt, *On bounded integral operators in the space of integrable-square functions,* Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. (A), 69 (1970/71), 199-204.
N. Dunford and J. T. Schwartz, *Linear Operators II: Spectral Theory,* John Wiley Interscience Publishers, 1963.
E. S. Egge, *Legendre-Stirling permutations,* European J. Combin. 31 (2010), 1735-1750.
W. N. Everitt, *Legendre polynomials and singular differential operators,* Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Volume **827**, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980, 83-106.
W. N. Everitt, R. S. Chisholm and L. L. Littlejohn, *An Integral Operator Inequality with Applications,* J. of Inequal. & Applications** **3(1999), 245-266.
W. N. Everitt, L. L. Littlejohn and V. Marić, *On properties of the Legendre differential expression,* Result. Math.** **42 (2002), 42-68.
W. N. Everitt, L. L. Littlejohn and R. Wellman, *Legendre polynomials, Legendre-Stirling numbers, and the left-definite spectral analysis of the Legendre differential expression*, J. Comput. Appl. Math.,* *148(2002), 213-238.
W. Gawronski, L. L. Littlejohn and T. Neuschel, *On the asymptotic normality of the Legendre-Stirling numbers of the second kind,* European J. Combin. 49 (2015), 218-231.
G. H. Hardy, J. E. Littlewood and G. Pólya, *Inequalities,* Cambridge University Press, 1952.
A. M. Krall and L. L. Littlejohn, *The Legendre polynomials under a left-definite energy norm,* Quaestiones Math., 16(4), 1993, 393-403.
L. L. Littlejohn and R. Wellman, *A general left-definite theory for certain self-adjoint operators with applications to differential equations*, J. Differential Equations, 181(2), 2002, 280-339.
L. L. Littlejohn and A. Zettl, *The Legendre equation and its self-adjoint operators,* Electron. J. Diff. Equ., Vol. 2011 (2011), No. 69, pp. 1-33.
M. A. Naimark, *Linear differential operators II***,** Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., New York.
Å. Pleijel, *On Legendre’s Polynomials,* Mathematical Studies 21, 1975, 175-180, North Holland Publishing Co.
Å. Pleijel, *On the boundary conditions for the Legendre polynomials,* Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. Ser. A1 Math. 2, 1976, 397-408.
R. Vonhoff, *A left-definite study of Legendre’s differential equation and of the fourth-order Legendre type differential equation,* Result. Math. 37, 2000, 155-196.
W. Rudin, *Functional Analysis*, McGraw-Hill Publishers, New York, 1973.
E. C. Titchmarsh, *Eigenfunction expansions associated with second-order differential equations,* Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1946.
H. Weyl, *Über gewöhnliche Differentialgleichungen mit Singularitäten und die zugehörigen Entwicklungen willkürlicher Funktionen*, Mathematische Annalen, Vol. 68, 1910, 220-269.
Q. Wicks, *The Square of the Legendre Differential Operator,* Ph.D. thesis, Baylor University, Waco, TX, May 2016.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In this note we show that the set $\limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Aut}(\Bbb{C}%
^{3}))\backslash \limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}^{3}))$ is not empty. Moreover we show that this set has infinitely many elements. Since for the famous Nagata’s example $N$ of wild automorphism, $\limfunc{mdeg}%
N=(5,3,1)\in $ $\limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}^{3})),$ and since for other known examples of wild automorphisms the multidegree is of the form $%
(1,d_{2},d_{3})$ (after permutation if neccesary), then we give the very first exmple of wild automorphism $F\,$of $\Bbb{C}^{3}$ with $\limfunc{mdeg}%
F\notin $ $\limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}^{3})).$
We also show that, if $d_{1},d_{2}$ are odd numbers such that $\gcd \left(
d_{1},d_{2}\right) =1,$ then $\left( d_{1},d_{2},d_{3}\right) \in \limfunc{%
mdeg}(\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}^{3}))$ if and only if $d_{3}\in d_{1}\Bbb{N}%
+d_{2}\Bbb{N}.$ This a crucial fact that we use in the proof of the main result.
author:
- 'Marek Karaś, jakub Zygadło'
title: 'On multidegree of tame and wild automorphisms of $\Bbb{C}^{3}$'
---
Introduction
============
Let us recall that a tame automorphism is, by definition, a composition of linear automorphisms and triangular automorphisms, where a triangular automorphism is a mapping of the following form $$T:\Bbb{C}^{n}\ni \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
x_{1} \\
x_{2} \\
\vdots \\
x_{n}
\end{array}
\right\} \mapsto \left\{
\begin{array}{l}
x_{1} \\
x_{2}+f_{2}(x_{1}) \\
\vdots \\
x_{n}+f_{n}(x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n-1})
\end{array}
\right\} \in \Bbb{C}^{n}.$$ Recall, also, that an automorphism is called wild if it is not tame.
By multidegree of any polynomial mapping $F=(F_{1},\ldots ,F_{n}):\Bbb{C}%
^{n}\rightarrow \Bbb{C}^{n}$, denoted $\limfunc{mdeg}F,$ we call the sequence $(\deg F_{1},\ldots ,\deg F_{n}).$ By $\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}^{n})$ we will denote the group of all tame automorphimsm of $\Bbb{C}^{n},$ and by $%
\limfunc{mdeg}$ the mapping from the set of all polynomial endomorphisms of $%
\Bbb{C}^{n}$ into the set $\Bbb{N}^{n}.$ In [@Karas1] it was proven that $(3,4,5),(3,5,7),(4,5,7),(4,5,11)\notin \limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}%
^{3})).$ Next in [@Karas3] it was proved that $\left(
3,d_{2},d_{3}\right) \in \limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}^{3})),$ for $%
3\leq d_{2}\leq d_{3},$ if and only if $3|d_{2}$ or $d_{3}\in 3\Bbb{N}+d_{2}%
\Bbb{N},$ and in [@Karas2] it was shoven that for $d_{3}\geq
d_{2}>d_{1}\geq 3,$ where $d_{1}$ and $d_{2}$ are prime numbers, $%
(d_{1},d_{2},d_{3})\in \limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}^{3}))$ if and only if $d_{3}\in d_{1}\Bbb{N}+d_{2}\Bbb{N}.$ In this paper we give generalization of this result (Theorem \[tw\_d1\_d2\_odd\] below), and using this fact we show the following theorem.
\[tw\_main\]\[main\]The set $\limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Aut}(\Bbb{C}%
^{3}))\backslash \limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}^{3}))$ has infinitely many elements.
Notice that the existence of wild automorphism does not imply the above result. For example the famous Nagata’s exmple is wild, but its muldidegree is (after pemutetion) $(1,3,5)\in \limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}%
^{3})),$ because for instance the mapp $\Bbb{C}^{3}\ni (x,y,z)\mapsto
(x,y+x^{3},z+x^{5})\in \Bbb{C}^{3}$ is a tame automorphism.
[*Tame automorphisms of* ]{}$\Bbb{C}^{3}$[*with multidegree of the form* ]{}$(d_{1},d_{2},d_{3})$ [*with* ]{}$\gcd
(d_{1},d_{2})=1$[* and odd* ]{}$d_{1},d_{2},$
==================================================================================================================
In the proof of Theorem \[main\] we will use the following genrealization of the result of [@Karas2].
\[tw\_odd\_odd\_gcd\_1\]\[tw\_d1\_d2\_odd\]Let $d_{3}\geq d_{2}>d_{1}\geq 3$ be positive integers. If $d_{1}$ and $d_{2}$ are odd numbers such that $\gcd
\left( d_{1},d_{2}\right) =1$, then $(d_{1},d_{2},d_{3})\in \limfunc{mdeg}(%
\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}^{3}))$ if and only if $d_{3}\in d_{1}\Bbb{N}+d_{2}%
\Bbb{N},$ i.e. if and only if $d_{3}$ is a linear combination of $d_{1}$ and $d_{2}$ with coefficients in $\Bbb{N}.$
In the proof of this theorem we will need the following results that we include here for the convenience of the reader.
\[tw\_sywester\]If $d_{1},d_{2}$ are positive integers such that $\gcd
(d_{1},d_{2})=1,$ then for every integer $k\geq (d_{1}-1)(d_{2}-1)$ there are $k_{1},k_{2}\in \Bbb{N}$ such that $$k=k_{1}d_{1}+k_{2}d_{2}.$$ Moreover $(d_{1}-1)(d_{2}-1)-1\notin d_{1}\Bbb{N}+d_{2}\Bbb{N}.$
*([@Karas1], Proposition 2.2)* \[prop\_sum\_d\_i\]If for a sequence of integers $1\leq d_{1}\leq \ldots \leq d_{n}$ there is $i\in
\{1,\ldots ,n\}$ such that $$d_{i}=\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}k_{j}d_{j}\qquad \text{with }k_{j}\in \Bbb{N},$$ then there exists a tame automorphism $F$ of $\Bbb{C}^{n}$ with $\limfunc{%
mdeg}F=(d_{1},\ldots ,d_{n}).$
*([@Karas3], Proposition 2.4)* \[prop\_deg\_g\_fg\]Let $f,g\in
\Bbb{C}[X_{1},\ldots ,X_{n}]$ be such that $f,g$ are algebraically independent and $\overline{f}\notin \Bbb{C}\left[ \overline{g}\right] ,%
\overline{g}\notin \Bbb{C}\left[ \overline{f}\right] $ ($\overline{h}$ means the highest homogeneous part of $h$). Assume that $\deg f<\deg g,$ put $$p=\frac{\deg f}{\gcd \left( \deg f,\deg g\right) },$$ and let $G(x,y)\in \Bbb{C}[x,y]$ with $\deg _{y}G(x,y)=pq+r,0\leq r<p.$ Then $$\deg G(f,g)\geq q\left( p\deg g-\deg g-\deg f+\deg [f,g]\right) +r\deg g.$$
In the above proposition $[f,g]$ means the Poisson bracket of $f$ and $g$ defined as the following formal sum: $$\sum_{1\leq i<j\leq n}\left( \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{i}}\frac{\partial
g}{\partial x_{j}}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{j}}\frac{\partial g}{%
\partial x_{i}}\right) \left[ X_{i},X_{j}\right]$$ and: $$\deg \left[ f,g\right] =\underset{1\leq i<j\leq n}{\max }\left\{ \left(
\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_{i}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_{j}}-\frac{%
\partial f}{\partial x_{j}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_{i}}\right) \left[
X_{i},X_{j}\right] \right\} ,$$ where by definition $\deg \left[ X_{i},X_{j}\right] =2$ for $i\neq j$ and $%
\deg 0=-\infty .$
From the definition of the Poisson bracket we have $$\deg \left[ f,g\right] \leq \deg f+\deg g$$ and by Proposition 1.2.9 of [@van; @den; @Essen]: $$\deg [f,g]=2+\underset{1\leq i<j\leq n}{\max }\deg \left( \frac{\partial f}{%
\partial x_{i}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_{j}}-\frac{\partial f}{\partial
x_{j}}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_{i}}\right)$$ if $f,g$ are algebraically independent, and $\deg [f,g]=0$ if $f,g$ are algebraically dependent.
The last result we will need is the following theorem.
\[tw\_type\_1-4\]*([@sh; @umb1], Theorem 3)* Let $%
F=(F_{1},F_{2},F_{3})\,$be a tame automorphism of $\Bbb{C}^{3}.$ If $\deg
F_{1}+\deg F_{2}+\deg F_{3}>3$ (in other words if $F$ is not a linear automorphism), then $F$ admits either an elementary reduction or a reduction of types I-IV (see [@sh; @umb1] Definitions 2-4).
Let us, also, recall that an automorphism $F=(F_{1},F_{2},F_{3})$ admits an elementary reduction if there exists a polynomial $g\in \Bbb{C}[x,y]$ and a permutation $\sigma $ of the set $\{1,2,3\}$ such that $\deg (F_{\sigma
(1)}-g(F_{\sigma (2)},F_{\sigma (3)}))<\deg F_{\sigma (1)}.$ In other words if there exists an elementary automorphism $\tau :\Bbb{C}^{3}\rightarrow
\Bbb{C}^{3}$ such that $\limfunc{mdeg}\left( \tau \circ F\right) <\limfunc{%
mdeg}F,$ where $\left( d_{1},\ldots ,d_{n}\right) <\left( k_{1},\ldots
,k_{n}\right) $ means that $d_{l}\leq k_{l}$ for all $l\in \left\{ 1,\ldots
,n\right\} $ and $d_{i}<k_{i}$ for at least one $i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots
,n\right\} .$ Recall also that a mapping $\tau =\left( \tau _{1},\ldots
,\tau _{n}\right) :\Bbb{C}^{n}\rightarrow \Bbb{C}^{n}$ is called an elementary automorphism if there exists $i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,n\right\} $ such that $$\tau _{j}\left( x_{1},\ldots ,x_{n}\right) =\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
x_{j} & \text{for }j\neq i \\
x_{i}+g\left( x_{1},\ldots ,x_{i-1},x_{i+1},\ldots ,x_{n}\right) & \text{for
}j=i
\end{array}
.\right.$$
*(of Theorem \[tw\_d1\_d2\_odd\])* Assume that $F=(F_{1},F_{2},F_{3})$ is an automorphism of $\Bbb{C}^{3}$ such that $\limfunc{mdeg}%
F=(d_{1},d_{2},d_{3}).$ Assume, also, that $d_{3}\notin d_{1}\Bbb{N}+d_{2}%
\Bbb{N}.$ By Theorem \[tw\_sywester\] we have: $$d_{3}<(d_{1}-1)(d_{2}-1). \label{d_3 male_a}$$ First of all we show that this hypothetical automorphism $F$ does not admit reductions of type I-IV.
By the definitions of reductions of types I-IV (see [@sh; @umb1] Definitions 2-4), if $F=(F_{1},F_{2},F_{3})$ admits a reduction of these types, then $2|\deg F_{i}$ for some $i\in \{1,2,3\}.$ Thus if $d_{3}$ is odd, then $F$ does not admit a reduction of types I-IV. Assume that $%
d_{3}=2n $ for some positive integers $n.$
If we assume that $F$ admits a reduction of type I or II, then by the definition (see [@sh; @umb1] Definition 2 and 3) we have $d_{1}=sn$ or $%
d_{2}=sn$ for some odd $s\geq 3.$ Since $d_{1},d_{2}\leq d_{3}=2n<sn,$ then we obtain a contradiction.
And, if we assume that $F$ admits a reduction of type III or IV, then by the definition (see [@sh; @umb1] Definition 4) we have: $$n<d_{1}\leq \tfrac{3}{2}n,\qquad d_{2}=3n$$ or $$d_{1}=\tfrac{3}{2}n,\qquad \tfrac{5}{2}n<d_{2}\leq 3n.$$ Since $d_{1},d_{2}\leq d_{3}=2n<\tfrac{5}{2}n,3n,$ then we obtain a contradiction. Thus we have proved that our hypothetical automorphism $F$ does not admit a reduction of types I-IV.
Now we will show that it, also, does not admit an elementary reduction.
Assume, by a contrary, that $$(F_{1},F_{2},F_{3}-g(F_{1},F_{2})),$$ where $g\in \Bbb{C}[x,y],$ is an elementary reduction of $%
(F_{1},F_{2},F_{3}).$ Then we have $\deg g(F_{1},F_{2})=\deg F_{3}=d_{3}.$ But, by Proposition \[prop\_deg\_g\_fg\], we have $$\deg g(F_{1},F_{2})\geq q(d_{1}d_{2}-d_{1}-d_{2}+\deg [F_{1},F_{2}])+rd_{2},$$ where $\deg _{y}g(x,y)=qd_{1}+r$ with $0\leq r<d_{1}.\,$ Since $F_{1},F_{2}$ are algebraically independent, $\deg [F_{1},F_{2}]\geq 2$ and then $$d_{1}d_{2}-d_{1}-d_{2}+\deg [F_{1},F_{2}]\geq
d_{1}d_{2}-d_{1}-d_{2}+2>(d_{1}-1)(d_{2}-1).$$ This and (\[d\_3 male\_a\]) follows that $q=0,$ and that: $$g(x,y)=\sum_{i=0}^{d_{1}-1}g_{i}(x)y^{i}.$$ Since $\func{lcm}(d_{1},d_{2})=d_{1}d_{2},$ then the sets $$d_{1}\Bbb{N},d_{2}+d_{1}\Bbb{N},\ldots ,(d_{1}-1)d_{2}+d_{1}\Bbb{N}$$ are pair wise disjoint. This follows that: $$d_{3}=\deg \left( \sum_{i=0}^{d_{1}-1}g_{i}(F_{1})F_{2}^{i}\right) =%
\underset{i=0,\ldots ,d_{1}-1}{\max }\left( \deg F_{1}\deg g_{i}+i\deg
F_{2}\right) .$$ Thus $$d_{3}\in \bigcup_{r=0}^{d_{1}-1}\left( rd_{2}+d_{1}\Bbb{N}\right) \subset
d_{1}\Bbb{N}+d_{2}\Bbb{N}.$$ This is a contradiction with $d_{3}\notin d_{1}\Bbb{N}+d_{2}\Bbb{N}.$
Now, assume that $$(F_{1},F_{2}-g(F_{1},F_{3}),F_{3}),$$ where $g\in \Bbb{C}[x,y],$ is an elementary reduction of $%
(F_{1},F_{2},F_{3}).$ Since $d_{3}\notin d_{1}\Bbb{N}+d_{2}\Bbb{N},$ then $%
d_{1}\nmid d_{3}.$ This follows that $$p=\frac{d_{1}}{\gcd \left( d_{1},d_{3}\right) }>1.$$ Since $d_{1}\,$is odd number, we also have $p\neq 2.$ Thus by Proposition \[prop\_deg\_g\_fg\] we have $$\deg g(F_{1},F_{3})\geq q(pd_{3}-d_{3}-d_{1}+\deg [F_{1},F_{3}])+rd_{3},$$ where $\deg _{y}g(x,y)=qp+r$ with $0\leq r<p.$ Since $p\geq 3,$ then $%
pd_{3}-d_{3}-d_{1}+\deg [F_{1},F_{3}]\geq 2d_{3}-d_{1}+2>d_{3}.$ Since we want to have $\deg g(F_{1},F_{3})=d_{2},$ then $q=r=0,$ and then $%
g(x,y)=g(x).$ This means that $d_{2}=\deg g\left( F_{1},F_{3}\right) =\deg
g\left( F_{1}\right) .$ But this is a contradiction with $d_{2}\notin d_{1}%
\Bbb{N}$ (remember that $\gcd \left( d_{1},d_{2}\right) =1$).
Finally, if we assume that $(F_{1}-g(F_{2},F_{3}),F_{2},F_{3})$ is an elementary reduction of $(F_{1},F_{2},F_{3}),$ then in the same way as in the previous case we obtain a contradiction.
Proof of the theorem
====================
Let $N:\Bbb{C}^{3}\ni (x,y,z)\mapsto
(x+2y(y^{2}+zx)-z(y^{2}+zx)^{2},y-z(y^{2}+zx),z)\in \Bbb{C}^{3}$ be the Nagata’s exmple and let $T:\Bbb{C}^{3}\ni (x,y,z)\mapsto (z,y,x)\in \Bbb{C}%
^{3}.$ We start with the following lemma.
For all $n\in \Bbb{N}$ we have $\limfunc{mdeg}(T\circ
N)^{n}=(4n-3,4n-1,4n+1).$
We have $T\circ N(x,y,z)=(z,y-z(y^{2}+zx),x+2y(y^{2}+zx)-z(y^{2}+zx)^{2}),$ so the above equality is true for $n=1.$ Let $(f_{n},g_{n},h_{n})=T\circ N$ for $f_{n},g_{n},h_{n}\in \Bbb{C[}X,Y,Z].$ One can see that $%
g_{1}^{2}+h_{1}f_{1}=Y^{2}+ZX,$ and by induction that $%
g_{n}^{2}+h_{n}f_{n}=Y^{2}+ZX$ for any $n\in \Bbb{N}\backslash \{0\}.\Bbb{\,}
$Thus $$\begin{aligned}
(f_{n+1},g_{n+1},h_{n+1}) = \left( T\circ N\right) \left(
f_{n},g_{n},h_{n}\right) \\
=\left( h_{n},g_{n}-h_{n}\left( g_{n}^{2}+h_{n}f_{n}\right)
,f_{n}+2h_{n}\left( g_{n}^{2}+h_{n}f_{n}\right) -h_{n}\left(
g_{n}^{2}+h_{n}f_{n}\right) ^{2}\right) \\
=\left( h_{n},g_{n}-h_{n}\left( Y^{2}+ZX\right) ,f_{n}+2h_{n}\left(
Y^{2}+ZX\right) -h_{n}\left( Y^{2}+ZX\right) ^{2}\right) .\end{aligned}$$ So if we assume that $\limfunc{mdeg}(f_{n},g_{n},h_{n})=(4n-3,4n-1,4n+1),$ we obtain $\limfunc{mdeg}(f_{n+1},g_{n+1},h_{n+1})=(4n+1,\left(
4n+1\right) +2,\left( 4n+1\right) +2\cdot 2)=(4(n+1)-3,4(n+1)-1,4(n+1)+1).$
By the above lemma and Theorem \[tw\_d1\_d2\_odd\] we obtain the following theorem.
For every $n\in \Bbb{N}$ the automorphism $(T\circ N)^{n}$ is wild.
For $n=1$ this is the result of Shestakov and Umirbayev [@sh; @umb1; @sh; @umb2]. So we can assume that $n\geq 2.$ The numbers $4n-3,4n-1$ are odd and $%
\gcd (4n-3,4n-1)=\gcd (4n-3,2)=1.$ Since $4n-3>2,$ $4n+1\notin (4n-3)\Bbb{N}%
+(4n-1)\Bbb{N}.$ Then by Theorem \[tw\_d1\_d2\_odd\] $(4n-3,4n-1,4n+1)\notin
\limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Tame}(\Bbb{C}^{3}))$ for $n>1.$ This proves Theorem \[main\] and that $(T\circ N)^{n}$ is not a tame automphism.
Let us notice that in the proof of the above theorem we, aslo, proved that $$\left\{ \left( 4n-3,4n-1,4n+1\right) :n\in \Bbb{N},n\geq 2\right\} \subset
\limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{Aut}(\Bbb{C}^{3}))\backslash \limfunc{mdeg}(\limfunc{%
Tame}(\Bbb{C}^{3})).$$ This proves Theorem \[tw\_main\].
[9]{} A. van den Essen, [*Polynomial Automorphisms and the Jacobian Conjecture,* ]{}Birkhauser Verlag, Basel-Boston-Berlin (2000).
M. Karaś, [*There is no tame automorphism of* ]{}$%
\Bbb{C}^{3}$[*with multidegree* ]{}$(3,4,5),$ arXiv:0904.NNNNv1 \[math.AG\] 6 Apr 2009.
M. Karaś, [*Tame automorphisms of* ]{}$\Bbb{C}^{3}
$[*with multidegree of the form* ]{}$(p_{1},p_{2},d_{3}),$ arXiv:0904.NNNNv1 \[math.AG\] 6 Apr 2009.
M. Karaś, [*Tame automorphisms of* ]{}$\Bbb{C}^{3}
$ [*with multidegree of the form* ]{}$(3,d_{2},d_{3}),$ arXiv:0905.NNNNv1 \[math.AG\] 6 May 2009.
I.P. Shestakov, U.U. Umirbayev, [*The Nagata automorphism is wild,*]{} Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100 (2003),12561-12563.
I.P. Shestakov, U.U. Umirbayev, [*The tame and the wild automorphisms of polynomial rings in three variables,* J. Amer. Math. Soc. 17 (2004), 197-227.]{}
J. Zygadło, [*On multidegrees of polynomial automorphisms of* ]{}$\Bbb{C}^{3}$, arXiv:0903.5512v1 \[math.AC\] 31 Mar 2009.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Marek KaraśInstytut MatematykiUniwersytetu Jagiellońskiegoul. Łojasiewicza 6</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;">30-348 KrakówPoland</span> e-mail: [email protected]
and
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Jakub ZygadłoInstytut InformatykiUniwersytetu Jagiellońskiegoul. Łojasiewicza 6</span><span style="font-variant:small-caps;">30-348 KrakówPoland</span> e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We formulate some conjectures about the $K$-theory of symplectic manifolds and their Fukaya categories, and prove some of them in very special cases.'
author:
- David Treumann
title: 'Complex $K$-theory of mirror pairs'
---
Introduction
============
Let ${\mathbf{K}}^*(X) = {\mathbf{K}}^0(X) \oplus {\mathbf{K}}^1(X)$ denote the complex $K$-theory of a space $X$. I am not sure who first proposed that when $X$ and $\hat{X}$ are a mirror pair of compact Calabi-Yau $3$-folds one should have isomorphisms $$\label{eq:111}
{\mathbf{K}}^0(X) \cong {\mathbf{K}}^1(\hat{X}) \text{ and } {\mathbf{K}}^1(X) \cong {\mathbf{K}}^0(\hat{X})$$ — it is an instance of the string-theoretical idea [@MM; @Moore; @Witten] that “$D$-branes have charges in $K$-theory.” Rationally, is a consequence of the usual Hodge-diamond flip, but the question of whether it holds becomes interesting if ${\mathbf{K}}^*(X)$ or ${\mathbf{K}}^*(\hat{X})$ has torsion, or if one and not the other group is known to be torsion-free. It might be interesting more generally if one searches for very natural isomorphisms, more on that in §\[sec:three\].
I believe that is an open problem. Batyrev and Kreuzer in [@BK] gave a case-by case verification for the half-billion mirror pairs associated with 4d reflexive polytopes, actually obtaining isomorphisms in integral cohomology $$\label{eq:112}
{\mathrm{tors}}(H^2(X,{\mathbf{Z}})) \cong {\mathrm{tors}}(H^3(\hat{X},{\mathbf{Z}})) \qquad {\mathrm{tors}}(H^4(X,{\mathbf{Z}})) \cong {\mathrm{tors}}(H^5(\hat{X},{\mathbf{Z}}))$$ and deducing from the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence. But Addington [@Addington] has given examples of derived equivalent $3$-folds $\hat{X}$ and $\hat{X}'$ where $H^3(\hat{X},{\mathbf{Z}})$ and $H^3(\hat{X}',{\mathbf{Z}})$ have different torsion subgroups, suggesting that should not hold in general.
In §\[sec:two\], we will give an explicit example, by verifying in one new case: a $T$-dual pair of flat $3$-folds (for which homological mirror symmetry is essentially known after [@Abouzaid]) $$X:= X_{1,5} \qquad \hat{X} := X_{2,12}$$ with ${\mathbf{K}}^0(X) \cong {\mathbf{K}}^1(\hat{X})$ but ${\mathrm{tors}}(H^2(X,{\mathbf{Z}})) = ({\mathbf{Z}}/4)^3$ and ${\mathrm{tors}}(H^3(\hat{X},{\mathbf{Z}})) = {\mathbf{Z}}/4$.
In §\[sec:three\] we will discuss conjectures — some of mine and one of Ganatra’s — about the $K$-theory of Fukaya categories.
$3$-folds {#sec:two}
=========
The flat $3$-manifold $B$.
--------------------------
Let $B$ denote the quotient of ${\mathbf{R}}^3/{\mathbf{Z}}^3$ by the action of ${\mathbf{Z}}/2 \times {\mathbf{Z}}/2$ whose three nontrivial operators are $$\label{eq:Fed-Sch}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha(x_1,x_2,x_3)& := & (x_1 + \frac{1}{2},-x_2 + \frac{1}{2},-x_3) \\
\beta(x_1,x_2,x_3)& :=& (-x_1+\frac{1}{2},-x_2,x_3+\frac{1}{2}) \\
\gamma(x_1,x_2,x_3)& :=& (-x_1,x_2+\frac{1}{2},-x_3 + \frac{1}{2})
\end{array}$$ It is the $3$-manifold studied in [@HW]. We regard it as having a basepoint at image of $0 \in {\mathbf{R}}^3$, and as having a flat metric given by the usual dot product on ${\mathbf{R}}^3$. The fundamental group of $B$ is one of the Fedorov-Schoenflies crystallographic groups, with presentation [@Wolf Th. 3.5.5] $$\label{eq:Wolf}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha^2 = t_1 & \alpha t_2 = t_2^{-1} \alpha & \alpha t_3 = t_3^{-1} \alpha \\
\beta t_1 = t_1^{-1} \beta & \beta t_2 = t_2^{-1} \beta & \beta^2 = t_3 \\
\gamma t_1 = t_1^{-1} \gamma & \gamma^2 = t_2 & \gamma t_3 = t_3^{-1} \gamma
\end{array}$$ and $$[t_1,t_2] = [t_2,t_3] = [t_3,t_1] = \gamma \beta \alpha = 1$$ The $t_1,t_2,t_3$ are translation operators on ${\mathbf{R}}^3$. Being flat, the holonomy group of $B$ is a representation $$\label{eq:holonomy}
\pi_1(B) \to {\mathrm{SO}}(3)$$ Its image is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{Z}}/2 \times {\mathbf{Z}}/2$ (the group of diagonal matrices in ${\mathrm{SO}}(3)$). Abelianizing gives $H_1(B) = {\mathbf{Z}}/4 \oplus {\mathbf{Z}}/4$, and since $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ are orientation-preserving we have by Poincaré duality $$\label{eq:HiB}
H_0(B) = {\mathbf{Z}}\qquad H_1(B) = {\mathbf{Z}}/4 \oplus {\mathbf{Z}}/4 \qquad H_2(B) = 0 \qquad H_3(B) = {\mathbf{Z}}$$
Tri-elliptic $3$-fold $X_{0,4}$ {#subsec:X04}
-------------------------------
Let $\tau_1,\tau_2,\tau_3$ be complex numbers with positive imaginary part, and put $$E_i := {\mathbf{C}}/({\mathbf{Z}}+ \tau_i {\mathbf{Z}})$$
Let $X_{0,4}$ be the quotient of $E_1 \times E_2 \times E_3$ by the complexification of the operators , i.e. $$\label{eq:Fed-Sch-complex}
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha(z_1,z_2,z_3)& := & (z_1 + \frac{1}{2},-z_2 + \frac{1}{2},-z_3) \\
\beta(z_1,z_2,z_3)& :=& (-z_1+\frac{1}{2},-z_2,z_3+\frac{1}{2}) \\
\gamma(z_1,z_2,z_3)& :=& (-z_1,z_2+\frac{1}{2},-z_3 + \frac{1}{2})
\end{array}$$ (We follow [@DW] for the name). The projections ${\mathbf{C}}\to {\mathbf{R}}:x_i + \tau_i y_i \mapsto x_i$ descend to a map $$\label{eq:X04B}
X_{0,4} \to B$$ which is split by the subset cut out by $y_1 = y_2 = y_3 = 0$. The translation action of $$\label{eq:V}
V:= {\mathbf{R}}\tau_1 \times {\mathbf{R}}\tau_2 \times {\mathbf{R}}\tau_3$$ on ${\mathbf{C}}\times {\mathbf{C}}\times {\mathbf{C}}$ descends to an action on $E_1 \times E_2 \times E_3$ and on $X_{0,4}$. The action preserves the fibers of , and determines an identification of the fiber over $b$ with the quotient of $V$ by a lattice $V_{{\mathbf{Z}},b} \subset V$. We will denote the lattice over the basepoint by $M_{0,4}$, i.e. $$\label{eq:M04}
M_{0,4} := V_{{\mathbf{Z}},0} = {\mathbf{Z}}\tau_1 \times {\mathbf{Z}}\tau_2 \times {\mathbf{Z}}\tau_3$$
The action of $\pi_1(B)$ on $V$ and on $M_{0,4}$ is through the holonomy ${\mathbf{Z}}/2 \times {\mathbf{Z}}/2$ .
More tri-elliptic $3$-folds
---------------------------
On each $E_i$ we may define a biholomorphic action of ${\mathbf{Z}}/2 \times {\mathbf{Z}}/2 \times {\mathbf{Z}}/2$: the three generators act by $$z \mapsto z+1/2 \qquad z \mapsto z + \tau_i/2 \qquad z \mapsto -z$$ Altogether this defines an action of $({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^{\times 9}$ on $E_1 \times E_2 \times E_3$. In [@DW], Donagi and Wendland classified the subgroups that act freely. The quotient $X = (E_1 \times E_2 \times E_3) /G$ must factor as a product of a surface and an elliptic curve, or else be isomorphic to one of the foursome $$\label{eq:DW-names}
X_{0,4} \qquad X_{1,5} \qquad X_{1,11} \qquad X_{2,12}$$ where $X_{0,4}$ is as in §\[subsec:X04\] and the other three are defined below. These $3$-folds are part of a more general classification problem considered in [@DW], which is reflected in the weird names. They also appear in [@Lange], where they are called “hyperelliptic $3$-folds of type (2,2).” Some older appearances are given in [@DonagiSharpe].
Each of the $3$-folds is aspherical, and fits into a fiber sequence $$\label{eq:T-here}
V/M_{I,J} \to X_{I,J} \to B$$ where $V$ is as in and $M_{I,J}$ is a lattice in $V$.
Definition
----------
Let $X_{1,5}$ denote the quotient of $X_{0,4}$ by the involution $$\label{eq:X15quot}
\qquad (z_1,z_2,z_3) \mapsto \left(z_1 + \frac{\tau_1}{2},z_2 + \frac{\tau_2}{2},z_3 + \frac{\tau_3}{2}\right)$$ Then $$M_{1,5} = M_{0,4} + {\mathbf{Z}}\left(\tau_1/2, \tau_2/2, \tau_3/2\right)$$
Definition
----------
Let $X_{1,11}$ denote the quotient of $X_{0,4}$ by the involution $$\label{eq:X111quot}
(z_1,z_2,z_3) \mapsto \left(z_1 + \frac{\tau_1}{2},z_2 + \frac{\tau_2}{2},z_3\right)$$ Then $$M_{1,11} = M_{0,4} + {\mathbf{Z}}\left(\tau_1/2,\tau_2/2,0\right)$$
Definition
----------
Let $X_{2,12}$ denote the quotient of $X_{0,4}$ by the ${\mathbf{Z}}/2 \times {\mathbf{Z}}/2$ group generated by the pair of involutions $$\label{eq:X212quot}
(z_1,z_2,z_3) \mapsto \left(z_1 + \frac{\tau_1}{2},z_2 + \frac{\tau_2}{2},z_3\right) \text{ and }(z_1,z_2,z_3) \mapsto \left(z_1 ,z_2 + \frac{\tau_2}{2},z_3 + \frac{\tau_3}{2}\right)$$ Then $$M_{2,12} = M_{0,4} + {\mathbf{Z}}\left\{(\tau_1/2,\tau_2/2,0),(0,\tau_2/2,\tau_3/2)\right\}$$
$T$-duality
-----------
The $T$-dual fibration to $X_{I,J} \to B$, of Strominger-Yau-Zaslow, is the space of pairs $(b,L)$ where $b \in B$ and $L \in H^1(V/V_{{\mathbf{Z}},b},\mathrm{U}(1))$ is the isomorphism class of a rank one unitary local system on the fiber above $b$. Let us denote it by $\hat{X}_{I,J}$. It is another split torus fibration $$\label{eq:T-hat-here}
V^*/\hat{M}_{I,J} \to \hat{X}_{I,J} \to B$$ where $V^* := {\mathrm{Hom}}(V,\mathfrak{u}(1))$ and $\hat{M} \subset V^*$ is the dual lattice to $M$. As such $\hat{X}_{I,J}$ is determined up to homotopy equivalence by the dual $\pi_1(B)$-module (equivalently, the dual ${\mathbf{Z}}/2 \times {\mathbf{Z}}/2$-module) to $M_{I,J}$. $M_{0,4}$ and $M_{1,11}$ are self-dual, while $M_{1,5}$ and $M_{2,12}$ are dual to each other, and therefore we have homotopy equivalences $$\label{eq:T-dual-IJ}
\hat{X}_{0,4} \simeq X_{0,4} \qquad \hat{X}_{1,5} \simeq X_{2,12}, \qquad \hat{X}_{1,11} \simeq X_{1,11}$$ The homotopy equivalences can be taken to be natural diffeomorphisms, if $X_{I,J}$ has parameters $\tau_1,\tau_2,\tau_3$ and we take the corresponding parameters for $\hat{X}_{I,J}$ to be the purely imaginary numbers $(i|\tau_1|^{-1},i|\tau_2|^{-1}, i|\tau_3|^{-1})$.
$K$-theory
----------
Let $X = X_{I,J}$ and $\hat{X} = X_{I',J'}$ be a dual pair of the $3$-folds. We wish to prove , that ${\mathbf{K}}^0(X) \cong {\mathbf{K}}^1(\hat{X})$ and that ${\mathbf{K}}^1(X) \cong {\mathbf{K}}^0(\hat{X})$ — we will do so without actually computing ${\mathbf{K}}^*(X)$ and ${\mathbf{K}}^*(\hat{X})$, indeed I do not quite know what the $K$-theory of these manifolds is §\[subsec:HXIJ\]–\[subsec:AH-fil\].
Let ${\mathbf{K}}$ denote the complex $K$-theory spectrum. It is an $E_{\infty}$-ring spectrum. We write ${\mathrm{Mod}}({\mathbf{K}})$ for the symmetric monoidal $\infty$-category of module spectra over ${\mathbf{K}}$, and we will study sheaves of ${\mathbf{K}}$-module spectra on $X$, $\hat{X}$ and related spaces. These are stable $\infty$-categories — for an $\infty$-category we will write ${\mathrm{Maps}}(c,d)$ for the space of maps and $[c,d]$ for the set of homotopy classes of maps between two objects. We write $\Sigma$ for the suspension functor in a stable $\infty$-categories.
If $U$ is a manifold we write ${\mathbf{K}}_U$ for the constant sheaf of ${\mathbf{K}}$-module spectra on $U$, and $\omega_U$ for the orientation sheaf.
Lemma {#lem:spinc-structures}
-----
Each of the spaces $B, X, \hat{X}, X \times_B \hat{X}$ are ${\mathbf{K}}$-orientable — that is, there are isomorphisms of sheaves $$\label{eq:spin-on-these}
\Sigma^{-3} {\mathbf{K}}_B \cong \omega_B \qquad \Sigma^{-6} {\mathbf{K}}_X \cong \omega_X \qquad \Sigma^{-6} {\mathbf{K}}_{\hat{X}} \cong \omega_{\hat{X}} \qquad \Sigma^{-9} {\mathbf{K}}_{X \times_B \hat{X}} \cong \omega_{X \times_B \hat{X}}$$
Any ${\mathrm{Spin}}^c$-structure on a manifold induces a ${\mathbf{K}}$-orientation, and one way to endow an oriented flat manifold with a ${\mathrm{Spin}}^c$ structure is to lift its holonomy representation $$\label{eq:spin-n}
\pi_1 \to {\mathrm{SO}}(n)$$ along the natural homomorphism ${\mathrm{Spin}}^c(n) \to {\mathrm{SO}}(n)$. Each of $B$, $X$, $\hat{X}$ and $X \times_B \hat{X}$ fibers over $B$, and the holonomy around any loop in those fibers is trivial, so factors through $\pi_1(B) \to {\mathrm{SO}}(3)$ . The equations can be solved in ${\mathrm{Spin}}^c(3)$, for instance we may solve them in ${\mathrm{Spin}}(3)$ by taking $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ to be the usual unit quaternions. Then the lift of can be taken to be the composite of $\pi_1 \to \pi_1(B) \to {\mathrm{Spin}}(3)$ with any lift of ${\mathrm{Spin}}(3) \to {\mathrm{SO}}(3) \to {\mathrm{SO}}(n)$ to ${\mathrm{Spin}}^c(n)$.
Local-on-$B$ identifications of $K$-theory
------------------------------------------
Write ${\mathbf{K}}[U]$ for the $K$-homology spectrum and ${\mathbf{K}}^U$ for the $K$-cohomology spectrum of a space $U$ — that is, ${\mathbf{K}}[U]$ is the smash product of ${\mathbf{K}}$ with the suspension spectrum of $U$ and ${\mathbf{K}}^U$ is the internal mapping object from ${\mathbf{K}}[U]$ to ${\mathbf{K}}$. They are related to the $K$-homology and $K$-cohomology groups of $U$ by $$[\Sigma^i {\mathbf{K}},{\mathbf{K}}[U]] \cong {\mathbf{K}}_i(U)$$ and $${\mathbf{K}}^i(U) \cong [{\mathbf{K}}[U],\Sigma^i {\mathbf{K}}] \cong [\Sigma^{-i} {\mathbf{K}}, {\mathbf{K}}^U]$$ In terms of sheaf operations, we have $$\Gamma_c(\omega_U) = {\mathbf{K}}[U] \qquad \Gamma({\mathbf{K}}_U) = {\mathbf{K}}^U$$
We consider the fiber square $$\label{eq:this-square}
\xymatrix{
X \times_B \hat{X} \ar[r]^-g \ar[d]_-h & X \ar[d]^-{p} \\
\hat{X} \ar[r]_-{q} & B
}$$ Factoring the maps $X \to \mathit{pt}$ and $\hat{X} \to \mathit{pt}$ through $B$ gives canonical isomorphisms $$\label{eq:from-local-on-B}
{\mathbf{K}}[X] \cong \Gamma_c(B,p_! \omega_X) = \Gamma(B,p_!\omega_X) \qquad {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{X}} \cong \Gamma(B,q_* {\mathbf{K}}_{\hat{X}})$$ where we replace $\Gamma_c$ with $\Gamma$ using the compactness of $B$. The ${\mathbf{K}}$-orientability of $X$ gives an identification of ${\mathbf{K}}[X] \cong \Sigma^{-6} {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{X}}$. So to prove it suffices to produce an isomorphism between $\Sigma^{-3} p_! \omega_X$ and $q_* {\mathbf{K}}_{\hat{X}}$. To that end, let us study the sheaf of spaces on $B$ whose sections over $U \subset B$ are given by $$\label{eq:sheaf-of-maps}
{\mathrm{Maps}}\left(\left(\Sigma^{-3} p_! \omega_X\right)\vert_U, \left(q_* {\mathbf{K}}_{\hat{X}}\right)\vert_U\right)$$ where ${\mathrm{Maps}}$ is taken in the $\infty$-category of sheaves of ${\mathbf{K}}$-modules over $U$.
Lemma {#lemma}
-----
If $\pi = q\circ h = p \circ g$ denotes the projection $X \times_B \hat{X} \to B$, and one fixes ${\mathbf{K}}$-orientations of $X$, $\hat{X}$, and $X\times_B \hat{X}$, there are natural isomorphisms $$\label{eq:sheafhom2}
{\mathrm{Maps}}\left(\left(\Sigma^{-3} p_! \omega_X\right)\vert_U, \left(q_* {\mathbf{K}}_{\hat{X}}\right)\vert_U\right)
\cong {\mathrm{Maps}}({\mathbf{K}}[\pi^{-1}(U)],{\mathbf{K}})$$ where the left-hand side is and on the right-hand side ${\mathrm{Maps}}$ is taken in the $\infty$-category of ${\mathbf{K}}$-modules.
$$\begin{aligned}
\quad \quad {\mathrm{Maps}}\left(\left(\Sigma^{-3} p_! \omega_X\right)\vert_U, \left(q_* {\mathbf{K}}_{\hat{X}}\right)\vert_U\right) & \cong & {\mathrm{Maps}}\left(\left(\Sigma^{-3} q^* p_! \omega_X\right)\vert_{q^{-1}(U)}, {\mathbf{K}}_{{q^{-1}(U)}}\right) \label{eq:364} \\
& \cong & {\mathrm{Maps}}\left(\left(\Sigma^{-3} h_! g^* \omega_X\right)\vert_{q^{-1}(U)}, {\mathbf{K}}_{{q^{-1}(U)}}\right)
\label{eq:365}
\\
\label{eq:366}
& \cong & {\mathrm{Maps}}\left(\Sigma^{-3} \left(h_! g^* \Sigma^{-6} {\mathbf{K}}_{X}\right)\vert_{q^{-1}(U)}, {\mathbf{K}}_{{q^{-1}(U)}}\right) \\
\label{eq:367}
& \cong & {\mathrm{Maps}}\left(\Sigma^{-9} \left(h_! {\mathbf{K}}_{X \times_B \hat{X}}\right)\vert_{q^{-1}(U)}, {\mathbf{K}}_{{q^{-1}(U)}}\right) \\
\label{eq:368}
& \cong & {\mathrm{Maps}}\left(\left(h_! \omega_{X \times_B \hat{X}}\right)\vert_{q^{-1}(U)}, {\mathbf{K}}_{{q^{-1}(U)}}\right) \\
\label{eq:369}
& \cong & {\mathrm{Maps}}\left(\left(h_! \omega_{X \times_B \hat{X}}\right)\vert_{q^{-1}(U)}, \Sigma^{6}\omega_{{q^{-1}(U)}}\right) \\
\label{eq:3610}
& \cong & {\mathrm{Maps}}\left(\Gamma_c\left(\left(h_! \omega_{X \times_B \hat{X}}\right)\vert_{q^{-1}(U)}\right), \Sigma^{6}{\mathbf{K}}\right) \\
\label{eq:3611}
& \cong & {\mathrm{Maps}}({\mathbf{K}}[(q \circ h)^{-1}(U)],\Sigma^6{\mathbf{K}})\end{aligned}$$
where is the $(q^*,q_*)$-adjunction, is proper base-change, uses the ${\mathbf{K}}$-orientation of $X$, uses the ${\mathbf{K}}$-orientation of $X \times_B \hat{X}$, uses the ${\mathbf{K}}$-orientation of $q^{-1}(U) \subset \hat{X}$, uses the $(q^{-1}(U) \to \mathit{pt})_!,(q^{-1}(U) \to \mathit{pt})^!$ adjunction. Finally one applies the Bott isomorphism ${\mathbf{K}}\cong \Sigma^6 {\mathbf{K}}$ to obtain the right-hand-side of .
Poincaré bundle {#subsec:Pe-bundle}
---------------
When $T$ and $\hat{T}$ are dual tori, (for instance, if $T = V/M$ and $\hat{T} = V^*/\hat{M}$ are fibers above the basepoint of $X \to B$ and $\hat{X} \to B$), there is a canonical pairing $H_1(T) \otimes H_1(\hat{T}) \to {\mathbf{Z}}$, which determines a canonical element $$\label{eq:coev}
\mathrm{coev} \in H^1(T;{\mathbf{Z}}) \otimes H^1(\hat{T};{\mathbf{Z}}) \subset H^2(T \times \hat{T};{\mathbf{Z}})$$ Let us say that a line bundle on $X \times_B \hat{X}$ is a “Poincaré bundle” if its restriction to a fiber is this canonical element.
The connected components of the right-hand side of are virtual vector bundles on $\pi^{-1}(U)$. In particular, a line bundle on $X \times_B \hat{X}$ determines a homotopy class of maps $$\label{eq:line-bundle-map}
P_{L}:\Sigma^{-3} p_! \omega_X \to q_* {\mathbf{K}}_{\hat{X}}$$
\[lem:poincare\] If $L$ is a Poincaré bundle, $P_L$ is an isomorphism.
We prove that $P_L$ is an isomorphism on stalks. More generally we prove that if $T$ and $\hat{T}$ are dual tori, a line bundle whose Chern class is exhibits ${\mathbf{K}}^T$ and ${\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{T}}$ as dual objects in the monoidal category ${\mathrm{Mod}}({\mathbf{K}})$. Such a line bundle determines a homotopy class of maps $$\label{eq:241}
{\mathbf{K}}\to {\mathbf{K}}^{T\times \hat{T}} \cong {\mathbf{K}}^T \otimes_{{\mathbf{K}}} {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{T}}$$ in ${\mathrm{Mod}}({\mathbf{K}})$, and we will show that for all $i$ the composite $$\label{eq:251}
[\Sigma^i {\mathbf{K}}^T,{\mathbf{K}}] \xrightarrow{\otimes {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{T}}} [\Sigma^i {\mathbf{K}}^{T} \otimes_{{\mathbf{K}}} {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{T}}, {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{T}}] \xrightarrow{\eqref{eq:241}} [\Sigma^i {\mathbf{K}},{\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{T}}]$$ is an isomorphism.
In case $T = \hat{T} = \mathrm{U}(1)$, we have canonically ${\mathbf{K}}^T \cong {\mathbf{K}}\oplus \Sigma {\mathbf{K}}$, ${\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{T}} \cong {\mathbf{K}}\oplus \Sigma {\mathbf{K}}$, and $$\label{eq:TTU1}
{\mathbf{K}}^{T \times \hat{T}} \cong {\mathbf{K}}\oplus \Sigma {\mathbf{K}}\oplus \Sigma {\mathbf{K}}\oplus \Sigma^2 {\mathbf{K}}.$$ Then is the Bott isomorphism ${\mathbf{K}}\cong \Sigma^2 {\mathbf{K}}$ onto the last summand of , and one can check directly.
In the general case, the domain of is ${\mathbf{K}}_{i}(T)$ and the codomain is ${\mathbf{K}}^{-i}(\hat{T})$, and the square $$\xymatrix{
{\mathbf{K}}_1(\mathrm{U}(1)) \otimes_{{\mathbf{Z}}} {\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathrm{U}(1),T) \ar[r] \ar[d] & {\mathbf{K}}_1(T) \ar[d]^{\eqref{eq:251}}\\
{\mathbf{K}}^{-1}(\mathrm{U}(1)) \otimes_{{\mathbf{Z}}} {\mathrm{Hom}}(\hat{T},\mathrm{U}(1)) \ar[r] & {\mathbf{K}}^{-1}(\hat{T})
}$$ commutes, where the left vertical arrow is for $T = \hat{T} = \mathrm{U}(1)$, tensored with the identification of cocharacters of $T$ with characters of $\hat{T}$. The horizontal arrows induce graded ring isomorphisms $$\label{eq:ring-iso}
\Lambda ({\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathrm{U}(1),T)) \otimes {\mathbf{K}}^* \to {\mathbf{K}}_*(T) \qquad \Lambda ({\mathrm{Hom}}(\hat{T},\mathrm{U}(1))) \otimes {\mathbf{K}}^* \to {\mathbf{K}}^*(T)$$ where the multiplication on ${\mathbf{K}}_*(T)$ is defined using the group structure on $T$ (the Pontrjagin product), and the ring structure on ${\mathbf{K}}^*(\hat{T})$ is tensor product of vector bundles. Thus we may complete the proof that is an isomorphism by noting that it intertwines the Pontrjagin product on ${\mathbf{K}}_*(T)$ with the tensor product on ${\mathbf{K}}^*(\hat{T})$. A strong form of this is true but to make use of we only need to note that (letting $m:T \times T \to T$ denote the multiplication and $\Delta:\hat{T} \to \hat{T} \times \hat{T}$ the diagonal) the following two elements of ${\mathbf{K}}^0(T \times T \times \hat{T})$ are equal:
- The pullback of along $m \times 1:T \times T \to \hat{T} \to T \times \hat{T}$
- The pullback of $\boxtimes$ along the map $T \times T \times \hat{T} \to T \times \hat{T} \times T \times \hat{T}$ that carries $(t_1,t_2,\hat{t})$ to $(t_1,\hat{t},t_2,\hat{t})$
In fact these are equal in $H^2(T \times T \times \hat{T};{\mathbf{Z}})$. It follows that two maps from the upper left to the lower right corner of the evident square $$\xymatrix{
{\mathbf{K}}[T] \otimes_{{\mathbf{K}}} {\mathbf{K}}[T] \ar[d] \ar[r] & {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{T}} \otimes_{{\mathbf{K}}} {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{T}} \ar[d] \\
{\mathbf{K}}[T] \ar[r] & {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{T}}
}$$ are homotopic, and therefore that is a ring homomorphism.
Theorem {#th:111}
-------
Let $X$ and $\hat{X}$ be as in . Then holds, i.e. $${\mathbf{K}}^0(X) \cong {\mathbf{K}}^1(\hat{X}) \text{ and } {\mathbf{K}}^1(X) \cong {\mathbf{K}}^0(\hat{X})$$
After and Lemma \[lem:poincare\], it suffices to construct a Poincaré bundle on $X \times_B \hat{X}$. The fundamental group $\pi_1(B)$ acts on $H^2(T \times \hat{T};{\mathbf{Z}}) = H^2(V/M \times V^*/\hat{M};{\mathbf{Z}})$, and the canonical class is fixed by this action. We will prove the existence of a Poincaré bundle by showing that the map $$\label{eq:surj}
H^2(X \times_B \hat{X};{\mathbf{Z}}) \to H^2(T \times \hat{T};{\mathbf{Z}})^{\pi_1(B)}$$ is a surjection. As $X \times_B \hat{X}$ is a $K(\pi,1)$-space, the domain of is isomorphic to the cohomology of the fundamental group $\pi_1(X \times_B \hat{X})$. To prove that it is a surjection is equivalent to showing that the differentials $$d_2:H^2(T \times \hat{T};{\mathbf{Z}})^{\pi_1(B)} \to H^2(\pi_1(B); H^1(T \times \hat{T};{\mathbf{Z}})$$ and $$d_3:\ker(d_2) \to H^3(B;{\mathbf{Z}})$$ vanish, in the Serre spectral sequence of the fibration $X \times_B \hat{X} \to B$. Let us denote this spectral sequence by ${}^{X\hat{X}}E_r^{st}$. We similarly denote the Serre spectral sequence of $X \to B$ by ${}^X E_r^{st}$ and of $\hat{X} \to B$ by ${}^{\hat{X}} E_r^{st}$.
Since the fibration has a section, all of $H^3(B;{\mathbf{Z}})$ must survive to the $E_{\infty}$-page, so $d_3$ vanishes. The codomain of $d_2$ is $$\label{eq:dirsumdec}
H^2(\pi_1(B),H^1(T;{\mathbf{Z}})) \oplus H^2(\pi_1(B),H^1(\hat{T};{\mathbf{Z}}))$$ The sections of $X \to B$ and $\hat{X} \to B$ induce maps $X \to X \times_B \hat{X}$ and $\hat{X} \to X \times_B \hat{X}$ that commute with the projections to $B$, which in turn induce maps of spectral sequences $$\label{eq:mapsss}
{}^X E_r^{st} \to {}^{X \hat{X}} E_r^{st} \qquad {}^{\hat{X}} E_r^{st} \to {}^{X \hat{X}} E_r^{st}$$ The direct sum decomposition is induced by on $E_2^{21}$, thus we can complete the proof by showing that ${}^X E_2^{21}$ and ${}^{\hat{X}} E_2^{21}$ survive to the $E_{\infty}$-pages, i.e. that $${}^X E_2^{02} \to {}^X E_2^{21} \qquad {}^{\hat{X}} E_2^{02} \to {}^{\hat{X}} E_2^{21}$$ are both zero. Now ${}^X E_2^{02} = H^0(\pi_1;H^2(T;{\mathbf{Z}})) = 0$ and $H^0(\pi_1;H^2(\hat{T};{\mathbf{Z}})) = 0$: $H^2(T;{\mathbf{Z}}) \cong M \subset V$ and $H^2(\hat{T};{\mathbf{Z}}) \cong \hat{M} \subset V^*$ as $\pi_1$-modules, and $\pi_1$ acts on $V$ and $V^*$ without invariants ($V$ and $V^*$ split as the sum of the three nontrivial characters $\pi_1 \to {\mathrm{GL}}_1({\mathbf{R}})$).
Cohomology of $X_{I,J}$ {#subsec:HXIJ}
-----------------------
The two-vertex regular cell complex structure on $S^1$, with vertices at $0$ and $\pi$, is preserved by the action of ${\mathbf{Z}}/2 \times {\mathbf{Z}}/2$ generated by $$\theta \mapsto \theta+ \pi \qquad \theta \mapsto -\theta$$ Each of the $3$-folds can be written as a quotient of a torus $T^6 = S^1 \times S^1 \times S^1 \times S^1 \times S^1 \times S^1$ by the free action of an elementary abelian $2$-group that preserves the product cell structure. The cellular cochain complex of $T^6$ is a complex of free ${\mathbf{Z}}[G]$-modules $$\label{eq:T6complex}
{\mathbf{Z}}^{64}\to{\mathbf{Z}}^{384} \to {\mathbf{Z}}^{960} \to {\mathbf{Z}}^{1280} \to {\mathbf{Z}}^{960} \to {\mathbf{Z}}^{384} \to {\mathbf{Z}}^{64}$$ of ${\mathbf{Z}}[G]$-rank $2^6 \binom{6}{i}/|G|$ in degree $i$. Passing to invariants gives a cochain complex for the cohomology of $T^6/G$, small enough to handle by computer — I used sage. Besides $H^0 = H^6 = {\mathbf{Z}}$ and $H^1 = 0$, we have $$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& H^2 & H^3 & H^4 & H^5 \\
\hline
X_{0,4} & {\mathbf{Z}}^3 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/4)^2 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^3 & {\mathbf{Z}}^8 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^3 & {\mathbf{Z}}^3 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^3 & ({\mathbf{Z}}/4)^2 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^3 \\
\hline
X_{1,5} & {\mathbf{Z}}^3 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/4)^3 & {\mathbf{Z}}^8 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^2 & {\mathbf{Z}}^3 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^2 & ({\mathbf{Z}}/4)^3 \\
\hline
X_{1,11} & {\mathbf{Z}}^3 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/4)^2 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^2 & {\mathbf{Z}}^8 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^2 & {\mathbf{Z}}^3 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^2 & ({\mathbf{Z}}/4)^2 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^2 \\
\hline
X_{2,12} & {\mathbf{Z}}^3 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/4)^2 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^2 & {\mathbf{Z}}^8 \oplus {\mathbf{Z}}/4 & {\mathbf{Z}}^3 \oplus {\mathbf{Z}}/4 & ({\mathbf{Z}}/4)^2 \oplus ({\mathbf{Z}}/2)^2 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$ The top row was previously computed in [@BCDP], and the $H^5$ (equivalently, $H^2$) columns in [@DW].
Atiyah-Hirzebruch filtration {#subsec:AH-fil}
----------------------------
Let $X$ be a connected closed manifold of real dimension $6$. ${\mathbf{K}}^*(X)$ carries the Atiyah-Hirzebruch filtration $$\label{eq:AH}
\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
{\mathbf{K}}^0(X) & = & F^0 {\mathbf{K}}^0(X) & \supset & F^2 {\mathbf{K}}^0(X) & \supset & F^4 {\mathbf{K}}^0(X) & \supset & F^6 {\mathbf{K}}^0(X) \\
{\mathbf{K}}^1(X) & = & F^1 {\mathbf{K}}^1(X) & \supset & F^3{\mathbf{K}}^1(X) & \supset & F^5 {\mathbf{K}}^1(X)
\end{array}$$ where $F^k({\mathbf{K}}^*(X))$ consists of those classes that vanish when restricted to any $(k-1)$-dimensional submanifold. The associated graded pieces of this filtration are the groups at the last page of the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence: $$E_2^{st} = H^s(X,{\mathbf{K}}^t(\mathit{pt})) \implies E_{\infty}^{st} = F^{s+t} {\mathbf{K}}^s(X)/F^{s+t + 1} {\mathbf{K}}^s(X)$$ If $X$ is oriented, then the spectral sequence degenerates immediately: $E_2^{st} = E_{\infty}^{st}$. The argument is given in [@BrDi] — let us briefly repeat the argument here. Since ${\mathbf{K}}^t(\mathit{pt}) = 0$ for $t$ odd, all the even differentials $d_{2p}$ vanish. In general, $d_{2p-1}$ vanishes on $H^i(X,{\mathbf{Z}})$ for $i \leq 2p-2$ [@Atiy §7], so on a 6-dimensional complex the only possible nonvanishing differential is $d_3:H^3(X,{\mathbf{Z}}) \to H^6(X,{\mathbf{Z}})$. Even this differential must vanish if $H^6(X,{\mathbf{Z}})$ has no torsion [@AtHi §2.4], i.e. if $X$ is orientable.
Plausibly, whenever $X$ is a Calabi-Yau $3$-fold, or even just admits a Spin structure, the Atiyah-Hirzebruch filtration might split: that is, there might be a ${\mathbf{Z}}/2$-graded isomorphism between $${\mathbf{K}}^0(X)\oplus {\mathbf{K}}^1(X) \text{ and } \bigoplus H^i(X;{\mathbf{Z}})$$ This is claimed in [@Doran], but I believe the proof there has a gap (discussed in §\[subsec:chern-classes\]). I do not know whether the filtration on ${\mathbf{K}}^*(X_{I,J})$ splits: if it does, one could conclude Theorem \[th:111\] directly from the computations in §\[subsec:HXIJ\]. On an oriented 6-manifold one necessary and sufficient condition for the filtration of ${\mathbf{K}}^0(X)$ to split is the existence of a function $\varphi:H^2(X;{\mathbf{Z}}) \to H^4(X;{\mathbf{Z}})$ that obeys $$\varphi(c+c') - \varphi(c) - \varphi(c') = c \cup c'$$ (For instance, we could take $\varphi(c) = c^2/2$ if we could divide by $2$). The problem of computing the cup product on $H^*(X_{I,J};{\mathbf{Z}})$ also arose in [@BCDP]. Determining this by computer is more difficult — the problem is that, although the cup product on $H^*(T^6)$ is induced by a (noncommutative) ring structure on the cochains , the groups $G$ do not act by ring automorphisms. One can solve this by passing to the barycentric subdivision of $S^1$ (which induces a subdivision of $(S^1)^{\times 6}$), but the resulting chain complexes are too big to treat in a simple-minded way.
Chern classes {#subsec:chern-classes}
-------------
A virtual vector bundle has a well-defined Chern class, giving us maps $$\label{eq:chern-classes}
c_i:{\mathbf{K}}^0(X) \to H^{2i}(X,{\mathbf{Z}}) \qquad c_i^\Sigma:{\mathbf{K}}^1(X) \to H^{2i -1}(X,{\mathbf{Z}})$$ The second map $c_i^{\Sigma}$ is the composite of $${\mathbf{K}}^1(X) \cong {\mathbf{K}}^2(\Sigma X) \cong {\mathbf{K}}^0(\Sigma X) \xrightarrow{c_i} H^{2i}(\Sigma X,{\mathbf{Z}}) = H^{2i-1}(X,{\mathbf{Z}})$$ Except for $c_0$, the functions $c_i$ of are not group homomorphisms, they instead obey the Cartan formula $c_n(V+W) = c_n(V) c_0(W) + c_{n-1}(V) c_1(W) + \cdots + c_0(V) c_n(W)$. The $i$th Chern class becomes a group homomorphism on $F^{2i} {\mathbf{K}}^0(X)$, since $c_j(E) = 0$ for any $j < i$ and $E \in F^{2i} {\mathbf{K}}^0(X)$. As all nontrivial cup products in $H^*(\Sigma X;{\mathbf{Z}})$ vanish, the Cartan formula shows that $c_i^{\Sigma}:{\mathbf{K}}^1(X) \to H^{2i - 1}(X,{\mathbf{Z}})$ are group homomorphisms.
Lemma 4.1 of [@Doran] asserts that, when $X$ is a closed oriented $6$-manifold, the map $$\label{eq:DM41}
(c_2,c_3):F^4 {\mathbf{K}}^0(X) \to H^4(X,{\mathbf{Z}}) \oplus H^6(X,{\mathbf{Z}})$$ is an isomorphism onto $$\label{eq:DM41-im}
\{(c_2,c_3) \mid {\mathrm{Sq}}^2(c_2) = c_3\}$$ where ${\mathrm{Sq}}^2:H^4(X,{\mathbf{Z}}/2) \to H^6(X,{\mathbf{Z}}/2)$ is a Steenrod operation. Lemma 4.2 of [@Doran] asserts that the map $$\label{eq:DM42}
(c_1,c_2,c_3):F^2{\mathbf{K}}^0(X) \to H^2(X,{\mathbf{Z}}) \oplus H^4(X,{\mathbf{Z}}) \oplus H^6(X,{\mathbf{Z}})$$ is an isomorphism onto $$\label{eq:DM42-im}
\{(c_1,c_2,c_3) \mid {\mathrm{Sq}}^2(c_2) = c_3 + c_1 c_2 + c_1^3 \}$$ I believe that is correct, but is not. For example, if $X$ is the quintic $3$-fold, the virtual vector bundle ${\mathcal{O}}(1) - {\mathcal{O}}$ belongs to $F^2 {\mathbf{K}}^0(X)$ and has $(c_1,c_2,c_3) = (h,0,0)$, where $h$ is the hyperplane section of $X \subset {\mathbf{P}}^4$. But $h^3 = 5 \in H^6(X,{\mathbf{Z}})$, which is nonzero in $H^6(X,{\mathbf{Z}}/2)$.
Conjectures {#sec:three}
===========
It should be possible to choose the isomorphisms to intertwine additional structures on $X$ and $\hat{X}$.
$K$-homology
------------
In fact is expected for any mirror pair of Calabi-Yau manifolds of odd complex dimension. If $X$ and $\hat{X}$ have even complex dimension, then we expect ${\mathbf{K}}^i(X) \cong {\mathbf{K}}^i(\hat{X})$ for $i = 0,1$. I think the right way to organize these expectations is as an equivalence of ${\mathbf{K}}$-module spectra: $$\label{eq:spectrum}
\Sigma^{-n} {\mathbf{K}}[X] \cong {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{X}}$$ where $n$ is the complex dimension of $X$, $\Sigma$ denotes suspension, ${\mathbf{K}}[?]$ denotes the $K$-homology spectrum and ${\mathbf{K}}^?$ denotes the $K$-cohomology spectrum. The $K$-homology and $K$-cohomology of a compact almost complex manifold are naturally identified, and ${\mathbf{K}}$-theory is $2$-periodic, so implies by taking homotopy groups. Two ${\mathbf{K}}$-module spectra are isomorphic if and only if their homotopy groups are isomorphic, so the converse is true as well. But using $K$-homology in place of $K$-cohomology seems to go with the grain of homological mirror symmetry, in a way that we will explain.
The large volume and large complex structure limits {#subsec:lvllcsl}
---------------------------------------------------
For the rest of the paper we will be treating the symplectic geometry of $X$ and the complex geometry of $\hat{X}$. And we will assume that the symplectic form on $X$ has integral cohomology class $[\omega] \in H^2(X;{\mathbf{Z}})$. The isomorphism class of line bundles whose Chern class is $[\omega]$ gives a unit in ${\mathbf{K}}^0(X) := \pi_0({\mathbf{K}}^X)$, and (using the ${\mathbf{K}}^X$-module structure on ${\mathbf{K}}[X]$) a homotopy class of automorphisms of ${\mathbf{K}}[X]$. The corresponding homotopy class of automorphisms of ${\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{X}}$ is a monodromy operator one obtains by putting $\hat{X}$ in a family $\hat{X}_t$, where $t$ runs through a punctured disk.
The Seidel strategy [@Seidel] for proving HMS is to prove it first in a limit — one takes a hyperplane section $D$ of the line bundle on $X$, and the special fiber $\hat{X}_0$ at the center of the family $\hat{X}_t$, so that there is a mirror relationship between $X -D$ and $\hat{X}_0$. $X-D$ is called the “large volume limit” and $\hat{X}_0$ is called the “large complex structure limit” of the mirror pair. In such a case I conjecture (I am not sure how originally) that $$\label{eq:at-limit}
\Sigma^{-n} {\mathbf{K}}[X-D] \cong {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{X}_0}$$ as ${\mathbf{K}}$-modules. For the noncompact $X-D$ or the singular $\hat{X}_0$, it is now necessary to pay attention to the difference between ${\mathbf{K}}$-homology and ${\mathbf{K}}$-cohomology.
[**Example.**]{} The case when $\hat{X} \subset {\mathbf{C}}P^{n+1}$ is a degree $n+2$ hypersurface furnishes a standard example. A mirror $X$ to $\hat{X}$ is obtained by resolving the singularities of an anticanonical hypersurface in a weighted projective $(n+1)$-space. The limits $X -D$ and $\hat{X}_0$ can be described directly: $X -D \subset (\mathbf{C}^*)^{n+1}$ is any sufficiently generic hypersurface whose Newton polytope is the standard reflexive lattice simplex, e.g. $$\label{eq:dual-ntic}
X-D := W^{-1}(0), \quad W:(x_0,\ldots,x_n) \mapsto x_0 + \cdots + x_n + \frac{1}{x_0\cdots x_n} - 1$$ and $\hat{X}_0$ is the union of the coordinate hyperplanes $$\label{eq:ntic}
\hat{X}_0 := \{[x_0,\ldots,x_n] \in \mathbf{C}P^{n+1} \mid x_0 \cdots x_n = 0\}$$ For these examples, can be deduced from a similar equivalence $$\label{eq:LG}
\Sigma^{-n-1} {\mathbf{K}}[({\mathbf{C}}^*)^{n+1},W^{-1}(0)] \cong {\mathbf{K}}^{\mathbf{C}P^{n+1}}$$ and from the long exact sequence of a pair. The left-hand side of denotes the $K$-homology of the pair $(({\mathbf{C}}^*)^{n+1},W^{-1}(0))$, which has the same homotopy type as a bouquet of spheres — one $(n+1)$-sphere for each critical point of $W$. Note that can be seen as a third variant of , as $(({\mathbf{C}}^*)^{n+1},W)$ is the Landau-Ginzburg mirror to projective space).
$T$-duality {#subsec:T-duality}
-----------
Homotopy classes of maps $\Sigma^{-n} {\mathbf{K}}[X] \to {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{X}}$ are naturally identified with classes in the $n$th $K$-cohomology group ${\mathbf{K}}^n(X \times \hat{X})$. So if one wants to prove that $\Sigma^{-n} {\mathbf{K}}[X]$ and ${\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{X}}$ are isomorphic, one should investigate classes in ${\mathbf{K}}^n(X \times \hat{X})$. §\[subsec:Pe-bundle\] gives the example at the heart of SYZ — a distinguished isomorphism class of line bundles on $T \times \hat{T}$ that (regarded as an element of ${\mathbf{K}}^0(T \times \hat{T})$ induces an isomorphism $$\label{eq:KUT-duality}
{\mathbf{K}}[T] \cong {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{T}}$$ when $T$ and $\hat{T}$ are dual tori.
When $X$ and $\hat{X}$ are mirror Calabi-Yaus of real dimension $2n$, fibering over the same base $B$ with dual torus fibers, this suggests that ${\mathbf{K}}[X]$ and ${\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{X}}$ could be identified by a virtual vector bundle on $X \times_B \hat{X}$ whose restriction to each fiber gives — a “Poincaré bundle.” The primary obstacle to doing this is that it is not clear what this virtual “bundle” should look like on singular fibers. Indeed it should not be a bundle at all, but a class in $K$-homology ${\mathbf{K}}_{3n}(X \times_B \hat{X})$ — this group has a pushforward map to ${\mathbf{K}}_{3n}(X \times \hat{X})$, which is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{K}}^n(X \times \hat{X})$ using the ${\mathbf{K}}$-orientations of $X$ and $\hat{X}$.
Even after discarding the singular fibers, or when they are just absent, there may be a Leray obstruction to finding the Poincaré bundle. In the flat cases of §\[sec:two\], this was simple but not exactly tautological. At the large volume/large complex structure limit, the singular fibers can disappear, so that every fiber is a smooth torus (though the dimensions of these tori can jump); more precisely one can in some cases [@RSTZ] write $X - D$ as the homotopy colimit of a diagram of commutative Lie groups and homomorphisms, and $\hat{X}_0$ as the homotopy colimit of the diagram of dual groups (perhaps orbifolds), in this generality the Leray obstruction might be interesting.
As to singular fibers, it’s been known for a long time what the necessary class in ${\mathbf{K}}_{3n}$ looks like when $n = 2$, by hyperkahler rotating until $X \times_B \hat{X} \subset X \times \hat{X}$ is algebraic [@k3; @BrMa]. For higher even $n$, finding these Poincaré bundles is a more difficult algebraic geometry problem, even when the same hyperkahler techniques are available [@Arinkin; @ADM]. In general, especially for $n$ odd, the class in ${\mathbf{K}}_{3n}(X \times_B \hat{X})$ cannot be algebraic; it would be interesting to describe it when $X \to B$ and $\hat{X} \to B$ are a dual pair of Gross’s “well-behaved” singular $T^3$-fibrations [@Gross].
Blanc’s invariant
-----------------
In [@Blanc], Blanc showed how to compute the topological $K$-theory ${\mathbf{K}}^Y$ of a complex algebraic variety $Y$ in a noncommutative fashion — that is, Blanc introduced an invariant ${\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{Blanc}}}({\mathcal{C}}) \in {\mathrm{Mod}}({\mathbf{K}})$ for a ${\mathbf{C}}$-linear dg category ${\mathcal{C}}$, and showed $$\label{eq:blanc}
{\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{Blanc}}}({\mathrm{Perf}}(Y)) \cong {\mathbf{K}}^Y$$ It is desirable to understand Blanc’s invariant for categories arising from symplectic manifolds — Fukaya categories and microlocal sheaf categories. When $X$ is compact, Kähler with integer Kähler class, and Calabi-Yau, then Ganatra has conjectured that ${\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{Blanc}}}({\mathrm{Fuk}}(X))$ recovers the complex $K$-theory of $X$ whenever ${\mathrm{Fuk}}(X)$ is smooth and proper. The last condition is motivated by results of [@Toen] (which state that when $Y$ is a compact complex manifold, ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Y)$ is smooth and proper if and only if $Y$ is algebraic) and the failure of for complex analytic manifolds that are not algebraic.
There is a basic problem with formulating Ganatra’s conjecture precisely, or formulating any question about ${\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{Blanc}}}({\mathrm{Fuk}}(X))$ at all. The Fukaya category of a symplectic manifold is not automatically defined over the complex numbers, but over a large Novikov field (we will call it $\mathfrak{N}$).
Achinger-Talpo and Blanc’s invariant for ${\mathbf{C}}((t))$-linear categories {#subsec:achtal}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ${\mathbf{C}}$-linear structure on a dg category ${\mathcal{C}}$ enters in Blanc’s construction in an essential way, but for a compact symplectic manifold it is not usually possible to reduce the linear structure of ${\mathrm{Fuk}}(X)$ from $\mathfrak{N}$ to ${\mathbf{C}}$. Recent work of Achinger-Talpo, and also of Robalo and Antieau-Heller, allow for a definition of ${\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{Blanc}}}({\mathcal{C}})$ when ${\mathcal{C}}$ is defined over ${\mathbf{C}}((t))$ — this version is adapted to Seidel’s relative Fukaya category and to Ganatra’s conjecture.
If ${\mathcal{O}}\subset {\mathbf{C}}((t))$ is the coordinate ring of an affine curve, and $Y \to {\mathrm{Spec}}({\mathcal{O}})$ is a dominant map of algebraic varieties, then ${\mathbf{K}}^{Y_a}$ has a local monodromy automorphism (call it $m$) at $t = 0$ whenever $Y_a$ is the fiber above a point $a$ close to $t = 0$. We seek a computation of the pair $({\mathbf{K}}^{Y_a},m)$ that is both noncommutative and formal, in the sense that it depends only on the ${\mathbf{C}}((t))$-linear category ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Y \times_{{\mathcal{O}}} {\mathbf{C}}((t)))$. To define such a pair $({\mathbf{K}}^{Y_a},m)$ is equivalent to defining a ${\mathbf{K}}$-module object of the $\infty$-category ${\mathcal{S}}_{/S^1}$.
For any field $F$, let ${\mathrm{MV}}_F$ denote the $\infty$-category underlying the Morel-Voevodsky model structure for ${\mathbf{A}}^1$-homotopy theory [@MV Def. 2.1]. Let ${\mathrm{MV}}_F[({\mathbf{P}}^1)^{-1}]$ denote the stable $\infty$-category underlying the Morel-Voevodsky model category of motivic spectra over $F$ ([@Voevodsky Def. 5.7] or [@Robalo Def. 2.38]). If $D$ is an $F$-linear triangulated dg category, let ${\mathbf{k}_{\mathrm{mot}}}(D) \in {\mathrm{MV}}_F[({\mathbf{P}}^1)^{-1}]$ denote the motivic refinement of the algebraic $K$-theory spectrum (as in [@AnHe Prop. 3.2]. An embedding $F \to {\mathbf{C}}$ induces a functor (preserving direct products and all small colimits) $$b^*:{\mathrm{MV}}_F \to {\mathcal{S}}$$ where ${\mathcal{S}}$ denotes the $\infty$-category of spaces, and a similar functor on spectra that we will also denote by $b^*$ ($b$ for “Betti”). When $F = {\mathbf{C}}$, the Blanc $K$-theory of $D$ is ${\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{Blanc}}}(D) := {\mathbf{K}}\otimes_{\mathbf{ku}} b^*{\mathbf{k}_{\mathrm{mot}}}(D)$, where ${\mathbf{ku}}$ denotes the connective complex $K$-theory spectrum.
There is a functor ${\mathrm{MV}}_{\mathbf{C}((t))} \to {\mathcal{S}}_{/S^1}$ making the following diagram commute: $$\xymatrix{
{\mathrm{MV}}_{{\mathbf{C}}} \ar[r]^-{b^*} \ar[d]_-{\times_{{\mathbf{C}}} {\mathbf{C}}((t))} & {\mathcal{S}}\ar[d]^-{\times S^1} \\
{\mathrm{MV}}_{{\mathbf{C}}((t))} \ar[r]_-{b_t^*} & {\mathcal{S}}_{/S^1}
}$$
The functor $b_t^*$ carries the Morel-Voevodsky space ${\mathbf{Z}}\times B\mathrm{GL} \in {\mathrm{MV}}_{{\mathbf{C}}((t))}$ [@MV p. 138] representing algebraic $K$-theory to ${\mathbf{Z}}\times \mathrm{BU} \times S^1$. It also carries ${\mathbf{P}}^1$ to $S^2 \times S^1$, and so induces a map to spectra in ${\mathcal{S}}_{/S^1}$. Thus one can define the Blanc $K$-theory of a ${\mathbf{C}}((t))$-linear category ${\mathcal{C}}$ to be $${\mathbf{K}}\otimes_{\mathbf{ku}} b_t^*{\mathbf{k}_{\mathrm{mot}}}({\mathcal{C}})$$
Doing without Blanc’s invariant {#subsec:dowithout}
-------------------------------
Like any spectrum, ${\mathbf{K}}^Y$ fits into Sullivan’s arithmetic square ([@Sullivan Prop. 3.20] or [@Bousfield Prop. 2.9]) $$\label{eq:sullivan}
\xymatrix{
{\mathbf{K}}^Y \ar[r] \ar[d] & \ar[d] \prod_p L_{\hat{p}} {\mathbf{K}}^Y \\
L_{{\mathbf{Q}}} {\mathbf{K}}^Y \ar[r] & L_{{\mathbf{Q}}} \prod_p L_{\hat{p}} {\mathbf{K}}^Y
}$$ which is homotopy Cartesian. Here $L_{{\mathbf{Q}}}$ denotes the rationalization and $L_{\hat{p}}$ the $p$-completion of a spectrum. Thomason’s descent theorem shows that, when $Y$ is a complex algebraic variety, $L_{\hat{p}}{\mathbf{K}}^Y$ can be recovered from the algebraic $K$-theory spectrum of ${\mathrm{Perf}}(Y)$: $$\label{eq:thomason}
L_{\hat{p}} {\mathbf{K}}^Y \cong L_{K(1),p} {\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{alg}}}({\mathrm{Perf}}(Y))$$ From this point of view, Blanc’s theorem is equivalent to a “noncommutative” construction of $L_{{\mathbf{Q}}} {\mathbf{K}}^Y$ and of the map $L_{{\mathbf{Q}}} {\mathbf{K}}^Y \to L_{{\mathbf{Q}}} \prod_p L_{K(1),p} {\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{alg}}}({\mathrm{Perf}}(Y))$. If one is merely interested in the isomorphism type of ${\mathbf{K}}^Y$, then Thomason allows it to be recovered from ${\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{alg}}}({\mathrm{Perf}}(Y))$ only.
If ${\mathcal{C}}$ is linear over an algebraically closed extension of ${\mathbf{C}}$, and $p$ is any prime, then $L_{K(1),p} {\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{alg}}}({\mathcal{C}})$ is a $L_{\hat{p}} {\mathbf{K}}$-module in a natural way. So a weaker form of Ganatra’s conjecture can be formulated without invoking any form of Blanc’s construction, this way: if $X$ is a compact symplectic manifold of dimension $2n$, with a smooth and proper $\mathfrak{N}$-linear Fukaya category, then for every prime $p$ the pair of $L_{\hat{p}} {\mathbf{K}}$-module spectra $$L_{K(1),p} {\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{alg}}}({\mathrm{Fuk}}(X)) \text{ and } \Sigma^{-n} L_{\hat{p}} {\mathbf{K}}[X]$$ are isomorphic. Maybe it’s appropriate to call the desired equivalence of spectra a homological mirror analog of Thomason’s .
The Euler pairings
------------------
Let $\psi^{-1}:{\mathbf{K}}\to {\mathbf{K}}$ denote the natural $E_{\infty}$-ring map that carries a virtual vector space to its complex conjugate. It induces an autoequivalence on ${\mathrm{Mod}}({\mathbf{K}})$, the $\infty$-category of ${\mathbf{K}}$-modules.
The $2n$-manifolds $X$ and $\hat{X}$ have distinguished ${\mathbf{K}}$-orientations — that is, there is a distinguished class in ${\mathbf{K}}_{2n}(X)$ and in ${\mathbf{K}}_{2n}(\hat{X})$ that maps to a generator of ${\mathbf{K}}_{2n}(X,X - x_0)$ and of ${\mathbf{K}}_{2n}(\hat{X},\hat{X} - x_0)$. Denote these classes by $[X]$ and $[\hat{X}]$ — one is determined by the complex structure on $\hat{X}$ and the other by any choice of compatible almost complex structure on $X$. The action of the line bundle fixes $[X]$ and the action of the monodromy operator fixes $[\hat{X}]$. They induce a further structure on $\Sigma^{-n}{\mathbf{K}}[X]$ and ${\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{X}}$, namely the “Euler pairings” $$(\psi^{-1} \Sigma^{-n} {\mathbf{K}}[X]) \otimes_{{\mathbf{K}}} \Sigma^{-n} {\mathbf{K}}[X] \to {\mathbf{K}}\qquad (\psi^{-1} {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{X}}) \otimes_{{\mathbf{K}}} {\mathbf{K}}^{\hat{X}} \to \Sigma^{-2n} {\mathbf{K}}$$ Under and the desired equivalence between $\Sigma^{-n} {\mathbf{K}}[X]$ and the Blanc $K$-theory of ${\mathrm{Fuk}}(X)$, these maps should be induced by the Hom structures on these categories, suggesting the purely topological problem of choosing so that the pairings match. On $\pi_0$ this problem is closely related to Iritani’s $\Gamma$-conjectures, or to the rationality question of [@KKP §2.2.7].
If $M_1$ and $M_2$ are ${\mathbf{K}}$-module spectra, write $B_n(M_1,M_2)$ for the spectrum of maps from $(\psi^{-1} M_1) \otimes M_2$ to $\Sigma^{-n} {\mathbf{K}}$. This is a nondegenerate symmetric bilinear spectrum-valued functor on ${\mathrm{Mod}}({\mathbf{K}})$, it would be interesting to know the $L$-theory of $B_n$.
Exact manifolds {#subsec:exact-manifolds}
---------------
If $X$ is a Weinstein manifold, a version of the Fukaya category generated by exact Lagrangian submanifolds is naturally defined over any coefficient ring (not just for $\mathfrak{N}$-algebras). The same is true for the category of sheaves with a microsupport condition (my comfort zone). In either case the coefficient ring can be taken to be ${\mathbf{C}}$ and one may apply Blanc’s construction without worrying about the Novikov parameter. I propose the following analogue of Ganatra’s conjecture:
Let $Q$ be a $d$-dimensional $\mathrm{Spin}^c$-manifold, let $\Lambda \subset T^* Q$ be a conic Lagrangian, and let $U$ be an open subset of $Q$. Let ${\mathrm{Sh}}_{\Lambda}^w(U,{\mathbf{C}}) \subset {\mathrm{Sh}}(U,{\mathbf{C}})$ be Nadler’s wrapped variant [@N-wrapped] of the category of sheaves with microsupport in $\Lambda$.
1. There is a natural map $$\label{eq:conj}
\Sigma^{-d} {\mathbf{K}}[T^* U,T^* U - \Lambda] \to {\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{Blanc}}}({\mathrm{Sh}}_{\Lambda}^w(U,{\mathbf{C}})),$$ that is covariantly functorial for open embeddings
2. Whenever ${\mathrm{Sh}}_{\Lambda}^w(U,{\mathbf{C}})$ is homologically smooth and proper, is an isomorphism.
I expect that one can formulate a similar conjecture for the wrapped and partially wrapped Fukaya categories of a Weinstein manifold $X$ — a natural map $$\Sigma^{-d} {\mathbf{K}}^{\eta}[X,X -\Lambda]) \to {\mathbf{K}}({\mathrm{Fuk}}_{\Lambda}^w(X))$$ where $\Lambda$ is the skeleton and $\eta$ is a twisting parameter, presumably trivialized on the cotangent bundle of a $\mathrm{Spin}^c$-manifold.
String topology
---------------
Known results on homological mirror symmetry for toric varieties [@Kuwagaki], combined with computations like give an indurect route to equivalences $$\label{eq:cannot-hold}
{\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{Blanc}}}({\mathrm{Sh}}_\Lambda^w(Q;\mathbf{C})) \cong \Sigma^{-d} {\mathbf{K}}[T^*Q,T^* Q - \Lambda]$$ in some examples where $Q$ is a compact torus. But the case where $Q$ is arbitrary and $\Lambda = Q$ is the zero section (we may call this the “string topology case” after [@Abouzaid2]) shows that cannot hold in general. Let us discuss this class of examples in more detail.
If $\Lambda \subset T^* Q$ is the zero section, then ${\mathrm{Sh}}^w_{\Lambda}(Q;\mathbf{C})$ is naturally equivalent to the category of left dg-modules over $$\label{eq:COQ}
{\mathbf{C}}[\Omega Q] := C_*(\Omega Q;{\mathbf{C}})$$ the ${\mathbf{C}}$-valued chains on the based loop space of $Q$. This quasi-isomorphism type of this algebra knows the rational homotopy type of $Q$, but nothing more, so one cannot expect to recover from it the $K$-theory of $Q$.
Nevertheless, the *algebraic* $K$-theory of ${\mathbf{C}}[\Omega Q]$ is a variant of Waldhausen’s $A$-theory of $Q$, and is the target of an assembly map [@Waldhausen §3.2]. More generally, for any ring or ring spectrum $R$ there is a natural map $$\label{eq:waldhausen}
{\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{alg}}}(R)[Q] \to {\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{alg}}}(R[\Omega Q])$$ Letting $R$ run through ${\mathbf{C}}$-algebras and taking realizations should produce a map ${\mathbf{K}}[Q] \to {\mathbf{K}_{\mathrm{Blanc}}}({\mathbf{C}}[\Omega Q])$. A ${\mathrm{Spin}}^c$-structure on $Q$ gives an identification of ${\mathbf{K}}[Q]$ with ${\mathbf{K}}[T^* Q, T^*Q - Q]$, the domain of .
In Waldhausen’s setting, the failure of the assembly map to be an isomorphism is very interesting. When $R$ is the sphere spectrum, the cone on (whose codomain is called the $A$-theory of $Q$) is Hatcher’s “Whitehead spectrum” [@Hatcher] that encodes the higher simple homotopy of $Q$, see [@Waldhausen] and Lurie’s notes available at [math.harvard.edu/\~lurie/281.html](math.harvard.edu/~lurie/281.html). When $R$ is a ${\mathbf{C}}$-algebra, or anything else, I don’t know if there is a similar interpretation.
Speculation about the length filtration {#subsec:metric}
---------------------------------------
I wonder whether one could recover the complex $K$-theory of an exact manifold from a suitable absolute version of the Fukaya category, even if this category is not homologically smooth. (“Absolute” means “not relative,” i.e. not defined over ${\mathbf{C}}$ or ${\mathbf{C}}((t))$ but only over the full Novikov field.) It would require a version of Blanc’s construction that treats the Novikov parameter in a more interesting way than §\[subsec:achtal\]–§\[subsec:dowithout\], and one could hope that in this more interesting treatment the assembly map would become an isomorphism. I will explain what I mean by making an explicit string-topology-style conjecture along these lines. I have no evidence for it, but I will make some remarks after stating the conjecture.
Let $Q$ be a Riemannian manifold, and let $\Omega_{q_0} Q$ be the space of rectifiable loops in $Q$ that start and end at a basepoint $q_0$. We will treat the basepoint a little more carefully than at the end of §\[subsec:exact-manifolds\], in order to make a point about it later. The metric endows the chain algebra ${\mathbf{C}}[\Omega_{q_0} Q]$ with an ${\mathbf{R}}$-indexed filtration: for each $t \in {\mathbf{R}}$ we let $F_{<t} \Omega_{q_0} Q \subset \Omega_{q_0} Q$ denote the space of loops of length less than $t$, and put $$F_{<t} {\mathbf{C}}[\Omega_{q_0} Q] := {\mathbf{C}}[F_{<t} \Omega_{q_0} Q]$$
Let $(Q,q_0)$ and $(Q',q'_0)$ be compact, pointed Riemannian manifolds and suppose that there is a quasi-isomorphism of dg algebras $$\label{eq:iso-lakt}
C_*(\Omega_{q_0} Q,{\mathbf{C}}) \cong C_*(\Omega_{q'_0} Q',{\mathbf{C}})$$ that for all $t$ carries $F_{<t} C_*(\Omega_{q_0} Q;{\mathbf{C}})$ quasi-isomorphically to $F_{<t} C_*(\Omega_{q'_0} Q';{\mathbf{C}})$ $$\label{eq:iso-lakt-filt}
C_*(\Omega_{q_0} Q;{\mathbf{C}}) \xrightarrow{\sim} C_*(\Omega_{q'_0} Q';{\mathbf{C}})$$ Then ${\mathbf{K}}_*(Q) \cong {\mathbf{K}}_*(Q')$.
A suitable Rees construction on the filtered dg algebra $F_{<\bullet}{\mathbf{C}}[\Omega_{q_0} Q]$ might give an $\mathfrak{N}$-algebra that generates the absolute wrapped Fukaya category of the unit disk bundle in $T^* Q$. The real conjecture, which I do not know how to formula precisely, is that there is a procedure similar to Blanc’s for extracting a ${\mathbf{K}}$-module from such a category, and that on the Fukaya category of the disk bundle of a Riemannian (or merely Finsler?) $Q$, it outputs the $K$-homology of $Q$. (In particular, the notion of equivalence used in is stronger than necessary: a Morita-style notion would be more appropriate. For instance if $q_0$ and $q_1$ are different points of $Q$, there is not likely to be any quasi-isomorphism between ${\mathbf{C}}[\Omega_{q_0} Q]$ and ${\mathbf{C}}[\Omega_{q_1} Q]$ that preserves lengths, but the length-filtered space of paths from $q_0$ to $q_1$ could provide the Morita equivalence.)
Let us give a reason to doubt the conjecture, followed by something more optimistic. If $Q$ is simply-connected, one recovers ${\mathbf{C}}[\Omega_q Q]$, up to quasi-isomorphism, as the cobar construction of the coalgebra of chains on $Q$ [@JMoore §2]. The cobar construction has a natural filtration which seems to “coarsely” recover the legnth filtration on ${\mathbf{C}}[\Omega_q Q]$, regardless of the metric. Under the identification with the cobar complex of ${\mathbf{C}}[Q]$, the loops of metric length $m$ are sandwiched between the cobars of word length $b_1 m$ and $b_2 m$, where $b_1$ and $b_2$ are constants independent of $m$. So any way of recovering the $K$-theory of $Q$ would require knowledge of the exact numerical values of the breaks in the ${\mathbf{R}}$-indexed filtration.
These breaks in the length filtration are a kind of homological, based version of the length spectrum of the metric. The genuine length spectrum is known to recover the Laplace eigenvalues of $Q$, if the metric is generic [@DuistermaatGuillemin]. Bergeron and Venkatesh have observed that similar spectral data can see a little bit of the homotopy type of $Q$ beyond the rational homotopy type [@BeVe]. Specifically the Cheeger-Muller theorem gives a formula for the alternating product $$\label{eq:tors-prod}
\prod_i \#\mathrm{tors}H^i(Q;{\mathbf{Z}})^{(-1)^i}$$ in terms of the Laplace-de Rham eigenvalues and the volumes of the images of $H^i(Q;{\mathbf{Z}})$ in the spaces of harmonic $i$-forms. In another “coarse” sense, (perhaps a related one?) these eigenvalues are given by the Weyl law — it is their exact numerical values that are needed to recover .
[**Example.**]{} Let $Q$ be a nontrivial $\mathrm{SU}(2)$-bundle over $S^4$. Any degree one map $Q \to S^7$ induces a quasi-isomorphism $$\label{eq:S7example}
{\mathbf{C}}[\Omega_{q_0} Q] \cong {\mathbf{C}}[\Omega_{x_0} S^7].$$ But if the Chern class of the bundle is $m \geq 2$, there is a little bit of torsion in the $K$-theory of $Q$: ${\mathbf{K}}_1(Q) = {\mathbf{Z}}\oplus {\mathbf{Z}}/m$ (while ${\mathbf{K}}_0(Q) = {\mathbf{Z}}$, and ${\mathbf{K}}_0(S^7) = {\mathbf{K}}_1(S^7) = {\mathbf{Z}}$). The conjecture predicts that there is no metric on $Q$ for which preserves the length filtration. The possibly spurious comparison made in the remarks above is that, since $\eqref{eq:tors-prod} = m$, the Laplace-de Rham spectra of $Q$ and of $S^7$ are never exactly the same for any choice of metrics.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
----------------
I thank Mohammed Abouzaid and Sheel Ganatra for sharing their ideas about the $K$-theory of Fukaya categories, Piotr Achinger and Mattias Talpo for their paper about ${\mathbf{C}}((t))$-schemes, and Nick Addington and Ben Antieau for some corrections and other advice. I have also benefited from discussions with Ron Donagi, Mauricio Romo, Paul Seidel, Jake Solomon, Semon Rezchikov, and Arnav Tripathy. I was supported by NSF-DMS-1811971.
[99]{} M. Abouzaid, “Homological mirror symmetry without corrections,” (2017) M. Abouzaid, “On the wrapped Fukaya category and based loops,” J. Symplectic Geom. (2012) P. Achinger and M. Talpo, “Betti realization of varieties defined by formal Laurent series” (2019) N. Addington, “The Brauer group is not a derived invariant,” Birkhauser Progr. Math. (2017). N. Addington, W. Donovan, C. Meachan, “Moduli spaces of torsion sheaves on K3 surfaces and derived equivalences” J. London Math. Soc. (2016)
B. Antieau and J. Heller, “Some remarks on topological $K$-theory of dg categories,” Proc. AMS (2018). D. Arinkin, “Autoduality of compactified Jacobians for curves with plane singularities,” J. Alg. Geom. (2013) M. Atiyah, “Analytic cycles on complex manifolds” (1962) M. Atiyah and F. Hirzebruch, “Vector bundles and homogeneous spaces” (1961) V. Batyrev and M. Kreuzer, “Integral cohomology and mirror symmetry for Calabi-Yau 3-folds,” (2005) C. Bartocci, U. Bruzzo, D. Hernández-Rupiérez, and J. Muñoz-Porras, “Mirror symmetry on K3 surfaces via Fourier-Mukai transform” (1997) N. Bergeron and A. Venkatesh, “Asymptotic growth of torsion homology for arithmetic groups” (2010) A. Blanc, “Topological $K$-theory of noncommutative spaces,” Comp. Math. (2016) L. Borisov, L. Chen, and G. Smith, “The orbifold Chow ring of toric Deligne-Mumford stacks,” JAMS 2004. V. Braun, M. Cvetic, R. Donagi and M. Poretschkin, (2017) T. Bridgeland and A. Maciocia, “Complex surfaces with equivalent derived cate- gories,” Math Z. (2001) Brunner and J. Distler, “Torsion $D$-branes in non-geometrical phases,” (2001) A. Bousfield, “The localization of spectra with respect to homology,” Topology (1979) R. Charney and R. Lee. “On a theorem of Giffen.” Michigan Math. J. (1986) K. Dekimpe, M. Halenda, and A. Szczepanski, “Kähler flat manifolds”, J. Math. Soc. Japan, (2009) R. Donagi and E. Sharpe, “Global moduli of Calabi-Yau 3-folds”, (2017) R. Donagi and K. Wendland, “On orbifolds and free fermion constructions,” J. Geom. Phys. (2009)
C. Doran and J. Morgan, “Algebraic topology of Calabi-Yau threefolds in toric varieties,” Geom. Topol. (2011)
J. Duistermaat and V. Guillemin, “The spectrum of positive elliptic operators and periodic bicharacteristics,” Invent. Math. (1975) M. Gross “Topological mirror symmetry,” Invent Math (2001) A. Hatcher, “Higher simple homotopy theory”, Ann. Math. (1975) W. Hantzsche and H. Wendt, “Dreidimensionale euklidische Raumformen”, Math. Ann. (1935) L. Katzarkov, M. Kontsevich, T. Pantev, “Hodge theoretic aspects of mirror symmetry,” (2008) T. Kuwagaki, “The nonequivariant coherent-constructible correspondence for toric stacks,” (2016) H. Lange, “Hyperelliptic varieties”, Tohoku Math J. (2001). J. Lurie “Higher topos theory,” (2009) R. Minasian and G. Moore, “$K$-theory and Ramond-Ramond charge,” JHEP (1997) G. Moore, “$K$-theory from a physical perspective.” (2003) J. Moore, “Differential homological algebra,” ICM (1970) F. Morel and V. Voevodsky “${\mathbf{A}}^1$-homotopy theory of schemes,” Publ. Math. IHES (1999) D. Nadler, “Wrapped microlocal sheaves on pairs of pants” (2016) M. Robalo, “$K$-theory and the bridge from motives to noncommutative motives,” Adv. Math. (2015) Ruddat Sibilla Treumann Zaslow, “Skeleta of affine hypersurfaces” (2014) P. Seidel “Homological mirror symmetry for the quartic surface,” (2003) D. Sullivan, “Localization, periodicity, and Galois symmetry,” (1970) R. Thomason, “Algebraic $K$-theory and étale cohomology,” B. Toën and M. Vaquié, “Algébrisation des variétés analytiques complexes et catégories dérivées,” Math. Ann (2008) V. Voevodsky, “${\mathbf{A}}^1$-homotopy theory,” ICM address (1998) F. Waldhausen, “Algebraic $K$-theory of spaces,” Springer LNM 1126, (1985) E. Witten, “$D$-branes and $K$-theory” (1998) J. Wolf, “Spaces of constant curvature”
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We present a comprehensive study of the stellar population and the interstellar medium in NGC6822 using high-quality [H[i]{} ]{}data (obtained with the Australia Telescope Compact Array) and optical broad/narrow-band data (obtained with Subaru and the INT). Our H$\alpha$ observations are an order of magnitude deeper than previous studies and reveal a complex filamentary network covering almost the entire central disk of NGC6822. We find hitherto unknown H[ii]{} regions in the outskirts of NGC6822 and the companion galaxy. The old and intermediate age stellar population can be traced out to radii of over 0.6$^\circ$ ($> 5$ kpc), significantly more extended than the HI disk. In sharp contrast, the distribution of the young, blue stars, closely follows the distribution of the [H[i]{} ]{}disk and displays a highly structured morphology.
We find evidence for an older stellar population in the companion galaxy – the current star formation activity, although likely to have been triggered by the interaction with NGC6822, is not the first star formation episode in this object. We show that the properties of the giant kpc-sized hole in the outer [H[i]{} ]{}disk of NGC 6822 are consistent with it being formed by the effects of stellar evolution.
author:
- 'W.J.G. de Blok'
- 'F. Walter'
title: The stellar population and interstellar medium in NGC 6822
---
Introduction
============
Dwarf irregular galaxies are ideal laboratories to study galaxy evolution. Their relatively simple structure, without dominant spiral arms, bulges, and other complicating properties make it more straight-forward to study the various physical processes related to star formation occuring in these galaxies. Their low metallicities and gas-richness suggest that they are still in an early stage of their conversion from gas into stars.
NGC6822 is one of the closest gas-rich dwarfs in the Local Group. Discovered by @barnard, it was studied in detail by [@hubble] who showed that its distance placed it well outside our Milky Way galaxy, making NGC 6822 the first object to be recognized as an “extra-galactic” system (see also @perrine22). NGC6822 is not associated with any of the subgroups in the Local Group [@mateo98; @vandenbergh99] but is a member of an extended cloud of irregulars known as the “Local Group Cloud” [@mateo98].
Due to the small distance of $490\pm 40$ kpc [@mateo98] the galaxy appears very extended on the sky: its optical angular diameter is over a quarter of a degree; the H[i]{} disk measures close to a degree [@deblokwalter00]. The galaxy has a total luminosity of $M_B\!=\!-15.8$ [@hodge91] and a total H[i]{} mass of $1.3 \times 10^8\ M_{\odot}$ (@deblokwalter00; this work), making it relatively gas-rich. It is a metal poor galaxy, with an ISM abundance of about 0.2 $Z_{\odot}$ [@evan89] and has a star formation rate of $\sim
0.06\ M_{\odot}{\rm yr}^{-1}$ (based on H$\alpha$ and FIR fluxes; @mateo98 [@israel]). @hodge80 found evidence for increased star formation between 75 and 100 Myr ago, while @gallart2 showed that the star formation in NGC 6822 increased by a factor of 2 to 6 between 100 and 200 Myr ago. @wyder, from HST imaging, found a spatially variable recent star formation rate in the central parts of NGC 6822. This is all consistent with the mostly constant but stochastic recent star formation histories often derived for dwarf and LSB galaxies. NGC 6822 can be regarded as a rather average and quiescent dwarf irregular galaxy.
Recent optical studies have concentrated on the extended stellar disk of NGC 6822. @deblokwalter03, @letarte03 and @komiyama03 all found that the stellar disk of NGC 6822 extends much further out than the conventional optical appearance suggests. Significant numbers of young stars were found throughout the entire [H[i]{} ]{}disk. Its inclination, gas-richness and proximity make it an ideal candidate for studying the rotation curve, dark matter content [@weldrake03] and relation between the stellar population and gaseous ISM. This is a major motivation for this study of the stellar populations and neutral interstellar medium of NGC6822.
In this paper we present the full [H[i]{} ]{}data set used earlier in @deblokwalter00 and @deblokwalter03. We re-analyse the Subaru optical data sets described in @komiyama03, reaching significantly fainter limiting magnitudes. We discuss the distribution of the old and young stellar populations, and find that NGC 6822 is surrounded by a stellar halo measuring at least a degree in extent. We discuss new deep, wide-field H$\alpha$ images of the entire [H[i]{} ]{}disk, and find several faint hitherto unknown H[ii]{} regions in the outer parts of NGC 6822, including in the NW cloud and on the far rim of the giant hole. Finally, we study the stellar population in the giant hole and find clear evidence for an age gradient, consistent with the idea that star formation is capable of forming giant kpc-sized holes in the ISM. In a companion paper \[de Blok & Walter 2005 (Paper II)\] we use the data sets presented here to study in detail the star formation threshold in NGC 6822.
In Sections 2, 3 and 4 we describe the various data sets used. Section 5 deals with the stellar populations in NGC 6822, and their relative distributions. There we also discuss the properties of the NW cloud as well as the evolutionary history of the prominent super-giant shell. In Sect. 6 we summarise our results.
HI Observations
===============
Single Dish
-----------
NGC6822 was observed on 16 December 1998 using the ATNF Parkes single-dish telescope in Australia. The narrow-band back-end system [@haynes98] of the Multi-Beam system [@lss96] was used. This set-up uses the central 7 beams. A band width of 4 MHz with 1024 channels and a velocity spacing of 0.8 kms$^{-1}$ was used.
An area of $4 \times 4$ degrees was observed by scanning the telescope over the sky at a rate of 1 degree per minute, outputting 14 spectra (7 beams $\times$ 2 polarizations) every 5 seconds. Frequency switching was used to determine the bandpass correction. The system temperature was 24 K.
The individual bandpass-corrected single-beam, single-polarization spectra were gridded into a data cube of 4.5 $\times$ 4.5 degrees $\times$ 820 kms$^{-1}$ with a pixel size of 4$' \times 4' \times
1.6$ kms$^{-1}$. The effective beam size was 16.7$'$ (2.5kpc). The total integration time per point was $\sim 35$ s per polarization, resulting in a noise of 0.08 Jy beam$^{-1}$ per channel. The corresponding column density sensitivity is $\sim 1.0 \cdot 10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$ per 1.6 [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{} channel for emission filling the beam. These numbers are summarised in Table \[tab:noises\].
With a systemic velocity of $-55$ [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{}, the [H[i]{} ]{}emission from NGC 6822 partly overlaps with foreground Galactic emission. The velocity range from $\sim -40 {\ensuremath{\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}}}$ to the upper end of the velocity cut-off of the data cube used (at 50 [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{}) was affected by this. In the range $-14 \la V \la -3$ [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{} ($\sim$ 6 channels) the Galactic emission was strong enough to significantly hinder our ability to distinghuish the NGC 6822 signal. The strong Galactic emission profile had broad low-level velocity wings, that showed itself as a slight enhancement of the background (or rather, foreground) level of adjacent channels.
Ultimately, as we want to use this single-dish data to make a zero-spacing correction to the interferometric data described in Sect. \[sec:atcadata\], we need to remove the extra Galactic emission. The data were corrected as follows: in all channels the NGC 6822 emission was blanked, and an annulus of data surrounding the blanked emission was used to interpolate the foreground emission across the blanked area. These interpolated channel maps were subtracted from the original channel maps, leaving only the NGC 6822 signal. The limited spatial resolution of the Parkes data meant that the observed Galactic emission did not change on scales much smaller than the extent of the NGC 6822 emission in each channel, thus ensuring that no significant residuals were introduced by the fitting and subtracting procedure.
The channels between $-14$ and $-3$ [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{} were severely affected by Galactic emission (the peak flux density of the Galactic emission was generally two orders of magnitude larger than that of the NGC 6822 emission). Here we inferred the NGC 6822 emission from interpolated values using a linear fit in the spectral direction to the (foreground-corrected) emission in adjacent velocity channels. Figure \[fig:globprof\] shows the uncorrected and corrected global profiles. These, and the total fluxes will be discussed in Sect. \[sec:globprof\].
Interferometric data\[sec:atcadata\]
------------------------------------
NGC 6822 was observed in 1999 and 2000 with the Australia Telescope Compact Array ([atca]{}) in its 375, 750D, 1.5A, 6A and 6D configurations. To cover the extent of the [H[i]{} ]{}disk of NGC 6822 as derived from the single-dish data, we observed 8 pointings. These were hexagonally packed along the major axis of NGC6822. This ensured that most of the [H[i]{} ]{}disk of NGC 6822 was observed with a constant sensitivity. In all cases we used PKS B1934–638 as the primary calibrator. For the phase calibration we used PKSB 1954–388, which was observed for 5 minutes every 40 minutes. The central positions of the pointings are given in Table \[tab:atcapointings\].
The declination of NGC 6822 meant that in every observing slot the total time on source available was approximately 10 hours. We observed all pointings in mosaicking mode, taking care that the $uv$ tracks were at least Nyquist-sampled. This meant that with the 375 array all 8 pointings could be observed in one observing session. With the 750 array 4 pointings were mosaicked at once. Similarly, 2 pointings were mosaicked per slot with the 1.5 km array. Finally, with the 6 km configurations all pointings were observed individually. Details are given in Table \[tab:atcaconfig\]. The combination of all arrays gives a fairly homogeneous covering of the $uv$ plane from the shortest baseline of 30 m to the longest 6 km baseline, as Table \[tab:atcaconfig\] shows. A correlator configuration with a total bandwidth of 4 MHz and 1024 channels was used. This yields a velocity spacing between channels of 0.8 [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{}. This configuration is identical to that used for the single-dish data.
The data were checked for interference and calibrated using standard procedures in the [miriad]{} package. “Dirty” data cubes were created using the “mosaic” option available in the [miriad invert]{} task. This option results in a super-uniform weighting scheme, reducing side lobes in individual pointings prior to mosaicking.
Our highest-resolution data cube was built up in several stages. We first constructed a low-resolution cube (with a resolution equivalent to that which would have been obtained with the 375m array alone), and in this cube identified [clean]{} regions by hand, after one cycle of 2$\sigma$ clipping. The cube was then [clean]{}-ed with the [ miriad mossdi]{} task to a level of about $0.5\sigma$ using a clean beam of $396.4'' \times 96.0''$. In the following, we will indicate the various resolutions by their minor-axis beam sizes. This lowest resolution cube is thus referred to as ‘B96’.
The [clean]{}-ed B96 cube was in turn clipped at $2\sigma$, and checked for spurious noise peaks. The remaining regions were used as [clean]{} regions for the next higher resolution cube, B48. Again, [mossdi]{} was used for this. The resulting beam size was $174.7''
\times 48.0''$. The same procedure was then used to produce respectively the B24, and finally B12 cubes. We experimented with various velocity resolutions, and found that 1.6 [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{} gave the optimum balance between resolution and signal-to-noise. Clean beam sizes, and noise levels and column density sensitivities for the 1.6 [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{} cubes (which will be used in all further analysis) are given in Table \[tab:noises\].
Global [H[i]{} ]{}profile\[sec:globprof\]
-----------------------------------------
Deriving the global [H[i]{} ]{}profile of such an extended object as NGC 6822 using interferometric data is not entirely straight-forward. @jorsater pointed out that the usual procedure of measuring fluxes in a cleaned map and assuming that the clean beam applies to the whole map is not correct. Rather, a map consists of the sum of the restored clean components \[with units Jy (clean beam)$^{-1}$\] and the residual map \[with units Jy (dirty beam)$^{-1}$\]. If the map is not cleaned extremely deeply, or the dirty beam is non-gaussian, discrepancies between the true flux and the inferred flux can occur: the dirty beam usually has larger wings than the clean beam, leading to an overestimate of the flux. This is especially relevant for extended objects.
Following @jorsater we thus compute the true flux $$G = {{D \times C}\over{D-R}}$$ where $G$ is the true flux, $D$ is the flux measured in the dirty (uncleaned) maps, $C$ is the flux measured in the restored clean components map, and $R$ is the flux measured in the residual map. We computed these fluxes for every channel map at each of the four spatial resolutions, using the 1.6 [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{} cubes. Without this procedure, fluxes in individual channel maps can differ by a factor of two or more from the true flux.
Figure \[fig:globprof\] shows the various global [H[i]{} ]{}profiles. The four global profiles derived from the B96, B48, B24 and B12 data agree very well with each other, with the expected trend that the B24 and B12 data contain slightly less flux than the B96 and B48 data, as they are less sensitive to extended low column density structures.
Also shown are the profiles as derived from the single-dish data. We plot the profile corrected for Galactic emission as well as the original profile. A comparison shows that the uncorrected signal is dominated by Galactic emission from $\sim -50 {\ensuremath{\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}}}$ and upwards.
The peak seen at $\sim -50 {\ensuremath{\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}}}$ in the uncorrected profile is probably not caused by instrumental effects. The emission associated with this peak fills a large fraction of the observed field, shows structure, occurs in multiple channels and is seen to move across the field with velocity. It presumably corresponds with a Galactic [H[i]{} ]{}layer with a very low column density of $\sim 4.5 \cdot 10^{17}$ cm$^{-2}$ and a FWHM velocity width of $\sim 2 {\ensuremath{\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}}}$ (and therefore resolved in the 0.8 [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{} resolution single dish data).
The NGC 6822 single-dish flux is slightly higher than the interferometric flux, indicating that emission is present at scales larger than that detectable by the shortest baseline ($\sim 20$ m, corresponding to 36$'$: although the shortest physical baseline in Table 2 is 31 m, mosaicking decreases the effective shortest baseline to $\sim 20$ m, see @ekers). Incidentally, this makes the interferometric observations excellent filters, that remove most of the Galactic foreground emission, and elaborate procedures to remove this emission from the [atca]{} observations are not necessary.
The higher flux in the single-dish profiles is not a result of residual Galactic emission. In Fig. \[fig:globprof\] we indicate the velocity at which the Galactic emission has dropped to $1$ per cent of its peak value ($\sim 50$ Jy beam$^{-1}$), as well as the approximate velocity where the level of the Galactic emission equals 2 times the noise in the unaffected parts of the single dish cube. It is clear that the differences in flux are already present in the unaffected parts of the profile. The flux levels also agree well with those derived from HIPASS data (also plotted in Fig. \[fig:globprof\] for the unaffected part of the spectrum). Note that the HIPASS fluxes shown here are uncertain by 10 per cent or so. This is due to the HIPASS beam size changing slightly with source size and strength. In Fig. \[fig:globprof\] we have adopted the case of a strong and very ($> 60'$) extended source. See Tables 2 and 3 in @barnes01 for more details. Despite these uncertainties the single-dish fluxes agree well with each other.
Table 3 contains the fluxes and [H[i]{} ]{}masses derived for the various data sets. We can put the following constraints on the [H[i]{} ]{}mass of NGC 6822. The interferometric profiles serve as a firm lower limit on the [H[i]{} ]{}mass, independent of Galactic foreground emission, as these observations have had by their nature most large-scale emission filtered out. The average of the B96 and B48 masses is $1.20 \cdot
10^8$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}. The single-dish profile gives an [H[i]{} ]{} mass of $1.34
\cdot 10^8$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}.
For $V < -40 {\ensuremath{\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}}}$, the *shape* of the corrected single-dish profile closely resembles that of the interferometric profiles. Scaling the interferometric profile over this velocity range by a factor of 1.12 makes the two profiles match. We assume that this scaling corrects for missing flux not picked up by the interferometric observations, and therefore adopt the single dish total [H[i]{} ]{}mass of $1.34 \cdot 10^8$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}as the [H[i]{} ]{}mass of NGC 6822 in the rest of this paper.
Zero-spacing correction and channel maps
----------------------------------------
The [miriad]{} task [immerge]{} was used to combine the single-dish and interferometric data, and apply the so-called zero-spacing correction.
Figure \[fig:chans\] shows a selection of channel maps of the zero-spacing corrected B12 cube with a velocity spacing of 1.6 [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{}. Due to space limitations only every second channel is shown. The velocity of each channel is shown in the top-left of each sub-panel. The beam is shown in the bottom-right of the first channel. Small residuals of Galactic emission are visible in the channels in the range $-11 \la V \la -5$ [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{}.
Primary beam corrections for each pointing are done implicitly during the merging of the mosaic pointings and construction of the data cubes. To give an idea of the area of the mosaic where the sensitivity is highest and most uniform we show in contours the regions where the sensitivity has dropped by to 90, 80 and 60 per cent of the central, highest sensitivity. Comparison with the channel maps shows that essentially all emission lies within the 80 per cent contour, well within the equivalent of what in a single pointed observation would be called the primary beam.
Several distinct features are visible in the channel maps. Firstly, note the clear physical separation between the NW cloud and the main body of the galaxy around $V \sim -100 {\ensuremath{\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}}}$. Within the NW cloud, the high column-density [H[i]{} ]{}seems compressed into a ridge-like structure ($V\sim -104 {\ensuremath{\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}}}$), and there is a suggestion of hole-like structures to the east of the ridge. This would fit in the picture of the NW cloud as a separate star-forming entity as pointed out by @deblokwalter03, @letarte03 and @komiyama03. Also note the low column-density plume that seems to surround the NW cloud and is visible over the range $-113 \la V \la
-75$ [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{}.
Moving up in velocity we see the main body of the galaxy appear. Here there are clear signs of hole-like structures in the ISM (see e.g.the channel maps at $V=-78.4$ [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{} and $V=-88.0$ [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{}). The typical size of these holes is $\sim 0.3$ kpc. The high-column density [H[i]{} ]{}again is again concentrated in ridge-like structures.
Past the systemic velocity of $-55$ [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{} we start seeing signs of the super-giant shell in the south-east part of the galaxy. The column density contrast in this part of the galaxy is smaller than in the adjacent central part. This is also the velocity range where residuals of Galactic emission are visible, especially in the $-11.2$ and $-8.0$ [$\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}$]{} channels.
Moment maps\[sec:mommaps\]
--------------------------
Figure \[fig:mom0\] shows the total [H[i]{} ]{}column density (zeroth moment) map. This map, as well as the velocity field, has also been published in @weldrake03, but is reproduced here because of the heavy use that will be made of them later in this paper.
The integrated [H[i]{} ]{}column density map was constructed by adding clipped B12 channel maps. A similar method was used as when defining [ clean]{} regions. The B96 cube was clipped at $2.5\sigma$, and the remaining regions were used as a mask for the next higher resolution cube, B48. The resulting masked B48 cube, was then clipped at 2.5$\sigma$, and in turn used as a mask for the B24 cube. The same procedure was then used to produce the B12 cubes.
The resulting moment maps still contained some imperfections. As a second step we then isolated the high signal-to-noise ratio regions of the zeroth moment map as follows. For uniformly tapered maps in velocity $\sigma_{\rm tot} = \sqrt{N} \sigma_{\rm chan}$, where $\sigma_{\rm tot}$ is the noise in a pixel in the integrated column density map, $N$ is the number of channels contributing to that pixel and $\sigma_{\rm chan}$ is the noise in one channel at that pixel. We constructed a noise map corresponding with the column density map, and used these two to isolate those pixels in the column density maps where the signal-to-noise ratio was $>$ 4. These high signal-to-noise ratio maps were used as masks for the higher-order moment maps.
The 4$\sigma$ limit in the total column density map is $\sim 1\cdot
10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$. This is consistent with the noise limit *per channel map* given in Table \[tab:noises\], when one considers that at the outer edge of the disk approximately 3 channel maps contribute to one moment map pixel.
The same filamentary structure that was already visible in the channel maps is also seen in the total [H[i]{} ]{}column density map. Signatures of small shells are less clearly visible, mostly due to the integration along the line of sight that tends to smear out structures due to gas at different velocities.
This is an opportune moment to spend a few words on the definition of the edge of the [H[i]{} ]{}disk of NGC 6822. In the rest of the paper we will often compare the extent of the [H[i]{} ]{}disk with that of other mass components. It is therefore necessary to check whether it makes sense to speak of the “edge” of the [H[i]{} ]{}disk. If any edge is simply caused by observational sensitivity effects, where we lose the [H[i]{} ]{}column density in the noise, then a sensible physical interpretation is not really possible. If however we see a sharp decline in the [H[i]{} ]{}column density well above the sensitivity limit of the data, then defining an edge to the [H[i]{} ]{}disk is useful.
As stated above, the $4\sigma$ column density limit of the [H[i]{} ]{}column density map is $1\cdot 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$. Figure \[fig:hiedge\] shows a plot of the observed azimuthally averaged [H[i]{} ]{}column density (derived using the tilted-ring parameters given in @weldrake03, also see below) with the $4\sigma$ column density limit indicated. We see that over the first $\sim
800''$ ($\log R < 2.9$) (corresponding with the central [H[i]{} ]{}disk) the column density only drops by a factor of $\sim 1.4$. Beyond that, over a similar radial range, the column density drop by over a factor of 10. The steep drop at the outer radii can be said to define some sort of edge, a sharp transition from the high-column density regime defining the shape of the galaxy to a more diffuse, possibly more pervasive state. In the following we will use a column density level of $5 \cdot 10^{20}$ cm$^{-2}$ to indicate the edge of the [H[i]{} ]{}disk.
Figure \[fig:mom1\] shows the corresponding velocity field (first moment map). NGC 6822 is in fairly regular solid-body rotation. A full analysis of the kinematics of NGC 6822, and an analysis of its rotation curve has been presented in @weldrake03. They find that NGC 6822 has a slowly rising, almost solid body like inner rotation curve that flattens towards larger radii. They also find NGC 6822 is dark-matter dominated, with a ratio of visible (baryonic) to dark matter of $\sim 0.09$ within the last measured point of the rotation curve ($\sim 5$ kpc). We refer to @weldrake03 for a more extensive discussion on the properties of the dark matter halo of NGC 6822. We will adopt the orientation parameters derived in that paper.
H$\alpha$ observations
======================
The data
--------
NGC 6822 was observed with the 2.5m INT telescope at La Palma during 12-15 July 2004. We used the Wide Field Camera with a pixel scale of $0.33$ arcsec pixel$^{-1}$. Three pointings were observed covering the entire extent of the [H[i]{} ]{}disc. Each pointing was observed for 4800 seconds. Short $R$-band exposures of 300s per pointing were also obtained to determine the continuum.
Figure \[fig:halfa\] compares the observed H$\alpha$ emission with the extent of the [H[i]{} ]{}disc. Obvious defects due to the subtraction of the continuum have been removed. The image has been median-filtered with a $9\times9$ pixels window to enhance the extended, low surface brightness structures, and depress the continuum-subtraction residuals. Due to the variable observing conditions an absolute flux calibration could not be obtained. We instead used the list of NGC 6822 H[ii]{} regions by @hodge89 to obtain a calibration. Our observations are deeper than the ones presented in @hodge88, @hodge89 and @chyzy03 and cover a larger area. The limiting H$\alpha$ flux surface density of the @hodge89 observations is given as $2 \cdot 10^{-17}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ arcsec$^{-1}$. The limiting flux surface density in our observations is $\sim (1.1 \pm 0.2) \cdot 10^{-18}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ arcsec$^{-1}$, where the uncertainty is mainly due to the bootstrapping used to put our fluxes on the @hodge89 scale. Our data thus go a factor 10 deeper than previous observations.
@hodge89 give a value of $1.8 \cdot 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$ for the total H$\alpha$ flux of NGC 6822[^1]. The value we derive from our observations is $(2.0 \pm 0.4) \cdot 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$, after a 5 per cent correction for \[N[ii]{}\] emission. The total H$\alpha$ flux is thus slightly larger than the @hodge89 value, consistent with the fact that we have surveyed a larger area to a larger depth.
H$\alpha$ morphology
--------------------
The H$\alpha$ emission is found throughout almost the entire main [H[i]{} ]{}disc to the west of the hole. It is distributed in a filamentary network that is clearly shaped by the effects of shocks and winds. Many of the fainter H[ii]{} regions catalogued in @hodge88 [@hodge89] as separate regions are in fact part of continuous larger loops and filaments, as are the bright H[ii]{} regions.
Our H$\alpha$ data cover the outer [H[i]{} ]{}disk, a part of NGC 6822 not previously observed to this depth. The outer regions do in fact contain a small number of low-luminosity H$\alpha$ regions, showing that star formation is proceeding even in the outer parts of the galaxy. Outside the area surveyed by @hodge88 [@hodge89] we find a small number of new H[ii]{} regions that are not obviously connected with the central H$\alpha$ network. The most note-worthy of these are briefly described here.
*NW cloud:* we find two new H[ii]{} regions in the NW cloud. These have fluxes of respectively $\log(F_{H\alpha}) = 4.7$ (NW [i]{}) and $\log(F_{H\alpha}) = 4.3$ (NW [ii]{}), where the fluxes are in units of $10^{-18}$ ergs cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, following the notation given in @hodge89. See Fig. \[fig:halfa\] for identifications. These fluxes are comparable to those of the lowest luminosity regions catalogued by @hodge89, but the new regions tend to have a somewhat lower surface brightness.
*SE Hole:* we find three new H[ii]{} regions on the opposite (eastern) rim of the large hole in the [H[i]{} ]{}distribution. Their respective fluxes are $\log(F_{H\alpha}) = 4.0$ (SE [i]{}), $4.0$ (SE [ii]{}), and $4.2$ (SE [iii]{}). See Fig. \[fig:halfa\] for identification. These regions are also among the very faintest in NGC 6822.
*Western Rim*: to the west of the main H$\alpha$ complexes we find two solitary, compact H[ii]{} regions. Their fluxes are $\log(F_{H\alpha}) = 4.7$ (W [i]{}) and $4.0$ (W [ii]{}), respectively. Again, see Fig. \[fig:halfa\] for identification.
These new regions do not increase the total H$\alpha$ flux emitted by NGC 6822 significantly, but they do show that low-level star formation does occur in the outer disk of NGC 6822. If the current state of NGC 6822 is typical, then they do strongly suggest that the outer stellar disk of NGC 6822 (as described below and in @deblokwalter03, @letarte03 and @komiyama03) was built up *in situ*, a process that is still happening today.
Optical Broadband Data
======================
We used two sets of archival CCD data taken with the Subaru Prime Focus Camera (Suprimecam) on the 8.2m Subaru Telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Suprimecam consists of $5 \times 2$ CCDs of $2048 \times 4096$ pixels each, giving a total size of 10k $\times$ 8k pixels, or a 34$'$ by 27$'$ field of view with a 0.2$''$ pixel size [@miyazaki02]
The first data set is described in detail in @komiyama03, and consists of deep $B$, $R_C$ and $I$ images spanning the entire [H[i]{} ]{}disk of NGC 6822. The second set consists of shallow exposures using the same filters of the central optical part of NGC 6822 taken in as test observations in 2000 during the early days of Suprime-Cam. Both data sets are essential to this analysis. As described below, the large light-gathering power of Subaru meant that stars down to quite faint magnitudes were already saturated, and combination with a shallow data set is essential to get a complete view of the stellar population. Both sets are described in more detail below.
The deep data set
-----------------
This data set consist of two pointings each in $B$, $R_C$ and $I$. The first pointing covers the NW part of the disk as well as the NW cloud. The second pointing covers the tidal tail and the SE part of the disk. Together, as mentioned, they cover the whole of the [H[i]{} ]{}disk of NGC 6822 (see Fig. \[fig:subarufield\]). The images were taken on 15 and 19 October 2001, and are described in @komiyama03, where a first analysis of the $B$ and $R_C$ data is also presented. We used the [iraf mscred]{} package to perform the standard CCD reductions. The total exposure times per pointing were 1440s in $B$, 2160s in $R$ and 960s in $I$. The USNO-B catalogue was used to determine the coordinate system of these images. The final RMS uncertainty in the plate distortions as well as the final World Coordinate System was $\sim 0.18"$.
The [iraf]{} version of the [daophot]{} package was used to find all stellar objects in the images and produce lists of their cooordinates, magnitudes and other parameters. We used modified versions of the reduction and analysis scripts used by the Local Group Survey group [@massey]. The average seeing in the three bands was $0.8''$ ($B$), $0.7''$ ($R$) and $0.6''$ ($I$), respectively. Standard stars were used to provide absolute calibration. The RMS in the standard star solutions was typically $\sim 0.03$ mag.
All objects with peak values more than $3\sigma$ above the sky were catalogued. The separate $B$, $R$ and $I$ catalogues of the two pointings were merged by cross-correlating and retaining only those objects that were present in all three bands. We assumed a match if the coordinates agreed to within $0.5''$. For the very small number of multiple matches within the error radius the brightest object was always chosen. Objects with a “roundness” (a parameter that can be used to distinghuish stars from non-stellar or blended objects) that differed by more than unity from the average roundness of all objects in the field were rejected. After this, the NW field contained $326298$ objects in $B$, $589788$ in R and $643304$ in I. For the SE field the numbers are 363962 $(B)$, 644213 $(R)$, 552568 $(I)$. The cross-correlated catalog of both fields combined with detections in all three bands contained 366162 objects.
In our analysis we will limit ourselves to only those “high-quality” objects with an uncertainty in the magnitude $< 0.2$ mag in all three bands. To isolate true stellar objects we also insist that these objects have an absolute value of the “sharpness” (one of the [ daophot]{} output parameters describing how “stellar” or peaked an object is) less than unity. These conditions then reduce the number of objects in the final deep catalog to 251927. The top row in Fig. \[fig:shallowdeep\] show the histograms of apparent magnitudes in the three bands, as well as a colour-magnitude diagram (CMD). For reasons of compatibility with the shallow survey (discussed below) we only show the data from the overlap area with that survey. The data set becomes incomplete at the faint-end side at apparent magnitudes $(m_B,m_R,m_I) = (25.6, 24.1, 23.4)$. These are the magnitudes where the histograms peak and then rapidly drop towards fainter magnitudes. At the bright end side the catalogue is limited by saturation of the CCDs. This happens at magnitudes $(m_B,m_R,m_I) \sim
(20.0, 20.5, 19.5)$. These latter values are uncertain by $\sim 0.5$ mag, as they depend on bias and sky levels, which differ from chip to chip and from observation to observation.
The shallow data set
--------------------
This data set consists of a single pointing towards the optical centre of NGC 6822. These are early observations (PI: S. Miyazaki) taken in June 2000 when Suprime-Cam only had 8 chips available. Some chips suffered from large readout noise. Observations times were 600s in $B$, 480s in $R$, and 330s in $I$. The seeing was $0.8''$ in $B$, $0.8''$ in $R$ and $0.6''$ in $I$. These observations do not cover the entire [H[i]{} ]{}disk, but are still useful as a complement to the deep data set, as described below. The area of the shallow survey is shown in Fig. \[fig:subarufield\].
Catalogues of stellar objects were constructed in an identical manner as with the deep data set. The $B$-band catalogue initially contained 330830 objects, the $R$ catalogue 273078 objects and the $I$ catalogue 530826 objects. A merged list containing all objects with a detection in all three bands contained 114179 objects. The final catalog of “high-quality” stars as defined above contained 53008 objects.
No standard star observations were available for this run, so we used the deep catalog to boot-strap the flux scale of the shallow survey. The RMS uncertainties in this boot-strap are $\sim 0.15$ mag in $B$, $\sim 0.14$ mag in $R$ and $\sim 0.13$ mag in $I$. This scatter is mostly caused by the large read-out noise of some of the CCD chips used to obtain the shallow data set. However, we will only use the brightest stars from the shallow set, where the uncertainty in the magnitudes is about a factor two lower than for the total shallow survey.
The centre row of Fig. \[fig:shallowdeep\] shows the distribution of magnitudes as well as the CMD. For these shallow data incompleteness at the faint end occurs at $(m_B,m_R,m_I) = (24.1, 22.2,
21.7)$. Saturation occurs at $(m_B,m_R,m_I)\sim (17.3, 16.8, 15.9)$. These limits are again indicated in the figure.
The merged data set
-------------------
In addition to the deep and the shallow catalogues we also produced a merged catalogue containing all high-quality detections in both catalogues, restricted to the overlap area between the data sets (see Fig. \[fig:subarufield\]). Examination of the bright and faint magnitude limits of the deep catalogue showed that the $R$ band data are most restricted in dynamic range: stars saturate in the $R$ band well before they saturate in $B$ or $I$. The best way to construct a merged catalogue is thus to apply a magnitude cut in $R$. We chose a cut-off of $m_R = 20.7$, thus taking stars fainter than this from the deep catalogue and brighter than this from the shallow catalogue. This merged list contained 218438 objects. The bottom row in Fig. \[fig:shallowdeep\] shows the combined magnitude distributions and CMDs. The line $m_R=20.7$ is also indicated. The surface densities of stars in the CMD are continuous across the line, indicating neither the deep nor the shallow catalogues are severely incomplete with respect to each other at this magnitude. Figure \[fig:surfdensCMD\] shows the surface density of stars in the merged CMD which more clearly shows the structure in the densely populated parts of the diagram.
The stellar population of NGC 6822
==================================
Though partly based on the same data as the analysis in @komiyama03 the CMD presented here has a larger dynamic range and probes to fainter magnitudes. By adding in the shallow data we are now also probing the O and B star regime that @komiyama03 were unable to probe. This is the first time the stellar population of NGC 6822 has been mapped over such a large extent and depth. We are therefore in an excellent position to revisit and elaborate some of the results from the papers of @komiyama03, @letarte03 and @deblokwalter03.
The Stellar Extent of NGC 6822
------------------------------
The first question one may ask is what is the total stellar extent of NGC 6822? Observations of @letarte02 show the presence of carbon stars outside the [H[i]{} ]{}disk, and as carbon stars generally trace an intermediate age population this could indicate the presence of an extended stellar component.
To determine the total extent of the stellar population of NGC 6822 we have taken the deep catalog, and counted the total number of stars in $12'' \times 12''$ boxes. Note that due to the saturation limits of the deep catalog, a significant fraction of the Milky Way foreground has effectively already been removed. This surface density image was then smoothed with a gaussian with FWHM $= 48''$. This smoothed stellar surface density image is shown in Fig. \[fig:surfdens\]. The very high stellar density in the inner parts, as well as the omission of the shallow catalogue, means that there will be some incompleteness there, but in the outer, lower density parts this image should be a fair representation of the total stellar surface densities there. The stellar surface density distribution is centered on NGC 6822, showing that we are indeed looking at its stellar population, and not Galactic foreground stars. The stellar distribution of NGC 6822 is much more extended than the [H[i]{} ]{}disk.
We have used the tilted ring parameters as described in [@weldrake03] to derive a radial profile of the smoothed stellar surface density. This is presented in Fig. \[fig:radsurfdens\]. The profile does not start to turn over until the very outer parts of our field at $|R| \ga 1700''$. The stellar densities reached there are $1.43 \pm 0.38$ per 12$''$ pixel at the NW side, and $0.76 \pm 0.44$ per 12$''$ pixel at the SE side. This may indicate either a slighly variable stellar Galactic foreground density, or alternatively, an assymmetry in the extended stellar distribution of NGC 6822. A log-log plot of the same data shows no change in slope at larger radii, indicating that the edge of the disk has not yet been reached.
Nevertheless, despite the possibly present small “contamination” by NGC 6822 we will use the average surface density value of 1.1 stars to define an “edge” to the stellar disk. This level is indicated in Fig. \[fig:surfdens\] by the thick countour. NGC 6822 covers almost the entire field, only the most extreme eastern part can be said to represent the field. The extent of NGC 6822 is much larger to the NW than to the SE. This might tentatively be associated with the (disrupting?) presence of the NW cloud.
The possibility that the slightly higher stellar density in the extreme NW is simply due to a gradient in the local Galactic stellar foreground density ($\sim 1.2$ degrees lower Galactic latitude than the extreme SE) is unlikely. The stellar foreground density as measured by 2MASS varies only by $\sim 7$ per cent over this range in Galactic latitude, much less than the factor of $\sim 2$ measured. The asymmetric extent can also not be caused by selective foreground reddening and extinction in the SE field. We will show in Sect. \[sec:reddening\] that the reddening is higher in the NW, accentuating the asymmetry even further.
With the present limited field of view it is difficult to draw more firm conclusions, but it is plausible that the higher stellar density observed in the NW is associated with the NGC 6822-NW Cloud system. It would be very interesting to further investigate the wider field around the cloud, looking for e.g. the presence of tidal streams.
Foreground Population
---------------------
The CMD of the merged catalogue as shown in Fig. \[fig:shallowdeep\] shows three distinct components. Firstly, we see the vertical “blue plume” around $B-R \sim 0.25$ which consists mostly of young stars in NGC 6822. The concentration of stars around $B-R \sim 1.5$ and $m_B
\sim 25$, dubbed the “red-tangle” by @gallart1, contains mainly old and intermediate age NGC 6822 stars. The third component, a vertical band around $B-R \sim 1.3$ consists of Galactic foreground stars. We will discuss the first two components in some detail later; here we concentrate on the (removal of) foreground stars.
In order to study the stellar populations in NGC 6822 one ideally wants to isolate the contribution of the foreground stars from the CMD. This is usually done in a statistical manner by comparing the CMDs of the galaxy field with one of a nearby “empty” field (i.e.without galaxy stars) and removing at each location in the galaxy CMD a number of stars that is proportional to the number of stars at that location in the field CMD. This process is described and illustrated for NGC 6822 in @gallart1.
The extent and depth of our catalogues poses some interesting problems. Firstly, a statistical subtraction can only be considered for the deep catalogue as we do not have the equivalent of a shallow field area for the shallow catalogue: its coverage is much smaller than the extent of NGC 6822.
Secondly, the statistical method assumes that sizes of both fields and the number and density of fields stars in them are roughly equal. If one field is much smaller, and therefore contains significantly less stars, one runs into sampling problems and small number statistics. This, unfortunately, is the case here: in our observations only a very small area can be regarded as “field” (and even there some contamination by NGC 6822 is likely to be present). The usable “field” part in Fig. \[fig:surfdens\] (i.e. with stellar surface density less than 1.1) measures $\sim 0.012$ square degrees and contains $\sim 1000$ stellar objects. This should be contrasted with the rest of the field which spans $\sim 0.53$ square degrees and contains some 250 times as many objects. Clearly a statistical foreground subtraction will be dominated by sampling effects in the small field area.
Even though a proper statistical subtraction is not possible, we can still get an idea of the contamination by field stars and avoid the problems of small number statistics by looking at the binned surface densities of stars in the field and galaxy CMD diagrams. To do so we have binned the field and galaxy CMDs in $(B-R) \times m_B$ bins of $0.25 \times 1$ mag and counted the numbers of stars in each bin.
When normalized by the respective field sizes we expect for a pure field population to find equal numbers of stars in equivalent bins in both diagrams (modulo counting statistics). Figure \[fig:fieldcount\] shows the ratios in each bin. The largest symbols mark the bins where the number of stars in the field CMD bin equals the (normalized) number of stars in the equivalent galaxy CMD bin to within a factor of two; these are thus areas dominated by field stars. The smallest symbols mark the bins where the number of stars in the field CMD bin is a quarter to a tenth of the (normalized) equivalent number in the galaxy CMD bin. Regions with ratios less than 10 per cent (the rest of the CMD) can be safely said to be dominated by NGC 6822 stars.
A comparison with Figs. 12 and 16 in @gallart1 shows that our method has been succesful in identifying CMD regions contaminated by foreground stars. It has flagged the lower part of the plume of Galactic stars around $(B-R) \sim 1.5$. The brighter part of this plume is clearly visible in the shallow CMD. Also clearly identified as due to foreground stars is the region between $2 < B-R < 3$ and $27
< m_B < 24.5$.
Distribution of populations
---------------------------
In the following, when studying the stellar populations of NGC 6822 we will only use those parts of the CMD that are deemed to contain only a negligible component of foreground stars, i.e. the unmarked areas in Fig. \[fig:fieldcount\].
There are two distinct features visible in the uncontaminated CMD of NGC 6822 (also described in @gallart3).
$\bullet$ *Blue Plume*. This is the area with $(B-R) < 0.75$ consisting mostly of main sequence (MS) and helium-burning Blue Loop (BL) stars. In the absence of variable foreground extinction as found towards NGC 6822, MS stars would occupy the blue side of the plume, BL stars the red side. This area contains mostly young stars down to an age of roughly 0.5 Gyr.
$\bullet$ *Red-Tangle*. This area, with $1 \la (B-R) \la 1.75$ and $m_B \ga 23$, contains a mixture of old populations with ages between $\sim 1$ and $\sim 10$ Gyr. It contains RGB stars, the fainter AGB stars, and intermediate age BL stars. The blue observing bands used here are clearly not suited to disentangle the extended star formation history (see @gallart1). However, studying the red-tangle can give a good idea of the presence and importance of old and intermediate age populations.
The presence of a young stellar population outside the convential optical extent of NGC 6822 is now well established and described in @deblokwalter03 [@komiyama03; @letarte03]. The current analysis improves on all these studies by the deeper limiting magnitude. Figure \[fig:plotblue\] shows the distribution of all stars $B-R <
0.75$. We show the blue stars from the combined catalog in the inner part and those from the deep catalogue in the outer part. We have checked the outer field for saturated stars that should have been incorporated in an equivalent shallow catalogue of the outer field, but find there are very few of those present. The distribution in Fig. \[fig:plotblue\] is thus representative of the true blue star distribution, despite the lack of a shallow outer field catalog.
At this point it is instructive to also show the surface density of blue stars (Fig. \[fig:bluedens\]). This has been derived in a similar way as Fig. \[fig:surfdens\], this time only counting stars with $B-R<0.75$ in $12'' \times 12''$ boxes. The resulting distribution was smoothed to a resolution of $48''$.
Comparing Figs. \[fig:plotblue\] and \[fig:bluedens\] a couple of impressions from previous work are reinforced here. Firstly, blue stars are found out to the edge of the [H[i]{} ]{}disk. Secondly, the distribution of blue stars is clumpy. The main stellar body of N6822 is easily recognizable, as well as the “Blue Plume” (the large concentration of young stars to the SE of the central component) described in @deblokwalter03 (and not to be confused with the CMD Blue Plume from @gallart3). Thirdly, the Super Giant Shell (SGS) in the SE, described in @deblokwalter00 is visible as a slight underdensity in the stellar distribution. It is however clear that because of the superior quality of the new data compared to those of @deblokwalter03 we can now actually detect a stellar population in the hole (cf. @komiyama03).
The nature of the NW cloud as a separate entity is again confirmed with a clear underdensity of stars separating the cloud from the main body of the galaxy. The NW cloud will be discussed in more detail in Sect. \[NW\]
The distribution of the old and intermediate population can be mapped in a similar way. We consider the unaffected part of the CMD with $(B-R)>1$. Its distribution on the sky is shown in Fig. \[fig:plotred\]. Though the apparent distribution on small scales is affected by the presence of bright foreground stars, as well as bright stars within NGC 6822, it is clear that the distribution of the old and intermediate population resembles that of the total population shown in Fig. \[fig:surfdens\].
The colour of the disk and reddening corrections\[sec:reddening\]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We can derive the average colour of the stellar disk in a similar way as the number density. We bin the distribution of stars on the sky in $48''$ pixels, and compute the average colour of the stars in each pixel, but only for those pixels containing more than 3 stars. For cosmetic purposes the resulting images have been median-filtered using a $3 \times 3$ pixels median filter.
The top left panel in Fig. \[fig:colourdens\] shows the average apparent $B-R$ colour of the stellar disk. The NW cloud jumps out as being much bluer than the rest of the galaxy. Also clearly visible as blue regions are the areas associated with the Blue Plume and the main optical bar. An additional blue region is observed at the SE edge of the supergiant shell, corresponding with the locations of the newly discovered H$\alpha$ regions. In fact, the distribution of the bluest regions is strongly correlated with that of the H$\alpha$, as both trace the most recent star formation.
This unusual colour distribution is not intrinsic to the galaxy itself though. Most of it results from the variable Galactic foreground extinction towards NGC 6822. @massey95 already pointed out the variable reddening based on measurements of spectra of hot stars in 5 fields near the star forming regions in the central northern part of NGC 6822. They found reddening values $E(B-V)$ varying between 0.24 and 0.54.
The bottom panel of Fig. \[fig:colourdens\] shows the reddening $E(B-V)$ towards NGC 6822 derived from the reddening maps by @schlegel. There is a strong correlation between the foreground reddening and the observed colours of the disk, indicating that most of the variation in the apparent colours of the disk is not intrinsic to NGC 6822.
We can attempt to correct for the foreground reddening by converting the @schlegel $E(B-V)$ reddening map to $E(B-R)$ units \[where $E(B-R) = 1.77\cdot E(B-V)$ for a $R_V = 3.1$ reddening law\] and subtracting this from the observed colour maps. The corrected colour distribution is shown in the top-right panel of Fig. \[fig:colourdens\].
Most of the features in the colour map are still visible after correction. Unfortunately, at this stage we are unable to say whether this is due to internal or external reddening. The resolution of the @schlegel reddening map is less than that of the size of the smallest displayed features, and it is very well possible that some unresolved foreground reddening may give rise to the red edge, especially as it occurs in the region where the largest reddening is observed.
We can also look at the distribution of colours of the blue population alone. For this we have again created $48''$ resolution colour images, but this time only including stars with $B-R<0.75$. Limiting the colour distribution to that of the blue population alone emphasizes colour differences present among the young populations. The colours are thus not “dilluted” by the presence of a prominent red population. These images, before and after reddening correction are shown in the middle panels in Fig. \[fig:colourdens\]. Before correction, a large-scale reddening gradient is clearly visible as a function of radius, however the distribution of disk colour is rather unusual, with the western edge of the galaxy much redder than the rest of the disk. After correction, the blue population in NGC 6822 shows no strong colour gradient, consistent with the fact that (recent) star formation is seen happening all over the disk. The distribution of the bluest features is intriguiging. The NW cloud is still one of the bluest parts of the galaxy. Another prominent blue feature is the region around the Hubble [x]{} star forming region \[$\alpha,\delta(2000.0) = 19^h45^m05.2^s, -14^\circ43'13'$\], another site of intense recent star formation. Apart from these two regions, all other bluest regions are found surrounding the supergiant shell in the SE. Intriguingly enough, we can now also see a red peak in the centre of the supergiant shell, strongly suggesting the presence of a colour gradient towards the edges of the hole.
In the following we will describe the NW cloud and the giant hole in more detail. Section \[NW\] will describe the properties of the NW cloud, and argue that it is likely to be a separate dwarf galaxy that has been captured by NGC 6822. The supergiant shell will be discussed in more detail in Sect \[sec:SGS\].
The stellar population of the NW cloud\[NW\]
--------------------------------------------
The discovery of the NW cloud as described in @deblokwalter00 was one of the unexpected results of the [H[i]{} ]{}observations described there and in this paper. It was speculated by @deblokwalter00 [@deblokwalter03] that the cloud could be a separate system that is currently in interaction with the main body of NGC 6822, and responsible for the tidal arms in the SE. It could also have triggered the star formation that would eventually lead to the creation the large hole in the SE part of the main [H[i]{} ]{}disk.
The cloud is amongst the bluest objects in the NGC 6822 system (Sect. \[sec:reddening\]). This indicates a significant amount of recent star formation, which is confirmed by its CMD (see Fig. \[fig:cloudCMD\]). Unfortunately, the cloud was not covered by the shallow Subaru images, and we can therefore only measure stars up to $M_B \sim -3$ in the colour range of the cloud main sequence (cf. Fig. \[fig:shallowdeep\]) before saturation sets in.
The uncontaminated part of the CMD of the NW cloud is dominated by a well-defined main sequence, extending all the way up to the saturation limit of the data. For a comparison with theoretical isochrones we use the $Z=0.004$ model from @girardi00. The brightest and bluest stars are well described by a log(age/yr) $=7.0$ isochrone, though it is likely that even younger stars are present, given the presence of H$\alpha$ regions in the cloud (Fig. \[fig:halfa\]), and the presence of a few saturated stars clustered in the same way as the unsaturated stars. It is thus very likely that the cloud has had ongoing star formation over the past $10^7$ years, confirming previous work.
Unfortunately the CMDs presented here do not allow us to make quantitative statement on the SFH beyond 1 Gyr or so. Fig. \[fig:cloudCMD\] shows there are some stars present redwards of the MS that could be consistent with star formation at log(age) $\sim 8.2$.
There are star present in the red-tangle, but a comparison between Figs. \[fig:bluedens\] and \[fig:reddens\] shows that whereas the cloud is clearly present as an overdensity in the blue star distribution, this is less obvious for the red population. The clearest indication is a slight enhancement in the southern part of the cloud. This makes it likely that the cloud is “old”, i.e., it contains a stellar population older than 1 Gyr.
### The dynamics of the NW cloud
If the cloud is indeed a separate dwarf galaxy we might expect it to contain a significant amount of dark matter. Fig. \[fig:chans\] shows that the emission from the cloud is cleanly separated in velocity from the main body of the galaxy, and we can thus examine the velocity field of the cloud as shown in Fig. \[fig:mom1\]. The kinematical major axis of the cloud has a different position angle than that of NGC 6822. The main body of the galaxy has a kinematical position angle between 103$^\circ$ and 140$^\circ$. The cloud’s kinematical major axis varies between 70$^\circ$ and 90$^\circ$.
The velocity gradient seen across the cloud can be interpreted as either shear or rotation. The velocity field of the cloud shows a velocity range from $\sim -80$ to $\sim -105$ km s$^{-1}$, a range of 25 km s$^{-1}$. A more detailed study of the data shows there is cloud emission present from $-70$ to $-116$ km s$^{-1}$, but most of the emission in the extended velocity range is of low surface density. We will use 25 km s$^{-1}$ as a conservative estimate. We know from the the ages of the blue stars that the cloud has been around for at least $5 \cdot 10^7$ years. A shear of 25 km s$^{-1}$ over that timescale implies a distance of 1.3 kpc, comparable to the size of the cloud. This means that, assuming that the shear remains constant, the cloud will be completely disrupted over a similar timescale, where it should be kept in mind that these timescales are upper limits. We only observe the motion in the line of sight, and the true disruption timescales would be much shorter. Though it would be possible to explain the kinematics of the cloud with pure shear, the timescales involved are uncomfortably short.
A more likely explanation is that the velocity gradient is caused by rotation. Again, the signal of 25 km s$^{-1}$ is a lower limit, as we do not know the space orientation of the cloud. The east-west diameter of the cloud is $\sim 1.2$ kpc, and the associated (lower limit on the) dynamical mass limit is therefore $2.2 \cdot 10^7$ $M_{\odot}$, or $7.5 \cdot 10^{7}$ $M_{\odot}$ if we use the full velocity range present in the data.
Adding up all detected stars in the NW cloud we derive a total luminosity $M_B = -7.8$. This is again a lower limit, because any unresolved as well as the brightest stars have not been included in this total. The addition of 2 or 3 stars with $M_B = -5$ (just above the saturation limit) would increase the luminosity by 0.2 mag or so. The number derived here is in good agreement with the value $M_B =
-8.5$ derived by @komiyama03. If we assume $M/L_{*,B} = 1.0$, we derive a stellar mass of $\sim 1.2 \cdot 10^5$ $M_{\odot}$. If we compare this number with the [H[i]{} ]{}mass $M_{HI}=1.4\cdot 10^7$ derived in @deblokwalter00 we see that the baryons in the NW cloud primarily consist of gas: the cloud is extremely gas-rich. Taking the numbers derived above at face-value we get $M_{HI}/L_B \sim 120$. We can attempt to correct for the contribution of the unresolved population by comparing the total luminosity of all stars in our catalog with the integrated magnitude $M_B = -15.85$ given in @hodge91. We find that our catalogue underestimates the luminosity by $\sim 1.6$ mag. Applying this same difference to the cloud luminosity we get $M_B \sim -10.1$. This yields a ratio $M_{HI}/L_B \sim 8$, which still makes the cloud an extremely gas-rich object. Comparing with the lower limit on the dynamical mass derived above we see that the cloud must be dominated by dark matter with $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\rm vis} \sim 1.6$ as the absolute lower limit, but with $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\rm vis} > 4$ as a more likely value. The estimates derived here are typical of dwarf irregular galaxies. The most likely conclusion is thus that the NW cloud is a separate galaxy.
The Super-Giant Shell\[sec:SGS\]
--------------------------------
As noted above, Fig. \[fig:colourdens\] shows a distinct red peak in the centre of the supergiant shell (SGS) in the SE part of NGC 6822, strongly suggesting a colour gradient towards the edges of the hole. The SGS was first described in @hodge91 and later in more detail in @deblokwalter00. It measures around 1 kpc in diameter, and is by far the largest structure observed in the [H[i]{} ]{}disk of NGC 6822. From dynamical arguments @deblokwalter00 derived an age of the SGS of $\sim 130$ Myr, assuming that the hole has just stalled. The required energy to create a hole of this size is equivalent to that of $\sim 1000$ supernovae. @deblokwalter03 searched for a remnant population in the SGS but found none. Their data were however only sensitive to stars with $M_B \sim -1$ or brighter, and could thus make no statements on the presence of populations older than $\sim 80$ Myr. @komiyama03 made a initial examination of the distribution of blue stars in the SGS area and concluded that there were fewer blue stars present in the SGS compared to the rim of the hole. Our analysis of these data reaches a fainter limiting magnitude and thus allow to derive more definitive conclusions regarding the evolution of the SGS. Similar structures have been in the HI distribution of many nearby dwarf galaxies when observed at sufficient resolution (e.g., Holmberg II, Puche et al. 1994, IC2574, Walter & Brinks 2000; Holmberg I: Ott et al. 2001; DDO 47: Walter & Brinks 2001, SMC: Kim et al. 2003, LMC: Staveley–Smith et al. 1997).
To explain these giant holes in the [H[i]{} ]{}disks of galaxies, several explanations have been put forward. The most obvious one is that the effects of effects of stellar winds and supernovae can create a hole or bubble in the ISM (e.g., Tenorio–Tagle & Bodenheimer 1988). The compression at the rim of the resulting bubbles can then lead to secondary star formation, thus enlarging the hole even further. Alternative explanations are the impact of HVCs, and gamma-ray bursts (e.g., Kamphuis et al. 1991, Loeb & Perna 1998, Efremov et al. 1999). While these processes all inject energy into the ISM, the time-scales and resulting spatial distributions differ. E.g., @vorobyov show that effects on the gas disk and the corresponding observational signatures are all distinctly different, and based on comparison with observations conclude that star formation is the most likely cause. And indeed, there are some cases in which remnant clusters in kpc–sized holes have been identified, e.g., in IC2574 (Walter et al. 1998, Stewart & Walter) — however it should be noted that most past searches for remnant clusters in HI superstructures have not been successful (e.g., Holmberg II: Rhode et al. 1999, LMC-4: Braun et al. 1997).
One of the main arguments against the SF hypothesis has always been that holes are also found in the outer disks of galaxies where (usually) no stars or signs of star formation are observed. If NGC 6822 is at all typical, then this argument no longer holds: its stars are found all the way to the edge of the HI disk. This would imply that closer inspection of the holes in other galaxies at similar column densities should show a stellar population in many of them (cf. @ferguson98).
If the SGS is indeed created by star formation, we would expect a radial age gradient in the stellar population (or, at least, an age difference), with the most recent star formation found at the rim of the hole. Here we first investigate the radial distributions of the various ISM and stellar components as a function of distance from the centre of the hole. As centre we take the centre of the hole in the [H[i]{} ]{}distribution. An ellipse fit to the outer rim yields orientation parameters PA $= 158^{\circ}$ and an axis ratio $b/a = 0.75$. The centre was found to be at $\alpha(2000.0) = 19^h54^m30^s,
\delta(2000.0) = -14^{\circ}53'40''$. We will adopt these values for the rest of our analysis.
Figure \[fig:holerad\] shows the radial distributions of the H[i]{}, as well as those of the number densities and colours of the stellar population. It is immediately obvious that the number density of blue stars closely follows that of the H[i]{}. We also see a very pronounced colour gradient from red colours in the centre of the hole, getting bluer towards the rim.
To show that these radial trends are not an artefact of the azimuthal averaging procedure, we show the distribution on the sky of these components in Fig. \[fig:hole2d\]. Superimposed on the various panels are two ellipses with radii of $250''$ and $430''$, corresponding with, respectively, the radius where the blue $B-R$ gradient flattens off, and the peak in the radial H$\alpha$ distribution.
In the case of the blue stars, the radial trend is clearly dominated by the presence of the main body of NGC 6822 to the NW of the SGS. However, note that this does not explain the entire gradient. At azimuthal angles away from the main body of NGC 6822, we find that the maxima in the HI distribution only occur between the two ellipses with radii of 250$''$ and $430''$, as described above. The same applies to the H$\alpha$: though few in number, the H$\alpha$ regions directly surrounding the hole are only found between the two ellipses. This also applies to the blue star distribution: the highest densities occur between the two ellipses. The gradients measured are thus not artifically introduced by the nearby presence of the main body of NGC 6822.
We can thus divide the SGS area in three zones: 1) the central zone at $R<250''$ where there is no current star formation, and where there is a color gradient with the reddest stars found in the centre; 2) the annulus at $250''<R<430''$ where current and very recent star formation is found. This is the zone where the effects of the hole are currently impacting on the ambient ISM; 3) the zone with $R>430''$ that is unaffected by the SGS.
We can now use CMDs to see whether the reddening gradient described above translates into actual age gradients. A comparison with the reddening map in Fig. \[fig:colourdens\] shows that it is extremely unlikely that the gradient is caused by differential foreground reddening.
We have divided the area within the $R=430''$ ring in three annuli roughly equally spaced in radius: a central region $R<170''$ chosen to include the reddest parts of the SGS; a transition annulus $170''<R<300''$; and an outer annulus with $300<R<430''$ covering the bluest area with very recent star formation. The borders between these annuli are indicated in the top-left panel of Fig. \[fig:hole2d\].
The CMDs of these three regions are displayed in Fig. \[fig:holeCMD\] with the usual isochrones overlaid. We have used the combined deep and shallow catalog, meaning that at the $B-R$ colour of the NGC 6822 Main Sequence we can detect stars as bright as $M_B \sim -7$ without being affected by saturation effects (cf. Fig. \[fig:shallowdeep\]).
The left-hand diagram in Fig. \[fig:holeCMD\] shows the CMD corresponding to the central area of the hole. The brightest and bluest stars are located well away from the saturation limits of the data so that our age conclusions are not affected by these limits. The positions of the bright, blue stars in the CMD are best fitted the log(age) $=8.0$ isochrone. A slightly younger age, such as log(age)$= 7.7$ or $7.8$ is also possible but not preferred. The log(age) $=7.5$ contour is definitely not a good description of the data.
In the centre CMD, corresponding with the transition annulus in Fig. \[fig:hole2d\], the bluest and brightest stars are best fitted with the log(age) $=7.5$ isochrone. Here we are still well away from the saturation limits of the data so that again the conclusions are not affected in that way.
The right-hand panel shows the CMD of the outermost annulus, which contains most signs of recent star-formation. This shows itself in the CMD, where the brightest NGC 6822 stars are best fitted with the log(age) $= 7.2$ isochrone. There are stars present along the log(age) $=7.0$ isochrone as well, and stars along the brightest part of this isochrone (as well as those along younger isochrones) will have been affected by saturation effects, so in this part of the rim of the galaxy may prefer a younger age as well. Certainly the presence of H$\alpha$ is evidence for star formation on timescales less than $\sim 10^7$ year.
In this sequence of CMDs we thus see age differences in the hole region: The stellar population of the inner part of the hole can be described with an age between $5\cdot 10^7$ and $10^8$ yr, while on the rim of the hole recent star formation is still going on.
This conclusions puts the age of the hole, or rather the age of its young stellar population at between $5\cdot 10^7$ and $10^8$ yr. This is slightly younger than the dynamical estimate of $1.3 \cdot 10^8$ yr (or log(age)$ \simeq 8.1$), however, the left panel in Fig. \[fig:holeCMD\] shows that the stellar and dynamical age estimates are consistent with each other.
The properties of the SGS in NGC 6822 are thus consistent with it being formed by the processes of star formation and stellar evolution. It also suggests possible explanations as to why searches for a progenitor population in shells in other galaxies have not always been succesful. Firstly, in many cases the progenitor population was expected to be in the form of star *clusters*. In the SE part of NGC 6822 where the SGS resides, star clusters are conspicuous by their absence. The stars are distributed almost homogeneously throughout this part of the galaxy. With a dispersion of $\sim 1$ km s$^{-1}$ a star cluster will after $10^8$ yr have expanded to a size of $\sim 0.1$ kpc, and may be difficult to distinghuish from the background population. The background itself is also difficult to detect: the total luminosity of stars within the $R=170''$ radius is $m_b = 14.1$. After correction for Galactic extinction this translates into a surface brightness $\mu_B = 25.5$ as observed, or $\mu_B =
26.2$ when corrected to face-on. It is clear that if we had not been able to resolve the stellar population of NGC 6822 we would have have great difficulty detecting the unresolved progenitor population of the SGS.
Though it is dangerous to extrapolate from a sample of one, the temptation is to conclude that no exotic explanations are necessary to explain the presence of SG shells in galaxies. The reason that there have not been many clear identifications of progenitor populations is that by the time the shells have reached the large size observed, the progenitor clusters have diffused enough to make them indistinghuishable from the background. If this background is unresolved then its low surface brightness makes a detection difficult for any but the nearest galaxies.
Summary
=======
We have presented a comprehensive study of the stellar population and the interstellar medium in NGC6822, one of the most nearby dwarf galaxies. Its nearby location and our [H[i]{} ]{}(ATCA/Parkes) and optical (Subaru/INT) observations allow for the first time to perform a detailed comparison of respective distributions of the [H[i]{} ]{}and the stellar populations. The main results are briefly summarised in the following:
$\bullet$ Multi–array/mosaicked [H[i]{} ]{}observations obtained at the ATCA (zero-spacing corrected using Parkes data) show a stunning morphology in the H[i]{}, including the presence of [H[i]{} ]{}holes of various sizes and a detached cloud in the north–west. Azimuthally averaging the HI distribution gives an ’edge’ to the [H[i]{} ]{}disk at 5$\times$10$^{20}$cm$^{-2}$ — the total [H[i]{} ]{}mass of NGC6822 is 1.34$\times$10$^{8}$M$_\odot$.
$\bullet$ Deep H$\alpha$ imaging (reaching one magnitude deeper than previous observations) reveals the presence of a stunning filamentary network which covers almost the entire central disk of NGC6822. Our maps also reveal the presence of previously unknown HII regions in the outskirts of NGC6822 and some coincident with the likely companion galaxy. The total H$\alpha$ luminosity of NGC6822 is $(2.0 \pm 0.4)
\cdot 10^{39}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
$\bullet$ The combination of shallow and deep Subaru multi-band imaging allows us, for the first time, to derive an (almost) complete census of the stellar population in NGC6822 above magnitudes of $(m_B,m_R,m_I) = (25.6, 24.1, 23.4)$. Our cross-correlated catalog of all stars comprises some $4\times10^5$ objects. Even though the stellar population can be traced out to radii of 0.6$^\circ$ we conclude from our star counts that the optical edge of NGC6822 has not yet been reached even in the wide-field Subaru observations.
$\bullet$ The old and intermediate population of stars is much more extended than even the [H[i]{} ]{}disk. This distribution is not symmetric but more extended towards the north-west, i.e. where the companion galaxy is situated. In sharp contrast, the distribution of the young, blue stars, closely follows the distribution of the [H[i]{} ]{}disk all the way out to the [H[i]{} ]{}‘edge’ and displays a highly structured morphology.
$\bullet$ The companion galaxy in the north–east of NGC6822 shows evidence for an underlying older population (through the colors and its CMD) — the current star formation activity, although likely being triggered by the interaction with NGC6822 is not the first SF episode in this object. From the [H[i]{} ]{}dynamics, [H[i]{} ]{}mass ($M_{HI}=1.4\cdot 10^7$) and the optical luminosity ( $M_B = -7.8$) we derive $M_{\rm dyn}/M_{\rm vis} > 4$ for the companion.
$\bullet$ We show that the properties of the large HI hole (the most prominent structure seen in the HI distribution) are consistent with it having been created by past star formation activity. Hhis is supported by the color gradient towards the edge of the hole (red in the centre, blue on the rim) and CMDs obtained at various radii. We speculate that the cluster(s) responsible for the creation have been dispersed – this may also explain some of the unsuccessful searches for remnant clustes in superstructures of other dwarf galaxies.
In summary, NGC6822 came up with many suprises – the structured distribution of the young blue stars throughout the HI disk, the very extended diffuse stellar halo reaching far outside the HI disk, the presence of star formation all across the HI disk, the likely creation of the huge HI hole by star formation. These results could only be obtained because of the small distance of NGC 6822, enabling the stellar population to be resolved and the ISM to be observed at sub-kpc scales. All of the above results would have been impossible to obtain if NGC 6822 had been more distant (e.g., eight times further away at the distance to the M81 group). This raises the question on whether the results found here may also apply to other dwarf galaxies and in this sense, NGC6822 gives us some interesting new perspectives on the properties of dwarf galaxies in general. However, clearly, future similar in-depth, high-quality observations of other nearby dwarf galaxies are mandatory, though challenging, in order to show that NGC6822 is not exceptional, but rather a typical dwarf galaxy.
We like to thank Phil Massey and the Local Group Survey group for making their reduction and analysis scripts available on-line. These were of immense value to us in the initial stages of reducing the Subaru data. This research has made use of the USNOFS Image and Catalogue Archive operated by the United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station (http://www.nofs.navy.mil/data/fchpix/).
Barnard, E.E., 1884, Sidereal Messenger, 3, 254 Barnes, D. G., et al. 2001, , 322, 486 Battinelli, P., Demers, S., & Letarte, B. 2003, , 405, 563 Braun, J. M., Bomans, D. J., Will, J., & de Boer, K. S. 1997, , 328, 167 Chy[. z]{}y, K. T., Knapik, J., Bomans, D. J., Klein, U., Beck, R., Soida, M., & Urbanik, M. 2003, , 405, 513 de Blok, W. J. G. & Walter, F. 2000, , 537, L95 de Blok, W. J. G. & Walter, F. 2003, , 341, L39 Efremov, Y. N., Ehlerov[' a]{}, S., & Palou[š]{} , J. 1999, , 350, 457 Ekers, R. D., & Rots, A. H. 1979, ASSL Vol. 76: IAU Colloq. 49: Image Formation from Coherence Functions in Astronomy, 61 Ferguson, A. M. N., Wyse, R. F. G., Gallagher, J. S., & Hunter, D. A. 1998, , 506, L19 Gallart, C., Aparicio, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 1996, , 112, 2596 Gallart, C., Aparicio, A., Bertelli, G., & Chiosi, C. 1996, , 112, 1950 Gallart, C., Aparicio, A., & Vilchez, J. M. 1996, , 112, 1928 Gerritsen, J. P. E., & Icke, V. 1997, , 325, 972 Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., Chiosi, C. 2000, , 141, 371 Haynes, R., Staveley-Smith, L., Mebold, U., Kalberla, P., White, G., Jones, P., Dickey, J., Green, A. 1998, IAU Symp. 190, 63 Hodge, P.W., 1980, , 241, 125 Hodge, P., Lee, M. G., & Kennicutt, R. C. 1988, , 100, 917 Hodge, P., Lee, M. G., & Kennicutt, R. C. 1989, , 101, 32 Hodge, P., Smith, T., Eskridge, P., MacGillivray, H., Beard, S. 1991, , 379, 621 Hubble, E., 1925, , 62, 409 Israel, F.P., Bontekoe, Tj.R., Kester, D.J.M, 1996, , 308, 723 Jorsater, S., & van Moorsel, G. A. 1995, , 110, 2037 Kamphuis, J., Sancisi, R., & van der Hulst, T. 1991, , 244, L29 Kim, S., Staveley-Smith, L., Dopita, M. A., Sault, R. J., Freeman, K. C., Lee, Y., & Chu, Y. 2003, , 148, 473 Komiyama, Y., et al. 2003, , 590, L17 Letarte, B., Demers, S., Battinelli, P., & Kunkel, W. E. 2002, , 123, 832 Loeb, A., & Perna, R. 1998, , 503, L35 Massey, P., Armandroff, T. E., Pyke, R., Patel, K., & Wilson, C. D. 1995, , 110, 2715 Massey, P., Hodge, P. W., Jacoby, G. H., King, N. L., Olson, K. A. G., Saha, A., & Smith, C. 2000, , 32, 1595 Mateo, M.L. 1998, , 36, 435 Miyazaki, S., et al. 2002, , 54, 833 Ott, J., Walter, F., Brinks, E., Van Dyk, S. D., Dirsch, B., & Klein, U. 2001, , 122, 3070 Perrine, C.D., 1922, , 82, 489 Puche, D., Westpfahl, D., Brinks, E., & Roy, J. 1992, , 103, 1841 Rhode, K. L., Salzer, J. J., Westpfahl, D. J., & Radice, L. A. 1999, , 118, 323 Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Davis, M. 1998, , 500, 525 Skillman, E.D., Terlevich, R., Melnick, J. 1989, , 240, 563 Staveley-Smith, L., , Wilson, W.E., Bird, T.S., Disney, M.J., Ekers, R.D., Freeman, K.C., Haynes, R.F., Sinclair, M.W., Vaile, R.A., Webster, R.L., Wright, A.E., 1996, PASA, 13, 243 Staveley-Smith, L., Sault, R. J., Hatzidimitriou, D., Kesteven, M. J., & McConnell, D. 1997, , 289, 225 Stewart, S. G., & Walter, F. 2000, , 120, 1794 Tenorio-Tagle, G., & Bodenheimer, P. 1988, , 26, 145 van den Bergh, S. 1999, , 117, 2211 Vorobyov, E. I., & Basu, S. 2005, , 431, 451 Walter, F., & Brinks, E. 2001, , 121, 3026 Walter, F., & Brinks, E. 1999, , 118, 273 Walter, F., Kerp, J., Duric, N., Brinks, E., & Klein, U. 1998, , 502, L143 Weldrake, D. T. F., de Blok, W. J. G., & Walter, F. 2003, , 340, 12 Wyder, T.K. 2003, , 125, 3097
[lrrrrr]{} beam major axis $('')$ &1002& 349.4 & 174.7 & 86.4 & 42.4\
beam minor axis $('')$ &1002& 96.0 & 48.0 & 24.0 & 12.0\
pixel size $('')$&240&32.0 &16.0 & 8.0 & 4.0\
$\sigma_{\rm channel}$ (mJy beam$^{-1}$)& 80&13.2 & 8.5 & 5.3 & 3.9\
$\sigma_{\rm HI}$ ($10^{19}$ cm$^{-2}$) & 0.01& $0.07$ & $0.18$ & $0.45$ & $1.3$\
$S$ (Jy km s$^{-1}$) & 2266 & 2020 & 2050 & 1917 & 1909\
$M_{HI}$ $(\times 10^8$ [$M_{\odot}$]{}) & 1.34 & 1.19 & 1.21 & 1.13 & 1.13\
[cll]{} 1 & 19 43 00 & –14 21 30\
2 & 19 43 00 & –14 41 06\
3 & 19 44 09 & –14 50 54\
4 & 19 45 18 & –15 00 52\
5 & 19 46 27 & –15 10 30\
6 & 19 46 27 & –14 50 54\
7 & 19 45 18 & –14 41 06\
8 & 19 44 09 & –14 31 18\
[lrccl]{} 375 & 27 Jun 1999 & 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8& 544& 30.6, 61.2, 91.8, 122.5,\
& & & & 183.7, 214.3, 244.9, 275.5,\
& & & & 336.7, 459.2, 5510.2, 5755.1,\
& & & & 5785.7, 5846.9, 5969.4\
750D & 27 Jul 2000 & 1,2,3,8& 576& 30.6, 107.1, 183.7, 290.8,\
750D & 25 Jul 2000 & 4,5,6,7& 601& 398.0, 428.6, 581.7, 612.3\
& & & & 688.8, 719.4, 3750.0, 3857.1,\
& & & & 4040.8, 4438.8, 4469.4\
1.5A & 1 Jan 2000 & 3,8& 574& 153.1, 321.4, 428.6, 566.3,\
1.5A & 2 Jan 2000 & 4,7& 591& 719.4, 750.0, 887.7, 1040.8,\
1.5A & 3 Jan 2000 & 5,6& 447& 1316.3, 1469.4, 3000.0, 3428.6,\
1.5A & 4 Jan 2000 & 1,2& 568& 3750.0, 4316.3, 4469.4\
6A & 9 Mar 2000 & 3& 551& 336.7, 627.6, 872.4, 1086.8,\
6A & 10 Mar 2000 & 1& 536& 1423.5, 1500.0, 1959.2, 2295.9,\
6A & 11 Mar 2000 & 4& 563& 2586.8, 2923.5, 3015.3, 3352.0,\
6A & 12 Mar 2000 & 2& 572& 4438.8, 5311.2, 5938.8\
6D & 15 Mar 2000 & 8& 555& 76.6, 367.4, 795.9, 1163.3,\
6D & 16 Mar 2000 & 7& 599& 1285.7, 1362.3, 2081.6, 2158.2,\
6D & 17 Mar 2000 & 5& 567& 2449.0, 2525.6, 3352.0, 3428.6,\
6D & 18 Mar 2000 & 6& 585& 4714.3, 5510.2, 5877.6\
[^1]: @hodge89 use different values for the distance modulus and foreground extinction. We have converted the values given in that paper using our adopted @gallart1 values.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have simulated the evolution of age structured populations whose individuals represented by their diploid genomes were distributed on a square lattice. The environmental conditions on the whole territory changed simultaneously in the same way by switching on or off some requirements. Mutations accumulated in the genes dispensable during a given period of time were neutral, but they could cause a genetic death of individuals if the environment required their functions again. Populations survived due to retaining some surplus of genetic information in the individual genomes. The changes of the environment caused the fluctuations of the population size. Since the simulations were performed with individuals spatially distributed on the lattice and the maximal distance between mating partners was set as a parameter of the model, the inbreeding coefficient in populations changed unevenly, following the fluctuation of population size and enhancing the speciation phenomena.'
author:
- 'Wojciech Waga, Marta Zawierta, Stanisław Cebrat'
title: 'Modelling the Evolution of Spatially Distributed Populations in the Uniformly Changing Environment - Sympatric Speciation'
---
Key words: {#key-words .unnumbered}
==========
sympatric speciation, age structured populations, genetic complementation, evolution, Monte Carlo simulations.
Introduction
============
A species is defined as a group of organisms interbreeding in natural conditions and producing fertile offspring while a speciation is a process of species formation. There are two distinct ways of a speciation; allopatric speciation when the population of an original species is divided into two or more groups separated by physical, geographical, environmental or biological barriers and, sympatric speciation when a new species emerges inside the original species population without any former barriers. It is easy to imagine the allopatric speciation which could be the result of the accumulation of differences in the genetic pools of separated sub-populations. Though, it was difficult to find the evolutionary mechanisms leading to the sympatric speciation basing on the mean field models of Mendelian populations used in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. The homogenization of the genetic pool of Mendelian population should effectively prevent any sympatric speciation. That is why sympatric speciation has been considered for a long time as the process which could be neglected in a building up the biodiversity [@Mayr]. Nevertheless, the models describing the processes of the genetic pool evolution of the Mendelian population have assumed some simplifications which formerly seemed to be justified and, in fact, might be used in some instances. When analysing the phenomenon of sympatric speciation, a few of such assumptions might not be introduced into the models.
It is assumed that Mendelian population is large (infinite) and panmictic - each individual in the population may look for a sexual partner in the whole population and there are no mating preferences. In such populations the Hardy-Weinberg principle (HWP) is in force [@Hardy]. HWP states that allele frequencies in a population remain constant or are in equilibrium from generation to generation. HWP can be used, for example, for calculation of the frequency of defective recessive alleles based on the frequency of autosomal diseases. The predictions of the HWP are affected if the analysed allele or haplotype are under a selection pressure, a mutational pressure, there is a non-random mating, or the population size is limited. Furthermore, the Fisher-Write (F-W) model introduced another simplification based on the Mendelian principle saying that alleles can assort to the gametes independently [@Fisher]. In nature, the large groups of genes are located on single chromosomes. Since the crossover frequency is relatively low, such groups are often transmitted to the gametes as clusters and genes in the cluster definitely are not transferred independently. There are some data suggesting that even genes located on different chromosomes are not transferred into gametes independently [@Ehlers], [@Trowsdale], [@Younger], [@Hiby], [@Gendzekhadze], [@Yawata] or there are expected some mechanisms of the gamete recognition which could be a further restriction imposed on the independent assortment of genes [@Stauffer]. The analogous mechanism is well known in bacteria as an entry exclusion system [@Novick]. If we assume that individuals, even in large populations, are spatially distributed, then, it is natural to impose some restriction on distances where they can look for mating partners and where they can place their newborns. In such a locally limited mating, the effective size of a population is not equal to the size of the whole panmictic population even if there are no other mating preferences [@Waga]. In such populations, there is a very strong relation between the effective size of population (which defines the inbreeding) and the intra-genomic recombination rate [@Marta], [@Zawierta]. The probability that a newborn would receive a long non-disrupted string of genes or even two homologous fragments of haplotypes from one ancestor depends on both the intra-genomic recombination rate and the effective size of population [@Marta]. If such parameters are considered in the models of a population evolution, the sympatric speciation appears as a very common phenomenon. Furthermore, it seems to be an inherent property of expanding populations, especially at the borders of such populations [@Waga].
The other problem is a response of organisms to the environmental changes. In the post-genomic era, many experiments suggested that genomes include dispensable genes. For dozens of percent of genes, it is very difficult to find any phenotypic trait in the individuals with one of those genes eliminated from their genome or silenced. Though, for a fraction of such individuals with one knocked out gene, a specific phenotype can be found if many alternative environmental conditions are checked [@Giaever], [@Kamath], [@Kobayashi]. These experiments indicate that some genes in the genomes may not be used during the whole life span of an organism if the environmental conditions have not required their specific function. If organisms have lived in such conditions for many generations, the accumulation of mutations and eventually the deletion of the gene and its function could be expected for a substantial fraction of population. If the environment turns to demand the function again, this fraction of population could be in risk of genetic death. Computer models have shown that populations considerably shrinks in such conditions passing through the so called bottle neck or could be even extinct [@Fabian].
In this paper we describe the results of simulations suggesting that environmental changes inducing the fluctuations in size of populations could enhance the probability of the sympatric speciation. In extreme, a catastrophe, considerably reducing the population size and increasing the inbreeding, could be a natural cause of a very fast speciation, like that one observed in Permian.
Materials and Methods
=====================
We have used the diploid version of the Penna model [@Penna] for simulation of the age structured populations. The Penna model, based on the Monte Carlo method, has been used in more than a hundred works studying different aspects of the biological evolution (for review see [@Stauffer1]). In our modification, a population was composed of individuals represented by their diploid genomes composed of two pairs of bit-strings (chromosomes) - one 128 bits long, the other one 384 bits long. Bits correspond to alleles. If bit is set to 0 it corresponds to the wild (correct, functional) allele if it is set to 1 it corresponds to the defective allele. All defective alleles are recessive - both alleles at the corresponding loci have to be defective to determine a defective phenotypic trait. Declared number T of defective phenotypic characters kills the individual. Bits are switched on chronologically - the consecutive bits are switched on in the consecutive Monte Carlo steps (MCs) of the individual’s life; single bits in the same positions (loci) of two short bit-strings and three bits in the corresponding positions of each of two longer bit-strings are switched on in one MCs. Thus, older individuals have more bits switched on. The Penna diploid model reproduces very well age structures of natural populations including the human populations and their changes during the last century [@Bonkowska].
Individuals were placed on a square lattice of size a x b, no more than one individual per square. A female in the reproduction age looks for male partner being also at the reproduction age at the distance no larger than P. To produce the offspring, both parents copy their genomes. During the genome replication one mutation is introduced into each haplotype at the random position (the frequency of mutation per bit is the same for both bit-strings). Mutation changes bit 0 to 1, if the chosen bit is already 1 it stays 1 (there are no reversions). Homologous bit-strings recombine at the random position with probability C in the process mimicking crossover. Notice, a recombination rate for both pairs of bit-strings is the same. Single copies of both bit-strings (or the products of their recombination) form a gamete. Gametes of two partners fuse forming the genome of a zygote. The zygote is going to be born if it does not express T phenotypic traits in the first 50 loci of the short bit-strings and 150 loci in the longer ones, otherwise it dies (this death corresponds to miscarriage). The other condition for delivering a newborn is a free square at the distance no larger than B from a mother. If there is no free square at such a distance a baby is not born. The alleles placed on the consecutive loci (the single locus of the shorter chromosome pair and the three loci of the longer pair) of the newborn genome successfully placed on the lattice are switched on and checked every MCs until it reaches the reproduction age R (80). During the reproduction period each female can deliver up to b newborns at each MCs. The maximum life span of individuals is 128 MCs, when all bits have been switched on. Under parameters used in the simulations, individuals die earlier because of their genetic conditions. In the Penna model, a characteristic gradient of defective genes is generated - the higher fraction of defects occurs in genes expressed later after a minimum reproduction age, for the last loci in the bit-strings the fraction of defective alleles reaches 1.The visualization of the population evolution on the lattice has been done by colouring the squares occupied by individuals according to their genotypes. To each number $1-2^{24}$ a specific colour has been ascribed. The central parts of the two longer bit-strings of an individual (bits 105 - 128) have been read and each fragment of the bit-string was considered as a number. The squares occupied by the individual were coloured according to the larger of the numbers.
To introduce environmental changes, a pattern of the environment is defined in the bit-strings 512 bits long, corresponding to all loci of both chromosomes. Environmental changes were introduced by switching the requirement for a function - on (value of bit 0), or off (value of bit 1). If the requirement for function is switched off, the activity of the corresponding locus on a chromosome has a neutral character and even if both bits at the position are set to 1 the defective phenotypic trait of the position is not seen - an individual survives. Those positions can accumulate defects without any penalty by selection. Nevertheless, after a long period of neutrality of a given position, a substantial fraction of population could loss the corresponding function and switching on the requirement for this function could be deleterious for individuals which have already lost it. Environment has been changed in two different ways:
- [systematically - bit-strings describing the environment condition have been divided for fragments 24 bits long. At each of the fragment the first 8 bits were set to 1 for a declared period of time. Then, those bits were set to 0 again while the consecutive 8 bits are set to 1 and, in the third period the second group was set to 0 while the last 8 bits were set to 1. Such a round of three changes was periodically repeated. In this version, the frequency of environmental change and the position of neutral bits have been precisely controlled.]{}
- [randomly - declared number of 512 bits of the environment pattern is changed at each MCs from 1 to 0 or from 0 to 1. Notice that after simulations long enough half of bits are 1 and half are set to 0 which means that half of genetic information in the genomes is dispensable at a given MCs.]{}
Results and Discussion
======================
The monte Carlo models of population evolution in the changing environments were used several times [@Brigatti], [@Sa; @Martins]. Nevertheless, consideration of the genome structure of individuals of evolving populations generates some problems. Usually a pattern of the environment is constructed in the same way as the genomes or the haplotypes of individuals - as the bit-strings. Bits representing genes in the genome can mutate from 0 (functioning) to 1 (defective). Reversions in nature are very rare and in the models it is often assumed that there are no reversions. There is a quite different situation in the description of the environment conditions. The environmental changes are set in the models by replacing the values of bits in the environmental pattern ($0\Leftrightarrow1$) [@Sa; @Martins]. It is natural that the environmental conditions can fluctuate and ,,reversions” should be considered, usually with the same frequency as in the ,,forward” direction. If a bit in the environment pattern is set to 0, it means that the required status of the corresponding, functional allele is also 0. Such a form of the functional allele is usually considered as a dominant one; it can complement the defective allele in the homologous locus of the second haplotype. If a bit 0 is replaced by 1 in the pattern, it means that environment requires 1 in the genome in the corresponding locus. That raises a problem - how to set the character of bits 0 - should they stay dominant or switch to recessive in the changed environment? If 0 is still dominant, it means that the mutation of the allele 0 which now is ,,a bad one” to the ,,good allele” (1) is recessive and a mutation from the good allele to the bad one is dominant. In fact, mutations in the most of loci are recessive. Recessive mutations lead to a loss of allele function, but usually they are masked if a wild copy of the allele is present in the genome. If the probability of changing the bits in the environmental pattern in both directions is equal - the number of loci where mutations are dominant or recessive in equilibrium would be equal, too. This condition itself changes the characteristic of the genetic pool and the population evolution considerably because it leads to a situation where deleterious mutations are dominant in 50% of the loci. The other problem is in the way, how genomes in the evolving populations follow the changes in the environment patterns. The 0 bit in the pattern requires 0 in the genome, the change to 1 in the pattern changes the demand to the form 1 of the functional allele. The reversion of the bit in the environmental pattern demands the reversion of the allele in the genome (by mutation). This property of the model is unrealistic because it assumes that mutations change the gene from one functional form to the other one, also functional and even more unrealistic - next mutation changes it to the former one. In fact, in such a model, there is a switching between two conditionally functioning forms of genes just by single mutations.
To omit all these obstacles, we have assumed that environmental conditions are described only by the requirement of a given function or not. If the function is dispensable - the genetic activity of the corresponding locus has the neutral effect. On the other hand, mutations always transform the functional gene into its defective, non-functional form, there are no reversions and the functional allele can complement the defective one.
Constant Environment
--------------------
![The scheme of the relation between the genomes and the environment. Individuals are represented by a pair of chromosomes 1 - bit-strings 128 bits long, and a pair of chromosomes 2 - bit-strings 384 bits long. One bit of chromosome 1 and three bits of chromosome 2 are switched on at each Monte Carlo step. The environmental pattern is represented by a bit-string 512 bits long (lower part), each bit corresponding to one bit in chromosomes. The selection kills the individual only if both alleles in the same locus are defective (set to 1) and the environment is set to 0. Even if both alleles are set to 1, an individual is not killed if the environment does not require the function (1 in the environment pattern).[]{data-label="f1"}](fig/env_fig1.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![The distribution of defective genes on chromosomes (on the left) and age distribution of simulated populations (on the right) after simulations under different recombination rate; upper panel C=1.0 and lower panel C=0.34. For higher cross over rate the fraction of defective genes and their distribution along the chromosomes is almost the same. For lower recombination rate shorter chromosome has lower fraction of defective genes while the longer one is already in complementation strategy and has higher fraction of defects unevenly distributed. Notice that three bits of longer chromosome are switched on at each MCs, the age distribution is shown only for individuals at the age 50 and above (for more information please refer to text).[]{data-label="f2"}](fig/env_fig2.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![Distribution of population on lattice close to the critical values of parameters. Left panel just before the environmental change and the right one 100MCs (one generation) after the change.[]{data-label="f3"}](fig/env_fig3.png){width="\textwidth"}
In the Fig. \[f1\] the schemes of the chromosomes and the environmental pattern are presented. Our control simulations start with genomes loaded with 7,5% of randomly distributed defective genes and the environment demanding the function of all loci. If the recombination rate is relatively high (C=1), the population is highly polymorphic and 98% of available territory is occupied. The age structure of this population and the average fraction of defective alleles along the chromosomes are shown in Fig. \[f2\]. Under the lower recombination rate, the longer chromosomes choose the complementing strategy while the shorter bit-strings stay in the purifying selection (the low fraction of defective alleles). The complementing fragments of haplotypes have the unique distribution of defective alleles and force the speciation. In the snapshot of the population evolution the speciation is illustrated by large spots of the same colours (Fig. \[f3\]). The individuals with the same colours have the same configuration of wild and defective alleles in the central parts of their genomes (see the model section). There is no specific distribution of alleles located on the shorter bit-string. The same population coloured according to the central part of the short bit-strings is polymorphic (not shown). It could be interpreted that genes located on the shorter bit-strings, with relatively low number of alleles per genetic unit (centiMorgan) are not involved in the sympatric speciation.
Changing Environment
--------------------
![Fluctuation of the population size under cyclic changes of the environment - one third of functions neutral for 60 MCs (see text for more details).[]{data-label="f4"}](fig/env_fig4.pdf){height="8cm"}
![The distribution of the requirements of the randomly changing environment in time. Simulations starts with all functions required by the environment. One function is randomly chosen at each Monte Carlo step and it flops from 0 to 1 or vice versa. After about 1500 MCs the number of neutral functions equals the number of required functions (left plot). In the right plot, the y-axis presents the fraction of bits in the environment pattern which were not changed during a given period of simulation, measured in MCs (x-axis) and the fraction of positions in the genome which were hit by the mutation during the same period of time.[]{data-label="f5"}](fig/env_fig5a.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"} ![The distribution of the requirements of the randomly changing environment in time. Simulations starts with all functions required by the environment. One function is randomly chosen at each Monte Carlo step and it flops from 0 to 1 or vice versa. After about 1500 MCs the number of neutral functions equals the number of required functions (left plot). In the right plot, the y-axis presents the fraction of bits in the environment pattern which were not changed during a given period of simulation, measured in MCs (x-axis) and the fraction of positions in the genome which were hit by the mutation during the same period of time.[]{data-label="f5"}](fig/env_fig5b.pdf "fig:"){width="49.40000%"}
To check the effect of the environmental changes, a defined part of loci in the genomes has been declared as neutral at the start of simulations (the first version of the environment changes). After a given period of time, the environment requires the functions of those loci again while some other loci become neutral, and after the second period, the functions of those loci are again required while the last group become neutral. In fact, in this version, the environmental changes are cyclic. Short periods of neutrality have not a deleterious effect because all individuals are checked during their life for the functionality of all genes. But even in such a case, some negative effects of environmental changes could be observed. It is connected with some delay of the phenotypic expression of the genetic defects. Defective genomes are eliminated later than normally exploiting the environment in vain or even transferring the defect to the next generation. If the environment does not require a given function for longer periods - individuals can accumulate the defective alleles which kill their offspring when environment is again demanding the function. The fluctuations of the population sizes caused by these changes are shown in Fig. \[f4\]. What is highly unintuitive, the probability of population survival is higher when the cross over rate is lower in case of the cyclic environmental changes. Close to the critical values of parameters, when populations are close to the extinction, the surviving individuals are not dispersed evenly on the whole territory. They are grouped. The snapshots just before and after the changes are shown in Fig. \[f3\]. For more detailed visualizations and animations please visit: http://www.smorfland.uni.wroc.pl/sympatry/env. All individuals in a given group possess functional genes actually required by the environment, which suggest that they belong to one family. To prove that hypothesis, we have checked the genetic relations back to the fifth generation. All other squares occupied by individuals related up to the fifth generation will highlight. Since the density of populations drops and, additionally, organisms forming groups are genetically related, the speciation is accelerated.
![The expected distribution of the function requirement after different time of simulations (in MCs). Simulations start with all functions required.[]{data-label="f6"}](fig/env_fig6.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
![The snapshots of populations evolved under different regimes. Upper panels in the constant environment (left lattice with cross over rate 1.0 per chromosome pair, right lattice with cross over rate 0.34). Lower panel with the same crossover rate (left lattice with randomly changing environment - 2 bits each MCs, right lattice in periodically changing environment (see text for more details).[]{data-label="f7"}](fig/env_fig7.png){width="\textwidth"}
Random changes of the environment were introduced by declaring that the constant number of randomly chosen bits in the environment pattern is changed every MCs and the probability of changes in both directions are equal. The dynamic of such changes is shown in Fig. \[f5\]. In particular, when only one bit is changed every MCs, after about 1500 MCs the environmental requirements is already close to the equilibrium - almost half of functions are neutral (bits in the environment pattern set to 1) and half are required (bits in the environment pattern set to 0). The expected distribution of a ,,bit survival”, which means what is the fraction of bits of the original environmental pattern which have not been changed, drops exponentially with the number of MCs as it is shown in the Fig. \[f5\] (the fraction of unchanged bits). Some functions stay neutral for a very long time (statistically, 2% of functions can stay neutral for more than 2000 MCs). Since mutation rate is of the order of 2 mutations per haplotype per generation, the large fraction of genes coding for functions which are neutral for very long time accumulates mutations and kills the carriers after switching on the requirement for the very function. The process of switching on and off of the environmental requirements is stochastic and the expected distributions of the environmental requirements after different time of simulations are shown in Fig. \[f6\]. The effect of the environmental changes on speciation is shown in Fig. \[f7\]. The upper two panels show the population evolution in the constant environment. The only difference in parameters between the two populations is in the recombination frequency. In the left one, there is C=1.0 while in the right one C=0.34. In the lower panels both populations evolved under the same parameters, but the right one was in the periodically changing environment while the left one evolved in the randomly changing environment with requirements for two functions changing every MCs. Comparing the upper panel with the lower one, it could be concluded that the environmental changes accelerate the sympatric speciation.
Acknowledgements
================
We thank D. Stauffer for comments and discussions. The work has been done in the frame of European programs: COST Action MP0801, FP6 NEST - GIACS and UNESCO Chair of Interdisciplinary Studies, University of Wrocław.
Calculations have been carried out in Wrocław Centre for Networking and Supercomputing (http://www.wcss.wroc.pl), grant \#102.
[99]{} Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia Press Hardy GH (1908) Mendelian proportions in a mixed population. Science 28: 49—50 Fisher RA (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press Ehlers A, Beck S, Forbes SA, Townsdale J, Volz A et al. (2000) MHC-Linked Olfactory Receptor Loci Exhibit Polymorphism and Contribute to Extended HLA/OR-Haplotypes. Genome Res. 10: 1968—1978 Trowsdale J (2001) Genetic and functional relationships between MHC and NK receptor genes. Immunity 15: 363—374 Younger RM, Amadou C, Bethel G, Ehlers A, Lindahl KF et al. (2001) Characterization of Clustered MHC-Linked Olfactory Receptor Genes in Human and Mouse. Genome Res. 11: 519—530 Hiby SE, Walker JJ, O’Shaughnessy KM, Redman CW, Carrington M et al. (2004) Combinations of maternal KIR and fetal HLA-C genes influence the risk of preeclampsia and reproductive success. Exp. Med. 200: 957—965 Gendzekhadze K, Norman PJ, Abi-Rached L, Layrisse Z, Parham P (2006) KIR diversity in Amerindians is maintained using few gene-content haplotypes. Immunogenet. 58: 474—480 Yawata M, Yawata N, Draghi D, Little AM, Partheniou F et al. (2006) Roles for HLA and KIR polymorphisms in natural killer cell repertoire selection and modulation of effector function. J. Exp. Med. 203: 633—645 Cebrat S, Stauffer D (2008) Gamete recognition and complementary haplotypes in sexual Penna ageing model. International Journal of Modern Physics C 19 (2): 259—265 Novick RP (1987) Plasmid incompatibility. Microbiol Rev 51: 381—395 Waga W, Mackiewicz D, Zawierta M, Cebrat S (2007) Sympatric speciation as intrinsic property of expanding populations. Theory in Biosciences 126: 53—59 Zawierta M, Biecek P, Waga W, Cebrat S (2007) The role of intragenomic recombination rate in the evolution of population’s genetic pool. Theory in Biosciences 125 (2): 123—132 Zawierta M, Waga W, Mackiewicz D, Biecek P, Cebrat S (2008) Phase Transition in Sexual Reproduction and Biological Evolution. International Journal of Modern Physics C 6 (19): 917—936 Giaever G, Chu AM, Ni L, Connelly C, Riles Let al. (2007) Functional profiling of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome. Nature 418(6896): 387—391 Kamath RS, Fraser AG, Dong Y, Poulin G, Durbin R et al. (2003) Systematic functional analysis of the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using RNAi. Nature 421(6920): 220—221 K. Kobayashi, Ehrlich SD, Albertinid A, Amatid G, Andersene KK et al. (2003) Essential Bacillussubtilis genes. PNAS 100(8): 4678—4683 Cebrat S, Pekalski A, Scharf F (2006) Monte Carlo simulations of the inside intron recombination. International Journal of Modern Physics C 17(2): 305—314 Penna TJP (1995) A bit-string model for biological aging. J. Stat. Phys. 78: 1629—1633 Stauffer D, Moss de Oliveira S, de Oliveira PMC , S’a Martins JS (2006) Biology, Sociology, Geology by Computational Physicists. Amsterdam: Elsevier Bo[ń]{}kowska K, Szymczak S, Cebrat S (2006) Microscopic modeling the demographic changes. International Journal of Modern Physics C 17(10): 1477—1484
Brigatti E, S’a Martins JS, Roditi I (2007) Evolution of biodiversity and sympatric speciation through competition in a unimodal distribution of resources. Physica A 376: 378—386
J. S. S’a Martins, D. Stauffer, P. M. C. de Oliveira, S. Moss de Oliveira, Simulated self-organisation of death by inherited mutations. To appear on Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciências.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We propose a minimal spectral theory for boundary layer turbulence that captures very well the profile of the mean square velocity fluctuations in the stream-wise direction, and gives a quantitative prediction of the Townsend-Perry constants. The phenomenological model is based on connecting the statistics in the streamwise direction with the energy spectrum of the streamvise velocity fluctuations. The original spectral theory was proposed in Ref. [@gioia2006turbulent] to explain the friction factor and von Kármán law in Ref. [@GGGC10]. We generalized it by including fluctuations in the wall-shear stress and the streamwise velocity. The predicted profiles for the mean velocity and mean square fluctuations are compared with velocity data from wind tunnel experiments.'
author:
- 'Björn Birnir $^1$, Luiza Angheluta$^2$, John Kaminsky$^1$, Xi Chen$^3$'
bibliography:
- 'referencef.bib'
title: 'Spectral link of the generalized Townsend-Perry constants in turbulent boundary layers'
---
Introduction
============
Turbulence is a ubiquitous phenomenon encountered in very diverse natural systems, from the large-scale atmosphere [@wyngaard1992atmospheric] and oceans [@toschi2009lagrangian] all the way down to quantum fluids [@vinen2002quantum], as well as in engineered systems, such as pipelines, heat exchangers, wind turbines, etc. It relates to the complex fluid dynamics that orchestrates the interactions of flow eddies spanning many length-scales and generating non-Gaussian statistics of velocity increments. The statistical properties of these turbulent fluctuations are fundamentally changed when the flow is confined by the presence of solid walls or boundaries [@smits2013wall; @jimenez2013near]. In contrast to bulk turbulence, which is statistically homogeneous and isotropic, the wall-bounded turbulence is characterised by statistically anisotropic properties. Namely, there is a net mean-flow in the streamwise direction along the wall and the different flow structures form depending on their distance to the wall. We typically differentiate between four flow regions as moving away from the wall [@Ob97]: i) the [*viscous region*]{} closest to the wall and where viscous flows dominate, ii) the [*buffer layer*]{}, marking the transition from the viscous layer into the inertial layer, iii) the [*inertial layer*]{} where the log-law of the wall applies, and iv) the [*wake*]{}, the energetic region beyond the inertial layer. A more refined division is given in [@CHS19].
A classical signature of wall-bounded turbulence is the “log-law of the wall” of the mean velocity profile (MVP) due to Prandtl and von Kármán, and reads as $$\label{eq:l-lwall}
\langle \tilde u \rangle = \frac{1}{\kappa} \log(\tilde y)+B,$$ where $\kappa$ is the *universal* von Kármán constant that is independent of the microscopic flow characteristics and relates to generic features such as space dimensionality. The distance to the wall $y$ and the mean fluid velocity $u$ along the wall, are typically expressed in the “wall units” determined by the wall shear stress $\tau_0$. This is because $\tau_0$ is an important theoretical concept that is also experimentally measurable. The friction velocity $u_\tau = \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle/\rho}$ which is set by the wall shear stress $\tau_0$ and the kinematic viscosity $\nu$, and enters in the unit rescalings as $\tilde u= u/u_\tau$ and $\tilde y = yu_\tau/ \nu$. The constant fluid density is $\rho$ and the $B$ is a dimensionless constant that is fitted to experimental data, e.g. [@P53].
![Theoretical predictions from the spectral theory for the MVP $\langle u \rangle$ and mean square velocity fluctuations $\langle w^2\rangle$ (dimensionless variables in wall units). []{data-label="fig:wx1"}](Figure_0.pdf){width=".4\textwidth"}
A log-law of the wall was also derived from the “attached eddy hypothesis” by Townsend [@T76]. Townsend showed that the velocity fluctuations, $\tilde w =w/u_\tau$, $\tilde u= \langle \tilde u \rangle + \tilde w$, also follow the log-law of the wall in its second moment, namely $$\label{eq:l-lfluct}
{\langle \tilde w^2 \rangle} = - A_1 \log(\tilde y) + B_1,$$ where the coefficients $A_1$ and $B_1$, also called the Townsend-Perry constants, were first measured by Perry and Chong [@PC82; @P86].
More recently, the log-law was generalised to any moment of the streamwise velocity fluctuations, $\tilde w$, assuming Gaussian velocity fluctuations [@MM13], $$\label{eq:l-pfluct}
\langle \tilde w^{2p} \rangle^{1/p} = - A_p \log(\tilde y) + B_p.$$ While the generalised log-law is supported by wall-turbulence experiments, the dependance of $A_p$ and $B_p$ on $p$ turns out to be sub-Gaussian, which is confirmed both experimentally and numerically, [@MM13]. The sub-Gaussian behavior was explained in Ref. [@BC16] using the stochastic closure theory of turbulence [@BB211; @BB314] and the analysis was improved in Ref. [@KBK19], using measurements from the Flow Physics Facility (FPF) at the University of New Hampshire. Both of these studies used the results from homogeneous turbulence [@KBBS17] and made an assumption about the form of the fluctuating shear stress in the inertial layer, based on physical principles.
In Ref. [@GGGC10], a spectral theory for the log-law of the wall of the MVP was proposed in which it is possible to derive the log-law in the inertial layer and the laminar profile in the viscous layer. The novel contribution is the precise form of the transition in the buffer layer using the the Kolmogorov-Obukhov energy spectrum of turbulent fluctuations. The form of the MVP in the wake is also obtained. This was done by summing the energy of the wall-attached eddies, as hypothesised originally by Townsend in [@T76].
In this paper, we propose a generalisation of the spectral theory that includes fluctuations in the streamwise velocity due to an essentially fluctuating wall shear stress. Fig. \[fig:wx1\] shows the spectral theory predictions of the profiles of the mean velocity and mean square velocity fluctuations across the viscous, buffer and inertial layers. The rest of the paper is structured as follow. We summarise the analysis in Ref. [@GGGC10] and its extension in Section \[sec:MVP\], and generalise it to include the fluctuations in Section \[sec:fluct\]. This produces the log law of the wall in Eq. (\[eq:l-lfluct\]) for the velocity fluctuations and its higher moments in Eq. (\[eq:l-pfluct\]). Then in Section \[sec:functional\], we derive the functional form of the mean-square fluctuations in the viscous layer and the inertial layer. In Section \[sec:SCT\], we use the attached eddy hypothesis and the stochastic closure theory [@BB211; @BB314] to derive the form of the Townsend-Perry and the generalized Townsend-Perry constants. This allows us to derive the streamwise fluctuations in the wall shear stress, and remove the assumption made in Refs. [@BC16] and [@KBK19], and mentioned above. Using theory-informed by data analysis, we can construct the Townsend-Perry constants and the generalised Townsend-Perry constants. In Section \[sec:BW\], we extend the formulas for the mean square fluctuations to the buffer layer and the energetic wake. In Section \[sec:data\], we compare the predicted MVP and mean-square velocity profile from this spectral theory to experimental data. In Section \[sec:summary\], we conclude with a discussion on the proposed spectral theory and the role that Townsend’s attached eddies play in it.
The Spectral Theory {#sec:MVP}
===================
The typical velocity of an inertial eddy of size $s$ can be obtained by integrating out the kinetic energy contained in all eddies of sizes up to $s$ as in Ref. [@GGGC10] $$\label{eq:vs}
v_s^2 = \int_{1/s}^\infty E(k)dk,$$ where kinetic energy spectrum follows the Kolmogorov-Obukhov scaling with cutoffs in the injection scale and viscous scales, $E(k) =c_d(\eta k) \frac{2}{3}(\kappa_\epsilon \epsilon )^{2/3}k^{-5/3} c_e(Rk)$, with $\frac{2}{3}(\kappa_\epsilon \epsilon)^{2/3}k^{-5/3}$ being the Kolmogorov-Obukhov spectrum and $c_d (\eta k)$ and $c_e(R k)$ the phenomenological dimensionless corrections functions in the dissipative (set by the Kolmogorov scale $\eta$) and energetic range (set by the system size $R$), respectively. $\kappa_\epsilon$ is a dimensionless parameter, $\epsilon$ is the turbulent energy dissipation rate, $\eta=\nu^{3/4}\epsilon^{-1/4}$ is the viscous length scale and $R$ is the largest length scale in the flow. The dissipative correction function is typically an exponential cutoff function $c_d(\eta k) =\exp(-\beta_d \eta k)$, and the energetic-range (wake) correction function is $c_e(Rk)=(1+(\beta_e/(Rk))^2)^{-17/4}$, which is the form that was proposed by von Kármán. $\beta_d$ and $\beta_e$ are non-negative fitting parameters that can be adjusted to data. By the change of variables $\xi = sk$, we recast Eq. (\[eq:vs\]) as $$v_s^2 = (\kappa_\epsilon \epsilon s)^{2/3}I\left(\frac{\eta}{s},\frac{s}{R}\right),$$ where the spectral function $I$ is given by the formula [@GGGC10] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:spectcont}
&I\left(\frac{\eta}{s},\frac{s}{R}\right)= \nonumber \\
&\frac{2}{3} \int_1^\infty e^{-\xi \beta_d \eta/s}\xi^{-5/3}\left(1+\left(\frac{\beta_e s}{R\xi}\right)^2\right)^{-17/6} d\xi.\end{aligned}$$ The integral sums the energies of all eddies of a smaller radius than $s$, and computes their contribution to the energy of the eddy of radius $s$. This is the energy (or spectral) formulation of the attached eddy hypothesis of Townsend [@T76]. The $I$-function correctly captures the buffer layer, as the transition from the viscous to the inertial layer, and the asymptotic of the MVP in the energetic wake. The asymptotic values are such that in the inertial layer $I=1$ and in the viscous layer $I=0$. The $I$-function combines the Kolmogorov-Obukhov theory with the observed spectrum in the viscous layer, the inertial layer and the wake and is thus able to capture the transition from one layer to the next. In Ref [@GGGC10], it was used to give the details of the MVP. In this paper, we will use it to capture the profile of mean-square fluctuations.
In the buffer layer a different scaling of the attached eddies comes into play, this is the $k_x^{-1}$ scaling of the spectrum that has been debated in literature, but clearly shows up in recent simulations and experiments in the middle of the buffer layer, see Figure 9 (a) in Ref. [@LM15] and Figure 12 (b) in Ref. [@Sa18]. In the spectral theory, corresponding $I$-function for this scaling regime is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:spectcont1}
&I_b\left(\frac{\eta}{s},\frac{s}{R}\right)= \nonumber\\
&\frac{2}{3}s^{-\frac{2}{3}} \int_1^\infty e^{-\xi \beta_d \frac{\eta}{s}}\xi^{-1}\left(1+\left(\frac{\beta_e s}{R\xi}\right)^2\right)^{-\frac{17}{6}} d\xi, \end{aligned}$$ where the subscript $b$ stands for “buffer”. The mean velocity is primarily influenced by the $I$-function, whereas the variation (fluctuation squared) is greatly influenced by the $I_b$-function in the buffer layer. $I$ is associated with the Kolmogorov-Obukhov energy cascade $k_x^{-5/3}$, in the inertial layer, whereas $I_b$ is associated with the $k_x^{-1}$ scaling in the buffer layer. (Here the $x$ denotes the streamwise direction.) We will take $I_b$ to be zero outside the buffer layer.
The splitting of the near-wall region based on different scaling of the spectrum was proposed by Perry and Chong [@PC82] who used it build an interpolation model for MVP and the variation, this model was improved in Ref. [@Va15].
The generalised log-law {#sec:fluct}
=======================
In this section, we will give a simple derivation of the log-law for the mean-square velocity profile that holds in the limit of large Reynolds number. In the following section we derive the general form of the variation that is not equally transparent.
We will generalize the derivation of the MVP in Ref. [@GGGC10], by adding a fluctuation to the mean velocity. We let the velocity along the wall be $$v_1=u+v_1-u=u+w,$$ where $u$ is the mean velocity obtained by averaging $v_1$ over time, and $w$ is the fluctuation. The same derivations as in Ref. [@GGGC10] give the following equations for a dominant eddy of radius $s=y$, if we include the velocity fluctuations. In Ref. [@GGGC10] the shear stress at the distance $y$ from the wall is given by the formula ${\bar \tau_t} = \kappa_\tau \rho y v_y u'$ where $u'$ denotes the $y$ derivative of the velocity $u$ along the wall, and the overline indicates a not-fluctuating quantity. When velocity fluctuations are included the shear stress becomes: $$\label{eq:shear-stress}
\tau_t = \kappa_\tau \rho y v_y (u'+w'),$$ where $\rho$ is the density $v_y$ is the (rotational) velocity of an eddy a distance $y$ from the wall and $\kappa_\tau$ is the dimensionless proportionality factor. The energy dissipation rate is related to the wall shear stress as ${\bar \epsilon} = \tau_t u'/\rho$ [@GGGC10] , and including the fluctuations, this becomes $$\label{eq:energy}
\epsilon = \tau_t(u'+w')/\rho.$$ The eddy velocity for an eddy with radius $s=y$ at the distance $y$ from the wall is the same as in Ref. [@GGGC10], and as discussed above, $$\label{eq:e-viscosity}
v_y= (\kappa_\epsilon \epsilon y)^{1/3} \sqrt{I},$$ where $I$ is the integral from Eq. (\[eq:spectcont\]) and $\kappa_\epsilon$ is a dimensionless proportionality factor. In the inertial layer $I=1$ and $\kappa_\epsilon = 4/5$ according to Kolmogorov’s $4/5$ law.
Eliminating $\epsilon$ and $v_y$ from the three equations above, we obtain $$\label{eq:shear-stress_1}
\tau_t= (\kappa_\epsilon \kappa_\tau^3)^{1/2} \rho y^2 (u'+w')^2 I^{3/4}.$$ The viscous shear stress is $\rho \nu (u'+w')$ so the total shear stress, including the contribution from the fluctuation is [@T76] $$\tau_t + \rho \nu (u'+w') = \tau_0(1-y/R).$$ Our assumption is that the wall shear stress $\tau_0$ is also a quantity that fluctuates about its mean value.
We change the rescaled variables in the wall units written here in terms of the friction factor $f$: $\tilde y=y Re\sqrt{f}/R$, $\tilde u = u/(U\sqrt{f})$ and $\tilde w=w/(U\sqrt{f})$ and let $f=\langle \tau_0\rangle/\rho U^2$. Then, the equation above becomes $$\label{eq:total_stress1}
{\tilde \kappa}^2 {\tilde y}^2(\tilde u'+\tilde w')^2 I^{3/4}+(\tilde u'+\tilde w') = \frac{\tau_0}{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}\left(1-\frac{\tilde y}{Re\sqrt{f}}\right).$$ If we let $\tilde y \to 0$, $\tilde w \to 0$ and integrate, we get the law of the viscous layer $$\label{eq:viscous}
\tilde u = \tilde y,$$ the laminar profile being $$\label{eq:laminar}
\tilde u = \left(\tilde y-\frac{\tilde y^2}{2Re\sqrt{f}}\right).$$ In the large Reynolds number limit, solving just for the mean velocity, we obtain the Prandtl-von Kármán law $$\label{eq:velocity}
\tilde u = \frac{1}{\tilde \kappa}\log (\tilde y)+D.$$ This is the correct leading term but the full formulas in the next section are more complicated. We now motivate the log-law for the variation. If we solve for both the mean velocity and the fluctuation in the large Reynolds number limit, we get that $$\label{eq:velocity1}
\tilde u+\tilde w= \frac{\sqrt{\tau_0}}{\langle \tau_0\rangle^{1/2} \tilde \kappa} \log (\tilde y)+C.$$ This is consistent with the Eq. (\[eq:velocity\]) in the sense that if $\sqrt{\tau_0}=\langle \tau_0\rangle^{1/2}$, then $\tilde w =0$ and we recover Eq. (\[eq:velocity\]). Thus squaring Eq. (\[eq:velocity1\]) gives that $${\tilde u}^2+2\tilde u \tilde w +{\tilde w}^2= \frac{\tau_0}{\langle \tau_0\rangle \tilde \kappa^2} (\log(\hat y))^2+2\frac{\sqrt{\tau_0}}{\tilde \kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}} C\log(\tilde y) +C^2.$$ Taking the average, using that $\langle \tilde w \rangle = 0$ and Eq. (\[eq:velocity\]), we get that $$\langle \tilde w^2 \rangle = \frac{2C\langle \sqrt{\tau_0}\rangle-2D\sqrt{\langle\tau_0\rangle}}{\tilde \kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}}\log(\tilde y) +C^2-D^2.$$ By comparing this with the generalised log-law in Eq. (\[eq:l-lfluct\]), for the fluctuations squared, we obtain $$\label{eq:gloglaw}
\langle \tilde w^2 \rangle = -A \log(\tilde y)+B,$$ where $A = - \frac{2C\langle \sqrt{\tau_0}\rangle-2D\sqrt{\langle\tau_0\rangle}}{\tilde \kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}}$ and $B = C^2-D^2$ are the Townsend-Perry constants. The full formulas in next section show that Eq. (\[eq:gloglaw\]) is the leading term and $A = - 2C(\frac{\langle \sqrt{\tau_0}\rangle-\sqrt{\langle\tau_0\rangle}}{\tilde \kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}})$, with $C=D$.
To simplify the notation, we will now drop the tilde’s from all the variable with the dimensionless units implicitly assumed, unless otherwise stated.
The functional form of the Townsend-Perry law {#sec:functional}
=============================================
We will now use Eq. (\[eq:total\_stress1\]) to find the general form of the average of the fluctuations squared as a function of the distance to the wall. We consider the Eq. (\[eq:total\_stress1\]) $$\label{eq:total_stress2}
{\kappa}^2 {y}^2( u'+ w')^2 I^{3/4}+(u'+w') = \frac{\tau_0}{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}(1-\frac{y}{Re\sqrt{f}}),$$ and first set $I=0$ in the viscous layer. Then $$\label{eq:u_o}
u = y - \frac{y^2}{2 Re\sqrt{f}}$$ by averaging and integration in $y$. Integrating Eq. (\[eq:total\_stress2\]) and subtracting $u$ gives, $$\label{eq:w_o}
w = \frac{\tau_0 - \langle \tau_0 \rangle}{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}\left( y - \frac{y^2}{2 Re\sqrt{f}}\right)$$ and $$\langle w^2 \rangle=\frac{\langle \tau_0^2 \rangle - \langle \tau_0 \rangle^2}{\langle \tau_0 \rangle^2}\left( y - \frac{y^2}{2 Re\sqrt{f}}\right)^2.$$
In the inertial layer $I=1$ and ignoring the small $O(1/y^4)$ term, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
u+w &=& \frac{1}{2\kappa^2 y} + 2\frac{\sqrt{\tau_0}}{\kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}}\sqrt{1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}} \nonumber\\
&-&2 \frac{\sqrt{\tau_0}}{\kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}} \tanh^{-1}\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}}\right)+K, \end{aligned}$$ where $K$ is a constant. Then setting $w=0$, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
&&u = \frac{1}{2\kappa^2 y} + \frac{2}{\kappa}\sqrt{1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}}\nonumber\\
&-&\frac{2}{\kappa}\tanh^{-1}\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}}\right)+K',\end{aligned}$$ where $K'$ is another constant, because $\tau_0$ becomes $\langle \tau_0 \rangle$. Subtracting, $u$ from $u+w$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
&&w = 2\frac{(\sqrt{\tau_0}-\sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle})}{\kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}}\sqrt{1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}}{\nonumber}\\
&-&2 \frac{(\sqrt{\tau_0}-\sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle})}{\kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}} \tanh^{-1}\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}}\right)+C,\end{aligned}$$ where $C=K-K'$. Squaring $w$ and taking the average gives $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle w^2 \rangle = 4C\frac{(\langle \sqrt{\tau_0} \rangle-\sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle})}{\kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}}\sqrt{1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}} {\nonumber}\\
&-&4C \frac{(\langle \sqrt{\tau_0} \rangle-\sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle})}{\kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}} \tanh^{-1}\left(\sqrt{1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}}\right){\nonumber}\\
&+&4\left[\frac{2(\langle\tau_0 \rangle-\sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}\langle \sqrt{\tau_0}\rangle)}{\kappa^2 \langle \tau_0 \rangle}\left(1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}\right.\right.{\nonumber}\\
&-& \left. 2\sqrt{1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}}\tanh^{-1}(\sqrt{1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}})\right){\nonumber}\\
&+& \left. \left[\tanh^{-1}(\sqrt{1-\frac{y}{2Re\sqrt{f}}})\right]^2\right]+C^2.\end{aligned}$$ From $\tanh^{-1}(x) = \frac{1}{2} \log(\frac{1+x}{1-x})$, we see that the second term in the last formula is of leading order and we get that $$\label{eq:w2der}
\langle w^2 \rangle \sim 2C \frac{(\langle \sqrt{\tau_0} \rangle-\sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle})}{\kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}}\log\left(\frac{y}{Re\sqrt{f}}\right) + h. o. t.$$ This agrees with the formula (\[eq:gloglaw\]) above. For higher order moments $\langle w^{2p} \rangle^{1/p}$ the similar term, linear in $\tanh^{-1}$ and multiplied by $2C$, is of leading order, $$\label{eq:wpder}
\langle w^{2p} \rangle^{1/p} \sim 2C \frac{\langle (\sqrt{\tau_0}-\sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle})^p \rangle^{1/p}}{\kappa \sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}}\log\left(\frac{y}{Re\sqrt{f}}\right) + h. o. t.$$ These formulas establish the log dependance of the second moment of the fluctuations, with the Townsend-Perry constants, and the log dependence of the higher moments of the fluctuations, with the Generalized Townsend-Perry constants, and justify formulas Eq. (\[eq:l-lfluct\]) and Eq. (\[eq:l-pfluct\]). Together, Eq. (\[eq:l-lfluct\]) and Eq. (\[eq:l-pfluct\]) can be called the generalised log-law of the wall.
Derivation of the Generalized Townsend-Perry Constants {#sec:SCT}
======================================================
We consider the dependence of the fluctuation $w$ on the distance $x$ along the wall, to understand the Townsend-Perry constants. So far we have only considered $w(y)$ as a function of the distance $y$ from the wall, but $w(x,y)$ obviously depends on both variables $x$ and $y$. If we consider the eddy depicted in Fig. \[fig:wx\], then we see that the difference in momentum in the $x$ direction, across the eddy, is given by $$\rho(w(x+s)-w(x-s)) \sim 2\rho s w_x,$$ for $y$ fixed, where $w_x=\frac{d}{dx}w$.
![The eddy of radius $s$ and the variation in the fluctuations across it in the $x$ (streamwise) direction.[]{data-label="fig:wx"}](Figure_1){width=".3\textwidth"}
This means that the total turbulent stress, across a vertical surface at $x$, denoted by a dotted line on Fig. \[fig:wx\] for an eddy of radius $s\sim y$, is $$\tau_0 = \tau_t+\tau_x,$$ where $\tau_x= 2\kappa_\tau \rho y w_x v_y$, analogous to formula Eq. (\[eq:shear-stress\]) above. Then we get, using Eq. (\[eq:e-viscosity\]) and $$\epsilon = (\tau_t+\tau_x)(u'+w_x) \rho,$$ that $$\tau_t+\tau_x= \kappa^2 \rho I^{3/4} y^2(u'+w_x)^2,$$ where prime denotes the derivative with respect to $y$, and $$\begin{aligned}
(\tau_t+\tau_x)^{1/2} &=& \kappa \rho^{1/2}I^{3/8}y(u'+w_x) {\nonumber}\\
&=& \langle \tau_0 \rangle^{1/2}+ \kappa \rho^{1/2}I^{3/8}y|w_x|,\end{aligned}$$ since both parts must be positive. The derivation is completely analogous to the derivation in Sec. \[sec:fluct\], but here with $w$ varying in the $x$ direction and $w_y=0$. This gives that for $y$ fixed, $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_0^{1/2}-\langle \tau_0 \rangle^{1/2} &=& (\tau_t+\tau_x)^{1/2}-\langle \tau_0 \rangle^{1/2} {\nonumber}\\
&=& \kappa \rho^{1/2}I^{3/8}y|w_x|.\end{aligned}$$ Considering the leading order $\log(y/2Re\sqrt{f})$ term in Eq. (\[eq:w2der\]) gives the Townsend-Perry constant $$\label{eq:TP}
A_1=\frac{2C \rho^{1/2} y\langle |w_x|\rangle}{\sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}},$$ and the generalized Townsend-Perry constants $$\label{eq:GTP}
A_p=\frac{2C \rho^{1/2} y \langle |w_x|^{p}\rangle^{1/p}}{\sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}},$$ by use of Eq. (\[eq:wpder\]). This justifies the form of the stress tensor assumed in Ref. [@BC16] and used in Ref. [@KBK19]. Finally, we get the expressions $$A_1 = K \langle |w(x+y)-w(x-y)|\rangle$$ and $$A_p = K \langle |w(x+y)-w(x-y)|^{p} \rangle^{1/p},$$ where $K$ is a constant and this produces the relationship between the Townsend-Perry and the generalized Townsend-Perry constants and the structure function of turbulence, see Ref. [@BB211; @BB314; @KBBS17], used in Ref. [@BC16; @KBK19], $$\label{eq:TPstru1}
A_1 = K C_1|y^*|^{\zeta_1},$$ $$\label{eq:TPstru2}
A_2 = K C^{1/2}_2|y^*|^{\zeta_2/2},$$ and $$\label{eq:TPstrup}
A_p = K C^{1/p}_{p}|y^*|^{\zeta_{p}/p},$$ where $-y\leq y^* \leq y$. Considering the ratio, washes out the constant $K$, $$\label{eq:ratio}
\frac{A_p}{A_2}= \frac{C^{1/p}_{p}}{C^{1/2}_2}|y^*|^{\zeta_{p}/p-\zeta_2/2},$$ where the $C_p$s are the Kolmogorov-Obukhov coefficients of the structure functions from Ref. [@BB211; @BB314; @KBBS17]. The last ratio was used in Ref. [@KBK19] to get agreement between experimental data and theory.
![The average of the MVP as a function of $log(y)$, where $y$ is the distance from the wall. Comparison of experimental data with theory (black line). (a) Theoretical curve is given by an $I$-integral that interpolates between the $k_x^{-5/3}$ to the $k_x^{-1}$ with $a=0.9994$ in the buffer region. (b) Theoretical curve has a uniform $I$-integral with the $k_x^{-5/3}$ scaling present in buffer and inertial regions.[]{data-label="fig:mean velocity"}](Figure_2bis.pdf){width="45.00000%"}
The Spectral Theory of mean-square fluctuations {#sec:BW}
===============================================
In the above sections we have not used the spectral information in the integral $I$, in Eq. (\[eq:spectcont\]). We have just used the attached eddy hypothesis and set $I=0$ in the viscous layer and $I=1$ in the inertial layer. But following Ref. [@GGGC10], we can now use the spectral information through the integral $I$ to find the beginning of the buffer layer and the form of both the MVP $u$ and the fluctuation $w$ in the buffer layer and in the wake. This allows one to obtain the full functional form of both $u$ and $w$ as functions of the distance $y$ from the wall and compare it with the experimental data in the next section. By use of the energy Eq. (\[eq:energy\]) and the relation $\eta = \nu^{3/4}\epsilon^{-1/4}$ we can find an expression for $\eta/y$, the viscosity parameter that increases as we approach the wall $y\to 0$. If we set the fluctuation equal to zero, $$\eta/y = (\tilde u'(1-\tilde y/Re\sqrt{f})-(\tilde u')^2)^{-1/4}\tilde y^{-1}$$ and find a formula for $\tilde y$ using this equation along with the equation $${\kappa}^2 {\tilde y}^2( u')^2 I^{3/4}+u' = \frac{\tau_0}{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}\left(1-\frac{y}{Re\sqrt{f}}\right).$$ The resulting formula is given in Ref. [@GGGC10], $$\tilde y = \left(\frac{(\eta/y)^{4/3}+ \kappa^{4/3}I^{1/2}(\eta/y,0)}{\kappa^{2/3}(\eta/y)^{8/3}I^{1/4}(\eta/y,0)}\right).$$ It gives the minimum value of $\tilde y$ for which $I(\eta/y,0)>0$ and the small eddies begin to contribute to the turbulent shear stress $\tau_t >0$. In fact for each value of the parameter $\beta_d$ there is a minimum value of $\tilde y$ denoted $\tilde y_v$ below which $I=0$. Only after this minimum does $\tilde y$ increase with $\eta/y$. This gives the end of the viscous layer and the beginning of the buffer layer and a value of the MVP, $u_v$ at $\tilde y_v$. It also gives the value of the fluctuation $w$ at $\tilde y_v$ and we can integrate the differential equations for $u$ and $w$, with respect to $y$, to get the form of both functions in the buffer layer, inertial layer and the wake. Along with the formulas in the viscous layer this gives the full functional form. The differential equations use the spectral information through the full functional form of $I$ and the two parameters $\beta_d$ and $\beta_e$ must be fitted to experimental data.
Approximations to the MVP and mean square fluctuations, based on the formulas in Sec. \[sec:functional\] are given in Fig. \[fig:mean velocity\] and \[fig:mean variation\], respectively. To compare with experimental data one must solve the differential equations $$\label{eq:udiff}
u'=-\frac{1}{2 \kappa^2 I^{3/4}y^2} + \frac{1}{\kappa I^{3/8}y} \sqrt{1 - \frac{y}{Re\sqrt{f}}+\frac{1}{4\kappa^2 I^{3/4}y^2}}$$ with the initial condition $u = 4.17$ at the beginning of the buffer layer $y =4.17$. For the fluctuation we first have to solve the differential equation, ignoring term of order $O(1/y^3)$ and higher, $$\label{eq:wdiff}
w'=\frac{ \sqrt{\tau_0}-\sqrt{\langle\tau_0\rangle}}{ \kappa I^{3/8}y\sqrt{\langle \tau_0 \rangle}} \sqrt{1 - \frac{y}{Re\sqrt{f}}},$$ with the initial condition $w=\frac{ \tau_0-\langle\tau_0\rangle}{ \langle \tau_0 \rangle}\left(4.17-\frac{17.39}{2 Re\sqrt{f}}\right)$, from Eq. (\[eq:w\_o\]), at the beginning of the buffer layer. Here $I(y)$ is the integral in Eq. (\[eq:spectcont\]).
{width="80.00000%"}
In practice it is easier to vary the initial conditions than to change $\beta_d$ and $\beta_e$, thus we will let the initial condition $y_o$, of $w$, from Equation (\[eq:w\_o\]), vary slightly depending on the Reynolds number in the simulations below. The other initial condition $w_o$ is given by the formula $w_o=\frac{ \tau_0-\langle\tau_0\rangle}{ \langle \tau_0 \rangle}\left(y_o-\frac{y_o^2}{2 Re\sqrt{f}}\right)$.
Comparison with Experimental Data {#sec:data}
=================================
The data we use to compare with the theory comes from the wind tunnel experiments at the University of Melbourne using the nano-scale thermal anemometry probe (NSTAP) to conduct velocity measurements in the high Re number boundary layer up to $Re_\tau = 20000$. The NSTAT has a sensing length almost one order of magnitude smaller than conventional hot-wire, hence allows for a fully resolved NSTAT measurement of velocity fluctuations, [@Sa18], [@Ba19]. The size of the University of Melbourne wind tunnel and the accuracy of the NSTAT permit the measurement over a very large range of scales. We use the averaged velocity time-series at Reynolds numbers $Re_\tau=6000, 10000,14500, 20000$ and the averaged variance at the same Reynolds numbers. Fig. \[fig:mean velocity\] shows the mean velocity profiles as a function of normalized distance from the wall, whereas Fig. \[fig:mean variation\] shows the averaged fluctuation squared (variation) as a function of the normalized distance to the wall. Both are semi-log plots.
First, let us consider the curve describing the MVP in Fig. \[fig:mean velocity\] (panel b). It starts with the Eq. (\[eq:u\_o\]) for the viscous profile because the $I$-function is zero. But then we reach the value $y_v$ where the first attached eddies appear ($y=4.17$) and then the viscous profile changes, instead of reaching its maximum $u=Re \sqrt{f}/2$ at $y=Re \sqrt{f}$, the attached eddies increase the viscosity (decrease the Reynolds number) and the MVP reaches its maximum increase at $y \approx 15$, independent of the Reynolds number. The energy transfer of the attached eddies is captured by the $I$-integral and we integrate the differential equation given by Eq. (\[eq:udiff\]), from $y=4.17$, with the initial condition $u=4.17$. This gives the MVP in Fig. \[fig:mean velocity\] (b). This was already done in Ref. [@GGGC10] and describes how the attached eddies transfer energy into the buffer and the inertial layer. However, we notice that in the predicted MVP over estimates the mean velocity in buffer region. This is because the $I$-function from Eq. (\[eq:spectcont\]) does not account for the formation of the attached eddies which reduce the net energy transfer in the direct cascade.
The curves for the fluctuations squared in Fig. \[fig:mean variation\] are obtained in a similar manner. The attached eddies fix the peak of $\langle w^2 \rangle$ at $y \approx 15$ and the peak profiles can be fitted by the viscous formula $\langle w^2 \rangle = a (y-\frac{y^2}{30})^2$ where $a \sim( \langle \tau _o^2\rangle -\langle \tau_o \rangle^2)/ \langle \tau_o \rangle^2$. This fit is shown in Fig. \[fig:mean variation\] (c). The peak position is experimentally observed to be fixed, but its height shows a weak Reynolds number dependence $a = -3.06+0.99 \log(Re)$, see [@Sa18]. This relationship can be tested using our theory and this will be done in another publication, see also [@CS20]. Then, we integrate the differential equation from Eq. (\[eq:wdiff\]) for $w$ with the initial data described in last section from some point to the right of the peak, where above peak profile fits the initial condition, this give the profile of the fluctuations squared down to the flat part in the buffer layer. At the beginning of the flat part, $y \approx 60$, the second scaling from Section \[sec:MVP\] begins to dominate the fluctuations, modeling an inverse cascade of attached eddies in the buffer layer. Then we switch to the buffer $I$-function $I_ b$ in the integration and integrate with $I_b$ until we get into the inertial region where the Kolmogorov-Obukhov scaling dominates again and the attached eddies break up. This produces the curves in Fig. \[fig:mean variation\].
We can now compare the functional form of the fluctuations squared shown in Fig. \[fig:mean variation\] with the predictions of the stochastic closure theory (SCT) of turbulence, used in Refs. [@BC16] and [@KBK19], to compute the Townsend-Perry constants, in the inertial (log) layer. These computations use the first structure function $S_1$ of turbulence and we explain how they are performed, see [@BC16] and [@KBK19] for more information. The computed Townsend-Perry constants are listed in Table I.
The first structure function of turbulence is, see [@KBBS17], $$\begin{aligned}
&&E(\vert u(x,t)-u(y,t)\vert)=S_1(x,y,t){\nonumber}\\
&&=\frac{2}{C}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}^3\backslash\{0\}}\frac{\vert d_k\vert(1-e^{-\lambda_kt})}{\vert k\vert^{\zeta_1}+\frac{4\pi^2\nu}{C}\vert k\vert^{\zeta_1+\frac{4}{3}}}\vert \sin(\pi k\cdot(x-y))\vert,\end{aligned}$$ where the Reynolds number dependence enters through the viscosity $\nu$, and $E$ denotes the expectation (ensamble average). To get the Kolmogorov-Obukhov coefficients, $C_p$ in $$S_p(r, \infty) \sim C_p r^{\zeta_p},$$ for the lag variable $r$ small, and $\zeta_p$ the scaling exponents, we send $t$ to $\infty$ in the above formulas and project onto the longitudinal lag variable ${\bf r} = (r,0,0)$. For $p=1$ this becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&&S_1 \sim \frac{2\pi^{\zeta_1}}{C} \sum_{k\neq 0} \frac{|d_k |}{(1+\frac{4\pi^2\nu}{C}|k|^{4/3})} r^{\zeta_1}{\nonumber}\\
&=&\frac{4\pi^{\zeta_1}}{C} \sum_{k = 1}^\infty \frac{a}{(a^2+k^m)(1+\frac{4\pi^2\nu}{C}|k|^{4/3})} r^{\zeta_1},\end{aligned}$$ see [@KBBS17], where $\zeta_1 = 0.37$, see [@BB211]. Now we use the values for $\nu$ in Table 1 in [@KBK19], and the corresponding values for $a,\ m$ and $C$ from Table 3 in the same paper. The Reynolds numbers, 6430, 10,770, 15,740 and 19,670 are close enough to ours 6000, 10,000, 14,500, and 20,000, that we can use value of the parameters in [@KBK19]. This gives the values in Table I, where $A_1 \sim K|y^*|^{\zeta_1} C_1$, see Section \[sec:SCT\], and the proportionality factor $K|y^*|^{\zeta_1} = 1/12.952$ is computed at the Reynolds number $15,470$, where the approximated $A_1$ coincides with the measured $A_1$. The $\log$ functions with coefficient $A_1$, from the third column in Table I, and using the constant $B_1$ from the fourth column in Table I, are then compared to the experimental and theoretical values in Fig. \[fig:mean variation\]. The spanwise Townsend-Perry constants, for the spanwise fluctuations, can computed similarly by projecting onto the spanwise lag variable ${\bf t}=(0,t,0).$
In Fig. \[fig:mean variation\] panel (a), the Townsend-Perry constant $A_1$ computed by the SCT does not agree with the measured slope. This was already observed in Ref. [@KBK19], since for low Reynolds numbers the $C_1$s do not provide a good approximation to the $A_1$s. They only do for large Reynolds numbers and the discrepancy (a) occurs at the smallest Reynolds number. This does not happen for the Generalized Townsend-Perry constants, the reasons are explained in Ref. [@KBK19], and for them the $C_p$s, $p \ge 2$, provide good approximations to the $A_p$s for all Reynolds numbers.
$Re_\lambda$ $C_1$ $A_1$ $B_1$
-------------- -------- ------- --------
6000 9.449 0.730 9.373
10,000 15.628 1.207 13.073
14,500 15.500 1.197 13.573
20,000 14.994 1.158 13.673
: Here, the approximate $A_1$ value is computed from $C_1$ using the proportionality factor $A_1=C_1/(K|y^*|^{\zeta_1})=C_1/12.952$.
![Sketch of the instantaneous streaks, in the streamwise direction, and the wall-attached eddies, in the spanwise direction.[]{data-label="fig:wx1"}](Figure_4.pdf){width=".4\textwidth"}
Discussion {#sec:summary}
==========
We used the spectral theory of the MVP and the variation profile to represent both, and compare with experiment [@Sa18] for a range of Reynolds numbers. Assuming that the wall shear stress is a fluctuating quantity, we can derive that log-law for the variation (\[eq:l-lfluct\]) that was proposed by Townsend and measured by Perry and Chong. This law involves the Townsend-Perry constants. This was first done in the large Reynolds number limit and then for general Reynolds numbers. The Reynolds number dependence of the Townsend-Perry constants is determined by the stochastic closure theory [@BC16], [@KBK19]. We derive the log-law for the higher moments of the fluctuations and the Generalized Townsend-Perry constants based on the functional form of the variation and use the stochastic closure theory to express them in terms of the Kolmogorov-Obukhov coefficients of the structure functions of turbulence [@KBBS17]. This confirms the results in Refs. [@BC16] and [@KBK19].
The spectral function $I$ derived in Ref. [@GGGC10] plays a central role in this theory. It can be considered be the analytic expression of Townsend’s theory of wall-attached eddies. It quantifies when the first eddies appear at the boundary of the viscous and the buffer layer and when they are fully developed in the inertial layer. It even quantifies the limit of their influence in the energetic wake. By introducing the spectral theory into the analysis it resolves many of the issues that we are faced with in boundary layer turbulence.
The $I$-function corresponds to the Kolmogorov-Obukhov cascade $k_x^{-5/3}$ in the inertial layer, but in the buffer layer another cascade $k_x^{-1}$ dominates the fluctuations, although its influence on the MVP is small. This is an inverse cascade that can accelerate larger and larger attached eddies. The energy transfer of this cascade is captured by the $I$-function in buffer layer, $I_b$. With it we are able to produce the functional form of the averaged fluctuations square in the buffer layer. Once in the inertial layer the original $I$-function dominates again.
The final confirmation of this spectral theory is how we are able to improve the fit to experimental values of the MVP in Ref. [@GGGC10], by use of the $I_b$ function in the buffer layer. Although, this effect on the MVP is small, the attached eddies, siphon a small amount of energy from the MVP in the buffer layer. We model this by linear combination of the $I$ and $I_b$ function $(1-a)I+aI_b$, in the buffer layer, where $a$ is small. This produces a better fit to the measured MVP in the buffer region as shown in Figure \[fig:mean velocity\] (a), whereas the fit without this linear combination, shown in Figure \[fig:mean velocity\] (b), is not as good.
It is fair to ask what the Townsend attached eddies actually look like since our spectral method is based on them. Unlike the streamwise streaks and associated vortices that have been visualize since the experiments of Kline et al. in the 1960s, see Refs. [@Kl67] and [@Ji99], the attached eddies are difficult to visualize, either in experiments or simulations. We provide a sketch in Fig. \[fig:wx1\], where streamwise streaks are visualized gradually lifting from the boundary by the flow, and perpendicular to them are spanwise attached eddies being deformed by the alternating slow and fast streamwise flow into a hairpin vortex. This does happen both in experiments and observations, see Ref. [@MM19]. However, these hairpin vortices are made unstable by the striations in the streamwise flow and the typical attached eddies are irregular in shape, with the general feature of being stretched by the flow and attached to the wall. One must interpret their influence in a statistical sense.
#### Acknowledgements: {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
We are thankful to Ivan Marusic, Milad Samie and Christian E. Willert for kindly sharing with us the wind turbulence experimental data, and Joe Klewicki for useful conversations. We are grateful to Knut Bauer for proving us with the graphic illustrations. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY-1748958 through the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using the results of our recent analysis of $e^+e^-$ annihilation, we plot the curves for the diagonal and transition form factors of light hadrons in the time-like region up to the production threshold of an open charm quantum number. The comparison with existing data on the decays of $J/\psi$ into such hadrons shows that some new resonance structures may be present in the mass range between 2 GeV and the $J/\psi$ mass. Searching them may help in a better understanding of the mass spectrum in both the simple and a more sophisticated quark models, and in revealing the details of the three-gluon mechanism of the OZI rule breaking in $K\bar K$ channel.'
address: |
Laboratory of Theoretical Physics,\
S.L. Sobolev Institute for Mathematics,\
630090, Novosibirsk 90, Russian Federation
author:
- 'N. N. Achasov [^1] and A. A. Kozhevnikov [^2]'
title: |
Electromagnetic form factors in the $J/\psi$ mass region:\
The case in favor of additional resonances.
---
=1
There are intentions to study the energy range of $e^+e^-$ annihilation in the interval of the center-of-mass energy from $2E=1.5$ GeV up to $m_{\rm J/\psi}$ using the collider VEPP-4M [@kurd1]. The BEPC $e^+e^-$ collider team has also a plan to study some exclusive channels in the energy range from 2 to 5 GeV [@xu]. This raises the question of comparison of the results of existing analysis of the diagonal and transition form factors of light hadrons in the energy range between 1 and 2 GeV [@ach97a; @ach97b] with the data now existing at the $J/\psi$ mass. Here we perform this task, in order to uncover possible surprises that might be revealed in future experiments. We use the following formulas expressing the cross sections through corresponding form factors. If $h=\pi$ or $K$, then $$\sigma(e^+e^-\to h^+h^-)=\frac{8\pi\alpha^2}{3s^{5/2}}|F_h(s)|^2p^3_h,$$ where $p_h$ is the modulus of the 3-momentum of the hadron $h$ in the center-of-mass system of $e^+e^-$ beams, whose total energy is $\sqrt{s}$. The cross section for $\pi^+\pi^-$ is given by Eq. (2.1) of the paper [@ach97a]. The cross section for $K^+K^-$ is given by Eq. (2.1) of the paper [@ach97b]. If the final state is $VP$, where $V,P=\omega,\pi^0(\rho^0,\eta)$, then $$\sigma(e^+e^-\to VP)=\frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{3s^{3/2}}|F_{VP}(s)|^2p^3_{VP},$$ where $p_{VP}$ is the modulus of the 3-momentum of the hadron $V$ (or $P$) in the center-of-mass system of $e^+e^-$ beams. The cross section for $VP$ final state is given by Eq. (2.1) of the paper [@ach97a]. If the final state is $2\pi^+2\pi^-$, then $$\sigma(e^+e^-\to 2\pi^+2\pi^- )=\frac{4\pi\alpha^2}{s^{3/2}}
|F_{\rho^0\pi^+\pi^-}(s)|^2W_{\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-}(s),$$ where cross section for the production of $2\pi^+2\pi^-$ is given by Eq. (2.8) of Ref. [@ach97a], and $W_{\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-}(s)$ is given by Eq. (2.10) of Ref. [@ach97a].
The Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka (OZI) rule violating decays of the $c\bar c$ quarkonia into the light hadrons are divided into two very different classes. The isovector states $\pi^+\pi^-$, $\omega\pi^0$, $\rho\eta$ and $\rho^0\pi^+\pi^-$ are produced predominantly via the one photon ($\gamma$) intermediate state. The three-gluon ($ggg$) contribution which violates the conservation of isospin should be suppressed. Indeed, in the $\pi^+\pi^-$ channel, the ratio of the coupling constant due to three gluons to that due to one photon is estimated as $$\frac{|a^{(ggg)}_\pi|}{|a^{(\gamma)}_\pi|}\sim{m_d-m_u\over Q}
\left({\alpha_s\over\pi}\right)^3\frac{f_{\rm J/\psi}}{4\pi\alpha
|F_\pi(m^2_{\rm J/\psi})|},
\label{ratio}$$ where $\alpha=1/137$, $\alpha_s\simeq0.2$ is the QCD coupling constant, and $f_{\rm J/\psi}$ enters the expression for the leptonic width of the $J/\psi$ in a usual way: $$\Gamma_{\rm J/\psi\to e^+e^-}={4\pi\alpha^2\over 3f^2_{\rm J/\psi}}
m_{\rm J/\psi}.
\label{leptw}$$ Inserting $m_d-m_u\simeq3$ MeV, choosing conservatively $Q\sim m_\pi$, and taking the vector dominance model (VDM) expression $$F^{\rm(VDM)}_\pi(s)={m^2_\rho\over m^2_\rho-s}
\label{vdmff}$$ for the pion form factor, one gets the figure of $10^{-2}$ for above ratio. Similar estimate holds for other isovector channels cited above. The amplitude with $gg\gamma$ in intermediate state is also expected to be suppressed [@milana]. The production amplitude of the isoscalar states includes the superposition of the one photon and $ggg$ amplitudes. The production amplitude of strange mesons includes the superposition of both the isovector and isoscalar amplitudes. First we will compare the data on the $J/\psi$ decays with the predictions of the corresponding VDM expression assuming the zero-width approximation and then to more sophisticated amplitudes which incorporate the complex mixing of mesons from the ground state nonet with the heavier primed resonances [@ach97a; @ach97b].
Let us present our findings first for the decay channels with the pair of pseudoscalar mesons. The modulus squared of the pion form factor expressed through the ratio of partial widths, $$|F_\pi(m^2_{\rm J/\psi})|^2=4\frac{\Gamma(J/\psi\to\pi^+\pi^-)}
{\Gamma(J/\psi\to e^+e^-)},
\label{eq1}$$ is $(11.9\pm1.5\pm0.9)\times10^{-3}$ [@balt85] \[or slightly lower figure of $(9.8\pm 1.5)\times10^{-3}$, according to the averaged value of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ branching ratio found in [@pdg]\] and was already mentioned to be remarkably large [@milana]. The VDM estimate according to Eq. (\[vdmff\]) (see the dashed curved in Fig. \[figpi\]) amounts to a figure of $4.3\times10^{-3}$. In the case of $\psi(2S)$ the pion form factor can be evaluated with the formula similar to Eq. (\[eq1\]) and gives, using the earlier DASP data [@brand], the figure of $|F_\pi(m^2_{\psi(2S)})|^2=(36\pm23)\times10^{-3}$. This is especially surprising since shows, guided by the central figure, the rise of the form factor with the energy increase, but, certainly, experimental error is too large. Using a more realistic amplitude which includes the $\rho^\prime_{1,2}$ resonances with the parameters obtained recently [@ach97a], we plot the corresponding curve with the dotted line in Fig. \[figpi\]. In this case the curve goes four times as low as compared to the experimental value at the ${\rm J}/\psi$ mass. This is puzzling, since the one photon contribution is the only way to explain the decay $\rm J/\psi\to\pi^+\pi^-$.
The above theoretical inconsistencies of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ channel strongly suggest that something new may happen at the energies between 2 GeV and the mass of $J/\psi$, where the data are almost absent. As an illustration, we add the resonance $\rho(2150)$ with the quantum numbers $I^G(J^{PC})=1^+(1^{--})$ documented in the full listings of Review of Particle Physics (RPP) [@pdg], ignoring, for nothing is better, the possible energy dependence of its partial widths and the mixing with other $\rho$-like resonances. Taking the mass $m_{\rho^\prime_3}=2010$ MeV, the width $\Gamma_{\rho^\prime_3}=260$ MeV, the ratio of coupling constants $g_{\rho^\prime_3\pi\pi}/f_{\rho^\prime_3}=0.08$, and slightly varying, within the error bars, the parameters of the $\rho^\prime_{1,2}$ resonances found in Ref. [@ach97a], one obtains the curve shown with the solid line in Fig. \[figpi\]. One can see that the knowledge of the spectrum of still unknown isovector resonances (if any) above 2 GeV is crucial for both the understanding of the behavior of the pion form factor (and some other form factors, too, see below) and for establishing the limits to applicability of the generalized VDM.
In general, the $K\bar K$ coupling of a C-odd quarkonium $J/\psi=c\bar c$ is represented in the form $$g_{\rm J/\psi K\bar K}=a^{(ggg)}_K-{4\pi\alpha\over f_{\rm J/\psi}}
(\pm F^{(1)}_K+F^{(0)}_K),
\label{eq2}$$ where $a^{(ggg)}_K$ being, in general, a complex number, represents the pure isoscalar contribution of the three gluons; $F^{(I)}_K\equiv F^{(I)}_K(m^2_{\rm J/\psi})$ is the kaon electromagnetic form factor with the given isospin $I=0,1$ taken at the $J/\psi$ mass [@fn1]. The leptonic coupling constant $f_{\rm J/\psi}$ is expressed through leptonic partial width by the expression Eq. (\[leptw\]). The $K^+K^-$ and $K_LK_S$ decay rates are distinguished by the sign of isovector contribution, so that the ratio of $|F^{(1)}_K(m^2_{\rm J/\psi})|$ extracted from the data [@balt85], to the VDM estimate $$|F^{(1)({\rm VDM})}_{K^+}(m^2_{\rm J/\psi})|={1\over2}
{m^2_\rho\over(m^2_{\rm J/\psi}-m^2_\rho)}=0.033
\label{vdmk}$$ is found to be 2, 1, 2/3 for the relative phase of the $I=0$ and $I=1$ contributions $\theta=62^\circ\mbox{, }22^\circ\mbox{, }0^\circ$, respectively. Note that the latter case gives the lower bound to the isovector contribution. However, the simple VDM amplitude fails to describe the data on the reaction $e^+e^-\to K^+K^-$ in the energy range 2E=1.1$-$2 GeV; see Fig. \[figk\]. On the other hand, the isovector part of the kaon form factor extracted from the fit which includes the contributions of heavier resonances $\rho^\prime_{1,2}$, $\omega^\prime_{1,2}$, and $\varphi^\prime_{1,2}$ with the parameters found in Ref. [@ach97b], can be matched with isovector contribution extracted from the $J/\psi$ data, provided the relative phase is $\theta=22^\circ$. Accidently, at the $J/\psi$ mass, the absolute values of the isovector kaon form factor in the simple VDM and in our fit [@ach97b] turn out to be coincident. In the meantime, the phase relations in the above models are completely different. Specifically, one has $$\begin{aligned}
F^{(0)}_K(m^2_{\rm J/\psi})&=&(6.5-6.3i)\times 10^{-3}, \nonumber\\
F^{(1)}_K(m^2_{\rm J/\psi})&=&(3.1-1.3i)\times 10^{-2},
\label{num}\end{aligned}$$ with the set of parameters found in Ref. [@ach97b]. Note that the modulus of the three-gluon coupling constant satisfies the relation $|a^{(ggg)}_K|\geq 0.9|g_0|$ regardless the relative phase between the three-gluon contribution and isoscalar part of the one photon one. Here the numerical factor of 0.9 comes from the numerical value of the isoscalar kaon form factor given in Eq. (\[num\]), and $g_0$ is the coupling constant of $J/\psi$ to $K\bar K$ in the $I=0$ state. Since one can hardly imagine the mechanism of enhancement of the isoscalar form factor by an order of magnitude in comparison with that given in Eq. (\[num\]), we see that the greater part of the isoscalar coupling constant is due to the three-gluon contribution. There are no reasons to neglect the latter and attribute all the $K\bar K$ branching ratio of the $J/\psi$ solely to the one photon mechanism, as it was assumed in Ref. [@balt85].
Now turn to the vector and pseudoscalar final states [@balt85b; @cof88; @jouss]. The ratio of the absolute values of the $\omega\pi^0$ form factors is expressed through the measured branching ratios as [@balt85b; @cof88] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{|F_{\omega\pi^0}(m^2_{\rm J/\psi})|}
{|F_{\omega\pi^0}(0)|}&=&\left[{\alpha\over3}\left({q_{\gamma\pi^0}\over
q_{\omega\pi^0}}\right)^3\right. \nonumber\\
& &\left.\times\frac{m_{\rm J/\psi}\Gamma(J/\psi\to\omega\pi^0)}
{\Gamma(\omega\to\gamma\pi^0)\Gamma(J/\psi\to\mu^+\mu^-)}\right]^{1/2}.
\label{eq3}\end{aligned}$$ The VDM evaluation of the above ratio gives a figure of 0.0659 which is by a factor of two greater than the experimentally measured figure of $0.0335\pm0.0059$ [@cof88]. On the other hand, the inclusion of the $\rho^\prime_{1,2}$ resonances [@ach97a] interfering destructively with the $\rho(770)$ tail at energies above 2 GeV results in the calculated figure to be twice as low as experimentally measured. See the curve in Fig. \[figompi\]. The result of the calculation of an analogous ratio for the $\rho\eta$ final state is shown in Fig. \[figrhe\]. Finally, the form factor of the $\rho^0\pi^+\pi^-$ final state which enters the partial width of the $J/\psi$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma(J/\psi\to\rho^0\pi^+\pi^-)&=&12\pi\alpha\frac{\Gamma(J/\psi
\to\mu^+\mu^-)}{m_{\rm J/\psi}} \nonumber\\
& &\times\left|F_{\rho^0\pi^+\pi^-}
(m_{\rm J/\psi}^2)\right|^2 \nonumber\\
& &\times W_{\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-},
(m_{\rm J/\psi}^2)
\label{eq4}\end{aligned}$$ where $W_{\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-}$ is the phase space volume of the $2\pi^+2\pi^-$ state given in [@ach97a], analogously for the $\psi(2S)$, is plotted in Fig. \[fig4pi\]. The VDM estimate in this case is $$F_{\rho^0\pi^+\pi^-}(s)={2g_{\rho\pi\pi}m^2_\rho\over m^2_\rho-s},
\label{vdm4pi}$$ where the relation among the coupling constants $g_{\rho^0\rho^0\pi^+\pi^-}
=2g^2_{\rho\pi\pi}$ resulting from the vector current conservation is taken into account, together with the neglect of the bremstrahlung-type diagrams. See Ref. [@ach97a] for some details of approximations made for the $\rho\rho\pi^+\pi^-$ coupling. Both curves go far below the $J/\psi$ and $\psi(2S)$ data. Note that the $\rho^0\pi^+\pi^-$ contribution was not isolated in the total $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ data sample at the $J/\psi$ mass [@jean]. However, such an isolation was implemented at the $\psi(2S)$ mass, and the $\rho^0\pi^+\pi^-$ contribution was found to be $93\%$ [@tanen] of the total number of $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ events. Since one cannot foresee any reason why the situation, in this respect, at the $J/\psi$ could differ from the $\psi(2S)$, we simply insert $B(J/\psi\to\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-)$ in place of $B(J/\psi\to\rho^0\pi^+\pi^-)$, in order to find the $\rho^0\pi^+\pi^-$ transition form factor at the $J/\psi$ mass.
Since in almost all cases the curves in Fig. \[figpi\]$-$\[fig4pi\] go well below the $J/\psi$ data points, one can see that some isovector resonance structures with the masses above 2 GeV interfering strongly with those already included are likely to be present. The example of the $\pi^+\pi^-$ channel shows that the fit of the data with the $J/\psi$ data point included is improved with the $\rho^\prime_3$ resonance being taken into account [@fn2]. Their isoscalar partners are also rather probable. They could manifest themselves in the channels of $e^+e^-$ annihilation into $\omega\eta$, $\omega\eta^\prime$, $\rho\pi$, $\omega\pi^+\pi^-$ etc and in the decay channels which include strange particles. All this suggests that the energy region above 2 GeV of $e^+e^-$ annihilation is interesting from the point of view of elucidating the spectrum of states with the masses in this range and for establishing the detailed form (modulus and phase) of the three-gluon coupling with different states including its dependence on energy. To gain an impression of what the typical cross section magnitudes might be, we give the calculated figures at the energy $\sqrt{s}=2.5$ GeV. In the case of the final states $\pi^+\pi^-$, $K^+K^-$, $\omega\pi^0$, $\rho^0\eta (\pi^+\pi^-\eta)$, and $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^+\pi^-$ they are, respectively, 0.03, 0.02, 0.04, 0.04, and 0.6 nanobarns.
The present work was supported in part by the grant INTAS-94-3986.
L. M. Kurdadze, private communication. Xu Gou-fa, private communication. N. N. Achasov and A. A. Kozhevnikov, Phys. Rev. D[**55**]{}, 2663 (1997); hep-ph/9609216. N. N. Achasov and A. A. Kozhevnikov, Phys. Rev. D[**57**]{}, 4334 (1998); hep-ph/9703397. J. Milana, S. Nussinov and M. G. Olsson, Phys. Rev. Lett., [**71**]{}, 2533 (1993). R. M. Baltrusaitis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D[**32**]{}, 566 (1985). R. M. Barnett [*et al.*]{} (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D[**54**]{}, 1 (1996). R. Brandelik [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. C[**1**]{}, 233 (1979). The arguments in favor of neglecting the one-photon coupling to the neutral kaon pair put forward in Ref. [@milana] would be fulfilled only in the case of exact degeneracy of the $\rho(770)$, $\omega(782)$, and $\varphi(1020)$ masses. In reality, however, one obtains the ratio $|F_{K^+}(m^2_{J/\psi})|/|F_{K^0}(m^2_{J/\psi})|$ equal to 4.5 and 1.7 in the simple VDM and in the VDM with inclusion of heavier resonances [@ach97a; @ach97b], respectively. R. M. Baltrusaitis [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D[**32**]{}, 2883 (1985). D. Coffman [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D[**38**]{}, 2695 (1988). J. Jousset [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D[**41**]{}, 1389 (1990). B. Jean-Marie [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett., [**36**]{}, 291 (1976). W. Tanenbaum [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. D[**17**]{}, 1731 (1978). Because of the lack of data above 2 GeV, the coupling constants of the $\rho^\prime_3$ resonance with specific channels are unknown, so we do not include it in other channels except the $\pi^+\pi^-$ one. The procedure of extracting the $\rho^\prime_3$ couplings, with the only $J/\psi$ data points at hand, would appear to be speculative, since the $\chi^2$ criterion determined in that case essentially by the low energy data points, would not put any serious restrictions on magnitudes of these couplings. L. M. Barkov [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**B256**]{}, 365 (1985). DM2 Collaboration, D. Bisello [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B[**220**]{}, 321 (1989). P. M. Ivanov [*et al.*]{} Phys. Lett [**107B**]{}, 297 (1981). DM2 Collaboration, D. Bisello [*et al.*]{} Z. Phys. C[**39**]{}, 13 (1988). S. I. Dolinsky [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rep. [**202**]{}, 99 (1991). L. Stanco, in [*Hadron 91*]{}, Proceedings of the International Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy, College Park, Maryland, edited by S. Oneda and D. C. Peaslee (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992) p. 84. DM2 Collaboration, A. Antonelli [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B[**212**]{}, 133 (1988). L. M. Barkov [*et al.*]{} Yad. Fiz. [**47**]{}, 393 (1988). L. M. Kurdadze [*et al.*]{}, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**47**]{}, 432 (1988).
[^1]: e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This review presents recent and older results on elementary quantitative and qualitative aspects of consciousness and cognition and tackles the question “What is consciousness?” conjointly from biological, neuroscience-cognitive, physical and mathematical points of view. It proposes to unify various results and theories by means of algebraic topology and puts forward the suggestion that information topology is a particularly appropriate formalism to achieve such an aim. The resulting discrete probabilistic and group theoretic principles and structures governing the theory of consciousness underline its Galoisian nature.\
The first chapter presents the postulates and results on elementary perception in psychophysics and neuroscience at various organizational scales of the nervous system and proposes the hypothesis of an electrodynamic intrinsic nature of consciousness which is sustained by an analogical code. It underlines the diversity of the learning mechanisms that sustain the dynamics of perception and consciousness, including adaptive and homeostatic processes on multiple scales, and details their current generic expression within probability and information theory.\
The second chapter investigates the logical aspects of cognition and consciousness and proposes an axiomatization based on measure and probability theory. Topos and constructive logic are presented as providing an intrinsic non-deterministic-probabilistic logic, with the long-term aim of avoiding the paradoxical decomposition induced by the Axiom of Choice. Using such a basis, we sketch an elementary procedure allowing an expression of the information of a mathematical formula a la Gödel. We then present the formalism of information topology and propose that it provides a preliminary basis for synthesizing the main models of cognition and consciousness within a formal Gestalt theory. Information topology establishes a characterization of information theory functions, allowing for a precise expression of information structures and patterns. It provides a quantification of the structure of statistical interactions and their expression in terms of statistical physics and machine learning. Notably, those topological methods allow conciliation of some of the main theories of consciousness, namely integrated information theory, the global neuronal workspace model, the free energy principle and logical dynamics. The topological approach points out that consciousness is a structural phenomenon arising from collective interactions. Underlining the central role of invariance to transformation in neuroscience and perception, we further propose a possible correspondence of information topology with dynamical system theory and the related quantification of arousal states.
author:
- |
Pierre Baudot\
Inserm UNIS UMR1072 - Université Aix-Marseille AMU,\
Faculté de Médecine - Secteur Nord, 51, Boulevard Pierre Dramard,\
13015 Marseille, France\
[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'bibtopo.bib'
date: 16th July 2018
title: 'Elements of Consciousness and Cognition. Biology, Mathematic, Physics and Panpsychism: an Information Topology Perspective'
---
Introduction
============
A theory of consciousness concerns anyone and should be a theory of anyone: a theory of everybody and everybody’s theory. It should be consensual and hence should acknowledge and account for the diversity of all beings (bodies). It should account for and respect the consciousness of anybody, and encompass without contradiction all the hardly countable investigations that have treated consciousness in its different forms and aspects: biological, physical, psychological, mathematical, computational, etc. Consciousness and qualitative perception is also one of the main topics of theology and art; hence, a theory of consciousness should also be theological and artistic, at least minimally, such that it does not contradict the diversity of theologies and art that human minds have formalized and which are some of the central forms of human consciousness and cognition. To avoid the usual dualist oppositions, it is necessary to precise that seen from the world of probability explored here, atheism is also a system or a form of human belief, which also enriches the complex landscape of diverse consciousness and thoughts. As a consequence, the road towards such a theory appears difficult, and, while we do not achieve it here, we instead propose some ideas towards what the aims of a theory of consciousness that respects and harmoniously verifies its own axioms (which we consider firstly and in a literal sense to be unity and diversity, as proposed by Tononi and Edelman [@Tononi1998]), would be. In the mathematical section of the paper following [@Baudot2015a], we present the formalization of the probability theory within topos theory and constructive logic, a logic with multi-valuations in which the excluded third is not a theorem (independent). Such constructive logic could underline the idea that those beliefs classically considered as complementary opposite statements - dualism - may indeed refer to a diversity of beliefs - pluralism. It provides a preliminary soft non-deterministic rationality that further provides a legitimate rational status to free will. This should not be understood as a novel, personal or established theory of consciousness, and all the more a closed and definitive framework. Information topology is simply a name proposed because two existing, partially established theories, information theory and a central branch of algebraic topology appear indistinguishable, and should ultimately be, just one. Such unification is currently only partially understood. As emphasized in the ecological mind conclusion, we simply present, recycle and combine, in a consistent fashion, well-established results (which is a cognitive task of associative memory), such that the resulting theory is the least partial possible. In short, there is no claim of originality or novelty, just as in the case of consciousness itself: “Novelty is as old as the world” (Prevert); hence this paper’s status as a review and perspective. An important part of the ideas presented here are inherited from Bennequin and are the result of a long-lasting collaboration. Notably, the formalization of visual processing as regards invariance is developed at length in [@Bennequin2014]. In the world of ideas, nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything transforms. We will focus on an old intuitionist idea of a mathematical and physical nature of our subjective being, and even of our most elementary perceptions.\
The main ideas of the review (without analytical requirements) are expressed quite synthetically in the following citations of Riemann and Poincaré that introduce both consciousness and a topological view on it: \[riemanncitation\] *“When we think a given thought, then the meaning of this thought is expressed in the shape of the corresponding neurophysiological process.”* Riemann [@Riemann1876] *“Now what is science? ...it is before all a classification, a manner of bringing together facts which appear separate, though they are bound together by some natural and hidden kinship. Science, in other words, is a system of relations. ...it is in relations alone that objectivity must be sought. ...it is relations alone which can be regarded as objective. External objects... are really objects and not fleeting and fugitive appearances, because they are not only groups of sensations, but groups cemented by a constant bond. It is this bond, and this bond alone, which is the object in itself, and this bond is a relation.”* [@Poincare1905]\
*“Mathematicians do not study objects, but the relations between objects; to them it is a matter of indifference if these objects are replaced by others, provided that the relations do not change. Matter does not engage their attention, they are interested in form alone.” Poincaré [@Poincare1902].* *When you use the word information, you should rather use the word form* Thom [@Thom1983].
Neurobiology and psychophysics, electrophysiology of elementary perception
==========================================================================
“Unity and Diversity” [@Tononi1998]
-----------------------------------
This section investigates the question of the limit from which a particular cognitive process or a particular living species can be considered as conscious or not. It is not relevant or possible to review all the results concerning consciousness that neuroscience imaging, electrophysiological studies, psychophysic and psychology studies have already presented. All of those studies concern consciousness more or less directly, and most researchers we have encountered or worked with are quite aware that their work more or less directly concerns consciousness, although they may not refer to such a generic concept and usually prefer much more precise, specific, and less grandiose ones. In what follows, we cite only a few examples of such works, not because they are the most pertinent but because we are already familiar with them; the rest can be found in research libraries. The results of such studies, as advocated and centrally underlined by the Integrated Information Theory of Tononi and Edelmann, tend to be that forms of consciousness are very diverse [@Tononi1998]. Neuroscience and cognitive sciences have developed specialized concepts and taxonomy for these different forms, such as attention, low-level vision, audition, multi-modal integration, decision, motor planning, short-term memory, etc. In a sense, there exists a given, particular name of consciousness for each function and associated structure in nervous systems. Moreover, there exist a wide diversity of nervous systems: human, macaque, cat, rat, mouse, zebra finch, bat, turtle, elephantfish, cricket, fly, squid, aplysia, worms (caenorhabditis elegans), to cite just a few generic experimental models. Such a diversity reveals the richness of cognitive forms [@Yartsev2017]. Each of them have remarkably different structures and functions; hence, a satisfying theory of consciousness would have to be very basic and generic such that all those fields of research can converge. The point of view adopted here, now more accepted in neuroscience (thanks most notably to Koch, Tononi and Edelmann [@Paulson2017]), is that if one accepts that there exists a qualitative low-level perception in humans, and admits it provides a quite elementary form of consciousness, one should accept from the purely empirical criterion of observability that the echolocation of a bat, for example, is also associated with elementary forms of consciousness, albeit likely to be different from the one we experience, as can be inferred from electro-physiological studies and discussed by Nagel [@Nagel1974]. The boundaries of consciousness have been the subject of numerous social debates with important social ramifications and consequences; notably, in justifying slavery, part of humanity was considered as not being conscious [@Montesquieu1748]. From the philosophical perspective, it has been clear since Hegel’s “phenomenology of spirit”, which is built on the dialectic of the slave and the master, that the question of consciousness and the problem of its multiplicity, of alterity, can be investigated in terms of competitive or dominating purposes [@Hegel1807]. The quite recent emergence of biological sciences, introducing the multiplicity and diversity of natural structures and functions and underlining their constitutive inter-dependencies has started to promote a more co-operative, symbiotic or synergistic view of alterity. More generally, the problem of consciousness poses the question of humanity’s place with respect to nature and physics.
The neuronal postulate - neural assemblies - neural coding - shapes of memory and qualia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### The neuronal/biological postulate - physical reductionism {#neuronal_postulate}
Neuroscience and cognitive research play a particular role in science, in that they aim to objectively study, by empirical and physical means and with mathematical models or data analysis, the subjectivity of perceptions, actions and decisions. The main postulate of those investigations was clearly stated by Changeux [@Changeux1983] and can be summarised by the hypothesis that for any mental subjective state there exists an empirical observable phenomenon, most commonly an electrical activity, that corresponds to or generates it. One debate regarding consciousness theory is whether such correspondence is one to one, what we call the Tononi-Edelmann model (for reasons that will become clear in the course of the paper), or if it is injective-only, implying the existence of some unconscious states - what we call the Dehaenne-Changeux model. The usual neuronal-biological dualist hypothesis, however, forbids metaphysical subjective states (subjective states without any physical observable correlate). This has meant that a major part of neuroscience and cognitive research has adopted physics’ reductionist approach and respects the observability axiom of physical theories. Hence, they deserve the name of physical investigations into qualitative experience. What is presented here reconciles the Tononi-Edelmann [@Tononi1998; @Edelman2000] and Dehaenne-Changeux models [@Dehaene2000; @Dehaene2011; @Dehaene2006] by proposing that what one may consider as an unconscious state is “someone else’s” consciousness. The general proposition that an unconscious state is “someone else’s” consciousness can be simply illustrated by the development in patients, specifically called “split-brain” patients, of two quite independent consciousness streams following a callosotomy, as studied notably in the celebrated work of Sperry and Gazzaniga [@Sperry1961; @Gazzaniga1967]. Here, we start from the postulate that the objects of our subjective experiences or perceptions exist. We also postulate the existence of the subject that perceives (the “I think therefore I am” of Descartes) and complete it with a statement along the lines of “It moves therefore it is”, a phenomenological definition of anima based on animation.\
**Reflexive and qualitative consciousness: feedback and the hard problem. From mind-body dualism to a synthetic monadic view.** The question investigated in this section is whether there necessarily exists an ontological difference between the mind and the body. An important part of studies into consciousness, following classical, at least partially Platonic dualism and standard mind-body problems, assumes a fundamental distinction between reflexive and qualitative consciousness called qualia, as investigated by Chalmers [@Chalmers1995]. According to this view, reflexive consciousness, the fact of a consciousness being conscious of its own “states”, is an easy problem which it has been possible to solve with cybernetic and control theory, which formalize the concept of feedback and gain controls further pursued in neural networks studies. Qualitative consciousness, on the other hand, the elementary qualia, provides what is known as the “hard problem” of consciousness. The “knowledge argument” is a typical thought experiment given to illustrate what a qualia is [@Jackson1982]: a scientist, Mary, is living in a black and white room with books providing her all the “reflexive” knowledge about color, including its physical, artistic and neuroscientific aspects. Jackson argues that a qualia is what Mary experiences when she first sees colors that she could not know from the reflexive knowledge contained in her books. Such a thought experiment appears to be more like a linguistic human problem, equating very high level cognitive linguistic abstraction (“reflexive knowledge”) with very elementary color perception. Even color perceptions result from a learning or adaptive process, and as in any learning task, we can only assume that she would gain a new qualitative experience by seeing color, which would be in full agreement with her highly abstract qualitative, linguistic and scientific experience of color - probably what she had expected or even spontaneously experienced by synesthetic completion as proposed by Ramachandran [@Ramachandran2003]. In other words, we propose here a more monist point of view that reconciles the reflexive and qualitative aspects of consciousness. In this sense, there is a reflexive mechanism, that is further developed here in terms of a self-interaction or internal energy (cf. \[infotopo\_synthesis\]), to any qualitative experience and respectively there is a qualitative mechanism associated with any reflexive experience. Such a view was notably developed at length by Leibniz in his explorations of the nature of what he called ’monads’ [@Leibniz1686; @Leibniz1714], a view that was further pursued in works that will be partially reviewed later in the paper. In this review, we will focus on elementary, “low-level” qualia and highlight the fact that electrophysiology and neuroscience results have demonstrated that they rely on feedback and gain controls on virtually all scales of nervous system organization and recordings.
### Consciousness: the electromagnetic view - “Where is my mind?”
This section asks at what biological organizational scale consciousness arises and the nature of its physical support. Since the work of Galvani in 1771 on “animal electricity” [@Galvani1791], electric and more generally electromagnetic signals have provided the main sources of observable phenomena for neuroscience and cognitive studies, and yet provide the basis of consciousness theory, at least in this review. It is indeed a posteriori justified from the physical point of view not to take into account other forces such as gravity, except in some particular cases such as the study of the vestibular system, in the dynamic of nervous system activity. However, neglecting gravity is only an occasionally justified and possibly imprecise course of action. Since Galvani, experiments have become more precise and provide empirical measurements of electromagnetic signals at many different scales, that is, with varying space-time resolutions, ranging from single molecule channels to the whole brain, as is the case in fMRI or EEG recordings. An out of date and non-exhaustive comparative figure of the space-time resolutions of some measures of the electromagnetic field given off by activity in the central nervous system is given in [@Gazzaniga1998; @Sarraf2016]. Figure \[scale\_function\] shows recordings of electromagnetic activity in response to “noisy” or naturally fluctuating stimulation at some of the different organizational scales of the nervous system. Studies into impulsional response and variability is reviewed in the following sections.
\[!h\] ![**Impulsional responses and variability at different organization scales of the nervous system**. See legend \[legend scale\_function\]. []{data-label="scale_function"}](figure1.png "fig:"){height="14cm"}
**Legend of Figure \[scale\_function\] (from bottom to top and from left to right).** \[legend scale\_function\] **Molecule (channel):** A representation of the structure of a potassium ion channel (KcsA, adapted and redrawn from MacKinnon [@MacKinnon2003] and [@Salari2017]). A single-channel (AcetylCholine, ACh) current recording (redrawn and modified with permission from Neher and Sakmann [@Neher1976; @Neher1991; @Sakmann1991]). To our knowledge, a variability study of a single channel response has never been made. The “gating” conformation change from open to close of a potassium channel (redrawn and modified with permission from Jiang and colleagues [@Jiang2002]) and the free-energy landscape transition (redrawn and modified with permission from Grosman and colleagues [@Grosman2000] for Ach receptor channel). The linear response of a single Sodium channel (cardiac isoform, hH1a) to colored (100Hz) dichotomous noise (redrawn and modified with permission from Millonas and Hanck [@Millonas1998]). **Organelle (synapse):** a simplified drawing of a synapse. Recordings of several trials of postsynaptic voltage (Vm) in response to presynaptic white noise (black) and the mean response (red) in the graded synapse of the locust (redrawn and modified with permission from Simmons and de Ruyter van Steveninck [@Simmons2005]). A Spike Timing Dependent Plasticity profile representing the synaptic potentiation and depression of a synapse in the rat hippocampal neurons as a function of the time interval ($\Delta t$) between the onset of Excitatory Post-Synaptic Potential (EPSP) and the peak of the postsynaptic spike (redrawn and modified with permission from Bi and Poo [@Bi1998]). It should be possible and of interest to express such plasticity rule by means of the impulsonal response of a synapse (within the nonlinear higher order kernels). The postsynaptic current evoked by a presynaptic spike (approximated as impulsional) in the study of Simmons and de Ruyter van Steveninck [@Simmons2005]. **Cell (neuron):** 25 trials of spike trains recorded in patch from neocortical slices, responding to the same white noise stimulation (redrawn and adapted from Mainen and Sejnowski [@Mainen1995]). The Vm, Sodium and Potassium conductance responses of the Hodgkin-Huxley model of a giant squid axon (redrawn and modified with permission from Hodgkin and Huxley [@Hodgkin1952]). The impulsional response of an Aplysia neuron to white noise (redrawn and modified with permission from Bryant and Segundo [@Bryant1976], see also [@Mainen1995]). **Sub-tissular structures - cell networks (V1 area cortical network):** 10 trials of spike trains and Vm responses (mean Vm in red), recorded intracellularly in vivo, to natural image animated by eye movements (redrawn and modified with permission from Baudot and colleagues [@Baudot2006; @Baudot2013]). A similar study was conducted extracellularly in the H1 neuron of the fly by de Ruyter van Steveninck and colleagues [@RuytervanSteveninck1997]. Spatial profile of a spiking receptive field of a simple cell in V1 (A17), recorded extracellularly; $\times$ and $\bigtriangleup$ denote the visual areas giving excitation and inhibition, respectively, to bright light spot stimulation (“ON response”, redrawn and modified with permission from Hubel and Wiesel [@Hubel1959]). The more quantitative spatial profile of the linear response of a simple cell spiking receptive field obtained by sparse noise reverse correlation; blue and red color-scales denote the visual areas giving excitatory response to bright (ON) and dark (OFF) stimulus, respectively response (redrawn and modified with permission from Jones and Palmer [@Jones1987]). Above this is presented the Gabor wavelet-like spatial profile of the receptive field. A spatial and space-time profile of the linear response of a simple cell Vm receptive field obtained with dense noise stimuli (redrawn and modified with permission from Baudot and colleagues [@Baudot2006; @Baudot2013]). **Tissue (cortical area):** the fMRI responses of the V1 area averaged over two groups of subjects (red and black) while watching a popular movie is illustrated together with a diagram representing the percentage of intersubject correlated cortical areas during viewing and the cortical localization of intersubject synchronized areas (redrawn and modified with permission from Hasson and colleagues [@Hasson2004; @Hasson2009]). The impulsional linear fMRI response of a voxel in the left superior temporal gyrus to a random sequence of words (redrawn and modified with permission from Friston and colleagues [@Friston1998]).\
The basic proposition of this review from a physical point of view is that the theory of consciousness is the theory of electromagnetic fields (leaving aside the effects of gravity). The electromagnetic theory of consciousness has been developed on the basis of the theory of oscillating neural assemblies (cf. section on neural coding \[Neural coding\]) most notably by John [@John2001], Pockett [@Pockett2000] and McFadden [@McFadden2002], and basically considers the idea that the spectrum of electrical activity observable in Electroencephalograms (EEGs), typically ranging from 0 to 100 Hz, sustains consciousness. The proposition here is to broaden the spectrum to any frequency and to take into account the temporal and phase dynamics of the activity in question. The beta (12-40Hz) and gamma (40-100Hz) frequencies are simply particular activity ranges evoked by conscious states in humans and in primates more generally, and are mainly generated by primates’ peculiar cortical (or cortical-like, e.g. olfactory bulb) excitatory-inhibitory microcircuits. They do not account for the activity related to consciousness observed using other methods at different scales and in other species. This proposition is in fact simply an up-to-date reconsideration of the statement attributed to Pythagoras: **“All things feel!”** and developed in a poem by de Nerval in his “golden verse reproduced in annex \[The objective poetry\]. By no means should such a proposition be understood as either a simplification or a definitive theory: electromagnetism is neither a simple nor a closed theory (all the more if one considers its relation to gravity). It simply proposes, taking a scientific interpretation of Blake’s statement ”to see a world in a grain of sand", that there are no more fundamental mysteries in the black box of a human brain, nor any fewer, than in the black box of a particle collider or bubble chamber.
Such a proposition includes non-spiking activity, for example graded potential neural activity as reviewed by Juusola [@Juusola2007], and also the activity of non-neural cells such as Glial cells, which display sensory responses although very slowly (due to their large capacitance) and even tuning, as shown by Sur et al [@Schummers2008a]. Such Glial activity can be conceived of as a component of consciousness, albeit a slowly-operating one. This proposition of the electromagnetic nature of consciousness does not exclude chemical reactions. Bio-cellular signaling or even metabolic chains are, from the physical point of view, biochemical instances of electromagnetism. For example, Preat and colleagues showed the involvement of intracellular signaling in Drosophila behavior and long-term memory formation [@Preat2008]. Genetic expressions and regulations are also electromagnetic processes, and their impact on macroscospic electrical activity is further underlined by the fact that they are involved in the electrical phenotypes, such as phasic or tonic, of neurons, as shown by Soden and colleagues [@Soden2013]. As cited by Monod, Wyman, Changeux in their work on allostery, “It is certain that all bodies whatsoever, though they have no sense, yet they have perception … and whether a body be alterant or altered, evermore a perception precedeth operation; for else all bodies would be alike to one another” (Francis Bacon, 1967, [@Monod1965]). To give an example of an information-theoretic treatment of such a cellular perception, chemotaxis, the chemically guided movement of cells, can be looked at in terms of considering the mutual information between the input gradient and the spatial distribution [@Fuller2010]. Such a view includes plants, as action potentials occur in most if not all plants [@Davies1987]. How far in the elementary organizations of matter is it possible to pursue the consideration of some elementary perception, action and consciousness? What is an electrodynamic theory of consciousness at the elementary level? Consider the simple Feynman diagram of elementary particle interaction included in Figure \[feynman\_diag\], representing the scattering process $X+Y\rightarrow X'+Y'$. As long as one only considers the empirical and observable considerations, that is, if one takes a phenomenological point of view, it is legitimate to consider that the proton $Y$ perceived the electron $X$ via the photon $Z$, with a “reaction” of the proton leading it to $Y'$. Any signal received or propagated by our nervous system is at the elementary level in this way and mediated by boson-like particles.
\[!h\] ![**a, Feynman diagram of an interaction between an electron $X$ and a proton $Y$ via the photon $Z$, b** A simplified illustration of the experimental set up for single photon detection in a human, constructed by Tinsley and colleagues [@Tinsley2016].[]{data-label="feynman_diag"}](Figure2.png "fig:"){height="6cm"}
Psychophysical experiments can partially illustrate the establishing of such an elementary percept. Holmes showed that humans can sense light flashes containing as few as three photons [@Holmes2015], and Tinsley and colleagues showed that humans can detect a single-photon incident on the cornea with a probability significantly above chance [@Tinsley2016]. Elementary auditory perception was also studied by Bialek and Schweitzer, who established that the sensitivity of ears can reach the limit dictated by the quantum uncertainty principle [@Bialek1985]. The conclusion of this study is that the measurement apparatus, i.e. the receptor cell, operates in a condition analogous to a 0 Kelvin ground state which maintains quantum coherence. From a more biophysical perspective, single action quanta and quantum formalism have been shown to be relevant to the model of the potassic ion channel selectivity filter that generates important macroscopic patterns of electrophysiological activity in neurons [@Roy2009]. From an experimental point of view, it is clear that quantum effects are relevant to nervous system models and that attempts to model with precision should take quantum formalism into account. Bohr originally gave a cognitive and biologic view of quantum physics in his book “Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge” [@Bohr1958], further highlighting that quantum physics is not just a theory of physics, but also a theory of what one can objectively know about physics. Since Bohr’s work, many works have proposed to examine consciousness and the nervous system on the basis of quantum entanglement and decoherence, or even quantum gravity principles, as in the celebrated works of Hameroff and Penrose [@Hameroff1996], which proposed a specific involvement of cytoskeletal microtubules. Penrose’s propositions [@Penrose1989] fall within the bounds of the present framework from a physical point of view, while his biological proposition involving microtubules, over-restrictive with respect to the current corpus of knowledge on the dynamics of the nervous system, is extended here to the whole nervous system’s dynamic. Recent reviews of some results of the application of quantum formalism to cognition can be found in the book of Busemeyer and Bruza [@Busemeyer2014] and in the work of Khrennikov [@Khrennikov2015].\
With regard to the question, “Where is my mind?”, we conclude that biological studies have reported that it can be found at all organizational scales and locations of the nervous system. To lead into the next section on plasticity, computational models such as that of Fusi and Abbott [@Fusi2005] have proposed that the nervous system adapts to its environment with a cascading of adaptive processes operating at different time scales, allowing it to fill the gap between traditional short- and long-term memory formation. This multiplicity of scales has an important functional role in controlling the interplay between plasticity and stability-homeostasis (or metaplasticity) as adapting processes operating at different scales. As a result, the nervous system can be seen as a constantly adapting system with a range of plasticity and homeostatic processes operating at different scales of time and space. Such a view explains why biological studies aiming to localize plasticity and memory in certain biological structures (for example the synapse) or tissues (for example the hippocampus, often called “the site of long-term memory”) have found relevantly memory-forming process characterization in virtually all scales and all structures of the nervous system. Open a randomly-chosen journal to a randomly-chosen page in a neuroscience library, and you are likely to come upon a memory-plasticity-learning related paper. By this, we mean that the substrate of memory in the nervous system can be and has been found virtually everywhere, from genetic expression, kinase and/or calcium intracellular signaling cascades, the synaptic NMDA mechanism, to neuronal morphology including synaptic formation, cortical maps of areas remodeling etc. In electrodynamics, the formalism accounting for such multi-scale dynamics is still accepted and is one of its core tenets: the renormalization theory, as reviewed by Shirkov [@Shirkov1999] and Huang [@Huang2013]. The expression of renormalization in condensed statistical physics based on Ising systems was achieved by Kadanov [@Kadanoff1966] and Wilson [@Wilson1974b], who iteratively constructed Hamiltonians for each scale by aggregating spins within “short” scale distances into blocks. There exist classical versions of the renormalization group, already extensively used in complex system studies, and Dyson developed renormalization in perturbation theory [@Dyson1949].
### Neural coding - neural assemblies - synchrony - noise {#Neural coding}
This section investigates consciousness from a coding and engineering point of view and asks the question: what is the code of consciousness? A quantitative, formal and typical approach to consciousness relies on investigating how information is processed, stored and retrieved within the nervous system, a field generically known as neural and sensory coding. In such a context, consciousness and information can be considered synonymous (more precisely mutual-information as we will see). The word coding comes from the original engineering context of information theory, and may not be appropriate since it suggests that there exists an external structure to decode and gain access to the meaning of the information, which is equivalent to the homonculus problem. Barlow has previously explained how to solve the homonculus problem using biological and probabilistic learning arguments [@Barlow1995]. However, Bayesian statistical inference can be interpreted in terms of an ideal homonculus reading the neural code (see Foldiack [@Foldiack1993]), and we here consider the phenomenological principle that considers that what reads the neural code are the structures that effectively receive the signal-responses of the system (the “physical observer” rather than an ideal one). In this sense, there is no need to consider such an external ’homonculus’ structure, or equivalently, one can consider that there are chains of homonculi. It is sufficient to consider that the structure of the “code” is its meaning and conveys its semantics, and we give an algebraic definitions of structures in the mathematical section of the paper. In terms of information theory, there is no need to consider another coding scheme than the random variables themselves, and we consider here a bijective coding function from the codomain of the random variable to the alphabet. Put simply, the electrical message and its structure are the code itself.\
**Cell assemblies, neural ensembles, synchrony and polyphony, cortical songs and beta-gamma oscillations**. The mainstream historical development of neuroscience has come to consider the nervous system as an **associative dynamic memory**. This central role of associativity is probably further sustained in information topology by the fact that the algebra of random variables and conditioning is fundamentally associative, and that consciousness is the qualitative byproduct of the mnemonic activation and consolidation process. Hebb proposed the principle of associative plasticity and learning [@Hebb1949] generating cell assemblies and providing the physiological support of consciousness and memory. The theory was refined by Von der Malsburg [@Malsburg1981] in his “correlation theory of brain function”, proposing that the correlate of cognition-consciousness lies in the patterns of neural activity quantified by correlations, and that simultaneously activated nerve cells represent the basic internal objects. This theory was further pursued from a computational perspective by the studies of synfire chains made by Abeles [@Abeles1982], Diesmann, Gewaltig and Aertsen [@Diesmann1999], examined experimentally from the perspective of the theory of synchrony and binding by Singer, Gray and colleagues [@Singer1995] and looked into via studies of cortical songs [@Ikegaya2004]. The basic hypothesis is that synchronization of neuronal discharges can serve for the integration of distributed neurons into cell assemblies, and that this process may underlie the selection of perceptually and behaviorally relevant information [@Engel1999]. The consciousness aspect of the theory was further clarified by the observation that a single external object stimulating the respective receptive fields of two disconnected neurons induced synchronous oscillations in the 40-100Hz gamma range frequencies, the signature frequencies of attentional and waking states [@Gold1999]. The synchrony theory remains one of the simplest and deepest theories of consciousness, since synchrony unavoidably provides a definition of the space-like subspace in space-time structures and also corresponds to the “stable invariant” subspace of coupled dynamical systems as notably emphasized in the work of Stewart and Golubitsky [@Golubitsky2006a; @Stilwell2011]. As we will see, homology theory provides a natural ground to define and distinguish patterns and assemblies. Homology measures have been applied to characterize neural activity patterns and assemblies in the work of Curto and Itskov [@Curto2008] on hippocampal place cells, to examine persistence in visual activity by Singh and colleagues [@Singh2008], and in neural networks by Petri and colleagues [@Petri2014]. As outlined in the mathematical and appendix sections of the paper, homology is the standard and appropriated mathematical theory to formalize what patterns may be. The main theory and applied measure to formalize and quantify those assemblies is probability theory, e.g. Bayesian and information theory. The mathematical section provides an introduction to those theories and underlines, following Kolmogorov [@Kolmogorov1983] and Jaynes [@Jaynes2003], that they are indeed a single theory. In what follows, we will briefly review their application and biological meaning in neural coding, further justifying their current status as qualitative theories of the brain (see for review Griffiths [@Griffiths2008] and Friston [@Friston2012] and references therein).
**Functional - black box approach** The classical functional characterization of consciousness considers electrical activity as a function of stimulus. The process of consciousness is considered to be a function which consists in the “cross-correlation” or convolution of the stimulus with the neural response. Characterizing consciousness by functions may appear an inappropriate approach that focuses too much on the final result. However, such an interpretation of function is partial, and it is more relevant to consider functions from a mathematical perspective and instead highlight the “dynamic” aspect of consciousness: a kind of relation between a domain and a codomain (that assigns to any element of the domain a single element of the codomain, creating an ordered pair). Function spaces provide very rich and diverse structures in mathematics, including Hilbert and Banach spaces, and are usually classified according to topological criteria. As further discussed in the mathematical section, information topology relies on an arguably general space of functions, the space of measurable functions, and provides a characterization of its structure. In biology, these input-output functions provide a “representation” or a coding of the (perceived) stimulus on a given functional basis. From the biophysical point of view, this function is usually characterized using the linear response theory, which studies the fluctuation and dissipation (i.e the return to equilibrium) of a system following the external perturbation generated by the stimulus, as formalized by Kubo and applied to neural responses by Stevens [@Kubo1966; @Stevens1972]. From an engineering perspective, this function is usually characterized using Volterra or Wiener’s kernels methods [@Wiener1958; @Palm1977; @Palm1978] using white noise as input. Figure \[scale\_function\] presents the impulsional response (first order linear kernel) obtained at different organizational scales of the nervous system. At each of these scales, the higher order kernels, representing non-linear components or interactions in the system’s function, complete these linear functions. For example, at the “network scale” of V1 responses, the linear kernel accounts for about 20% of the response at the spiking [@Carandini2005] and Vm level [@Baudot2006; @Baudot2013]. A diversity of biological mechanisms sustains the impulsional response at those different scales, which is extremely different from the biological point of view, involving amino-acid steric interactions, synaptic processes, neural passive and active integration processes, excitatory-inhibitory network processes etc. These approaches allow the experimental characterization of memory stored and retrieved by nervous systems and linear and nonlinear representations of elements of consciousness, also called receptive fields in the study of sensory coding at the neuron level [@Hubel1959; @Hubel1962a; @DeAngelis1995; @Fournier2014]. Memory duration is the time taken by a system after a perturbation to go back to its resting equilibrium state. Figure \[scale\_function\] clearly illustrates that memory duration increases as one goes from fine to coarse scales of nervous system organization. A caveat of such an approach is that characterization with impulsional noise rapidly becomes inefficient when functions become highly non-linear and are represented in very high order kernels, as is the case when one studies sensory neurons with high cognitive functions, far from low-level sensory areas.\
**Frequency (rate) and temporal code, from spike coding to Vm coding**: The probabilistic functional approach just reviewed can be used to investigate the code’s temporal precision. The book by Rieke and colleagues provides an introduction to spike coding [@Rieke1999]. The first, simple code to have been proposed was the rate (or frequency) code, which simply observed that the rate of spiking discharge increases with stimulus intensity [@Adrian1926]. The rate code postulates that information is transmitted by the rate of spiking. In practice, the variable is the number of spikes within a time window, normalized by the duration of the window: $\text{rate}=n_{\text{spike}}/\Delta t$ (or equivalently, the variable $X_i$ can take $N_i$ values of rate). It is possible to consider variations of the spike rate using several consecutive time windows, each giving a variable $X_i$ and altogether forming a stochastic process. Temporal (or time or latency [@Thorpe1996; @Gawne1996]) coding postulates that information is transmitted by the precise time of a spike. It corresponds to an instantaneous rate code, e.g the limit of the rate code when the duration of the window tends to be small $\lim_{\Delta t \rightarrow 0}\text{rate}$. There have been debates on whether nervous systems use spike time or rate coding, together with studies of information as a function of the duration of the window-bin [@Rieke1999; @Strong1998]. Results of experiments show that the nervous system uses a temporal or rate code depending on the stimulus or task; simple stimuli with low information content or relevance evoke rate codes while highly informative, complex time-varying stimuli (for instance with high cognitive content), like natural conditions or stimulus the system has learned, tend to evoke a temporally precise spiking code [@Bialek1991; @Victor1996; @Mechler1998; @Baudot2006; @Baudot2013]. Synchrony and neural assembly theory presuppose a temporally precise code for which precise temporal coincidence or phase relationships are detected. The naturally fluctuating regime eliciting this temporal spiking code is illustrated in Figure \[scale\_function\].\
However, consideration of a spiking code is just a rough simplifying approximation and assumption. Historically, notably due to the vast prevalence of extracellular recordings and for simplicity, the coding unit-event of the nervous system has been considered to be the spike - what has been called spike coding, a binary code. It assumes that spike waveform and initiation and synaptic transmission are all-or-nothing processes. Those assumptions are very rough approximations. Information transmission in neurons is not all-or-nothing: spike waveform and threshold vary significantly and further modulate synaptic transmission in an important part, if not all neurons. As reviewed in Juusola [@Juusola2007] and Debanne, Zbili and colleagues [@Debanne2013; @Zbili2016] and investigated by Simmons, de Ruyter Von Steveninck [@Simmons2005; @RuytervanSteveninck1996] and Rama and colleagues [@Rama2015], **effective information transmission in real nervous systems is not a binary process and the entire membrane voltage codes**. Moreover, spikes differ from cell to cell and the diversity of spikes’ shapes and generating mechanisms, notably sustained by a diversity of ionic channels as shown in the celebrated work of Sakmann [@Sakmann1991], are well known to impact neural individual and collective dynamics. Such realistic “analog” coding goes hand in hand with an obvious increase in the considered coding capacity of neural processes compared with digital approximation, an increase which is directly imposed by the increase of the size of the coding alphabet. In practice, studies of graded synaptic transmission such as those by de Ruyter Von Steveninck and Laughlin [@RuytervanSteveninck1996] report high information transmission rates (see also Borst and Theunissen’s review [@Borst1999]).\
Turning away from the unrealistic assumption that the code is sustained by ideal impulsional spikes (i.e. binary code) leads to the consideration of the more general electromagnetic “Vm code”, which includes spiking events.
\[!h\] ![**Temporal and rate coding with wavelet analysis in the primary visual cortex; SNR and mutual-information rate spectral estimation of spiking, Vm and electrocorticogram (ECoG) responses.** See legend \[legend time-frequency\]. []{data-label="time-frequency"}](Figure3.png "fig:"){height="14cm"}
**Legend of Figure \[time-frequency\] \[legend time-frequency\]: Temporal and rate coding with wavelet analysis in primary visual cortex; Signal-to-Noise-Ratio (SNR) and mutual-information rate spectral estimation of spiking, Vm and electro-corticogram (ECoG) responses. a,** comparison of time-expanded epochs of the response of a V1 Simple cell and the simultaneously recorded V1 ECoG (bottom) to an optimal sinusoidal grating drifting at 2 Hz (left) and to natural images animated by eye movements (right). Both epochs illustrate the periods of strongest spike activation for the cell. From top to bottom: i) raster and frequency-time SNR analysis of the spiking response; ii) Vm trials waveforms and SNR analysis. iii) single trial example of ECoG activity and the ECoG time-frequency SNR analysis (2 seconds of spontaneous activity followed by 3 seconds of visual activation). **b, population analysis** Comparison of the mean (across cells) average SNR power between various stimulus conditions including grating and natural conditions. From top to bottom: SNR spectra for spiking and subthreshold Vm activity (n=12), and simultaneously recorded ECoG (n=10). Each bar below abscissa expresses the result of a Wilcoxon paired test when comparing two stimuli’s conditions for each frequency (color code for “A” minus “B”, white : “A” significantly higher than “B”; grey : “A” not significantly different from “B”; black : “A” significantly lower than “B”, with p<0.05). **c,** Temporal modulation of the informational flow of Vm and spiking responses. Comparison of the temporal profile of the estimated mutual-information between Vm and spiking responses averaged across cells for Drifting-grating and Natural Image with eye-movement (saccades are depicted by gray vertical bars). The figure is adapted and modified with permission from [@Baudot2006; @Baudot2013].\
An adequate method for the study of time vs frequency code, avoiding the assumption of a spiking code, is time-frequency wavelet decomposition (or time-energy in physic) [@Baudot2006; @Baudot2013], illustrated in Figure \[time-frequency\] for intracellular recordings and an electrocorticogram of V1 during stimulation with drifting grating (low qualitative content) and natural image animated by eye-movement (high qualitative content). The Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) in time-frequency representation allows one to estimate the mutual-information transmission rate between the stimulus and the recorded response at each time and frequency/rate under Gaussian approximations [@Baudot2006; @Baudot2013]. Such a method gives a rough estimate that overestimates mutual information. In drifting grating conditions, high SNR values are restricted to a low-frequency band indicating a rate code, and the responses are highly variable from trial to trial. In natural conditions, Vm and spiking responses are highly reproducible (low noise) with high SNR located in high-frequency $\beta - \gamma$ range spectrums and in a time band (see Baudot and colleagues [@Baudot2006; @Baudot2013]), meaning a temporally localized code and a temporal code. From this electromagnetic point of view, the spike itself is indeed the signature of a temporally localized intermittent code, a fast process which is perhaps consciousness. Note that whereas the spiking code is quite sparse in such conditions, the Vm code is very dense and reveals the unceasing synaptic bombardment expected from a highly recurrent network, and hardly adheres to activity minimization constraints as proposed by Olshausen and Field [@Olshausen1996]. Rather, it appears to dissipate free-energy very efficiently in an “efficient dissipation” [@Baudot2006]. The estimated mutual information, which in this simple two-variable case is equal to the Integrated Information of Tononi and Edelman [@Tononi1998] (definitions are given in section \[info\_functions\]) and accordingly quantifies consciousness as regards to the stimulus, is low for the qualitatively low drifting grating stimulus (except at its onset) and evokes EcoG close to resting states. Under natural conditions, the estimated mutual information is higher and Vm conveys higher mutual information rates than the spike train (which can be also interpreted in terms of a neuronal integration process). Such a study confirms the models of integrated information, of temporal coding, and $\beta - \gamma$ frequencies of consciousness. The study of cortical dynamics under natural conditions was pioneered by Vinje and Gallant [@Vinje2000; @Vinje2002], and the study on variability and coding in such conditions was reported by Baudot and colleagues [@Baudot2006; @Baudot2013; @Fregnac2005] and then by Butts and colleagues [@Butts2007], Haider and colleagues [@Haider2010] and Herikstad and colleagues [@Herikstad2011].\
**Population code** Bayesian theory and information theory provide the basic quantification of populational code. It consists in considering the multivariate case where each neuron corresponds to a variable or considering more complex time-dependent generalizations (as in the work of Martignon [@Martignon2000]), hierarchical families of probability distributions as in the work of Amari [@Amari2001a], which considers higher order statistics of cell assemblies. For example, Ma and colleagues developed probabilistic population codes [@Ma2006] to infer the stimulus from a population activity. The general case of population coding is barely distinguishable from some of the current neural network or machine learning approaches and are reviewed in the next section. The information topology sketched in section \[infotopo\_synthesis\] aims to characterize the structure according to the topological and informational criteria of such multivariate cases.\
**Noise, spontaneous-ongoing activity, self and free-will :** it is a leitmotif in biological and neuronal studies to investigate the role of noise, whether it be an un-mastered or “spontaneous” source of variability, and to propose that such a non-deterministic source is responsible for phenomena like consciousness [@Dehaene2005; @Wyart2009], or living principle, as in the work of Brown which looks for the “vital forces” in living material [@Brown1828]. Many studies have been dedicated to the functional role of noise and have pointed out that noise is “far from being a nuisance” [@Vilardi2009; @Eldar2014]. Some have formalized noise, for example using stochastic resonance or self-organized criticality formalisms [@Bak1987]. Control theory and the conceptualization of a channel of communication in information theory has also made use of such an ad-hoc noise source [@Shannon1948], using the deterministic “0 noise” formalism as a reference. Intrinsic variability has a very important role in human cognition and consciousness, as it allows free-will to be conceivable. As Ruelle remarked in his course on deterministic dynamical systems, critical-bifurcation points, hyperbolic saddle points, are the only places where the choice is given and left possible (see [@Baji2005] for a review on this topic; see also the section of this paper on dynamical systems \[dynamical\_system\]). Recurrent network formalization using statistical physics, pioneered notably by Hopfield networks, introduced a new view on ongoing activity and thermal noise, proposing that it corresponds to the autonomous generative capacity of consciousness, illustrated in the context of the Helmholtz machine as accounting for the wake-sleep sequence and dreams [@Dayan1995], which further gave a conceptual framework for the studies on “cortical or hippocampal replay”. The probabilistic approach, as notably proposed by Ma and colleagues [@Ma2006] and also in information topology (see the mathematical section of this paper \[infotopo\_synthesis\]), generalizes the noise approach by considering biological and neural computation to be intrinsically probabilistic: the deterministic case is no longer the reference but a peculiar limit subcase. In such a view, any component of a (possibly nervous) system corresponds to a random variable, can be considered as a signal and a noise source and can be both emitter and receiver. A variable or source without noise is deterministic and is the trivial constant “0” information of an informational structure (cf. section \[infotopo\_synthesis\]): information only sees what varies, so to speak. In a sense, such probabilistic studies describe the heterogeneous structures of constitutive ongoing activity and the relative variations of ongoing activity. Indeed, the information topology framework introduces a variational view of probability, which was also proposed by Friston [@Friston2006]. Hence, the probabilistic and informational view attributes not only consciousness but also free will to varying observables. We believe it is the fundamental theoretical contribution of probability theory to cognition to allow free will to exist and be an important constitutive part of the system’s dynamic.\
As a quite consensual conclusion of this section on coding, in agreement with the current neuroscience theories, the code implemented by the nervous system and which sustains consciousness is proposed to be an electromagnetic and probabilistic code; both are consistent with regard to physics. However, it has not yet been established that the expression of statistical physics implemented by information topology can also account for the standard electrodynamic theory. This is a hope for the future which is left here as conjecture.\
### Psychophysics - Fechner and Gestalt’s heritage {#Psychophysic}
In this section, we ask if qualia can be quantified and if it is possible to define the structure of qualia’s interactions in order to provide a quantified Gestalt theory.\
**Quantum of qualia - adaptation:** Measures of the nervous system’s electromagnetic activity are not sufficient for a complete study of consciousness, as they have to study the “correlation” of those measures with a subjective state-dynamic. Hence, a quantification of subjective states is required, meaning a definition of subjective observable phenomena and an appropriate mathematical definition of “correlation” need to be given. Such an approach defines the entire domain of what is called psychophysics, or, more generally, experimental psychology, wherein the definition of “correlation” is usually the functional black-box approach just reviewed. The principles of this domain were laid down by Fechner in 1860 [@Fechner1860]. Fechner’s main contribution has been what is known as the Weber-Fechner law of adaptation, according to which sensation is proportional to the logarithm of the stimulus (but see Mengoli’s 1670 work on the “logarithmic ear” [@Mengoli1670]): $$S(x)=k\ln \frac{x}{x_0}$$ where $S(x)$ is the subjective magnitude of the sensation, $x$ is the stimulus intensity and $x_0$ the “absolute threshold” (the intensity at which the stimuli is no longer perceived). To derive this law, he introduced the concept and measure of “just-noticeable difference”, a quantization of the subject 40 years prior to the establishment of quantum physics by Planck [@Planck1901]. We now know that the “just-noticeable difference” is the quantum of action (cf. Figure \[feynman\_diag\]). This law holds in all sensory modalities: vision (light intensity), hearing, taste, touch (weight intensity), smell, but also time estimation [@Takahashi2006]. It notably established the use of decibel units for auditory signals. In crossmodal matching, it is replaced by Stevens’ power law [@Stevens1965] [@Krueger1989]. Poincaré gave a simple, pure, and fundamental topological interpretation of Fechner’s law of perception that has been reproduced in the annex of this paper \[topology of psychophysic\] [@Poincare1905; @Poincare1902]. Laughlin proposed a seminal mutual information maximization framework (infomax) that accounts for Fechner’s law [@Laughlin1989] in a biophysical adaptation context (cf. Figure \[networklearning\]a). Among other reports, Kostala and Lansky went further and gave an information theoretic explanation of this law [@Kostala2016], and a fine mathematical introduction with a topological perspective was proposed by Dzhafarov [@Dzhafarov2012].\
**Gestalt - efficient coding theory:** The Form and geometrical theory of consciousness go back at least to antiquity, notably with Plato and Aristotle’s theory of Forms and their debates on its metaphysical or physical nature [@Aristotle350B.C.E; @Ross1951]. The idea, basic yet at the cutting edge of mathematical neuroscience, was captured by Riemann in the citation given in this paper’s introduction \[riemanncitation\]. The theory of forms was developed was developed by the school of Gestalt psychophysics, notably Köhler [@Kohler1947] and Wertheimer [@Wertheimer1924; @Wertheimer1923], who provide elementary associative laws of binding that govern the construction of complex perceptual forms from basic elementary shapes (cf. Figure \[figure\_Attneave-Gestalt\]). This school was interested primarily in the relationships between objects and even considered that relations form the object, which they summarized by their famous adage “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”. Wertheimer used the following example: we can perceive trees and not multiple different elements of sensation. And most importantly, we see the same tree even when light conditions and perspective imply a complete change of the elements in question. In other words, it is not the elements but the perceptual structures that are fundamental; these so-called Gestalt qualities are collective mental phenomena. They proposed “the hypothesis of psychophysical isomorphism” between environmental and brain processes and suggested that brain processing consists in assembling parts into a coherent whole (for a review of this topic see [@Rosenthal1999]). Among the perceptual laws they propounded, there are 3 or 4 elementary laws of binding and segmentation: proximity, similarity, continuity, and sometimes closure (cf. Figure \[figure\_Attneave-Gestalt\]).
\[!h\] ![**Gestalt laws of elementary perception and Attneave’s cat. a** Gestalt’s four elementary laws of binding [@Kohler1947; @Wertheimer1924; @Wertheimer1923]. **b,** Attneave’s cat, redrawn from Atteneave’s 1954 paper [@Attneave1954]. The points of a graphical drawing of a sleeping cat were chosen according to a maximal curvature criterion. To underline the topological intuition behind this, we illustrated the binding of incoherent points into a coherent form by a simplicial coboundary (differential) operator from a 0-complex of points to a 1-complex (i.e. the graph of the cat. See the section \[What is topology\] for a presentation of those topological objects).[]{data-label="figure_Attneave-Gestalt"}](Figure4.png "fig:"){height="5cm"}
These laws of binding operate both in space and time; for example, in the temporal domain, the law of continuity was called “common fate”. Of course, their definition lacked mathematical precision, but they have a remarkable geometric and topological flavor. Moreover, the binding problem (generalization) is today considered together with its dual segregation (discrimination - segmentation) task both in psychophysics and neuroscience. The results of modern psychophysics are much more precise and complex. For example, Field et al [@Field1993] and Polat and Sagi [@Polat1993] gave a description of the spatial, orientation and contrast dependency of visual contour integration, the so-called “association field”. Such results were investigated by Georges and colleagues in the spatiotemporal case, using tasks of speed estimation of various apparent motion configurations [@Georges2002]. The principle of dynamical space-time “association field” is depicted in Figure \[apparent\_motion\] a and e. The perceptive bias in speed estimation for coherent Gestaltic configurations is represented in Figure \[apparent\_motion\] f.\
\[!h\] ![**Subjective speed of apparent motion and its neuronal substrate**. See Legend \[legend apparent\_motion\].[]{data-label="apparent_motion"}](Figure5.png "fig:"){height="11cm"}
The correspondence of such psychophysical experiments with electro-physiological activity has been reported by several studies at all scales of the nervous system and with many kinds of recording methods. The converse has also repeatedly been shown, starting with the experiments of Penfield [@Penfield1958]; electrical stimulation of single neurons, as in the study of Salzman and colleagues [@Salzman1990], or of a neuronal population, can bias and modify perceptions, as reviewed by Parker and Newsome [@Parker1998] and Cicmil and Krug [@Cicmil2015]. Here, we simply present particular examples of single neuron recording results that provide the neural basis for the visual association field. The work of Gilbert and Wiesel [@Gilbert1989] and Schmidt and colleagues [@Schmidt1997] provide the neural correlate and mechanisms for the static psychophysical association field and support the view that the binding of visual contours onto perceptually coherent objects involves long-range horizontal connections between V1 cortical neurons as represented in Figure \[apparent\_motion\]a.
**Legend of Figure \[apparent\_motion\]\[legend apparent\_motion\]: qualitative perception of the speed of apparent motion and its neuronal substrate.** Center-surround directional selectivity for saccadic-like apparent motion and the temporal and SNR modulation of the response of primary visual cortex neurons. **a,** Schematic representation of a visuo-oculomotor model of V1 processing, sequentially integrating visual information along spatial long range (saccade) and short range (fixational movement) eye-movements of coherent shapes (gestaltic). During saccadic high-speed long-range movement, V1 neurons, by means of their spatiotemporal association field, selectively integrate the visual information iso-oriented to saccadic motion along their collinear axis (co-aligned with the motion path), whereas during fixation they integrate the visual information on low spatial scales and at low speeds corresponding to their classical direction selectivity (classical direction preference axis across the discharge field width). Furthermore, the eye-movement scan-path is correlated to image features, notably the contours for saccades’ path in this image exploration. The bottom cartoon is Yarbus’s original illustration [@Yarbus1967] (1967) and illustrates the eye-movement pattern of a human observer (right panel) along the corresponding photograph (left panel). **b,** an example of a simple cell response to apparent motion stimuli (blue color) and center only control (green color), for low contrast center conditions, exemplifying a collinear surround facilitation. Picture in the middle represents the four tested axis of apparent motion superimposed with the RF map obtained with sparse noise (ON responses in red scale color, OFF responses in blue scale, depolarising field extent white line). Gabor patches were sequentially flashed from the surroundings to the center. **c,** The biphasic temporal profile of center-surround apparent motion nonlinearity, and its directional collinear selectivity and modulation by contrast (population analysis $n = 23$). The temporal waveforms of nonlinearity are calculated for each cell by subtracting the linear predictor (Center alone + surround alone responses) from the real response observed to the full apparent motion sequence, both at the spiking levels (top panels) and at the Vm level (bottom panels). Here, we present the average cross-cell temporal waveforms of nonlinearity expressed as a z-score of the spontaneous activity. The temporal profile of the nonlinearity is given for the low contrast center (grey color) and the high contrast center (black color). **d,** apparent motion nonlinear modulation of the SNR of the responses. To measure the center-surround SNR modulation gain, each trial of the center alone condition are summed with those of the surround alone condition to obtain a pool of linear predictor trials, on which we could apply the SNR time-frequency analysis. The time-frequency apparent motion nonlinear SNR gain is then obtained by subtracting the apparent motion SNR from the linear predictor SNR, expressed as a z-score of spontaneous activity (significant threshold calculated independently for each frequency z-score p>0.001), and averaged across cells (adapted and modified with permission from Baudot [@Baudot2006]). **e,** the psychophysics experiment to quantify the bias in the perceived speed of apparent motion relies notably on two stimuli : i) a reference spatio-temporal sequence with collinear Gabor patches (dynamic Gestaltic association field configuration) and ii) a control sequence with parallel Gabor patches (non Gestaltic configuration). **f,** The result of the perceived speed bias quantified by the subjective equality point (ratio of comparison/reference speed) as a function of the speed of the stimuli or of the corresponding cortical speed. The maximal bias, consisting in an overestimation of the speed for Gestaltic configurations, is found for speeds in the range of saccades’ speeds and of horizontal propagation speed in the cortex (adapted and modified with permission from Georges, Series, Fregnac and Lorenceau [@Georges2002]).\
The neural correlate of the dynamic association field sustaining the apparent motion percept has been investigated in the work of Chavane and colleagues,[@Chavane2000] Baudot and colleagues [@Baudot2006] and Gerard-Mercier and colleagues [@Gerard-Mercier2016], and is illustrated in Figure \[apparent\_motion\] which summarises most of the electrophysiological paradigms of consciousness: shapes and binding, temporal coding, $\beta−\gamma$ oscillations, “feedback” and non-linearities (here we consider feed-forward inhibition and lateral intracortical excitation as formal feedback from the cybernetic point of view), active sensing (see next chapter) and reliability or mutual information (transient) increase. The space-time sequence of surrounding stimulation in a coherent gestaltic configuration, optimally fitted to recruit horizontal cortical connectivity, improved the temporal precision of spiking responses, the SNR of Vm and spike responses, $\beta−\gamma$ band activity, and decreased the latencies of the responses. As shown in Figure \[apparent\_motion\]c, the non-linearities induced by surround stimulation present a space-time profile in agreement with saccadic eye-movements’ kinematic characteristics and sustains the impulsional and reliable code. They exhibited a biphasic temporal profile resulting from an excitatory-inhibitory temporal phase shift analog to what was observed in the auditory cortex and in the olfactory bulb by Wehr and Zador [@Wehr2003] and Laurent’s team [@Collins2007]. It hence underlines a generic cortical (or cortical-like) mechanism for spike sparsening, temporal precision refining, and for the amplification of $\beta−\gamma$ oscillations. Such studies also lay a path towards an answer to Olshausen and Field’s question, “What are the other 85% of V1 doing?”, [@Olshausen2004] referring to the low explanatory power of the linear simple RF; the dynamic of eye movement which is the major component in natural condition statistics and their adapted non-linear interactions have been missing in classical studies. V1 neurons code for much more sophisticated space-time shapes than the linear component displays.
**Gestalt and efficient coding:**\[barlow\] The principle of efficient coding, that the goal of sensory perception is to extract the redundancies and to find the most compressed representation of the data, was first stated by Attneave in 1954 [@Attneave1954] followed by Barlow [@Barlow1961]. Attneave notably claimed that any kind of symmetry and invariance are information redundancies and that Gestalt principles of perception can be defined in terms of information. Attneave’s illustration of this principle is reproduced in Figure \[figure\_Attneave-Gestalt\], in which his cat, drawn out of only 38 “informative” points, has an intuitive cohomological interpretation as a cochain complex (this illustration is only included to facilitate intuitive understanding a la Attneave). We propose in the section mathematical section of the paper \[Math\] that homology is an adequate formalism both to achieve the assimilation of symmetries and invariance as information quantities and to provide mathematical and even logical Gestalt laws of perception. Such an idea is already present in essence in the work of Thom and Petitot on semiophysics, structural stability and morphogenesis [@Thom1977; @Petitot1983; @Thom1990], although their presentation of the idea is rooted in probability and information theory rather than catastrophes. Following the seminal work of Kendall [@Kendall1984] defining shape spaces, statistical shape space analysis undertaken by Dryden and Mardia [@Dryden1998] and a series of works by Mumford and Michor [@Michor2006], a whole domain of statistical and informational investigation of shapes appeared, for example the pattern theory of Mumford and Desolneux [@Mumford2010] among many other works in this active field. The relation or expression of shape space analysis to information topology is not yet known and would require its generalization to continuous symmetries.
Active consciousness - plasticity, adaptation homeostasis - Dynamic and persistence of qualia
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Action-perception inseparability
In this section, we investigate how consciousness dynamics are related to action. Following James [@James1890], Tononi and Edelman proposed that consciousness is not a thing or a state, but a process or a flow fluctuating in time, taking a quite continuous view of the subject. The model of Changeux-Dehaenne may seem opposed to such view in the sense that it is “discontinuous” and involves a transition from unconscious to conscious, two separate phases. However, as claimed previously, such discontinuity should simply be considered a critical point between two different “conscious phases”, one being unaware of the other, a perspective which highlights the fact that taking the diversity of consciousness into consideration renders these two theories quite indistinguishable. As illustrated by the involvement of eye-movement in visual responses and coding in the previous section, consciousness is a dynamic and active process. This central statement arises from the general action-perception conceptualization of cognition in neuroscience (see Llinas [@Llinas2002], Berthoz [@Berthoz2000; @Berthoz2003] and Jeannerod [@Jeannerod2006] for general introductions to this subject), from the phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty [@Merleau-Ponty1945] and active sensing in electrophysiological studies [@Saraf-Sinik]. The formalization of the action-perception paradigm was pioneered by the tensor networks model of Llinas and Pellionisz [@Pellionisz1979]. A remarkably clear and relevant presentation of “active consciousness” was given by O’Reagan and Noe [@ORegan2001]. Borrowing their metaphor, conscious perception is like a blind man who scans his environment with his cane to perceive its structure and extract its information. Visual qualitative perception exemplifies this statement; our eyes continuously scan the environment by saccadic and fixational eye-movements (drifts and tremors), as represented in Figure \[apparent\_motion\]a. Whenever the eyes or the retinal image are artificially kept immobile, the visual qualitative perception fades within hundreds of milliseconds (and the cortex goes back to its spontaneously fluctuating ongoing states). It is misleading to consider such movement as unconscious (as we do not see them or see our visual world moving with them) or even to think that a stabilizing process is required to compensate them. As underlined by O’Reagan and Noe [@ORegan2001], they indeed construct our perception and are an intrinsic, constitutive, necessary component of our conscious flow that constructs our subjective space-time, further probing the integrative action-perception process. This is the striking conclusion, and also Piaget’s opus [@Piaget1964; @Phillips1981]: what we consider as external fixed reality, our perception of space and time, is a sophisticated construction of our nervous system which learns spatial and temporal relations. Moreover, the inseparability of action and perception has wide-ranging ramifications in physics, as can be seen from the fact that the duality of Hamiltonian (perception-like) and Lagrangian (action-like) approaches are encompassed by the consideration of the Legendre transformation. This inseparability of action and perception is a hallmark of the adaptive and dynamic nature of consciousness, which is a perpetually adaptive process; we can go a step beyond the dynamical nature of consciousness. Consciousness is variational by essence - what is constant, we are not conscious of; we all have a blind spot corresponding to missing photoreceptor on the retina occupying an important part of our visual field, but none of us have ever seen it. This brings to light the importance of the adaptive or learning mechanisms in the nervous system that are the main topic of neuroscience and which we review in the next section, in which we also introduce the thermodynamic and informational formalization of the process of learning in consciousness.
### Plasticity - (machine) learning - Informational and Statistical physic of consciousness dynamic
In this section we investigate the relation of the dynamics of our qualitative experience with the plasticity of the nervous system and the way this is usually formalized. The formalization of plasticity, the dynamic of consciousness, has formed the crossroads between information theory, statistical physics and data analysis (machine learning). A basic principle ruling nervous system dynamics and learning was inferred by Hebb [@Hebb1949] in what is now called the Hebbian rule of plasticity, stating that if a presynaptic cell $X$ tends to repeatedly excite and take part in the firing of a postsynaptic cell $Y$, then the efficiency of $X$ on $Y$ will be reinforced. It notably found a biological verification in the study of Lømo and Bliss, who demonstrated Long Term Potentiation (LTP) at the hippocampal synapses [@Lomo1966; @Bliss1973]. The principle of efficient coding proposed by Attneave [@Attneave1954] and Barlow [@Barlow1961] and restated in section \[barlow\] can be reformulated as an optimization problem, aiming to maximize mutual information between the input and the output of a system that provides a decorrelated or factorial, informationally efficient representation of the input, as illustrated in Figure \[networklearning\] a,b,c. From the cognitive point of view, the idea was resumed by Chaitin [@Chaitin2006] and Grassberger (private communication, cf. Figure \[networklearning\]f): “understanding is compression!”. This could also be stated as finding all the redundancies that characterize the structure of the environment. Maguire and colleagues have constructed a whole theory of consciousness based on such compression principles [@Maguire2016]. Linsker’s seminal work showed that the “infomax principle” applied in feed-forward linear networks is equivalent to considering that synaptic weights follow a Hebbian covariant rule and achieve a certain kind of Principal Component Analysis (PCA), with neurons developing static oriented simple-like receptive fields [@Linsker1986; @Linsker1988] (cf. Figure \[networklearning\]e). On a biological side in 1981, Laughlin and Srinivasan formulated the information maximization principle, showing that it implements predictive coding in vision and gaining experimental control of the interneurons of the eyes of flies. [@Srinivasan1981; @Laughlin1989] (cf. Figure \[networklearning\]a). Nadal and Parga [@Nadal1999; @Nadal1994] and Bell and Sejnowski [@Bell1995] further generalized the approach, showing that maximizing the mutual information $I(X;Y)=H(Y)-H(Y/X)$ between the input $X$ and output $Y$ of a network (see figure \[networklearning\] and legend), imposing low noise or deterministic system conditions ($H(Y/X)=0$), leads to redundancy reduction, a factorial code that can be used to achieve Independent Component Analysis (ICA). In real neuroscientific experiments, as shown in the column on variability in Figure \[scale\_function\], the effect of maximizing mutual information, at all scales of nervous system organization (and reference therein), is to reduce the noise-variability of the responses and for the system to become close to deterministic given the stimulus - what is usually called ’reliable’. This ensures a consistency of consciousness, ensuring that two individuals experiencing the same environment will develop and share the same conscious experience (and hence can communicate about it consistently). This fact is all the more clear in the fMRI experiments of Hasson and colleagues, where the readings are taken from humans [@Hasson2009; @Hasson2004]. In simple terms, infomax accounts for the fact that our experiences can be shared, most notably human or animal communication.
\[!h\] ![**Statistical and informational models of learning-adaptation. a,** the information maximization principle (adapted and modified with permission from Laughlin [@Laughlin1981], Nadal and Parga [@Nadal1999; @Nadal1994] and Bell and Sejnowski [@Bell1995]): the stimulus or input $X$ has a probability law $P(X)$ (red). The system is modeled as a black box with function $Y=F(X)$ (invertible continuous deterministic [@Bell1995], the cumulative of $P(X)$ in [@Laughlin1981], in purple) and implements a gain control. The response or output of system $Y$, and its entropy $H(Y)$. The maximization of mutual information $I(X;Y)=H(Y)-H(Y/X)$ (**b**) between the input and the output comes to maximize $H(Y)$ since the system is deterministic ($H(Y/X)=0$), and hence removes the redundancy in $Y$ or produces “factorial” code that can be used for Independent Component Analysis (ICA), as depicted in **c**. **d,** an illustration of a Hopfield network of 5 McCulloch and Pitt binary neurons or a Boltzmann Machine with 5 binary variables (vertex of the graph); the edges of the graph represent the synaptic weights $ w_{i,j}$ of the network’s connectivity matrix. On the right is illustrated a 1-dimensional free-energy landscape with several minima learned by a network; see Hopfield and Ackley et al for details [@Ackley1985][@Hopfield1982]. **e,** the infomax self-organizing mutilayer network of Linsker [@Linsker1988] that learns static, approximately realistic neuronal receptive fields. This seminal model, together with multilayer perceptrons, can be understood as an effective informational version of Marr’s primal sketch [@Marr1982] and the precursor of current deep learning machines. **f,** The cognitive, very basic principle of redundancy removal, expressed by Chaitin as “understanding is compression!” . It is illustrated by the fact that humans can extract a complex image from a very short linguistic representation (“a cat!”) in about 150ms [@Thorpe1996]. []{data-label="networklearning"}](Figure6.png "fig:"){height="9cm"}
A historic breakthrough in learning theory, arguably the first in Artificial Intelligence (AI) after Turing, was achieved by Hopfield in 1982 [@Hopfield1982], who showed that an Ising system could be used to formalize the associative memory learning of a fully recurrent network of binary neurons with the Hebbian plasticity principle (cf. Figure \[networklearning\]d). Ackley, Hinton and Sejnowski [@Ackley1985] generalized recurrent networks by considering neurons as random variables and imposing the Markov Field condition, allowing the introduction of conditional independence and the further construction of “deep” network structures with hidden layers [@Hinton2012]. The result, the Boltzmann or Helmholtz machine [@Dayan1995], relies on the maximum entropy or free energy minimization principle, and originally relied on minimizing the relative entropy between the network and environmental states [@Ackley1985]. These studies presented the first formalization of learning within statistical physics, explicitly in terms of entropy and free energy functions, but also in terms of information functions. Friston et al introduced a variational Bayesian formalization of the minimum free energy principle and proposed a theory of embodied perception based on it [@Friston2006]. Recently, the restricted Boltzmann machine, originally introduced by Smolensky in his Harmony theory [@Smolensky1986], found an enlightening reinterpretation through the variational renormalization group method, thanks to the work of Mehta and Schwab [@Mehta2014]. Their results clarify the principles involved in deep networks, part of the developments of which can appear alchemical [@Rahimi2017], and further reinforce the electrodynamical nature of consciousness.\
**The biological relevance of recurrent models and epigenetic generalization:** Following the model of convergence of thalamo-cortical connections on simple and complex cells proposed by Hubel and Wiesel [@Hubel1962a], recurrent models have been given the status of abstract models which are mostly relevant for artificial intelligence and machine learning. However, following the work of Fregnac, intracellular studies, revealing synaptic excitatory, inhibitory and neural integration, that is to say, electrical code, have revealed that this sparse convergence model is highly misleading (see [@Baudot2006a] and [@Fregnac2015] for a review of this topic). Using Hebbian conditioning protocols, Debanne and colleagues were able to turn simple cell responses into complex cell responses [@Debanne1998]. Orientation selectivity was shown to arise from a diverse combination of excitatory-inhibitory cortical recurrence balances by Monier and colleagues [@Monier2003], and recordings in natural visual conditions of eye movements revealed very dense Vm activity [@Baudot2006a; @Baudot2013], as shown in Figure \[time-frequency\] and \[scale\_function\] and quantified in [@Baudot2006a]. Markov and colleagues were able to quantify that the proportion of feed-forward connections in the visual cortex only represent few percent of the full number [@Markov2013]. Hence, what has been considered as artificial intelligence may be much closer to biologically realistic computation, at least in principle: high cortical recurrence allows statistical computation and can provide a robustness of cortical functions to single connection variability.
However, from a biological point of view, the picture painted by recurrent networks, with Hebbian or anti-Hebbian, LTP and LTD and instantaneous transmission is far too simplistic. As we saw in Figure \[apparent\_motion\], propagation delays are part of computation, codes and percepts. Roxin and colleagues were able to show that reintroducing conduction delays (space-time) in recurrent network model increases the multistability and richness of the phase diagram, with oscillatory bumps, traveling waves, lurching waves, standing waves (...) [@Roxin2005].Hebbian plasticity in excitatory cortical and hippocampal neurons critically depends on the relative timing of pre- and post-synaptic spikes as shown by Debanne and colleagues [@Debanne1994] and Bi and Poo [@Bi1998]. This “spike-timing dependent plasticity” (STDP) with a Depression-Potentiation waveform is illustrated in Figure \[scale\_function\]. Since those seminal studies, such a waveform has been found to be highly dependent [@Abbott2000; @Graupner2010] on i) developmental stage, ii) SNC region and iii) neuromodulatory context, exhibiting waveforms with only depression or potentiation, or with Depression-Potentiation-Depression profiles. Graupner and Brunel proposed a model based on Calcium concentration to account for such a modulation, for which each synapse has a fixed point ruling the balance between Potentiation and Depression [@Graupner2012]. Such individual synapse dynamics further enrich the dynamic and memory stage capacity of the whole network. As already highlighted in the electromagnetic view, the standard, mostly synaptic efficacy view of learning introduced above should be completed by other plastic mechanisms, possibly at other scales, such as morphological, developmental etc. Notably, current biological studies tend to show that developmental mechanisms and learning processes are “entangled” and form a continuum [@Galvan2010], yet they can consistently be formalized into a general epigenetic adaptive formalism within an information topology framework, as proposed in Baudot, Tapia and Goaillard [@Baudot2018]. Indeed, the electromagnetic proposition is blind to an a priori ontological distinction between development and learning, and this epigenetic generalization simply consists of considering “analog” (discrete in the first approximation) multivalued variables rather than binary variables, as discussed in section \[infotopo\_synthesis\] [@Baudot2018]. In this topological analysis we further introduce the idea that the total free energy function is equivalent to the Integrated Information of Tononi and Edelman, but applied to genetic expression. Hence, genetic regulation and differentiation are also components of our consciousness which could be assumed to be slow components, given the “impulsional” response characteristics of gene regulation mechanisms. According to operon lactose kinetic studies the magnitude of typical time of the impulsional response of gene regulation is of the order of several hours [@Jacob1961] \[jacob\] (compare to Figure \[scale\_function\]). Hence, we propose that such epigenetic plasticity corresponds to modulation of our conscious experience on the scale of hours. Of course, such a slow process could have a direct impact on fast neuronal electrophysiological dynamics, as previously stated (for an example see Soden and colleagues [@Soden2013]).\
### Homeostatic plasticity - consciousness invariance {#Homeostatic plasticity}
The biological complexity of learning mechanisms and rules, requiring refined statistical and dynamical models as just discussed, has introduced a key concept in biology and cybernetics [@Cowan1965]: homeostasis. Danchin used the metaphor of the Delphic boat to illustrate the astonishing stability of biological structures and functions despite their constant replacement of their constitutive components, and concluded that it is the relationships between the ’planks’ (that is to say, the genome, the genes, for the nervous system, the neurons...) that define the boat [@Danchin2003]. In terms of consciousness, such stability corresponds to the persistence of the self-being, the subjective I. Marder and Goaillard’s review provides explicit electrophysiological examples of such persistence [@Marder2006]. While learning principles suggest changes in function and structure or a displacement of an equilibrium, homeostasis, the other fundamental aspect of plasticity, also ubiquitous at all organizational scales, implies the maintenance or regulation of the stability or equilibrium of the organism, or of some its sub-processes. Such a principle clearly holds at the elementary level of atomic or sub-atomic structures: the atom stays the same while its electrons are continually being exchanged, which further suggests that what we call “self” is an energetic relational structure. Biological studies have revealed that even what could be considered static and stable states are indeed maintained by active processes, as illustrated by the invariance of electrical activity patterns in gene knockouts, as seen in Swensen and Bean [@Swensen2003], or by neuronal size increase during development, as shown in Bucher and colleagues [@Bucher2005] in Figure \[homeostasis\]a,b. Note that the electrical activity pattern of lobsters’ pyloric systems expresses strong synchrony and integrated information (although it has not been quantified), and hence should be considered as conscious according to usual theories. A usual formalization of the relationship between homeostasis and learning involves several scales of organization, as already underlined in Fusi and Abbott’s cascade model: fast adaptive-learning models at small scales induce fast temporal fluctuations which are “renormalized” or compensated for by a slow homeostatic process at a large scale. For example, at the synaptic plasticity level, homeostasis is expressed as a slow synaptic scaling process that keeps a neuron’s synapses’ efficacies in a “stable” physiological range, as studied in the work of Turrigiano and colleagues [@Turrigiano2008; @Watt2000]. This synaptic weight homeostasis is formalized as a metaplasticity rule playing on the balance between potentiation and depression [@Watt2010], that can be also accounted for by the model of Graupner and Brunel just discussed [@Graupner2012]. In terms of information theory, the formalization of invariance is straightforward, as it corresponds to the general definition of action invariance detailed in section \[infotopo\_synthesis\] and appendix \[Geometries-Homeostasis\], that is a “robustness to noise” or to any variation $X$, a very basic and typical definition of invariance. For example, in the context of physiology, Woods and Wilson proposed that minimizing noise is a key factor driving the evolution of homeostasis [@Woods2013], and we simply relativize their proposition by defining invariance as the minimization of “shared noise”. Such a definition of invariance can be formally expressed as a statistical independence requirement:
**Invariance (definition):** \[Invariancedef\] a system or process $X$ is invariant with respect to the variations of a system or process $Y$ if conditioning by $Y$ does not change the entropy of $X$, that is if $H(X/Y)=H(X)$, or equivalently $I(X;Y)=0$, or equivalently if $X$ and $Y$ are mutually independent.\
This definition of invariance appears more generally and intuitively in the fundamental chain rule of information (introduced and explained in the mathematical section of this paper \[infotopo\_synthesis\]): $I(X_1;.;X_k;..;X_n)=I(X_1;.;\hat{X_k};..;X_n)-X_k.I(X_1;.;\hat{X_k};..;X_n)$, where the hat denotes the omission of the variable. It can be read literally as: the $k+1$ dependencies quantify the default of invariance to the conditioning of a k dimensional system. In the commutative setting presented here, we can see that such a definition of invariance is symmetric: if $X$ is invariant to $Y$, the converse also holds. In the appendix pertaining to the geometry of consciousness we justify such a definition by the fundamental role of invariance in an action in geometry \[Geometries-Homeostasis\]: it defines classically a geometry, or a structural stability in topology, and there is hence not much choice in such a definition unless mathematics radically changes. According to this definition, searching for the invariance of a system against the variation of its environment is opposite to learning defined as the infomax principle: the first maximizes independence, the second dependence. This basic principle of invariance is illustrated in Figure \[homeostasis\]c. Crucially, such study requires that the measures of juveniles and adults are made on the same identified neurons (in order to obtain the joint distribution). In cases where the rhythm generated by neurons and the conductance patterns, is invariant across development, the variability observed in the juvenile would be independent of the variability observed in the adult. In cases where the rhythm generated by neurons depends on the developmental sequence, the variability observed in the juvenile would be dependent on the variability observed in the adult, indicating that a learning process occurred during development. In the latter case, the pattern has memorized something from the environment, although the marginal variability in the juvenile and the adult may stay unchanged or “identical”.
\[!h\] ![**Principles of homeostasis and invariance: a,** an example of homeostatic plasticity of bursts of action potentials recorded from Purkinje cell in wild animals ($Na_V1.6^{+/+}$, purple) and in animals knocked out for the sodium channel $Na_V1.6$ subunit ($Na_V1.6^{-/-}$, blue). A transient application of TTX that blocks sodium conductances eliminates the bursting pattern, revealing that a compensation occurred in KO animals to maintain the burst pattern (adapted and modified from Swensen and Bean [@Swensen2003]). In such a case, the basic information analysis presented here cannot be applied since the cases of the KO and the wild animals are exclusive and do not provide a joint-distribution but rather two distinct probability laws. In such a case, the more general relative entropy (Kulback-Leibler divergence) has to be applied. **d,** (top) drawing dye fills of identified pyloric dilator (PD) neurons from a lobster (homarus americanus). (Bottom) Simultaneous intracellular recordings from the PD, lateral pyloric (LP) and pyloric (PY) neurons in a juvenile and an adult preparation, showing similar waveforms and motor patterns, despite the important change of size. Such invariance or independence of the frequencies and relative phase of the patterns to the cell size imply the presence of an active mechanism tuning capacitance (adapted and modified from Bucher, Prinz and Marder [@Bucher2005]). **c,** schematic data for the case of invariance and dependence upon aging of the rhythm generated by neurons or a conductance pattern (see text). **d,** Schematic data corresponding to 3 measured variables $X_1,X_2,X_3$ of a system (e.g. 3 conductances of neurons from c) are plotted, for the case of homeostatic process (top) and non homeostatic process (bottom), for two measured populations represented by purple circles and blue squares (e.g. juvenile and adult). The homeostatic case, which is proposed to correspond to the observed case in b; the two populations present the same dependences and produce the same pattern of activity. A modification of the variable in this region does not produce qualitative changes in behavior (purple arrow). The population variability is important as displayed by the widely different values of all three variables for different neurons. Homeostatic tuning rules that maintain a constant type or activity pattern can in principle beneficiate the broad range of variation of its variables to tune the individual neurons. The study by Taylor et al [@Taylor2006a] of conductances of a large database of model neurons and by Tapia et al [@Tapia2018] and Baudot et al [@Baudot2018] of genetic expression reveal that neurons pertaining to the same type are “connected” in the data space. The bottom panel presents a case that would not be homeostatic, for which the two populations would present distinct forms of dependences and would correspond to distinct clustered patterns. Passing from one of these patterns to the other is conjectured to be associated with a qualitative change in activity. (Adapted and modified with permission from Marder and Goaillard [@Marder2006])[]{data-label="homeostasis"}](Figure7.png "fig:"){height="12cm"}
The definition of homeostasis is more refined than that of invariance just introduced. The general definition considers homeostasis to be the maintenance or regulation of the stable condition of an organism or its equilibrium [@Martin2008]. It hence requires the introduction of a complex organism and of the concept of equilibrium or stability. As illustrated in Marder and Goaillard [@Marder2006], homeostasis refers to the invariance of a whole, possibly complex, multi-dimensional pattern. According to this view, homeostasis is “a consequence of the potential for compensation among components with different properties”, “achieved simultaneously through overlapping functions and compensation”. As illustrated in Figure \[homeostasis\], a homeostatic process preserves the structure of dependencies among variables, and we propose to define it formally as follows:\
**Homeostasis (definition):** \[Homeostasisdef\] a system or process $X_1;X_2;...;X_k$ is homeostatic with respect to the variations of a system or process $X_{k+1}$ if conditioning by $X_{k+1}$ does not change the information of $X_1;X_2;...;X_k$, that is if $I(X_1;X_2;...;X_k)=I(X_1;X_2;...;X_k,X_{k+1})$, or equivalently $I(X_1;X_2;...;X_k/X_{k+1})=0$, or equivalently if $X_1;X_2;...;X_k$ are conditionally independent given $X_{k+1}$.\
This definition of homeostasis could also read $I(X_1;X_2;...;X_k;... ;X_k)=I(X_1;X_2;...;\widehat{X_k};...;X_{k+1})$, literally, that the removal of a variable $X_k$ (noted $\widehat{X_k}$) from the whole system or process does not change the information. Homeostasis is stronger than invariance in the sense that invariance implies homeostasis but not the converse ($I(X;Y)=0 \Rightarrow I(X;Y/Z)=0$). In the section dedicated to information topology \[infotopo\_synthesis\], we will see that this definition is related to the usual definition of equilibrium in thermodynamics. Another way to quantify homeostasis that is less rigorous and general compares the mutual information $I(X_1;X_2;...;X_k)$ with the probability densities estimated in the points of the reference type (e.g. adult, or wild type, $P$) and with all the points ($Q$): an increase or constancy of mutual information, $I(X_1;X_2;...;X_k;Q)\geq I(X_1;X_2;...;X_k;P)$, would indicate a homeostatic process.
Mathematic, cognition and consciousness {#Math}
=======================================
Mathematical nature of consciousness
------------------------------------
### Empirical proof of the mathematical nature of consciousness: subjective axioms
In this section we ask if the language of consciousness could be mathematical. In the early stages of mathematical formalization, Aristotle stated the principle of non-contradiction, now known as consistency. For simplicity, we use this axiom: $X \wedge \neg X = 0 $; or, literally, “there is no proposition $X$ such that $X$ and $\neg X$”. A more formal modern definition is: a set of formulas - a theory $T$ in first-order logic - is consistent if there is no formula $X$ such that $T \vdash X$ and $T \vdash \neg X$. Non-contradiction is still a fundamental principle in almost all mathematical theories (some researchers having developed para-consistent logic, by which any theorem is true without requiring proof). The original statement of Aristotle is “it is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject.” ([@Aristotle350B.C.E], III.3). Aristotle’s formulation is both a cognitive principle and a mathematical axiom, and it can be illustrated by a standard psychophysical experiment of perceptual bistability or multistability, as portrayed in figure \[bistability\]. We hence consider consistency as the first axiom of cognitive theory and propose that experiences such as the one illustrated in Figure \[bistability\] provide empirical evidence for such a statement. Moreover, we do not consider the excluded-third $X \wedge \neg X$ (or excluded middle, which could also be expressed as “for every proposition $X$, either $X$ or $\neg X$”) as an axiom or theorem of such a cognitive theory. The reason for this will become more clear in the following sections, and this exclusion is in practice motivated by the fact that we require a multivalued logic that corresponds intuitively to the usual conception of probability valuation. As illustrated in Figure \[bistability\] and for example in the work of Suzuki and colleagues [@Suzuki2002], stimuli and perception are possibly multi-stable. The logical aspects of topos [@Proute2008; @Bauer2017], which we will briefly introduce in the next section, account for this bistability and multistability by the fact that the internal logic of the subject perceiving that $X$ or $\neg X$ does not negate the excluded third while the external observer will report that $X$ has an intermediate truth value, e.g. the probability that the observer saw $X$ [@Suzuki2002]. Brouwer noted that the excluded third is a kind of “omniscient principle”, allowing one to prove $X \wedge \neg X$ even in the case where $X$ is Fermat’s Last Theorem [@Proute2008]. Here, the excluded third is independent in constructive logic [@Proute2008; @Bauer2017]; it cannot be proved or disproved. These two considerations lead us to propose that cognitive logic is constructive-intuitionist. In what follows we present the modern expression and results of such a model, taking into consideration that a pertinent formalization of perception is measure theory. Hence, we review what a constructive measure and probability could be.
\[!h\] ![**Consistency and diversity of the subject’s qualia, psychophysical evidence. a** 3 paradigmatic examples of bistable images and perception. From left to right, the Necker’s cube [@Necker1832], Hill’s “My wife and my mother-in-law” , Rubin’s “Face-Vase” [@Rubin1915]. **b,** The elementary dynamical bistable stimuli of apparent motion designed by Ramachandran and Anstis [@Ramachandran1985] (reproduced with permission from Carter et al. [@Carter2008]). **c,** The energy landscape interpretation of the transition from one percept to another (adapted and modified with permission from Fisher [@Fisher1967]). Right, the bistable case, left the multi-stable case designed by Suzuki and colleagues as a tetra-stable stimulus [@Suzuki2002] (reproduced with permission from Suzuki et al. [@Suzuki2002]). []{data-label="bistability"}](Figure8.png "fig:"){height="9cm"}
Figure \[bistability\] illustrates the ongoing challenges in a mathematical theory of consciousness or cognition: a consistent theory, for which every thought is true and non-trivial, yet one which encompasses the obvious multiplicity of thoughts: a tolerant theory that allows for the construction of all subjective thoughts. What follows aims to provide axioms and mathematical foundations for such a theory, notably accounting for Edelman and Tononi’s model and quantification of cognition and consciousness, the integrated information theory (IIT) [@Tononi2016; @Oizumi2014; @Tononi1998; @Edelman2000]. Such foundations are the mathematical foundations of measure, integration and probability theory.
### Mathematic, a model of cognition
Following Boole, some mathematicians have considered the logical foundations of mathematics and the logical foundation of a theory of mind as equivalent problems. Cantor gave the following definition: *“a set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception \[Anschauung\] or of our thought, which are called elements of the set”* [@Cantor1895]. As stated by one of its main conceivers, set theory is a cognitive theory. Whitehead and Russel completed a work on the foundations of mathematics with the Principia Mathematica [@Whithead1910]. Whithead went even further in the cognitive conception of mathematics, developing at length a theory of perception in which any entity of the universe, even a particle, perceives, and considering events as elementary constituents in place of masses. He stated: *“there is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have consequences for the world around us”* [@Whithead1929]. Frege developed a fully cognitive and linguistic interpretation of logic. In cognition, it gave birth to the whole field of analytical philosophy of mind and language. Hilbert formulated the project of arithmetization of mathematic, such that any theorem could be derived automatically, stated the isomorphism between the mind and logical calculus, and notably claimed *“My theory of demonstration only simulate the internal activity of our understanding and record the proceedings of the rules that govern the functioning of our thoughts”*[@Hilbert1930]. Gödel promptly discovered the theorems of completeness and incompleteness, creating an obstruction to Hilbert’s program on the basis of ZFC axioms (a particular model of Arithmetic; using another model such as Presburger arithmetic, for example, Gödel’s obstructions do not hold and the theory is complete) and using an arithmetic coding procedure [@Godel1931]. It is also such an equivalence that guided Turing in defining computational classes and machines on cognitive reasoning principles [@Turing1937]: *“computable numbers are those whose decimals are calculable by finite means... the justification lies in the fact that the human memory is necessarily limited”*. Such an equivalence can be legitimated using the following reasoning inspired by Penrose [@Penrose1989], in which the inclusion sequence is justified: $\text{cognition}\subseteq \text{physic} \subseteq \text{mathematic}$. This is a purely theoretical and classical sequence; the complement of physics with mathematics is called metaphysics, and the complement of cognition with physics is called in-animated matter. However, it is also possible to argue about the inverse inclusion short sequence in practice: $\text{cognition}\supseteq \text{physic} \supseteq \text{mathematic}$. Mathematics and physics are subsets of human cognitive activities, and mathematics is a subset of activity pertaining to physics (since there are purely empirical studies in physics, which are purely descriptive without theoretical, formal or modeling aspects). This gives a reasonable basis for thinking that mathematics, physics and cognition are not so far from being equivalent, the isomorphism postulated by Hilbert between the mind and logical calculus. Simply put, the conclusion is that biological systems can be understood as “living theorems” following the path of their proof (just as in Villani [@Villani2013]): mathematicians are not the only great geometers, so that any stone or insect can enter the monument of academia, while still respecting the severe policy written at the entrance: “Let no-one ignorant of geometry enter”. It could be possible to construct a mathematical paradise that would not be a tiny room, but a grand hotel, and to reconcile Hilbert’s formalism with Brouwer’s intuitionistic approach; the problem is to construct a hotel such that it can safely, harmoniously and even comfortably welcome all its legitimate members. So let’s try to give a free unlimited VIP pass to Hilbert’s paradise, and remind ourselves that there will be no queue or competition to enter (we indeed start in what follows with very tiny elementary hotel).\
Set theory is no longer considered a sufficient foundation for mathematics by an important segment of the mathematical community; the theory of category has begun to replace it (see Mac Lane’s book [@MacLane1998] and Lawvere [@Lawvere2005]). Here, for didactic and fluency purposes, we will mainly use the old, classical language of set theory, although categorical formulations as preliminarily developed, for example in [@Baez2014; @Baez2011; @Baudot2015a; @Vigneaux2017], are more appropriate (and perhaps even necessary in order to fully legitimate the generalization of the boolean logic highlighted here). Logic studies have made great improvements since set theory and Gödel’s work; most notably the introduction of and reference to a meta-logic can now be avoided, and logic has became contextual: a theorem or statement is considered in the context of a given theory with its axioms [@Proute2013]. To conclude this section, consciousness is proposed to be by nature mathematical. One obvious reason for this is that mathematics is the only scientific domain that can guarantee currently and consistently the unity required for a theory of consciousness, while physics and biology are commonly considered, with regard to one another, as divided and non-unified.\
Constructive logic, information topos and e-motivs
--------------------------------------------------
This section asks the questions of what could be the mathematical axioms of a theory of consciousness, whether any given thought can be conceived of as a theorem that can be derived from a set of axioms, and whether it can be identified by its information. Rather than providing a complete definite theory, the results presented here point out all the way left in order that we understand what information and consciousness is.
### Measure Theory: a mathematical theory of subjective and objective experience-observation {#measure}
This section investigates the mathematical axioms of a theory of consciousness as the axioms of measure and probability, which would further avoid paradoxical decomposition induced by the Axiom of Choice.
**Measure with countable choices, Quantified volumes of e-motion, consciousness integration, constructive axioms of perception-action?**
In 1854, Riemann defined the integral of a function as the asymptotic limit of the sums of areas of small rectangles approximating the function [@Riemann1854b]. With his method, a large class of derived functions had no definite integral. Lebesgue in 1901 proposed a formalism such that integration operation could be the inverse of derivation operation, that is, for any function $f$ continuous on $[a,b]$ and differentiable over $]a,b[$, we have $f(b)-f(a)=\int_a^b f'(x)dx$. The work of Lebesgue [@Lebesgue1901] and Borel ([@Borel1898] Chap III) also showed that their integration theory relies on elementary and general definitions and axioms within set theory. In his “lessons”, Borel explicitly assigned a measure to subsets of $[0,1]$ generated from the sub-intervals by the operations of countable unions or by taking the complementary. Borel also explicitly stated that the measurement of these subsets (later termed ’measurable’ by Lebesgue) satisfies the additivity property: if $X_n$ is a finite or countable family of such pairwise disjoint sets, then the measure of their union is equal to the sum of their measures $\mu(X_1\cup...\cup X_n)=\mu(X_1)+..+\mu(X_n)$. Moreover, he claimed that the only measure a sub-interval has is its length. Borel proved the existence of such a measure, and Lebesgue its uniqueness. Borel moreover stated that the measure of a set is always non-negative. These axioms of measure provide a formal and reasonable basis for a theory of experimental measurement and subjective observation, that is, for the properties one should reasonably expect of measures (data, experience) in general. The mathematization of such subjective measures ensure their intersubjective communication and understandability: to reliably share subjective perception with another subject, mathematics is the less ambiguous language. The central axiom is additivity, known as extensivity in physics: for two non-intersecting sets $X,Y$ we have $\mu(X\cup Y)=\mu(X)+\mu(Y)$. Generally, for arbitrary, possibly intersecting sets, we have the inclusion-exclusion principle: $\mu(X\cup Y)=\mu(X)+\mu(Y)-\mu(X\cap Y)$ and for $n$ sets $\mu(\bigcup_{i=1}^n X_i)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(-1)^{i-1}\sum_{I\subset [n];card(I)=i}\mu(X_I)$. To properly formalize this in set theory, Borel and Lebesgue proposed operations that generate measurable sets, of which there are two: countable union and taking the complementary. They define an algebra known as $\sigma$-algebra (sigma here denoting additive), and its axioms are:\
Let $\Omega$ be a given set and $2^|\Omega|$ be its power set. A subset $\mathcal{F}$ is then called a $\sigma$-algebra if it satisfies the following three axioms:
- $\mathcal{F}$ is non-empty
- $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under complementation
- $\mathcal{F}$ is closed under countable union
From the 2nd and 3rd axioms, it follows that a $\sigma$-algebra is also closed under countable intersections, and one can remark that in the finite $\Omega$ case it is also a Boolean algebra and a topological space. The axioms of a measure are: let $\Omega$ be a set and a $\sigma$-algebra over $\Omega$. A function $\mu$ from the extended real number line is called a measure if it satisfies the following properties:
- $\forall X \in \mathcal{F},\mu (X)\geq 0$
- $\mu (\emptyset)= 0$
- Countable additivity (or sigma-additivity): For all countable collections of $X_{i,i\in I}$ of pairwise disjoint sets in $\mathcal{F}$: $\mu(\bigcup_{i\in I} X_i)=\sum_{i\in I} \mu(X_i)$.
As a conclusion to this section, the importance of the axioms of measure arises from the fact that they are at the foundations of mathematics and are an obvious minimal requirement for formalizing an observed quantity in physics, as well as any objective or subjective measure, if a such distinction makes sense.\
Just as for dynamical systems and physics, for which initial conditions can dictate the dynamic in the long run, the axioms of a mathematical theory dictates what theorems are available within the theory. As exemplified by the independent 5th axiom of Euclid, which hid the existence of non-euclidean geometries, Occam’s razor is also a guiding principle in the choice of axioms: considering spurious, unnecessary axioms can lead to theories being too restricted to account for peculiar physically-observed phenomena. What is worse, the axioms of a theory can contain contradiction in their very germ. While modern model theory simply defines set theory by an object, a set $\Omega$ together with an operation of inclusion $\subseteq$, a classical construction of the theory of sets, relies on Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms together with the Axiom of Choice (AC), forming the ZFC model [@Ciesielski1997]. The AC roughly proposes that, given any, possibly infinite, collection of bins, each containing at least one object, it is possible to make a selection of exactly one object from each bin, or equivalently, that any set may be well-ordered (see Howard and Rubin for the various expressions of AC [@Howard1998]). Fraenkel proved in 1922 the independence of AC from a model/theory of set with atoms $T(A)$ [@Bell2015]. His proof, reproduced in the article of Bell [@Bell2015] and further generalized by Cohen using his forcing method (without use of atoms, and holding for real numbers), relies on the fact that permutation of the set $A$ of atoms induces a structure-preserving permutation, an automorphism, of the Theory $T(A)$ of sets built from $A$, allowing to construct an equivalent Symmetric model $Sym(T)$ of set theory in which it is easy to prove that a set of mutually disjoint pairs of elements of $A$ has no choice function. The proof given by Fraenkel ensures that in a mathematical logic based on Galoisian group will not dispose of the infinite choice axiom. The relation of the axiom of choice to intuitionist logic is straightforward: The axiom of simple choice (a finite subcase of AC) is equivalent to the principle of excluded third, as shown in few lines by Ageron [@Ageron2002]. The AC caused severe problems and debates, notably concerning measure theory, as it implies the paradoxical existence of non-measurable sets, leading for example to the Banach-Tarski paradox [@Wagon1986]. This paradox states that $B^3$, the solid ball in $\mathcal{R}^3$, is $G^3$-paradoxical: considering (countably) infinite choices, the ball could be decomposed into a finite number of point sets and reassembled into two balls identical to the original, or a new sphere of any size. The physical interpretation of the Banach-Tarski paradox allows matter, or indeed gold, to be created ex nihilo [@Dewdney1989a], a first principle failure whenever one would wish to axiomatize thermodynamics in logic (as we wish to do here). It is hence legitimate and usual to consider non-measurable set as metaphysical sets. The important result was found by Diaconescu: he showed that AC implies the excluded-third [@Diaconescu1975] (see Bauer for short proof [@Bauer2017]); hence, in this sense, the ZFC model is not constructive. Another equivalent expression of the excluded-third is “subsets of finite sets are finite”. If this statement seems at first glance reasonable, we shall see that it imposes a notion of “point” or “atom” far stronger than Euclide’s definition “that which has no part” and avoids, in a sense, any “spatial extent” of a point or “atom”. What would be a constructive (with something like a finite choice version of AC) version of the decomposition proposed by Tarski, avoiding those metaphysical sets? An answer arose from Dehn’s solution to Hilbert’s 3rd problem and is called dissection or scissors congruence. Two polyhedra in Euclidean 3-space are scissors congruent if they can be subdivided into the same finite number of smaller polyhedra such that each piece in the first polyhedron is congruent to one in the second. For example, Bolyai-Gerwain’s theorem states that two polygons are scissors congruent if and only if they have the same area. However, in higher dimensions, this theorem no longer holds, and one has to add Dehn’s invariant. For instance, Dehn proved that a regular tetrahedron in $\mathbb{R}^3$ is not scissor congruent with a cube of the same volume [@Dehn1901]. The Banach-Tarski paradox nevertheless states that they are equidecomposable. Hence, Dehn’s finite dissections appear finer than Tarski’s infinite decomposition. This was formalised by Wagon, who established that if two polygons are equidissectable, then they are equidecomposable [@Wagon1986]. Scissor congruences, defining groups, were generalized to arbitrary dimensions and geometry, and their homology extensively studied, notably by Dupont and Sah [@Dupont1982; @Dupont2001]. The axiomatization and formalization of those groups was notably further pursued by Denef and Loeser, in the domain known as motivic measure and integration, which explicitly provides a field-independent measure of mathematical formula, a modern version of Leibniz’s analysis situs [@Hales2005]. This brief presentation of dissections and decompositions is sufficient to conclude that consideration of AC implicitly involves the inability to distinguish elementary distinct geometrical objects that finite dissections discern. A possible way to circumvent the problems raised by AC is to consider the cheap nonstandard analysis obtained by the consideration of the Frechet filter, as explicated by Tao [@Tao2012]. Another possible way to give a more precise axiomatization for a cognitive theory without non-measurable sets is to follow Solovay’s work [@Solovay1970]. In Solovay’s construction, that is, classical Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms with Dependent Choice (DC, countable-finite weakening of the axiom of choice) and the existence of an inaccessible cardinal IC, any set is measurable. His axioms provide a construction of “real” numbers, called “random reals” which are in bijection with additive homomorphisms. This is, in our opinion, one of last and greatest achievements in Hilbert’s arithmetization program.\
To conclude, even at the elementary level of the logical axiomatization of a mathematical theory, the formalization of what kind of decomposition-dissection-division is allowed appears crucial, and a slight change in the axiom, e.g. from AC to DC, can avoid important “complications” that appear paradoxical from the physical point of view.at least from basic physical principles. Arithmetic and number theory provide the guiding principle for such a division procedure.
### Probability, the logic of thoughts, the geometry of beliefs {#logic of thoughts}
Measure theory allowed the Kolmogorov’s axiomatization of probability [@Kolmogorov1933a]. Considering probability theory as a cognitive theory has been an obvious option since the early stages of probability theory. The title of Boole’s major opus is sufficiently explicit to illustrate our statement: *“An Investigation of the Laws of Thought on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities”* [@Boole1854]. His work also provided the basis for the development of information theory, as exposed in the book by Nahin [@Nahin2012], and Boole should hence be considered one of the important founders of the theory of consciousness and cognition. Boole’s original text is sufficiently limpid for there to be no need of commenting it, and as such we simply cite it in the present work ([@Boole1854] Chap. III, Derivation of the laws of the operations of the Human mind):
- Proposition 1: To deduce the laws of the symbols of logic from a consideration of those operations of the mind which are implied in the strict use of language as an instrument of reasoning.
- Proposition 2: To determine the logical value and signifiance of the symbol 0 and 1. \[...\] The Symbol 0, as used in algebra, satisfies the following law,$0\times y=0$ or $0y=0$, whatever number y may represent. \[...\] Secondly, the Symbol 1 satisfies in the system of numbers the following law, 1\*y=y, or 1y=y, whatever number y may represent. \[...\] Hence, the respective interpretation of the symbols 0 and 1 in the system of Logic are nothing and Universe.
- Proposition 3: If $X$ represent any class of objects, then will $1-X$ represent the contrary or supplementary class of objects, i.e. the class including all objects which are not comprehended in the class $X$.
- Proposition 4: The axiom of metaphysicians which is termed the principle of contradiction, and which affirms that it is impossible for any being to possess a quality, and at the same time not to possess it, is a consequence of the fundamental law of thought, whose expression is: $X^2=X$ . Whence we have $X.(1-X)=0$. Both these transformations being justified by the axiomatic laws of combination and transposition (II.13). Let us, for simplicity of conception, give to the symbol $X$ the particular interpretation of “men”, then $1-X$ will represent the class of “not-men” (prop III.). Now the formal product of the expressions of the two classes represents that class of individuals which is common to them both (II.6). Hence $X.(1-X)$ will represent the class whose members are at once “men” and “not men”, and the equation (2) thus express the principle, that a class whose members are at the same time men and not men does not exist. In other words, that it is impossible for the same individual to be at the same time a man and not a man \[...\] which is identically that principle of contradiction which Aristotle has described as the fundamental axiom of all philosophy.
This “law of duality”, or principle of non-contradiction, here made algebraic, will henceforth be called the **idempotence** property of a composition law. We will see that, like the join and meet of probability of events ($P(X \vee X)= P(X)$ and $P(X \wedge X)= P(X)$), joint of random variables and partitions is idempotent. After Boole, Hume founded cognitive sciences in his treatise on human nature by notably stating that “all knowledge degenerates into probability” [@Hume1738], and since Leibniz had established binary calculus and monads, the probability theory of cognition demonstrated an impressive robustness. More than one and a half centuries after Boole, a long list of works and articles still propose that probabilistic or Bayesian theory is the relevant formalism for a theory of the brain (for a review on this topic see Griffiths [@Griffiths2008], Friston [@Friston2012] and the references therein). The question of what probability is, its axiomatization, and the foundations of cognition are investigated in depth in a series of works by Gromov, which partially motivated the work presented here [@Gromov2015; @Gromov2015a; @Gromov2013; @Gromov2018].\
Kolmogorov based his axioms of probability on the Lebesgue measure, and it is these axioms that we here consider as still pertinent for a consciousness-cognitive theory; hence we faithfully reproduce his axiomatization (with the exception of the symbols of joint and meet probability, which have been changed such that they are consistent with the preceding logical notations [@Kolmogorov1933a]): "Let $\Omega$ be a collection of elements $ \xi,\eta, \zeta,...$, which we shall call elementary events, and $\mathcal{F}$ a set of subsets of $\Omega$; the elements of the set $\mathcal{F}$ will be called random events.
- $\mathcal{F}$ is a field of sets.
- $\mathcal{F}$ contains the set $\Omega$.
- To each set A in is assigned a non-negative real number $P(A)$. This number $P(A)$ is called the probability of an event $A$.
- $P(\Omega)=1$
- If $A$ and $B$ have no element in common, then $P(A \vee B)=P(A)+P(B)$
A system of sets $\mathcal{F}$, together with a definite assignment of numbers $P(A)$, satisfying axioms 1-5, is called a field of probability. Conditional probability: If $P(A)>0$ , then the quotient $P(B/A)= P(A\wedge B)/P(A)$ is defined to be the conditional probability of the event $B$ under the condition $A$"[@Kolmogorov1933a].\
Three remarks can be drawn from his axiomatization:
- Forgetting the 4th axiom ($P(\Omega)=1$), we obtain the preceding axioms of measure; hence, a probability is a normalized measure such that the “total measure” is a unit.
- Probability and randomness are simply the definition of an abstract geometric volume in arbitrary space and rely on additivity: there is nothing more “deterministic” in common sense than a geometric volume of space and addition; the usual opposition between common notions of determinism and non-determinism fails (while the formal definition of determinism as events with a probability of 1 or 0 stays consistent). Notably, famous statements in physics of the kind *“god does not play dice”* [@Hawking; @Natarajan2008], where “god” is considered as an abbreviation for the “geometry of space-time”, could be interpreted as meaning that space-time has no volume, which is a nonsense.
- As stated by Kolmogorov, these axioms of finite-discrete probabilities, which are usually handled as empiric probability, the ratio $n/m$ in the discrete rational case, define the **“generalized fields of probability”**. To handle continuous probabilities a 6th axiom of “infinite” is required (just as in set theory according to Bourbaki [@Bourbaki1968]). We note that, as Kolmogorov, who was one of the main founders of constructive logic, probably wished, the discrete rational empirical “generalized fields of probability” respects constructive requirements (as no infinite choice is required), while in the case of real-valued probabilities, it depends on the precise construction of real numbers (the field being constructed using Solovay’s model and random reals to fulfill our measurability completeness requirements).
\[!h\] ![**The geometry of probability. a,** examples of a 2-simplex and a 3-simplex probability together with their associated Boolean complete lattices (or $\sigma$-algebra, bottom). A sample space of $n$ atomic events $\{A_0,..,A_{n-1}\}$ defines a $(n-1)$-simplex of probability. A probability $P(X)$ lies in the convex hull depicted in blue which is the $(n-1)$-simplex with a vertex at the units of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ (more exactly $\mathbb{R}^{\otimes_k n}$). (Left) The example of a 2-simplex $\Delta_2$ which can be illustrated by a coin toss possibly biased but with the coin having three faces, with a sample space composed of 3 atomic-elementary events “face0” ($face0=A_0$), “face1” ($face1=A_1$) and “face2” ($face2=A_2$), and $\Omega =\{ A_0,A_1,A_2 \}$, the $\sigma$-algebra considered in the finite context as a Boolean algebra $\mathcal{B}_{\Omega}$ of all possible, not necessarily atomic-elementary outcomes, is $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{B}_{\Omega}=\{ \emptyset,\{A_0\},\{A_1\},\{A_2\},\{A_0,A_1\},\{A_0,A_2\},\{A_1,A_2\},\{A_0,A_1,A_2\} \}$. The probability $P(X)$ is given by the theorem of total probability $P(X)=P(A_0).P_{A_0}(X) + P(A_1).P_{A_1}(X) + P(A_2).P_{A_2}(X)$ where $P(A_i), i \in {0,..,n-1}$ provides barycentric coordinates, since we have $\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} P(A_i)=1$. For the 3-simplex, there are 4 possible outcomes (right). **b,** Examples of a 1-complex and a 2-complex constructed as a sub-complex of the previous simplex with their lattice. The exclusion rule that generates the 1-complex is $P(A_0)=0 \vee P(A_1)=0 $. **c,** Conditioning is the projection on the lower dimensional opposite $(n-2)$-subface of the simplex. Rigorously, the conditioning follows the inverse path of the simplicial projections; in the example from $P_{A_3}(X)$ to $P_{A_3\vee A_0 }(X)$ to $P_{A_2 \vee A_3 \vee A_0}(X)$ to $P(X)=P_{\Omega}(X)=P_{A_0\vee A_1 \vee A_2 \vee A_3}(X)$. **d,** Example of adding a prior, here the elementary constant function $P(A_2)=1/3$ in the 3-simplex.[]{data-label="figure_probability_simplex_complex"}](figure15.png "fig:"){height="10cm"}
One of the remarkable aspects of Kolmogorov’s axiomatization is that it has a direct and simple geometrical expression, usually named the probability simplex. Although the origin of the probability simplex is unknown to us, it has been in a part of mathematical folklore for a long time; in 1855, Maxwell constructed the simplex of colors in his study “Experiments on Colour as Perceived by the Eye, with Remarks on Colour-Blindness” [@Maxwell1855] (he also claimed *“the true logic of this world is the calculus of probabilities”*). As an additional example,, a more modern version of a probability simplex was presented and used extensively in 1982 in Cencov’s seminal work [@Cencov1982]. A simplex is defined as the set of families of the numbers $P_{\omega}, ~ \omega \in \Omega$, such that $\forall \omega, 0\leq P_{\omega} \leq 1$. It parameterizes all probability laws on $\omega$. In more explicit geometrical terms, the fourth and fifth axioms of probability are equivalent to imposing that geometry is affine, and the axiom of positivity (axiom 3) dictates that it is convex. The more general expression of conditional probability using projective space is studied in Morton [@Morton2013]. This is depicted in figure \[figure\_probability\_simplex\_complex\] for a 2 and 3-simplex of probability. Notably, the theorem of total probability [@Kolmogorov1933a] states that given elementary events $A_1 \cup...\cup A_n = \Omega $, we have $P(X) =P(A_1).P_{A_1}(X)+ ...+P(A_n).P_{A_n}(X) $, allowing the consideration of $\{P(A_1),...,P(A_n)\}$ as the set of barycentric coordinates of the probability $P(X)$ in the $(n-1)$-dimensional simplex. It is possible to construct a subcomplex of these probability simplexes by a process of exclusion of faces, utilising an exclusion rule, that traduces the cancellations of a probability [@Baudot2015a]. An example of 1-complex and 2-complex of probability, together with their associated set of exclusion rules, is given in figure \[figure\_probability\_simplex\_complex\]. Conditioning by elementary events is a projection on the complement $(n-2)$-subsimplex (the opposite $(n-2)$-face) and is associative, as shown in figure \[figure\_probability\_simplex\_complex\]. Addition of priors usually consists of selecting a subspace of the $(n-1)$-simplex by imposing arbitrarily complex functional constraints on the elementary probabilities. This geometrical formalization of probability is not the geometry of the space itself, but the geometry of the volumes within the space.
### Topos: the consistent diversity of truths and beliefs {#topos}
In this section we ask what a probabilistic and informational logic could be in practice.
**Multivalued logic and probability.** Since Kolmogorov, the axiomatization of probability has been repeatedly questioned, something which has been motivated by the idea that the logic implemented by biological or cognitive calculus could differ from classical logic. There have been many attempts to propose alternatives to Boole’s original work on logic and probability [@Boole1854] and Kolmogorov’s work [@Kolmogorov1933a], for example the definition of a peculiar set of Bayesian axioms and logic that gives a fundamental role to Bayesian sum and product rules following Cox and Jaynes’s work [@Cox1961; @Dupre2009], or fuzzy logic [@Zadeh1965; @Hajek2013; @Wierman2010]. The basic motivation guiding such research is that, where classical Boolean logic and set theory admits only two valuations, “true” or “false”, probability theory provides an obvious multivalued logic. In a series of works based on Lattice theory and pointing out the relation to factorization in number theory, Knuth proposed to derive the basic principles of probability and information accounting for Cox and Kolmogorov foundations [@Knuth2005; @Knuth2009]. The principles proposed by Knuth are basically the same as what is presented in this review that underlines a more usual mathematical expression. Carathéodory and Kappos proposed an alternative, indeed equivalent axiomatisation, but one that is more directly along the lines of intuitionistic logic, which according to Cartier [@Cartier2001] postulated: *“instead of requiring the valuation $v(A)$ of a proposition to assume only the values 0 and 1, one may postulate more generally that $v(A)$ is a real number between 0 and 1.”*. With the aim of providing foundations for Laplacian or Bayesian probability, Cox proposed three desiderata-”axioms” [@Cox1961]:
- representations of plausibility are to be given by real numbers
- plausibilities are to be in qualitative agreement with common sense
- plausibilities are to be consistent, in the sense that anyone with the same information would assign the same real numbers to the plausibilities.
As far as we understand these desiderata, they appear consistent in all points with Kolmogorov’s axioms (but their “fuzziness” does not allow the proving or the disproving of any equivalence), leading to the conclusion that subjective vs. objective, Bayesian vs. frequentist probability, at least at the axiomatic level, are simply two different interpretations of a single theory: probability. While the Bayesian interpretation remains relevant concerning the theory of mind, this identity enriches the Bayesian interpretation by underlining its obvious pertinence in the domains of physics and empirical science.\
**Topos: a bridge between the subject and the object (*’objectifies the subjective’* Lawvere [@Lawvere2014]).** The multivaluation of logic found its main mathematical expression in the construction of topos theory. Topos were developed by Grothendieck, Verdier and Giraud [@Artin1964], predominantly on the geometrical ground of sheaves. Grothendieck resumed this work in the following terms: *“This is the theme of the topos which is the ”bed“ where come to marry geometry and algebra, topology, and arithmetic, mathematical logic and category theory, the world of the continuum and the one of ”discontinuous“ or ”discrete“ structures. It is the largest construction I have designed to handle subtly, with the same language rich geometric resonances, a common ”essence“ to some of the most distant situations.”* [@Grothendieck1985] (p.59). A simple introduction to ambiguity and Topos, with some cognitive aspects, can be found in André’s book [@Andre2007a] (chap.1).\
The logical aspects of topos and the fact that it provides an algebraic logic were notably recognized in the work of Lawvere and Tierney (see [@Lawvere2014] for a review of this topic). This logical view provides a quite simple definition of a Topos: a “category with a power set”. According to Reyes [@Reyes1977], the analogy that has been constructed identifies:\
Topos Theory Model Theory
--------------------- ------------------------------------
Site Theory
Fiber (on the site) Model (on the theory)
Sheaf Concept (represented by a formula)
\
A topos $T$ is a category with the 3 axioms [@Lawvere1972; @Diaconescu1975]:
- $T$ has finite limits, i.e. finite products, intersections and a terminal object $1$.
- $T$ has a universal monomorphism $I \xrightarrow{\text{true}}\Omega$, i.e. for any monomorphism of $T$, $A' \xrightarrow{\text{m}}A$ there exists a unique characteristic function such that the following diagram is a pull-back: $$\xymatrix{A'\ar[d]_{m}\ar[r] & 1\ar[d]^{true}\\
A\ar[r]^{\chi_{m}} & \Omega
}$$
- $T$ has for each object $X$ its power set $\Omega^{A}$; this is characterized by the fact that the morphisms $X\rightarrow\Omega^{A}$ are precisely the subobjects of $X\times A$. In particular, its global sections $1\rightarrow\Omega^{A}$ are the subobjects of $A$.
Stated in more homological terms, let $C,\mathcal{E}$ be two categories. A topos $\mathcal{T}(C;\mathcal{E})$ of $\mathcal{E}$-valued pre-sheaves on $C$ is the set of contra-variant functors from $C$ to $E$ that forms the set of objects of a category whose arrows are the natural transformations. A category $C$ embeds naturally in this topos if we associate the functor $Y \rightarrow C(Y, X)$ to $X$. This definition is sufficient in a finite context, since for discrete topology that provides a discrete site, every pre-sheaf is a sheaf. The complete notion of topos asks for a Grothendieck topology on a category and considers pre-sheaves [@Artin1964]. The three most common examples of topos are categories of sets, categories of functors $T(C^{op})$ for any small category $C$ and categories of sheaves on topological spaces. The generalization of topos with respect to usual set theory can be seen from the fact that the topos of sets are topos with two values of truth and the axiom of choice [@Lawvere2014]. Moreover, a topos satisfying AC is Boolean ([@Barr1985]. One of the main consequences of the axioms of Topos is that the structure that generalizes the truth tables is a **Heyting algebra**, a constructive generalization of Boolean algebra. Heyting algebra replaces the Boolean complement by a constructive pseudo-complement. A Heyting algebra $\mathcal{H}$ is a bounded lattice such that for all $X$ and $Y$ in $\mathcal{H}$ there is a greatest element $Z$ of $\mathcal{H}$ such that:
$$\label{Heyting Algebra}
X \wedge Z \leq Y$$
The element $Z$ is called the relative pseudo-complement of $X$ with respect to $Y$ and is denoted $X \rightarrow Y$. The **pseudo-complement** of any element $X$, noted with the negation $\neg X$, is defined as $\neg X= X \rightarrow 0 $ (this definition of negation implements the fundamental principle of non-contradiction). A pseudo-complement $\neg X$ is a complement $\bar{X}$ if $X \wedge \neg X = 0$ and $X \vee \neg X = 1$. A Boolean algebra is a Heyting algebra in which for all elements $Y$ we have the equality $(\neg Y \vee Z)=(Y\Rightarrow Z)$. The lattice of an open set of a topological space is a typical example [@Diaconescu1975].\
**Probability multivalued logic.** Doering and Isham [@Doering2008] proposed to provide a foundation of physics based on topos theory, and further developed a framework to interpret both quantum and classical probabilities with a multivalued logic [@Doering2012]. Independently and with a different construction, Baudot, Bennequin and Vigneaux proposed information topos on the (pre)-sheaf (site) of probabilities where conditioning provides the arrows [@Baudot2015; @Baudot2015a; @Vigneaux2017] (the two constructions were respectively introduced to each other and presented at the conferences “Categories and Physics 2011” in Paris). It is possible to illustrate the multiple truth values logic of probability in some simple elementary examples which further underline that where set theory could be considered a deterministic theory, topos theory may be conceived as a non-deterministic extension of it. Probability values are taken as valuations or truth-values. Simpson developed the general case where every measure is considered as a $\sigma$-continuous valuation [@Simpson2012]. It means that the usual boolean tables for meet and join are replaced by their homolog in probability which is continuous (for real-valued probability), a long table of a continuum of truths, instead of binary. To obtain some understandable elementary examples, we need to introduce integer partitions and consider a rational field of probability, such that probabilities take values in the rational numbers $\mathbb{Q}$ and are given by the basic and usual empirical ratio $n/m$, as described by Kolmogorov (cf. Tapia and colleagues [@TapiaPacheco2017] and Baudot and colleagues [@Baudot2018]). First we recall the usual Boolean operator tables, of the operators joint and meet, for example:\
$X$ $Y$ $X\wedge Y$
-------- -------- -------------
$\top$ $\top$ $\top$
$\top$ $\bot$ $\bot$
$\bot$ $\top$ $\bot$
$\bot$ $\bot$ $\bot$
$X$ $Y$ $X\vee Y$
-------- -------- -----------
$\top$ $\top$ $\top$
$\top$ $\bot$ $\top$
$\bot$ $\top$ $\top$
$\bot$ $\bot$ $\bot$
\
We rewrite those tables with 0 replacing $\bot$ (contradiction, “false”) and 1 replacing $\top$ (tautology, “true”) in a matricial form, giving us:\
$P(X\vee Y)$ $P(X)=0$ $P(X)=1$
-------------- ---------- ----------
$P(Y)=0$ $0$ $1$
$P(Y)=1$ $1$ $1$
$P(X\wedge Y)$ $P(X)=0$ $P(X)=1$
---------------- ---------- ----------
$P(Y)=0$ $0$ $0$
$P(Y)=1$ $0$ $1$
\
Such logic is a finite deterministic case of logic, which in terms of probability follows a finite 0-1 law, the smallest probability field with two elements $E$ and $\emptyset$ described by Kolmogorov which corresponds in what follows to the case $m=2$ with its singleton partition $\{2\}$. For non-deterministic probability logic, a truth table is given for each integer partition of $m$, the integer number of observations (also called repetitions, trials, sample size). In the following example of $\vee$ and $\wedge$ operator tables, we consider $m=2$ and $m=3$ and the integer partition of $2$ $\{1,1\}$ and the integer partition of $3$ $\{1,2\}$, such that we have $1/2+1/2=1$ and $1/3+2/3=1$ respectively. For $m=2=1+1$, we have:\
$P(X\vee Y)$ $P(X)=0$ $P(X)=1/2$ $P(X)=1/2$ $P(X)=1$
-------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------
$P(Y)=0$ $0$ $1/2$ $1/2$ $1$
$P(Y)=1/2$ $1/2$ $1/2$ $1/2$ $1$
$P(Y)=1/2$ $1/2$ $1/2$ $1/2$ $1$
$P(Y)=1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$
\
$P(X\wedge Y)$ $P(X)=0$ $P(X)=1/2$ $P(X)=1/2$ $P(X)=1$
---------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------
$P(Y)=0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$P(Y)=1/2$ $0$ $1/2$ $1/2$ $1/2$
$P(Y)=1/2$ $0$ $1/2$ $1/2$ $1/2$
$P(Y)=1$ $0$ $1/2$ $1/2$ $1$
\
\[!h\] ![**Examples of probability integer partition. a,** the case $m=2=1+1$, representation in data space of two variables $X,Y$ (left), and the associated Young diagram (right). **b,** the case $m=3=1+2$. **c,** the case $m=4=1+1+2$. []{data-label="figurrigthe_Supp_partition lattice"}](figure9.png "fig:"){height="2.3cm"}
For $m=3=1+2$, we have:\
$P(X\vee Y)$ $P(X)=0$ $P(X)=1/3$ $P(X)=2/3$ $P(X)=1$
-------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------
$P(Y)=0$ $0$ $1/3$ $2/3$ $1$
$P(Y)=1/3$ $1/3$ $1/3$ $2/3$ $1$
$P(Y)=2/3$ $2/3$ $2/3$ $2/3$ $1$
$P(Y)=1$ $1$ $1$ $1$ $1$
\
$P(X\wedge Y)$ $P(X)=0$ $P(X)=1/3$ $P(X)=2/3$ $P(X)=1$
---------------- ---------- ------------ ------------ ----------
$P(Y)=0$ $0$ $0$ $0$ $0$
$P(Y)=1/3$ $0$ $1/3$ $1/3$ $1/3$
$P(Y)=2/3$ $0$ $1/3$ $2/3$ $2/3$
$P(Y)=1$ $0$ $1/3$ $2/3$ $1$
\
More rigorous and extended notations should be $P(X=a_i)=1/3$ instead of the abbreviate $P(X)=1/3$, underlining the necessary introduction of random variables, also called observables, in the theory (see [@Baudot2015; @Baudot2015a; @Vigneaux2017; @Baudot2015a; @TapiaPacheco2017]; philosophically this assumes that there is no probability without an observer). An introduction to the world of partitions can be found in the work of Stanley [@Stanley2011] and Andrews [@Andrews; @Andrews1998] and MacDonnald’s book [@Macdonald1995]. These tables correspond to the usual joint and meet for events; notably, they obey the inclusion-exclusion theorem $P(X\vee Y)=P(X)+P(Y)-P(X\wedge Y)$. From a logical point of view they correspond to usual multivalued $G_m$ logic as introduced by Gödel for which $P(X\vee Y)=\operatorname{max}(\{P(X),P(Y)\}$ and $P(X\wedge Y)=\operatorname{min}(\{P(X),P(Y)\}$ [@Godel1932] (see Gottwald for a review of many-valued logic [@Gottwald2004] and other operators). The generalization to more than 2 random variable multivariate cases can be achieved via tensorial logical tables. In general, we have the following theorem:
**(correspondence between integer partition and logical tables).** Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},P)$ be a finite probability space where $P$ is a finite (empirical) probability measure with sample size $m$, then the set of logical tables is in one to one correspondence with the set of integer partitions of $m$.
This multiplicity of logic tables in the finite context reflects the multiplicity of logics exposed in the work of Sorensen and Urzyczyn, which established that there is no single finite Heyting algebra that satisfies Soundness and Completeness [@Sorensen2006] (but they are however sufficient to preserve the semantics stated in theorem 2.4.8 [@Sorensen2006]). Unfortunately, the asymptotic limit of such logic is quite unknown, particularly hard, and is being investigated by Hardy and Ramanujan. Considering the construction of random reals with an inaccessible cardinal by Solovay, it appears natural to call these probability values finite/accessible rational random rationals. However, what follows suggests that there exist several ways to complete such discrete random field to the continuous field, namely euclidean and p-adic completion, following Ostrowski’s theorem. Regardless, we hence leave off here from a trail of an elementary probabilistic logic proposed to be relevant for biological structures, cognition, consciousness and physics.
### Information functions and set theory {#info_functions}
Firstly we need to restate the usual functions of information established by Shannon [@Shannon1948] and Hu kuo Ting [@Hu1962], specifically those used in this review:
- Shannon-Gibbs entropy of a single variable $X_j$ is defined by [@Shannon1948]: $$\label{singleentropy}
H_1=H(X_{j};P_{X_j})=k\sum_{x \in [N_j] }p(x)\ln p(x)=k\sum_{i=1}^{N_j}p_i\ln p_i$$ where $[N_j]=\{1,...,N_j\}$ denotes the alphabet of $X_j$.
- Joint entropy is defined for any joint-product of $k$ random variables $(X_1,...,X_k)$ and for a probability joint-distribution $\mathbb{P}_{(X_1,...,X_k)}$ by [@Shannon1948]: $$\label{jointentropy multiple}
H_k = H(X_{1},...,X_{k};P_{X_{1},...,X_{k}}) = k\sum_{x_1,...,x_k\in [N_1\times...\times N_k]}^{N_1\times...\times N_k}p(x_1.....x_k)\ln p(x_1.....x_k)$$ where $[N_1\times...\times N_k]=\{1,...,N_j\times...\times N_k\}$ denotes the alphabet of $(X_1,...,X_k)$.
- The mutual information of two variables $X_{1},X_{2}$ is defined as [@Shannon1948]: $$\label{mutual information}
I(X_{1};X_{2};P_{X_{1},X_{2}})=k\sum_{x_1,x_2\in[N_1\times N_2]}^{N_1\times N_2}p(x_1.x_2)\ln \frac{p(x_1)p(x_2)}{p(x_1.x_2)}$$ It can be generalized to k-mutual-information (also called co-information) using the alternated sums given by equation \[Alternated sums of information\], as originally defined by McGill [@McGill1954] and Hu Kuo Ting [@Hu1962], giving: $$\label{n-mutual information}
I_k=I(X_{1};...;X_{k};P)=k\sum_{x_1,...,x_k\in [N_1\times...\times N_k]}^{N_1\times...\times N_k}p(x_1.....x_k)\ln \frac{\prod_{I\subset [k];card(I)=i;i \ \text{odd}} p_I}{\prod_{I\subset [k];card(I)=i;i \ \text{even}} p_I}$$ For example, 3-mutual information is the function: $$\label{3-mutual information}
I_3=k\sum_{x_1,x_2,x_3\in[N_1\times N_2\times N_3]}^{N_1 \times N_2\times N_3}p(x_1.x_2.x_3)\ln \frac{p(x_1)p(x_2)p(x_3)p(x_1.x_2.x_3)}{p(x_1.x_2)p(x_1.x_3)p(x_2.x_3)}$$ For $k\geq3$, $I_k$ can be negative [@Hu1962].
- The total correlation introduced by Watanabe [@Watanabe1960], called integration by Tononi and Edelman [@Tononi1998] or multi-information by Studený and Vejnarova [@Studeny1999] and which we note $C_k(X_1;...X_k;P)$, is defined by: $$\label{total correlation}
\begin{split}
C_k &= C_k(X_1;...X_k;P)=\sum_{i=1}^k H(X_i) - H(X_1;...X_k)=\sum_{i=2}^{k}(-1)^{i}\sum_{I\subset [n];card(I)=i}I_i(X_I;P)\\
& =k\sum_{x_1,...,x_k\in[N_1\times...\times N_k]}^{N_1 \times ...\times N_k}p(x_1....x_k)\ln \frac{p(x_1...x_k)}{p(x_1)...p(x_k)}
\end{split}$$ For two variables the total correlation is equal to mutual-information ($C_2=I_2$). The total correlation has the pleasant property of being a relative entropy between marginal and joint variables and hence of always being non-negative.
- The conditional entropy of $X_{1}$ knowing (or given) $X_{2}$ is defined as [@Shannon1948]: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{conditionalentropy}
X_{2}.H_{1}= H(X_{1}|X_{2};P)=k\sum_{x_1,x_2\in[N_1\times N_2]}^{N_1*N_2}p(x_1.x_2)\ln p_{x_2}(x_1) \\
= k \sum_{x_2\in\mathscr{X}_2}^{N_2}p(x_2). \left( \sum_{x_1\in\mathscr{X}_1}^{N_1} p_{x_2}x_1 \ln p_{x_2}x_1 \right)
\end{gathered}$$ Conditional joint-entropy, $X_3.H(X_1,X_2)$ or $(X_1,X_2).H(X_3)$, is defined analogously by replacing the marginal probabilities with the joint probabilities.
- The conditional mutual information of two variables $X_{1},X_{2}$ knowing a third $X_3$ is defined as [@Shannon1948]: $$\label{conditional mutual information}
X_3.I_2=I(X_{1};X_{2}|X_3;P)=k\sum_{x_1,x_2,x_3\in [N_1\times N_2\times N_3]}^{N_1\times N_2\times N_3}p(x_1.x_2.x_3)\ln \frac{p_{x_3}(x_1)p_{x_3}(x_2)}{p_{x_3}(x_1,x_2)}$$
The chain rules of information are (where the hat denotes the omission of the variable): $$\label{chain rule gener}
H(X_1;...;\widehat{X_i} ;...;X_{k+1};P) = H(X_1;...;X_{k+1};P) - (X_1;...;\widehat{X_i} ;...;X_{k+1}).H(X_i;P)$$ That can be written in short as $H_{k+1} - H_k = (X_1,...X_k).H(X_{k+1})$ $$\label{chain rule gene infomut}
I(X_1;...;\widehat{X_i} ;...;X_{k+1};P) = I(X_1;...;X_{k+1};P) + X_i.I(X_1;...;\widehat{X_i} ;...;X_{k+1};P)$$ That can be written in short as $I_{k-1} - I_k = X_k.I_{k-1}$, generating the chain rule \[chain rule gener\] as a special case. We have $I_1=H_1$. We have the alternated sums or inclusion-exclusion rules [@Hu1962; @Matsuda2001; @Baudot2015a]: $$\label{Alternated sums of entropy}
H_n(X_1,...,X_n;P)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(-1)^{i-1}\sum_{I\subset [n];card(I)=i}I_i(X_I;P)$$ $$\label{Alternated sums of information}
I_n(X_1;...;X_n;P)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}(-1)^{i-1}\sum_{I\subset [n];card(I)=i}H_i(X_I;P)$$ For example: $H_3(X_1,X_2,X_3)=I_1(X_1)+I_1(X_2)+I_1(X_3)-I_2(X_1;X_2)-I_2(X_1;X_3)-I_2(X_2;X_3)+I_3(X_1;X_2;X_3)$
![**Naive set-theoretic and lattice representation of information function. a,** Venn diagram representation of the various information functions justified by the theorem of Hu Kuo Ting [@Hu1962] (see text). **b,** semilattice of joint-entropy with conditional entropies (coface map in simplicial sets [@Weibel1995]) implementing the chain rule, for example using the abbreviated notations $H(12)=H(1)+1.H(2)$.A corresponding simplicial representation of these joint entropies which can be easily realized by the non-negativity properties of conditional entropies. **c,** semilattice of mutual informations with conditional mutual informations implementing the chain rule, for example using the abbreviated notations $I(123)=I(12)-3.I(12)$. Since the $I_k$ can be negative for $k\geq3$, there is no obvious corresponding simplicial representation; see Yeung for more details [@Yeung2003; @Yeung2007; @Yeung1997]. []{data-label="venn_diag"}](figure16.png){height="5cm"}
**Hu Kuo Ting and Yeung theorem:** The theorem of Hu Kuo Ting and Yeung [@Hu1962][@Yeung2007] establishes a bijection between information functions and finite additive (measurable) functions, for which the set theoretic operators $\cup,\cap,/$ correspond to Joint $(;)$, Mutual $(,)$ and conditional $(/)$ information operation respectively. This important theorem has been neglected in information theory for some time and rediscovered independently in a more superficial form many times within the community.\
**Hu Kuo Ting - Yeung theorem:** For a given sequence of variables $X_{1},X_{2}...$ and their distribution $P$ there exist a corresponding sequence of sets $A_{1},A_{2}...$ and an additive function $\varphi$ on the ring $\mathbb{U}$ generated by the sequence $A_{i},\;i=1,2,...$, such that: $H(Q(X_{i_{1}},X_{i_{2}},...,X_{i_{n}}))=\varphi(Q(A_{i_{1}},A_{i_{2}},...,A_{i_{n}})$ for all collections of variables, $X_{i_{1}},X_{i_{2}},...,X_{i_{n}}$, and all operations, $Q$ denoting a symbol generated by a finite number of operations $\cup,\cap,/$.\
Csiszár and Körner have proposed an alternative “geometric” proof of Hu [@Csiszar2011] and also suggested the converse correspondence of additive functions with information functions by way of symmetric argument. Hu’s theorem and its converse establish**a bijection between additive functions and information functions**, which is a deep equivalence between set and measure theory and information theory; any additive function can be written in term of information and vice versa. Figure \[venn\_diag\] illustrates the consequence of this theorem, allowing a naive handling of information functions with Venn diagrams and supporting the simplicial-boolean lattice decompositions studied by Shannon [@Shannon1953] and Han [@Han1975]. One can estimate the importance of such a theorem with regard to integration and measure theory. Considering the axiomatic setting of Solovay, that is, a set theory without the axiom of choice in which all sets are measurable, the universality of information functions appears justified. Considering Solovay’s axiomatic system, any function is measurable and information functions are hence in bijection with all functions. The universality of function has already appeared in the context of Riemann zeta functions [@Karatsuba1992; @Voronin1975], which are related to polylogarithms.\
From the algebraic point of view, Hu Kuo Ting’s first theorem of his 1962 paper on “information quantities” establishes explicitly that **information functions are the set of finitely additive functions on the ring of random variables**. This result justifies the consideration of information functional modules on random-variable modules and the information cohomology constructed in [@Baudot2015a; @Vigneaux2017] can be understood as a generalization of this result. His first theorem therefore supersedes and condenses many of the results on information that were found a posteriori.
### The information of a formula/thought
In this section, we investigate whether a mathematical formula has an information content that could be quantified. As previously discussed, Denef and Loeser proposed a formalism based on motivic measures that give a field independent measure of mathematical formula [@Hales2005]. Here, we propose an informational version and the possibility, based on the probabilistic logic formulation we have presented, of considering any thought as a mathematical formulation; the mathematical nature of thoughts, an idea which still has life in it. In this section, we revisit Gödel’s arithmetic coding procedure in a finite probabilistic context and show that Shannon’s entropy decodes and assigns a (real-valued) information measure to finite mathematical formulae. Unlike in the deterministic case, for which the information (complexity) of a string is in general not computable, the entropy of a probabilistic object can be computed. Kolmogorov defined the Algorithmic information or complexity, $K(X)$, of an object (a string $X\in{0,1}^*$) to be the length of the shortest program that produces (print) the object and halts on a given universal Turing machine $T$: $K(X)=\min \{ |p| : C_T ( p )= X\}$, where $|p|$ denotes the length of the program in bits, $C_T: {0,1}^*\rightarrow{0,1}^*$ is a partial recursive function (that is computed by the Turing machine $T$) and $C_T ( p )$ is the result of running the program $p\in{0,1}^*$ on the Turing machine $T$. Zvonkin and Levin [@Zvontin1970a] showed that Shannon entropy of binary iid variables equals the averaged randomness-complexity $K$ in the limit of infinitely long strings (see Th. 5.18 for a precise statement on this [@Zvontin1970a]). The fundamental theorem of arithmetic (the unique-prime-factorization theorem of Euclid) states that any integer greater than 1 can be written as a unique product (depending on the ordering of its factors) of prime numbers (see Hardy and Wright [@Hardy1979]). We write any integer $n$ as its prime decomposition, called its standard form: $$n=p_1^{\alpha_{1}}p_2^{\alpha_{2}}...p_k^{\alpha_{k}},~(\alpha_{1}>0,\alpha_{2}>0,...,\alpha_{k}>0,p_1<p_2<...<p_k)$$ $$\forall n\in\mathbb{N},~n>1,\;n=\prod_{p~\text{prime}}^{\infty}p^{\alpha_{p}}$$ where $\alpha_{p}\in\mathbb{N}$ is a natural integer coefficient depending on the prime $p$. Including 1 implies the loss of uniqueness, since the prime factorization of 1 contains 0 exponents ($1=2^0.3^0.5^0...=3^0$), and if we allow zero exponents, the factorization ceases to be unique. A standard method of extending the fundamental theorem of arithmetic to rational numbers is to use the p-adic valuation of $n$, noted $v_p(n)$, to ascribe the exponent $v_p(n)=\alpha_{p}$ to all prime numbers in the product and to then give an exponent $v_p(n)=0$ to those that do not divide $n$. The decomposition into prime factors of rational numbers requires considerations of the possibly negative exponents $\alpha_{p}\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $v_p(\frac{n'}{m})=v_p(n')-v_p(m)$, the so-called p-adic norm (see Khrennikov and Nilson [@Khrennikov2004] for definitions and non-deterministic dynamic applications), giving this representation of a rational number $$n=\frac{n'}{m}=2^{v_2(n)}3^{v_3(n)}...p_k^{v_k(n)},~(v_p(n)\in \mathbb{Z}, ~ p_1<p_2<...<p_k)$$ $$\forall n\in\mathbb{Q},\;n=\frac{n'}{m}=\prod_{p~\text{prime}}^{\infty}p^{v_p(n)}$$ , and every rational number as a unique prime factorization.\
**Gödel code :** We will firstly introduce Gödel’s logic and methods. The relation between indeterminism, uncertainty and logical undecidability has been a leitmotiv of many works. Gödel’s approach was called the arithmetisation program of logic. The basic hypothesis of Gödel is based on the fact that the formula of a formal system can be viewed as finite sequences of basic symbols (variables, logical constants, and parentheses or separators), allowing one to define which sequences of these basic symbols are syntactically correct formula (or not) and, from this, which finite sequences of formula provide correct proofs (or not). To do so he designed a numbering-code that assigns bijectively a natural integer to each sequence [@Goedel1931]. Hence, a formula is a finite sequence of natural numbers, and a proof schema is a finite sequence of finite sequences of natural numbers. Gödel could then prove that, under this hypothesis, there exist some theorems that are independent and which can neither be proved or disproved. To do so he defined a map from logical statements, that is, any sequence of mathematical symbols, to natural numbers, which further allows deciding whether logical statements can be constructed or not. Given any statement, the number it is converted to is called its Gödel number, defined by: $$\alpha(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},\dots,x_{n})=2^{x_{1}}.3^{x_{2}}.5^{x_{3}}...p_{n}^{x_{n}}$$ In the original work, the first $12$ “powers” are occupied by basic symbols, and the numerical variable occupies the powers $p\geq13$ [@Nagel1959]:\
Gödel Number Symbol meaning
-------------- ------------- ----------------------------
1 $\neg$ not
2 $\vee$ or
3 $\supseteq$ if ... then (implication)
4 $\exists$ There exist
5 $=$ equals
6 $0$ zero
7 $s$ the immediate successor of
8 $($ left parenthesis
9 $)$ right parenthesis
10 $,$ comma
11 $+$ plus
12 $\times$ times
\
For example, the formula $x_{1}=x_{1}$ is coded by the Gödel number $\alpha(13,5,13,0,0,\dots,0)=2^{13}.3^{5}.5^{13}7^{0}...p_{n}^{0}$, and $(\exists x_{1})(x_{1}=sx_{2})$ is coded by the Gödel number $\alpha(8,4,13,9,8,13,5,7,17,9,0,0,\dots,0)$. This “function” sends every formula (or statement that can be formulated in a theory) into a unique number, in such a way that it is always possible to retrieve the formulas from the Gödel numbers, but also to say whether an arbitrary number corresponds to a Gödel number. The Gödel number of the sequence $(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},\dots,x_{n})$ is more generally called a pairing function, noted $f(x,i)=x_{i}.$. $i$ is always in the range of $1,\ldots,n$ (and in the previous case the indices correspond to the labels of the primes).\
Now that we have introduced Gödel’s arithmetic coding, we can apply his method to rational (empirical) probabilities fields and show that the Shannon entropy function is a “decoding function” that sends any number back to its formula with a one to one correspondence. We first define an extended Gödel number as the p-adic norm $v_p(\frac{n'}{m})$ and identify its value as Gödel did and as summarised in the table above, the only difference being that we now dispose of negative integers in order to facilitate the code.
**(Fundamental theorem of arithmetic Information)** Let $H(X,P_{\mathbb{Q}})$ be the information function over a rational probability field $P_{\mathbb{Q}}$. Then: $$H(X;P_{\mathbb{Q}})=-\sum_{p ~ \text{prime}}v_p(n)\log p$$ where $v_p(n)\in\mathbb{\mathbb{Z}}$ is a relative integer coefficient depending on the prime $p$ $v_p(n)=v_p(\prod_{i=1}^n p(x_{i})^{p(x_{i})})$.
Proof: the probabilities over the rational field $P_{\mathbb{Q}}$, and an elementary probability $p_{j}$, which can be written according to the fundamental theorem of arithmetic (for readability noting a prime with $q$ symbol): $$p_{j}=\frac{n'}{m}=\prod_{q~\text{prime}}q^{v_q(p_{j})}$$ where $0<p_{j}\leq1$ and $\sum_{j=1}^{n}p_{j}=1$, and $v_q(p_{j})\in \mathbb{Z}$ are relative integer coefficients depending on the prime $q$. Entropy function $H(X;P_{\mathbb{Q}})$ is, according to Shannon’s axiom, a continuous function of the $p_i$ and can be written in the form: $$H(X;P_{\mathbb{Q}})=k\sum_{i=1}^n p(x_{i})\log p(x_{i})=-\log\prod_{i=1}^n p(x_{i})^{p(x_{i})}$$ It follows from elementary algebra that $p(x_{i})^{p(x_{i})}$ has a prime decomposition with relative integer exponents, and hence the theorem. $\Box$
This theorem applies to any information function $H(Q(X_{1},X_{2},...,X_{n}),\mathbb{P_{\mathbb{Q}}})$ as defined by Hu Kuo Ting [@Hu1962], namely, joint-entropies, mutual informations, conditional entropies and conditional mutual informations (see also [@Baudot2018]), as they are linear combinations of entropies. Notably, considering all information functions, since mutual information can be negative for k variables, $k>2$, the set of information values is in one to one correspondence with $\mathbb{Z}$. Such bijection can only be achieved by considering a variable space of at least 3 dimensions. We hence have established that the following corollary:\
**Corollary - Information-Gödel code :** $H(Q(X_{1},X_{2},...,X_{n}),\mathbb{P_{\mathbb{Q}}})=h(v_{q}(n),q)$ is a Gödel code.
\[!h\] ![**The smallest empirical probability fields for a number of total observations $m=2,3,4,5,7,8$** represented using Young’s diagram of the associated partitions. The associated entropy $H$ is written below each partition in its prime decomposition form. Note that entropy is an increasing function from right to left and top to down, and that the two equal entropies for $m=8$ correspond to isomorphic partitions according to a theorem of Mesalkin (1959 [@Ornstein1970]), which is a special case of Kolmogorov-Ornstein Isomorphism theorem $(1/4,1/4,1/4,1/4)\approx (1/2,1/8,1/8,1/8,1/8)$. See section \[Geometries-Homeostasis\]. (Figure adapted and modified from the work of R. A. Nonenmacher (CC)) []{data-label="integer_partition"}](figure10.png "fig:"){height="12cm"}
Figure \[integer\_partition\] gives the Young diagram for all integer partitions of $m$ with $m=2,3,4,5,7,8$ as previously associated with the associated logical tables. The two partitions of 8 which have the same entropy $(1/4,1/4,1/4,1/4)\approx (1/2,1/8,1/8,1/8,1/8)$ are isomorphic according to the theorem of Mesalkin (1959 [@Ornstein1970], a special case of Kolmogorov-Ornstein Isomorphism theorem (see section \[Geometries-Homeostasis\]), and their associated tables and logic shall be considered as equivalent.
This is just a preliminary result on the elementary logic of information; the characterization of this logic lies beyond what has been so far been achieved. Notably, more work needs to be done involving the consideration of the elementary context of integer partition probabilities, introduced in the previous section, and the extension to negative coding values that offers a possibly richer logic. The results so far also provide some original geometrical insight into logic and probability, allowing the future study of mathematical formula with Euclidean and p-adic metrics [@Khrennikov2004]. In constructive logic, the implication $\Rightarrow$ is a power-like operator and provides a “direction” to logical flow; it would be interesting to investigate such directional flow from the irreversible and causal point of view of thermodynamics.\
There is another question as regards statistical independence and independence of axioms. The undecidability of a proposition $X$ in a theory $\Omega$, suggesting that $X$ is independent of the other proposition $Y$ in $\Omega$, could correspond to independence in probability such that it would be possible to say that $X$ being independent in $\Omega$ is “equivalent” to $P_Y(X)=P(X)$, or that the joint theories associated with $X$ and $Y$ factorize $P(Y.X)=P(X)P(Y)$ in $\Omega$. In such a case the additivity or subadditivity of the information decoding function quantifies the independence or dependence of the propositions in the theory $\Omega$ (in a topological sense). In more up-to-date terms, Cohen’s technique of forcing may have a simple probabilistic analog. In a very pragmatic empirical sense, a mathematical theory is also a human belief, stated and written by humans (or machines) implementing human beliefs. If one considers probabilistic-information theory as the relevant model for cognition, then there exists a probabilistic theory of mathematics that encompasses mathematicians’ entire mathematical product.
Homology, the shapes and the language of perception
---------------------------------------------------
### Homological history and cognition
Topology is the science that characterizes objects by the relation interactions of their components. It is the domain of mathematics dedicated to shapes or patterns which classifies them by identifying their invariants. Here we give a little historical taste of what topology is or could be, highlighting its cognitive aspects and motivations, already made explicit by its original founders. Some historical reviews of the different aspects of topology, i.e. algebraic and differential, of topology can be found in the work of Milnor [@Milnor2011], of Weibel [@Weibel1999] and of Dieudonné [@Dieudonne1989]. Topology was first born under the name of **Analysis Situs**, notably in the writings of Leibniz [@Leibniz1679]. Analysis Situs is inseparable from all his further work, his quest for a universal characteristic that first took form in differential calculus, on a **qualitative geometry**, consisting in a language allowing one to “algebraically-logically” manipulate geometrical figures. Leibniz’s model was a universal cognitive and consciousness model; he developed the concept of the **monad**, which is at the same time a physical substance and a semantic qualia unit element; monads are exact, irreducible, real and perfect [@Leibniz1714]. Monads, according to Liebniz, can compose hierarchically forming new monads inheriting properties from the originals, and the structure and algebra ruling them can be conceived of as the analysis situs. They are physical atoms of knowledge and of sensations, a monist view contrasting with usual mind-body dualism. Hence, in Leibniz’s view, the whole world is perfect, optimal. One can still recognize Leibniz’s view in modern studies of monads, also called triples by Barr and Wells [@Barr1985]. Leibniz’s view is indeed still at work in what is presented here, notably his mind-body model, **monist and pluralist**, physical and mathematical, and his idea of perfection, which when re-expressed in probabilistic modern terms, although optimistic, sounds much more generally like a basic hope or expectancy. Leibniz’s opus is also at the roots of information theory in the form of binary calculus, and Uchii recently proposed an extended work on monadology, information and physics [@Uchii2015; @Uchii2014; @Uchii2014a]. After Liebniz, Euler made a contribution by solving the 7 bridges problem and defining his “characteristic” $\chi$ , the main topological invariant that Leibniz was unable to find [@Euler1759]. Betti and Riemann, following Abel, developed the foundations of homology by classifying surfaces [@Riemann1857], then Poincaré introduced with his analysis situs most of the basic theorems and concepts in the discipline [@Poincare1895a]. Topology was born as geometry cleaned of its “unnecessary” undecidable axioms, a geometry without metric assumptions. It was notably conceived in Poincaré work and theorems (such as uniformization theorem and his conjecture) to maintain geometrical unity in mathematics as a consequence of the discovery of the existence of geometrical diversity, i.e. legitimate non-Euclidian geometries, the diversity of geometry. Poincaré directly related analysis situs to the cognitive process of constructing a continuous space from discrete experience, and even proposed to explain the Weber-Fechner law of sensory adaptation on this basis as reported in appendix \[topology of psychophysic\]. This obviously constitutes the first mathematical model of perceptual adaptation, explicitly topological, more than a century ago. Since then many homology theories have appeared [@Dieudonne1989], each characterizing different, more or less general mathematical structures. However, these theories appeared to have analog structures and the work of unifying them began in the second half of the 20th century. The working principle of homology theory followed by Eilenberg, Maclane and Grothendieck has been to “dig deeper and find out”, such that homology theory has continued to define new, more general and enormous homologies, generalizing simplicial homology by (the equivalent) singular homology, then by homological algebras, then by topos, and then by conjectural motives, introducing categories and functors as central working tools (see Cartier’s review [@Cartier2001] and Eilenberg’s biographical memoir [@Bass2000]). The result generalizes them to differential Lie, associative algebra, arithmetic, etc. The simple consideration of the swathes of mathematics which are concentrated under the little names of functor Ext and Tor is sufficient to illustrate the principle of cognitive process proposed here, namely that “understanding is compressing”. In the original view of Grothendieck, the ascension towards unified-general cohomology theory followed 3 steps: schemes, topos, and finally motive theory [@Cartier2001]. The aim of motivic cohomology is to nevertheless handle geometry and algebra equivalently, but also number theory: notably, one aim was to solve an algebraic subcase of Riemann’s conjecture, the Weil conjecture. The structure of this general cohomology became progressively more clear, notably thanks to the work of Beilinson, Bloch and Goncharov. Voevodsky, following an original approach, proposed a formalisation of motivic cohomology based on triangulated categories.
### Groups and action: ambiguity and uncertainty according to Galois
Following Poincaré but also Grothendieck, and exaggerating a little as they did, one could say that topology is the story of group, a “Long March through Galois theory” [@Grothendieck1997]. Group theory originates in the study by Galois of the permutations of solutions, called roots, to the polynomial equation $P(x)=0$; what he called **ambiguity**. It transpires that this notion of ambiguity captured by groups is related to the notion of uncertainty captured by information, and that the cohomology of information and random variable structure has the structure of Galois group cohomology, a guiding idea of Bennequin’s [@Bennequin2014; @Baudot2015a]; see section \[infotopo\_synthesis\].\
Galois theory conveys in itself a cognition theory, as summarised by Deleuze: *“the group of the equation characterizes at one point, not what we know of the roots, but the objectivity of what we do not know about them. Conversely, this non-knowledge is no longer a negative, a deficiency, but a rule, **a learning which corresponds to a fundamental dimension of the object**.”* [@Deleuze2000]. This idea was further developed by André [@Andre2008; @Andre2007a; @Andre2007b]. Bennequin applied this Galoisian epistemological principle of knowledge to propose a Galoisian physics [@Bennequin1994]. In what follows, consciousness is defined in terms of group and the actions of a group; hence we need a brief definition of and introduction to those concepts. Permutations are central objects in (discrete) group theory and combinatorics, and provide a definition of **symmetry** in finite sets. The fundamental theorem of algebra states that any general polynomial of degree $n$, $P(x)=a_{n}x^{n}+a_{n-1}x^{n-1}+ \cdots +a_{1}x+a_{0}$, where the coefficients $a_i$ are real or complex numbers and $a_i \neq 0$ (or any integral domain of a ring) have $n$ complex roots $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \cdots , \lambda_n$. The roots are not necessarily distinct, and if they are indistinct they are called degenerate, and they hence encode the multiplicity of indistinct solutions \[degenerateroot\]. We can therefore also write the polynomial as a product $P(x) = a_{n}(x-\lambda_1)(x-\lambda_2)\cdots (x-\lambda_n)$. Expanding the product on the right hand side of the equation provides a symmetric polynomial in the roots $\lambda_i$ that exhibit a Newton Binomial powerset structure (cf. figure \[figure\_roots\] for examples with $n=3,4$.) Newton’s binomial method \[binomial coefficient\]) is as follows:
$$\label{Vieta}
P(x)= a_{n}(x-\lambda_1)(x-\lambda_2)\cdots (x-\lambda_n) = a_{n} [\sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^{n-k}(\sum_{1\leq i_1 \leq i_2 \leq \cdots \leq i_k \leq n }\lambda_{i_1}.\lambda_{i_2}...\lambda_{i_k})x^k]$$
Or in the notations used for information structures:
$$\label{Vieta2}
P(x)= a_{n}(x-\lambda_1)(x-\lambda_2)\cdots (x-\lambda_n) = a_{n} \left[\sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^{n-k}\left(\sum_{I\subseteq[n],|I|=k} \prod_{j=1}^{n}\lambda_{j}^{\mathbf{1}_{I}(i_j)}\right)x^k\right]$$
, where $\mathbf{1}_{I}(i_j)$ is the indicator function of the subset $I=\{i_1,...,i_k\}$ of $[n]=\{1,...,n\}$.
\[!h\] ![Example of degree 3 (top) and 4 (bottom) polynomial univariates (in one variable) in their additive (left) and multiplicative-factorized forms (right), together with their corresponding simplex.[]{data-label="figure_roots"}](figure17.jpg "fig:"){height="10cm"}
It provides an elementary example of group structure and of the relationship between addition and product which has been generalized in numerous ways. It also provides the most elementary appearance in algebra of topological alternated sums. Identifying the coefficient $a_i$ with the coefficients of the equation \[Vieta\] gives Vieta’s formulas. If the leading coefficient $a_n=1$, then it is called a monic polynomial and the set of univariate monic polynomials with coefficient in a ring is closed under the operation of multiplication (the product of the leading terms of two monic polynomials is the leading term of their product), and forms a monoid (with the operation of multiplication, the identity element is the constant polynomial 1).\
Thanks notably to the work of Bourbaki, a group is now well defined according to few axioms:\
**Group :** A group is a set, $G$, together with an operation $\star$ that combines any two elements $x$ and $y$ to form another element $x\star y$. To be a group, the set and operation, $(G,\star)$, must satisfy four axioms:
- *[Closure:]{} for all $x,y\in G$, the result of the operation, $x\star y$ is also in $G$.*
- *[Associativity:]{} for all $x,y,z\in G$ , $(x\star y)\star z=x\star(y\star z)$.*
- *[Identity element:]{} there exists an element $e$ in $G$, such that for all $x\in G$ , $e\star x=x\star e=x$.*
- *[Inverse element:]{} for all $x\in G$ , there exists an element $y$ in $G$ such that $x\star y=y\star x=e$.*
Figure \[figure\_axioms\] gives an illustration of those axioms. $\mathbb{Z}$, the set of relative integers, forms a group with the operation of addition; this is a countably infinite cyclic group. One should be aware that the simplicity of these axioms hides the rich structures groups may exhibit, as stated by Borcherds, for example [@Cook2009]. The richness of these group structures is captured and encoded by homology, prefiguring the following sections of our paper.\
\[!h\] ![Illustration of the main three properties imposed by the axioms of a group on a given example of permutations. Permutations and their graphical representation are introduced in what follows.[]{data-label="figure_axioms"}](figure18.jpg "fig:"){height="6cm"}
**Symmetric group [@Berger2009]:** The symmetric group on a finite set of $n$ symbols, noted $S_{n}$, is the group whose elements are all permutations (bijection) of the $n$ elements of a finite set $\Omega$ and whose group operation is the composition of such permutations. The identity element is the identity permutation. More generally, if $\Omega$ is a non-empty set, we denote by $S_{\Omega}$ the group of permutations (that is, bijections) of $\Omega$ under the composition of maps $\sigma_i.\sigma_j=\sigma\circ\eta$. This latter includes the case of group of infinite order. It is easy to verify the permutations on a set forms a group under composition according to the axioms of a group (closure, associativity: function composition is associative: $\sigma\circ\left(\eta\circ\rho\right)=\left(\sigma\circ\eta\right)\circ\rho$, identity, inverse); this group is termed **the symmetric group** of $\Omega$, noted $S_{\Omega}$ in general, and $S_{n}$ in the case where $\Omega=\left\{ 1,2,...,n\right\} $.\
The common way to relate the elements of a group to a particular transformation of an object is to consider the action of the group. The Cayley’s theorem states that every group $G$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of the symmetric group acting on $G$. The usual definition of an action is the following:\
**Group action:** Let $G$ be a group and $X$ be a set. Then a left-group action $f^{\ast}$ of $G$ on $X$ is a function $f^{\ast} : G \times X \rightarrow X : (g,x)\rightarrow f^{\ast}(g,x)$, usually noted $g.x$ and called a left action (or translation) of $G$ on $X$, that satisfies the two axioms:
- Identity: $\forall x \in X$ and $e$ the identity element of $G$ , we have $e.x = x$.
- associativity: $\forall (g,g') \in G^2$ and $\forall x \in X$, we have $(g'g).x = g'.(g.x)$, where $g'g$ denotes the result of applying the group operation of $G$ to the elements $g$ and $g'$, and $g'g \in G$ and $g.x \in X$.
If we define the morphism $\phi^{\ast}$ associated to the action $\forall g \in G$, $\forall x \in X$, such that $g.x = (\phi^{\ast}(g))(x)$, then these axioms are equivalent to saying that the group $G$ acts on $X$ (on the left) if we have the morphism of the group $\phi ^{\ast}: G \to S_X$, from $G$ into the symmetric Group $S_X$ of $X$. Such a morphism is called a representation of the group $G$.\
The dual action called the right action is defined by inverting the order in $g$ and $g'$: $f_{\ast} : G \times X \rightarrow X : (g,x)\rightarrow f_{\ast}(g,x)$, usually noted $x.g$ and called a right action (or translation) of $G$ on $X$. This satisfies the two axioms:
- Identity: $\forall x \in X$ and $e$ the identity element of $G$ , we have $e.x = x$.
- associativity: $\forall (g,g') \in G^2$ and $\forall x \in X$, we have $(gg').x = g'.(g.x)$, where $gg'$ denotes the result of applying the group operation of $G$ to the elements $g'$ and then $g$, and $gg' \in G$ and $g.x \in X$.
Dually, if we define the morphism $\phi_{\ast}$ associated to the action $\forall g \in G$, $\forall x \in X$, such that $x.g = (\phi_{\ast}(g))(x)$, then these axioms are equivalent to saying that the group $G$ acts on $X$ (on the right) if we have the morphism of the group $\phi _{\ast}: G \to S^{opp}_X$, from $G$ into the opposite symmetric Group $S^{opp}_X$ of $X$. Such a morphism is a representation of the group $G$ dual to left one. The opposite group $S^{opp}_X$ of the symmetric group $S_X$ is the set of permutations of $X$ with the law of composition $ (f, g) \mapsto f \star g = g \circ f$. We go from left to right dual using the fact that $(gg')^{−1} = g'^{−1}g−1^{−1}$ and composing with the inverse operation of the group.
After Galois, Lie’s work and motivations for studying Lie groups were intended to extend Galois theory to differential equations by studying the symmetry groups of differential equations. The resulting differential Galois theory was studied by Picard-Vessiot, and Chevalley and Eilenberg later formalized the cohomology of Lie algebra [@Chevalley1948]. One of the motivations of homological algebra was then to unify Galois discrete cohomology with Lie continuous cohomology.
### What is topology? {#What is topology}
We will now give a short and informal snapshot of algebraic topology (see Figure \[Homology\]). Classical expositions can be found in Alexandroff [@Alexandroff1932a], Hatcher [@Hatcher2002] and Ghrist ’s book [@Ghrist2014]. The researchers working in complex systems or neural networks are familiar with the idea of topology: a complex network where a graph is a 1-chain complex, a 1-complex. In the study of complex systems, the seminal works of Erdos and Renyi [@Erdoes1959] and then Watts and Strogatz [@Watts1998] showed that combinatorial features and statistics of connections of networks affect their dynamical, statistical and critical behavior (reference reviews can be found in [@Dorogovtsev2008] and [@Newman2010]). The considerations of these studies relies on a tiny 1D window of the n-dimensional (or degree) landscape of topology. The meaning of this high dimensional generalisation by the topology has a simple and intuitive interpretations; whereas a network is an assembly of pairs of elements (of neurons for example), homology investigates assemblies with arbitrary numerous elements, a good mathematical start to formalizing neural assemblies (or other “groups”). We indeed believe that information theory may provide appropriate tools to ultimately render some of the difficult frameworks of algebraic topology as intuitive as they should be. Simplicial homology (commutative, with addition as an operation, for example) writes a complex network as a group here commutative, e.g as an algebraic sum of its $m$ edges, of its elementary constituents in one dimension, weighted by coefficients with value in a group or a field (or in modules): $C_1(S,\mathbb{F})=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} a_i \Delta_{1,i} $. The orientation and the weighting of the network are implemented by the coefficients $ a_i $. Homology provides an alternative and a generalization of adjacency and incidence matrices. For example, the coefficients [(0,1)]{} of the simplest adjacency matrix are assimilated to the field with two elements $\mathbb{F}_2$ etc. Homology can then be considered as providing a generalization to n-dimensions of complex networks.\
**Homology:** an homology is defined by two things: an n-degree (or n-dimensional in special cases like the simplicial) complex $C_n$ and a boundary operator $\partial_{n}$. What follows is illustrated in the top left panel of Figure \[Homology\]. By the defining condition $\partial\circ\partial=0$, the application of the differential operator $\partial$ to the complex generates a sequence of n-complex $C_k$ or k-chains, as follows: $$\xrightarrow{\partial_{n+1}} C_n \xrightarrow{\partial_{n}} C_{n-1}\xrightarrow{\partial_{n-1}}... C_1 \xrightarrow{\partial_{1}} C_0 \xrightarrow{\partial_{0}}0$$\
This is the basic principle; now let us investigate what a complex is. **n-complex:** a simplicial n-complex $C_n$ is written as a weighted sum of its elementary n-simplices with a composition operation symbolized by the of addition $C_n(S,\mathbb{F})=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} a_i \Delta_{n,i}$. The building blocks, n-simplex $\Delta_n$ (in the simplest case of simplicial homology) are triangles generalized to all dimensions; a point-vertex is a 0-simplex, an edge a 1-simplex, a triangle a 2-simplex, a tetrahedron a 3-simplex and so on; they are also called the k-faces of the complex. The most basic definition of an abstract complex is a family $C$ consisting of finite subsets of a given set of vertices $V={x_1,...,x_n}$, such that the 2 following conditions hold: i) $\{x_i\}\in C$ for all $\{x_i\}\in V$ ii) If $X \in C$ and $Y \subseteq X$, then $Y \in C$. In simple but ambiguous words, a complex contains all its subfaces. n-complexes are organized in a sequence of decreasing degree-dimensions which are also inclusive (or projective) sequences. An edge is included in a triangle which is included in a tetrahedron and so on.\
**n-boundary:** We go from one dimension $n$ to another $n-1$ by a boundary operator $\partial_n: C_n \rightarrow C_{n-1}$, a homomorphism. It literately makes a dimension reduction, just as we saw conditioning do in probability. The simplest expression of a boundary operator in simplicial homology consists of an alternating sum of the complexes obtained by deleting one of the vertices each time. By definition, the boundary of a boundary must be zero ($\partial_n\circ\partial_{n-1}=0$ where $0$ denotes the mapping to the identity in $C_{n-1}$); this implies that the sequence is inclusive and that the image of the $n+1$ boundary is included in the kernel of the $n$ boundary ($Im(\partial_n)\subseteq Ker(\partial_{n-1})$). This defining condition $\partial\circ\partial=0$ or $\partial ^2=0$, that is, the boundary of a boundary is 0, is fundamental and implements the non-contradiction principle (considering $Y$ to be the boundary of $X$, that is $Y = \operatorname{Cl}(X)\cap \operatorname{Cl}(\Omega-X)$ and then considering the boundary of $Y$. Since $\operatorname{Cl}(X)$ and $\operatorname{Cl}(\Omega-X)$ are both closed, their intersection is also closed, and hence $\operatorname{Cl}(Y)=Y$, and $\operatorname{Cl}(\Omega-Y)= \operatorname{Cl}(\Omega)-\operatorname{Cl}(Y)$, and moreover considering that $\Omega$ is the whole space, we also have $\operatorname{Cl}(\Omega)=\Omega$. Hence the boundary of the boundary of $X$ is $Y \cap (\Omega-Y)$, that is the intersection of any set with its complement, that is the empty set and hence the consistency-non-contradiction axiom).\
**n-cycles:** It allows us to define the n-cycles as null n-boundaries, that is, n-boundaries that equal zero ($\partial_n=0$), literally an n-chain-complex without a boundary (or with an identity boundary, that is, a closed chain). **Homology groups:** Homology groups are defined as the quotient group of the kernel of the n-boundary by the image of the n+1-boundary ($H_n(S,\mathbb{F})= Ker(\partial_{n})/ Im(\partial_n+1)=Z_n(S,\mathbb{F})/B_n(S,\mathbb{F})$. They hence quantify holes, empty cycles. Betti numbers are the nth rank of the simplicial homology group, its number of generators. Cohomology is the dual of homology and uncovers more information with invariants, including torsion and the change of the group of the coefficients. For oriented complexes, we go from homology to cohomology via Poincare duality, in general via the universal coefficient theorem which states that $H^n(S,\mathbb{F})\approx Hom(H_n(S),{F})\oplus Ext^1(H_{n-1}(S),{F})$, where $Ext$ and $Hom$ are functors. It was one of the first motivations of cohomology to account for both finite groups and Lie groups. The chains become co-chains ($C^n$), boundaries $\partial_n$ coboundaries ($\delta^n$), cycles cocycles ($\delta^n=0$); in other words, the sequence is reversed.
![A snapshot of algebraic topology (see text).Top: (left) A simplicial chain complex, boundary operator, cycle. (Middle) (Morse) Homology counts the number of critical points, source and sink counts +1 and saddles -1. (Adapted and modified with permission from Banchoff [@Banchoff1970], and from Ghrist [@Ghrist2014]). (Right) Homotopy: an equivalence relation between paths. Bottom: (left) homology: equivalence “up to continuous deformation”. (Right) Homology counts the number of holes, i.e. algebraically independent components, in each dimension.[]{data-label="Homology"}](figure19.jpg){height="12cm"}
It was the algebraic aspect, the beauty of topology relies upon that it is expressed equivalently the geometrical aspects. Topology is the science that categorizes and distinguishes the shapes of spaces. We have already seen the geometrical realization of simplexes with the probability simplex shown in Figure \[figure\_probability\_simplex\_complex\]. Simplicial n-complexes are discretization or n-triangulation of continuous n-dimensional manifold $M$ (piecewise-linear manifolds). Homology is an equivalence relation on the manifolds up to continuous deformation (cf. Figure \[figure\_probability\_simplex\_complex\] bottom). For example, the circle is topologically equivalent (homeomorphic) to the square, the point to the disc, etc. It thus appears that the homology of two objects is different if they differ in their number of holes, and homology accounts for the holes, which are algebraically independent components in each dimension. Betti numbers quantify the number of holes in each dimension; their alternating sum equals the Euler characteristic, which is the main topological invariant $\chi(S)= \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}(-1)^i b_i (S,\mathbb{F})$. If one has a height function $h$ as in Morse theory, homology counts the critical points of the manifold. A saddle point is a hyperbolic unstable critical point and counts for -1. The sources and sinks count for + 1. The sum of the critical points equals the Euler characteristic, $\chi(M)= \sum_{p critical for h}^{m-1} i (p_i,h)$, which also equals the integral of the curvature $C$ for 2D compact without boundary, according to the Bonnet-Gauss-Chern theorem ($\int_MC\mathrm{d}A=2\pi\chi(M)$). A reference work on Morse theory is Milnor’s book [@Milnor1964] and Forman’s review of the discrete version [@Forman2002].\
**Homotopy:** Homotopy is an equivalence relation between paths or geodesics in manifolds with inverses, and an associative operation of composition (equivalence classes form a group called homotopy groups, noted $\pi_n(S,x_0)$ where $x_0$ is the based point. $\pi_1$ is called the fundamental group). In dimension 1, the holes can be detected by obstruction to retract a loop (closed curve) into a point, and if two loops can be deformed into one another they are homotopically equivalent and define the same hole. A hole in a manifold implies the existence of non-homotopic laces (e.g. if there are two non-homotopic laces on the torus). These definitions can be generalized to higher dimensions, and an obstruction to deform-retract a closed oriented 2D surface into a point can detect a two-dimensional hole and so on. $S$ is said to be n-connected if and only if its first n-homotopy groups are 0 ($\pi_i(X) \equiv 0~, \quad -1\leq i\leq n$, notably if it is non-empty $\pi_{-1}(S) \equiv 0~$ and path-connected $\pi_{0}(S) \equiv 0~$). Postnikov provided a generic method to determine the homology groups of a space by means of homotopy invariants [@Postnikov1951]. Links (see also knots), such as the Hopf 2-link or the Borromean 3-link, form homotopy groups [@Milnor1954] that can be formalized as the closure of compositions of braids (signed permutations that form Artin’s group). It is obvious in the case of n-links that the first i-linking numbers ($i<n$) vanish: the rings of a Borromean link are unlinked in pairs, which is a purely emergent/collective property.\
Concerning neuroscience and cognition, as already mentioned in the cell assembly section, following the development of topological data analysis (which is mainly based on persistence homology [@Carlsson2009]), several studies have been dedicated to the application of topological data analysis to visual activity by Singh and colleagues [@Singh2008], to neural networks by Petri and colleagues [@Petri2014] and to neural activity patterns and assemblies by Curto and Itskov [@Curto2008]. Linguistic structure has also been studied using algebraic topology methods. Port and colleagues used persistent homology to detect the presence of structures and relations between syntactic parameters globally across all languages and within specific language families [@Port2018]. Topology also provides the mathematical ground for the electromagnetic view of cognition proposed in the first chapter. Even without going into the complex details of Topological Quantum Field Theories, the basic of Kirchhoff’s voltage and current conservation laws which state that the algebraic sum of currents at every node of an electrical circuit (formalized as a simplicial 1-complex) is equal to 0, is a direct consequence of the first homology group, i.e., a chain I is a 1-cycle $\partial I=0$. The formalization of electrical circuits as a homology theory was developed by Lefschetz, and the electromagnetic generalization is treated in the work of Zeidler ([@Zeidler2011] chap 22 and 23). Wheeler founded his **“austerity principle” of physics** on the definition of a boundary [@Wheeler1982], and the chapter 15 of his heavy gravitation book presents why the homological view is fundamental for general relativity [@Misner1973]. This convergence of quantum field and gravitation on different homological formalisms has provided the basis for the main gravity quantization investigations [@Rovelli2008]. Wheeler has been a major actor of the physical theory of information, the “it from the bit” , notably sustaining that *“all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe”*[@Wheeler1990]. We now discuss the formalism of information topology underlying the numerous studies that have applied information theory to studies of perception or consciousness, and formalize the way in which machine learning principles and algorithms are topological by nature.
### Information topology synthesis: consciousness’s complexes and thermodynamic {#infotopo_synthesis}
The characterization of entropy in the context of topology started with a surprising coincidence in the work of Cathelineau [@Cathelineau1988] on the scissor congruences introduced in section \[measure\]. As briefly introduced in [@Baudot2018], the appearance of the functional equation of entropy, and hence entropy itself, pertains to motives, the unfortunately yet importantly conjectural side of topology which gathers very different approaches, starting with the investigations of Kontsevitch, Gangl and Elbaz-Vincent [@Kontsevitch1995; @Elbaz-Vincent2002; @Connes2009; @Marcolli2011; @Baez2011; @Baez2014]. The formalism of information topology developed by Baudot, Bennequin and Vigneaux in [@Baudot2015a; @Vigneaux2017] is based on probability, namely on information structures formalized as follows.\
**Information structures:** Random variables are partitions of the atomic probabilities of a finite probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal {B},P)$. The operation of joint-variable $(X_1, X_2)$ is the less fine partition, which is finer than $ X_1 $ and $ X_2 $; the whole lattice of partitions $\Pi$ [@Andrews1998] hence corresponds to the lattice of joint-variables [@Fresse2004; @Baudot2015a]. A general **information structure** is defined in usual set-theoretic terms as a triplet $(\Omega,\Pi,P)$, and hence covers all the possible equivalence classes on atomic probabilities. A more general and modern expression is given in category and topos theory, in [@Baudot2015a; @Vigneaux2017]. The image law of the probability $P$ by the measurable function of the joint-variables $(X_1, ..., X_k)$ is noted $(X_1, ..., X_k; P)$. Figure \[partition\_lattice\] gives a simple example of the lattice of partition for a universe of 4 atomic probabilities, a sub-simplicial lattice which is combinatorially computable on data.
![**Example of general and simplicial information structures. a,** Example of a lattice of random variables (partitions): the lattice of partitions of atomic events for a universe of 4 events $|\Omega|=4 $ (for example two coin tossing $\Omega = \{00,01,10,11\}$). Each event is depicted by a black dot in circles representing the variables. The operation of the joint-variable noted $(X,Y)$ or $X\otimes Y$, of two partitions, is the less fine partition $Z$ which is finer than $X$ and $Y$ ($Z$ divides $Y$ and $X$, or $Z$ is the greatest common divisor of $Y$ and $X$). The joint operation has an identity element noted $1 = \Omega$ (noted 0 in what follows), with $X,1 = X,\Omega = X$ and is idempotent $ (X,X) = X^2 = X $ (the non-contradiction principle stated by Boole, cf. section \[logic of thoughts\], giving a codegeneracy map in cohomology or simplicial sets). The structure is partially ordered set (poset) and endowed with a refinement relation. **b,** Illustration of the simplicial structure (sublattice) used for data analysis ($|\Omega| = 4 $). **c,** Illustration of the random variable partitioning of the probability simplex in the same example as in b. (Adapted and modified with permission from Baudot, Tapia and Goaillard [@Baudot2018; @TapiaPacheco2017])[]{data-label="partition_lattice"}](figure11.png){height="4.5cm"}
The fact that the lattice is a partially ordered set (poset) endowed with a refinement relation is central; it means that there is an intrinsic hierarchy of informational structure, just as in the general model of physical cognition of Schoeller, Perlovsky, and Arseniev [@Schoeller2018]. Concerning classification-recognition tasks of machine learning, information structures can be considered as universal: as a partition is equivalent to an equivalence class all possible classification are represented in an information structure. For example, this lattice can be understood as an algebraic formalization of deep networks, that is, networks with hidden layers of neurons for which the rank (dimension given in what follows) in the lattice gives the rank of a hidden layer and the connections correspond to coface maps (roughly, elementary projections or dimension reduction or increase). The random variables formalize neurons that are intrinsically probabilistic and possibly multivalued, generalizing binary and deterministic neurons such as McCulloch and Pitts’ formal neurons. As discussed in the section on electrodynamic and digital coding \[Neural coding\], such a generalization is biologically relevant and even necessary. The other common interpretation of this poset hierarchical structure, probably equivalent to the previous one (at least in ergodic systems), is that the ordering of the lattice provides a **multi-scale, coarse to fine analysis** (cf. figure \[partition\_lattice\]a), and each rank of the lattice provides an information analysis at the corresponding organizational level, as already formalized and applied by Costa et al [@Costa2002; @Costa2005], who called it multiscale entropy in the context of time series. Hence, such formalism can be applied in the context of multiscale systems such as the one illustrated in Figure \[scale\_function\] (in theory), and the entropy necessarily increases as more and more variables join, e.g. while progressing in organizational scales (cf. Figure \[Principles\_TIDA\]a).
**Action:** In this general information structure, we consider the real module of all measurable functions $F(X_1, ..., X_k; P) $. We consider the conditional expectation-mean (corresponding to informational conditioning) the action of a variable $ Y $ on the module, noted: $$Y.F (X_1, ..., X_k; P)= k \sum_{y\in\mathscr{Y}}^{N_y}p(y).F(X_1, ..., X_k; P/Y=y)$$ where $P/Y=y$ denotes the conditioning of the probability by the event $Y=y$, such that the action corresponds to the usual definition of conditional entropy given in section \[conditionalentropy\]. Centrally, the action of conditioning is associative [@Baudot2015a; @Vigneaux2017]. This action is also extremely important with regard to the theory of cognition; we used it in the section on homeostasis \[Homeostatic plasticity\] to define invariance, and we dedicate a more mathematically rooted presentation in the next section \[Geometries-Homeostasis\]. Notably, Vigneaux was albe to generalize all the formalisms presented here to Tsallis entropies by considering a deformed action (integer powers of probability in the expectation) [@Vigneaux2017], also giving a straightforward extension to quantized information.
The complexes of measurable functions of random variables $X^k=F(X_1, ..., X_k;P)$ and the cochain complex $ (X^k,\partial^k) $ are noted as: $$0 \xrightarrow{} X^0 \xrightarrow{\partial^0} X^1 \xrightarrow{\partial^1} X^{2} \xrightarrow{\partial^2} ... X^{k-1}\xrightarrow{\partial^{k-1}} X^{k}$$ , where $ \partial^k $ is the coboundary with a left action proposed by Hochschild for associative structures and rings [@Hochschild1945], for Galois cohomology (see Tate’s work [@Tate1991]), and for homological algebra (see Cartan et Eilenberg’s work [@Cartan1956] and for non-homogenous bar complex (see Maclane [@MacLane1975]) is noted as: $$\begin{split}
(\partial^k)F(X_1;X_2;...;X_{k+1};P)={} & X_1.F(X_2;...;X_{k+1};P)\\
& +\sum_{i=1}^{k}(-1)^{i} F(X_1; X_2;...;(X_i,X_{i+1});...;X_{k+1};P)\\
& + (-1)^{k+1} F(X_1;...;X_{k};P)
\end{split}$$
For the first degree $k = 1$, the 1-coboundary is $(\partial^1)F(X_1;X_2) = X_1.F(X_2)-F(X_1,X_2) + F(X_1) $ and the 1-cocycle condition $(\partial^1)F(X_1;X_2)=0 $ gives $F(X_1,X_2) =F(X_1) + X_1.F(X_2)$, which is the fundamental chain law of information (cf. equation \[chain rule gener\]). Following Kendall [@Kendall1964] and Lee [@Lee1964], it is possible to deduce from this chain law the functional equation of information and to uniquely characterize Shannon entropy as the first class of cohomology, up to the arbitrary multiplicative constant $k$ [@Baudot2015a; @Vigneaux2017]. It constitutes the main theorem that founded information topology. It appears by direct computation in this cohomology that mutual informations with an odd number of variables are minus the coboundary of even degrees $\partial^{2k}=-I_{2k+1}$. Obtaining even mutual informations is achieved by reproducing the Hodge decomposition of Hochschild cohomology constructed by Gerstenhaber and Shack [@Gerstenhaber1987; @Weibel1995; @Kassel2004]. We construct for this a double complex $(X^{\bullet,\bullet},\partial,\partial_\ast)=(X^{k',k''},\partial^{k',k''},\partial_\ast^{k',k''}), ~ (k',k'')\in \mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}$ endowed with the preceding coboundary $\partial$ and the same coboundary with a symmetric action $\partial_\ast$ (left and right, commutative) [@Gerstenhaber1987; @Weibel1995; @Kassel2004]. As a result, the odd mutual informations are minus the even coboundary $\partial^{2k}=-I_{2k+1}$, the even mutual-informations are minus the odd symmetric coboundaries $\partial_{\ast}^{2k-1}=-I_{2k}$, and the mutual informations are the coboundaries of the total complex with an alternated sign $\partial_{tot}^k=(-1)^{k+1}I_{k+1}$.\
The independence of two variables ($ I_2 = 0 $) is then directly generalized to k-variables and gives the cocycles $I_k = 0$.\
As a conclusion concerning the probabilist interpretation of cohomology, information cohomology quantifies statistical dependencies and the obstruction to factorization.\
What is the interest of these mathematical tools for cognition? The uniqueness of the obtained functions implies, in the case classical finite probabilistic application to empirical data, that the information functions are not only “good” but also the only ones to quantify statistical dependences and independences in the multivariate case. The finite-discrete symmetries of permutation groups, which are the structural ambiguity and the (co)differentials arising from Galois’s theory, are equivalent to uncertainties and shared information arising from the “mathematical theory of communication”. To comment on such a surprising and important fact, mutual informations are indeed (co)differential operators, a purely continuous operation arising from a finite and discrete context. Hilbert noted in his work on infinity, “the first unreasonable impression given to us by natural phenomena and matter is that of continuity” [@Hilbert1924]: while physics repeatedly proved that objectively the input of our senses is finite and discrete, our consciousness construct the impression of continuity [@Hilbert1924]. As expressed by Poincaré, the construction of our continuous perception from discrete data can be proposed to be a cohomological operation by nature (even explaining Weber-Fechner’s law) that mutual informations naturally fulfill. This is an important contribution of Galois’s theory, further pursued by Lie, Picard-Vessiot and others, that allows us to conceive of the notion of continuity and of derivation yet holding in the discrete world, extending the classical Newtonian view. The second point of interest is that cohomology is the science of the forms (patterns) of spaces. Information topology hence provides a preliminary theory of the shapes of probabilistic structures on which it is possible to develop methods of pattern recognition-characterization for machine learning and the quantification of epigenetic landscapes for biological adaptive dynamics, following Waddington and Thom [@Baudot2018; @TapiaPacheco2017].\
The third point of interest lies in the fact that this cohomology can be expressed as a **Topos** on a probability site, which allows the establishing of the multivalued constructive logic described in an elementary finite context in section \[topos\]. Such logic can provide a basis for a probabilistic, biological and cognitive logic.\
\[!h\] ![**Principles of the analysis of dimension 4**. **Top:** an example of entropy landscapes $H_k$ and mutual information $I_k$ (free energy) for 4 variables (semi-lattice). In red is represented an information path (piecewise linear function $IP(k)$) and the first free energy minima of critical dimension 3. The cartoon illustrate the Shannon’s and Yeung’s topological cone arising from standard and non-Shannonian information inequalities and that bounds the paths [@Yeung2003; @Baudot2018]. **Bottom:** An example of a complex of minima of free energy and its $I_k$ landscape, for which the facets are represented in red (positive conditional information path of maximum length) (adapted and modified with permission from Baudot, Tapia and Goaillard [@Baudot2018]).[]{data-label="Principles_TIDA"}](figure12.png "fig:"){height="14cm"}
Regarding data analysis and physics, information topology allows us to quantify the structure of statistical interactions within a set of empirical data and to express these interactions in terms of statistical physics, machine learning and epigenetic dynamics [@Baudot2018]. The combinatorics of general variable complexes being governed by Bell’s numbers, their effective computation on classical computers is illusory. To circumvent those computational hardness, we define the sub-case of the simplicial cohomology of information, with an algorithmic complexity that can be implemented, but that neglects some of the possible dependencies. The computational hardness of consciousness in discussed in section \[Computational mind2\] in the perspective of Artificial Intelligence and classical Turing definitions of computation. The exhaustive computation of the simplicial-binomial combinatoric of $I_k$ and $H_k$ (see Figure \[Principles\_TIDA\], the set of subsets of $n$ variables) is thus reduced to a complexity in $2^n$, computable in practice up to $n = 21$ with basic resources. The set of the entropy values $H_k$ and mutual information $I_k$ for all subsets of $n$ are represented by the entropy landscapes $H_k$ and information landscapes $I_k$ as a function of the dimension $k$, as illustrated in Figure \[Principles\_TIDA\]. The entropies $H_k$ quantify uncertainty on variables, and the mutual informations $I_k$ quantify statistical dependencies. An information path $IP(k)$ is defined as a piecewise linear function, as illustrated in Figure \[Principles\_TIDA\]. Its first derivative is equal to minus the conditional mutual information, which allows the characterization of the first minima of the paths based on the negativity of the conditional information and the non-Shannonian cone and information inequalities studied by Yeung [@Yeung2003] (cf. Figure \[Principles\_TIDA\]).
\[!h\] ![**Information Topology Analysis of neural genetic expression: $I_k$, $H_k$ and Total Free Energy (TFE) landscapes**. The figure presents the Information Topology Analysis of the expression in single cell qPCR of 41 genes in 10 dopaminergic (DA, Subtancia Nigra pars compacta) and 10 non Dopaminergic (nDa, neighboring Ventral Tegmental Area) neurons from adult TH-GFP mice pre-identified by fluorescence [@Baudot2018; @TapiaPacheco2017]. **a:** entropy $H_k$ and **b:** mutual information $I_k$ (free energy) landscapes. The vertical bars indicates the dimension above which the estimations of information become too biased due to the finite sample size, a phenomenon known as the curse of dimensionality (the undersampling dimension is $k_u = 11$, p value 0.05). The significance value obtained from shuffled distributions for $p = 0.1$ are depicted by the black lines and the doted lines. This test is based on the random shuffles of the data points that leaves the marginal distributions unchanged, as proposed by [@Pethel2014]. It estimates if a given $I_k$ significantly differs from a randomly generated $I_k$, a test of the specificity of the k-dependence. (adapted and modified with permission from Baudot, Tapia and Goaillard [@TapiaPacheco2017; @Baudot2018]). **c:** The total free energy (TFE) or Integrated Information landscape quantifying consciousness according to Tononi and Edelman and **d:** the landscape of the TFE per body. []{data-label="applied_TIDA"}](figure13.png "fig:"){height="9cm"}
The main theorems, definitions and data analysis in Baudot, Tapia and Goaillard [@TapiaPacheco2017; @Baudot2018] establish the following results, here included with comments about their relevance regarding consciousness and neural processing theories:
- The marginal information $I_1$ are generalized internal energies and the $I_k$ are the free energy contributions of the k-body interaction. Figure \[applied\_TIDA\]b illustrates the $I_k$ landscape quantifying the free energy contributions as the function of the dimension (number of bodies) for the genetic expression of two neural populations. The maximum of $I_{10}$ identifies the 10 Dopaminergic neurons. The total correlation proposed by Watanabe and Studeny [@Watanabe1960; @Studeny1999] to quantify dependences, or the Integrated Information proposed by Tononi and Edelman to quantify consciousness [@Tononi1998], $G_k =\sum_{i=2}^{k}(-1)^{i}\sum_{I\subset [n];card(I)=i}I_i(X_I;P)$, is the total free energy (TFE). Figure \[applied\_TIDA\]c illustrates the TFE landscape in the same context as previously. TFE hardly distinguishes the two population, but instead presents a quite homogeneous linear behavior on average, $\langle TFE \rangle\approx 2k$, meaning that the total free energy adds linearly with adding new bodies. This is illustrated by TFE per body (or TFE rate) in Figure \[applied\_TIDA\]d. In agreement with IIT theory that assigns consciouness according to those measure [@Paulson2017; @Tononi2016], the conclusion is that genetic expression participate to consciousness, to its slow component as discussed in section \[jacob\] on epigenetic regulation timescales. Although it remains to be achieved effectively, we propose that the same principles and methods apply to electrical of neural imaging recordings. We rediscover the (semi-)classical definitions of internal energy as a special case for phase space independent identically distributed variables (Gibbs distributions) and the usual relation of thermodynamics. See Adami and Cerf [@Adami1999] and Kapranov [@Kapranov2011] for an exposition of this classical result: $$\label{thermodynamical relation}
H(X_1,...,X_n)=\langle E\rangle - G=U-G$$ The marginal component, the internal energy, corresponds to a self-interaction, a reflexive component of consciousness that completes the model of Tononi and Edelman. Such a formalism could hence account for both the reflexive and the qualitative aspects of consciousness consistently introduced in our first chapter \[neuronal\_postulate\], in agreement with the Leibniz’s monadic hypothesis.
- Information paths are in bijection with symmetric group and stochastic processes. These paths correspond to the automorphisms of the partition lattice. We directly obtain a topological generalization of the second principle of thermodynamics. This theorem generalizes Cover’s theorem for Markov chains [@Cover1994] and allows one to conjecture the existence of a Noether theorem for stochastic processes and discrete symmetries, notably following Baez and Fong [@Baez2013]. Such a theorem should be considered as the topological version of the first principle of thermodynamics. On the $H_k$ landscape illustrated in Figure \[applied\_TIDA\]a, this theorem imposes that any path can only “go up”. Information paths and landscape directly account for standard causal criteria, like Granger causality and Transfer entropy, that generalize the later to the non-gaussian case [@Barnett2009] and defined by Schreiber as a pairwise conditional mutual information [@Schreiber2000]. Of course the generalization to the multivariate case together with the consideration of positivity and negativity is a major interest and shall be investigated further. In [@Baudot2018] (p.29), we give a very preliminary view of how space-time could emerge from purely topological considerations (without metric), and we consider that a formalism of the space-time shape of k interacting bodies should provide the ultimate expression of what consciousness is. These paths allows the formulation of sums over paths appearing in statistical field theory, but in a discrete finite classical and informational context. The remarkable difference compared to the usual path integrals relies on that no infinite energy divergence can occur. The hope is that such an information formalism will give a discrete finite expression of electrodynamics and of renormalization groups (however without artificial renormalization [@Dirac1929; @Feynman1985]). This would complete the electrodynamic theory of consciousness given an exposition of in the first chapter with the statistical physical informational view presented here.
- The longest paths to the minima (equilibrium points) form the complex of minima of free energy. This complex formalizes the principle of minimal free energy in topology in complicated cases where multiple local minima co-exist, the central paradigm of frustrated systems in statistical physics [@Vannimenus1977; @Mezard2009a].
- This simplicial complex provides a generic and consensual definition of a complex system, thus generalizing complex (1-complex) networks to larger dimensions. The multiplicity of these minima (facets) defines and quantifies diversity. This complex is proposed to provide a thermodynamical and mathematical formalization of the complexes developed in integrated information theory [@Tononi2016; @Oizumi2014; @Tononi1998]. The possible coexistence of several facets that define the complex may explain the apparently paradoxical unity and diversity of consciousness: a conscious experience, corresponding to one facet, does not forbid the existence of some other conscious experience possibly less or more complex (of a different dimension), and that may be estimated as an unconscious process by the first one. Cognitively, a facet shall be understood as a composite memory process, a classical analog of what Griffiths, Omnes, and Gell-Mann and Hartle, called the consistent histories [@Griffiths1984; @Omnes1988; @Gell-Mann1990]. The quantification of consciousness proposed by Tononi and Edelman corresponds, for phase space variables, to free energy, and appears to be in agreement with the free energy principle proposed by Friston as an explanation for embodied perception [@Friston2006]. Indeed, the complex of minima of free energy can be understood as a topologically discrete and finite version of the free energy principle of Friston that can be applied in the multivariate case with heterogeneous variables. Information topology also agrees in principles with the model of “projective consciousness” of Rudrauff and colleagues [@Rudrauf2017]. This model proposes that the passage to a conscious perception relies on a change of geometry by fixing and changing of frames, from the affine or 3D-Euclidean to the 3D-projective, and is related to information since the action of the change of frame acts on the internal variable of the probability organized by a partial free energy. In this framework, it is also a mechanism of minimization of free energy which guides the changes of frames.We moreover propose to replace the “self-evident” axioms proposed in the work of Tononi and colleagues [@Oizumi2014] by the axioms of measure and probability theory, ultimately in the constructive logic framework that is sketched in the section dedicated to information topos \[topos\], and developed in the cited references. Such axiomatization may allow to pursue the “artificial” consciousness opus of Turing and Wiener in some more refined, modern and hopefully computationally efficient formalism (cf. section on the computational mind \[Computational mind2\]). The concept of “networks of networks” [@DAgostino2014a] corresponds topologically to the hypercohomology provided by the double complex of Hodge decomposition (complexes of complexes in a homological sense, or a derived functor). It hence may also account for the Dehaene-Changeux model, which involves global neuronal workspaces and which is a “meta neural network”, a network of neural networks constructed with neural integrate-and-fire neurons, thalamo-cortical columns and long-range cortical area networks [@Dehaene2005; @Dehaene2011; @Dehaene2006]. Moreover, the minima of the complex corresponds to critical points which can be considered to correspond to the consciousness transition of their model.
- The application to data and simple theoretical examples shows that the positive maxima of $I_k$ identify the variables that co-vary the most, which could be called covariant assemblies or modules in the neuronal context. Figure \[homeostasis\]d (top) shows the kind of dependences identified by the maxima for 3 variables ($I_3$). We hence propose that such positive modules provide a statistically rooted definition of neural assemblies, generalizing correlation measures to the nonlinear cases [@Reshef2011]. For example, the maximal $I_{10}$ module in Figure \[applied\_TIDA\]b could be legitimately called the DA cell assembly. The negative minima of $I_k$, commonly called synergistic interactions [@Brenner2000] or negentropy following Schrödinger [@Schroedinger1944], identify the variables that most segregate the population, and hence detect clusters corresponding to exclusive differential activity in subpopulations. This negativity of Free Energy component is discussed in [@Baudot2018] in the perspective of physic, and provides a topological signature of condensation phenomenon corresponding to the clustering of data point. It refines the negentropy principle of Schrödinger, stating that living systems feed upon negentropy or free-energy, by showing that even free-energy can have some negative components. It is remarkable that the pattern identified by positive and negative information corresponds to the two fundamental dual tasks of psychophysics, e.g. binding and segmentation, respectively. Moreover, minima of mutual information correspond in examples, and conjecturally in general to links, like the Borromean link (cf. section \[What is topology\]). For example, the minima of $I_3$ for three Bernoulli variables is -1 bit’ the variables are independent in pairs but linked at 3 by a purely 3-dimensional effect, a purely emergent collective interaction.
These methods establish a topological version of the Boltzmann and Helmholtz machines in machine learning [@Ackley1985; @Dayan1995], named the Poincaré-Shannon machine. They also give a topological and algebraic answer, already present in essence in the work of Hu [@Hu1962], to the questions of information decomposition that have been the subject of numerous publications and data applications, for instance the proposal of a non-negative composition by Williams and Beer [@Williams2010], the “unique information” of Bertschinger and his colleagues [@Olbrich2015; @Bertschinger2014], Griffith and Koch [@Griffith2014] and the applications of the resulting information decomposition to the development of the neural network [@Wibral2017], and neuromodulation [@Kay2017].\
In conclusion, those topological tools allow us to conciliate at least five important theories of consciousness, namely the global neuronal workspace model, the integrated information (IIT), the free energy principle, the projective model, and the dynamic logic, and confer on them an interesting topological foundation, allowing those theories to evolve and be improved with further discoveries in mathematics. Notably, it answers to the critics and requests concerning IIT further stated by Seth, Izhikevich, Reeke, and Edelman, *“that characterizing the relevant complexity of such a system will require a multidimensional analysis\[...\] qualia space is a high-dimensional space in which the axes reflect dimensions on which phenomenally experienced conscious scenes are discriminated”* [@Seth2006]. The original contribution of this model and of the topological view compared to those 5 theories, underlines the fact that the essential properties of consciousness rely on structure and shape, not a single function, a single number or scalar. Moreover, the formalism highlights the fact that conscious experience, and also biological structures in general, correspond to discrete symmetries, to local energy minima, and to dynamical stochastic process. Considering the fact that symmetry could be a mathematical definition of aesthetics, which is historically a canonical definition, the formalism also further joins the model of physical cognition and that of dynamic logic by Schoeller, Perlovsky and Arseniev [@Schoeller2018]: a Galoisian theory of e-motivs or e-motions, an ambiguous theory, *“between crystal and smoke”* [@Atlan1979], order and disorder, uncertainty and certainties (shared uncertainties) of the self and its environmental constitutive interactions. In simple words, it justifies the subjective view that the world is beautiful, including you: the nicest conclusion we could find concerning a mathematical and physical theory of qualitative cognition.
Dynamics, Geometries, action invariance and Homeostasis of consciousness {#Geometries-Homeostasis}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
### The invariances to group actions of perception {#invariances to group actions}
***“The research of invariant is the fundamental fact of perception”***; this is in essence the fundamental principle proposed by Gibson, which gave rise to his ecological theory of perception [@Gibson1979] after Cassirer had introduced groups into the theory of perception [@Cassirer1938], but it is also the central principle in Piaget’s structuralist formalization of cognitive development [@Piaget1970]. A more mathematically rooted exposition of such principle, supporting modern neurophysiological results, can be found in Bennequin [@Bennequin2014]. The principle of considering an invariance to transformation as a kind of adaptive process was first highlighted by the “transforming Goggle experiments” of Straton [@Stratton1896; @Stratton1897] and Erismann and Kohler [@Kohler1962], which consisted in the study of visual and visuo-motor adaptation and the after-effects of long-term wearing of reversing mirror, prismatic or colored goggles. For example, after starting to wear goggles that invert left and right or flip the individual’s vision upside-down, their vision progressively (i.e. within few days) goes back to their “usual” perception, demonstrating an adaptive visuomotor invariance to mirror-symmetry-transformation of the perceived world. As illustrated in Figure \[invariance\]a, Gibson studied adaptation to deforming goggles that imposed curvature on the retinal image and discovered an invariance to a curving transformation that can be considered as diffeomormism or homeomorphism [@Gibson1933]. Figure \[invariance\]a also presents the after-effects just after removing the curving goggles, manifested by a phenomenal perception curved in the opposite direction. It is possible to imagine other goggles associated with discrete transformation, such as the Galois or permutation goggles illustrated in Figure \[invariance\]b which permutes the light flux arriving on all photoreceptors with a given fixed permutation. According to the known architecture of visual processing, it is likely that adults would be barely able adapt to such a transformation, that would destroy the usual spatial retinotopic relations; or, adaptation would take time. However, from what is known of the development of the visual system, as exemplified by the rewiring experiment of Sur and colleagues [@Sharma2000; @Sur2001; @Sur2005; @Roe1990], we can infer that nonetheless, a newborn wearing such goggles would develop “normal” vision, but that the normal development and the fine wiring of the visual system is naturally endowed with an invariance to the action of permutation as a result of being predominantly ruled by activity-dependent plasticity. Sur et al’s experiment consists of an ablation of the inferior colliculus (which provides the normal auditory input), which induces retinal afferents to innervate the medial geniculate nucleus (MGN), which is the normal relay of the auditory system. Such rewiring, which can be considered as a kind of permutation, induces a plastic differentiation of the primary auditory cortex (A1) that reproduces (with deformations) the usual main functional characteristics of the primary visual cortex (V1), complete with retinotopic and orientation-direction selectivity [@Sharma2000; @Sur2001; @Sur2005; @Roe1990]. One could further reasonably infer from the “meta-plasticity” of the time-dependent plastic rules previously stated, that the developmental process would lead to an invariance in space-time permutation of the visual input, given that the permutations concern a time window of reasonably small duration.
\[!h\] ![**Invariance to transformation and perceptual adaptation. The projective geometry aspects of perceptual space. a,** the adaptation to wearing goggles that impose curvature to visual retinal input, as reported by Gibson [@Gibson1933]. After 3 to 4 days the subject recovers an almost normal phenomenological perception of straight lines while removing the glasses induces an after-effect of curvature in the opposite direction (adapted and modified from Gibson [@Gibson1933]). **b,** A “gedankenexperiment” of permutation goggles that imposes a fixed given permutation of the photoreceptor input to the visual system, implementing the action of the symmetric group and testing the invariance to permutation of perception and consciousness. **c,** the experiment of rewiring visual input onto the auditory cortex realized by the team of Sur [@Sharma2000; @Sur2001; @Sur2005; @Roe1990]. The ablation of the inferior colliculus, which normally provides auditory input, induces a rewiring of the optic nerve to the medial geniculate nucleus (MGN), which in turn induces an activity-dependent differentiation of the primary auditory cortex (A1) into a functional architecture of an almost-normal primary visual cortex (V1) exhibiting spatial retinotopy and orientation selectivity. The drawing on the left roughly reproduces orientation selectivity maps exhibiting typical organization of pinwheels on the cortical surface of a normal V1 neuron and a rewired A1 obtained using an optical imaging technique (adapted and modified with permission from Sharma and colleagues [@Sharma2000], see text). **d,e,f,** 3 different classical optical illusions induced by projective geometry (adding a point at infinity), implemented here by adding a contextual perspective. In **d,** the vertical lines appear curved whereas their retinal image is “straight” and parallel, and in **e and f,** the size of the barrels appears to depend on the perspective cues whereas their retinal image has the same size.[]{data-label="invariance"}](Figure20.png "fig:"){height="10cm"}
Invariance to transformation, formalized within an adequate group formalism, is a major stream in theoretical psychology; a review can be found in the work of Boring [@Boring1952] and Curtis [@Cutting1983]. Since those seminal works, psychophysics research has provided more precise formalization and empirical verification of Gibson’s fundamental statement that identifies invariance to transformation with perceptual adaptation, and the problem since then has been to characterize the **“geometry of perceptual space”**, what could be called the **“shape of consciousness”**. Koenderink et al were able to reveal the fact that visual perceptive spaces partially present a “distorted” intrinsic affine [@Todd2001] and projective structure [@Koenderink2002], as they verify Varignon’s and Pappus’s theorem using bisection and collinearity judgments tasks respectively. The effect of such projective geometry can be illustrated by classical optical illusions induced by perspective cues or contexts as illustrated in Figure \[invariance\]d, e and f. These groups of transformations are organized into a Lie subgroup hierarchy, a Euclidian transformation being a special case of affine transformation, which is a special case of projective transformation, which is a special case of isomorphism. However, many experiments have revealed that perceptual space is more complex, and departs from homogeneous (or constant curvature), affine, projective or flat cases. Several experiments have demonstrated that the intrinsic curvature of perceptual space is non-Euclidean [@Battro1976; @Indow1991; @Koenderink2000] and that the curvature of perceptual space varies with position [@Indow1991; @Koenderink2000]. With individual observers, 60% of them display a negative curvature, while the other 40% display a positive curvature [@Battro1976]. Koenderink and colleagues propose that these large variations in the metric structure of perceptual space reveal that the underlying “geometry of observers” depends on contextual factors (see Suppes [@Suppes1977]) such as objects in the visual field or the observer’s contextual attention [@Todd2001]. To conclude, there appear to be no preferred intrinsic and fixed stable Riemannian metrics of perceptual space, indicating a possibly weaker and more generic topological invariance. This is indeed a central proposition of this review: perceptual geometry changes with experience, and these changes are called adaptation or learning - a topological change - whereas homeostasis is the signature of the resulting acquired stable geometry. With regard to visual cortex functional architecture, Ermentrout and Cowan, and then Bressloff and colleagues, account for spontaneous activity pattern giving rise to typical visual hallucination with a planar model of V1 under an action of the Euclidean group $E(2)$ (translations, rotations, and a reflection) on the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$ [@Ermentrout1979] or on the plane with a hypercolumn pinwheel orientation structure $\mathbb{R}^2 \times S^1$ which preserves the structure of lateral cortical connections presented in the association field section - the shift-twist action [@Bressloff2001]. The previous thought experiment on permutation and plastic rewiring of Sur and colleagues indicates that the group of transformation should be much more generic than the Euclidean group $E(2)$, which is 2 dimensional and a very specialized-differentiated group of transformation. Indeed, as further developed in a generic groupoid formalism by Golubitsky et al [@Golubitsky2006a] and reviewed in [@Golubitsky2006b], the group action approach can generally exploit symmetries in the connectivity of neural networks, with example of application in the primary visual cortex, but also in locomotor or vestibular system, giving rise to biologically relevant activity patterns. As a conclusion on these studies, learning or adapting is acquiring a specialized geometry and the associated peculiar invariance structure, and obeys a topological hierarchical sequence of subgroups. Such a principle is, in essence, the basic definition of structural stability originally proposed by Thom and Petitot, discussed in the next paragraph, on which they based a general morphodynamic and semiotic theory [@Thom2002; @Thom1977; @Petitot1983].
### Geometrical and Topological invariance, isomorphism {#Geometrical and Topological invariance}
**Invariance, stability and shape in mathematics:** After Riemann formalized his multiply extended manifoldness (measure) theory of space [@Riemann1854] and the discovery of non-Euclidian cases, finding an algebraically sound definition of a geometry was a central quest of mathematical research at the beginning of the 20th century. A consensual expression was given by Klein in the formulation of his Erlangen Program: a geometry is the action of a group on a space. “Given a manifoldness, and a group of transformations of the same; to develop the theory of invariants relating to that group” [@Klein1872; @Birkhoff1988]. Klein’s view of geometry generalized Riemann’s original theory by replacing metrics with a group. Klein proposed the study of the homogeneous manifold: a structure $(M,G)$ consisting of a manifold $M$ and a group $G$ acting transitively on $M$, replacing Riemann’s concept of a structure $(M,d)$ consisting of a manifold on which a metric $d(p,q)$ is defined by a local distance differential $ds^{2}=\sum g_{ij}dx_{i}dx_{j}$ [@Birkhoff1988]. The concept of invariance was then pursued in the general context of topology, defining topological invariance under the name of structural stability in the work of Thom [@Thom1977], in the work of Smale [@Smale1967] in the context of differentiable dynamical systems, and of Mumford [@Mumford1994] in the context of algebraic varieties. Topological invariance is a weak invariance; topological invariants are the properties that are conserved under arbitrary deformations (homeomorphism) that preserve neighborhoods (local), sustaining the classical view of a rubber sheet geometry. Such invariance to deformation defines equivalence classes called isomorphisms. Thom defines structural stability as follow: *“In every case where arbitrary small perturbation of initial conditions can conduct to very important variations in the subsequent evolution \[...\], it is possible to postulate that the phenomenon is deterministic; but it relies on a pure metaphysical statement inaccessible to any empirical verification. If one wonders controllable experimental properties, we will have to replace the unverifiable hypothesis of determinism by the empirically verifiable property of “structural stability”: “A process (P) is structurally stable, if a small variation of initial condition lead to a process (P’) Isomorphic to (P) (in this sense that a small transformation in space-time, a $\epsilon$-homeomorphism, in geometry brings back the process (P’) on the process (P))”* [@Thom1983].\
### Dynamical aspects of information, isomorphism, stability, and homeostasis {#Dynamical}
This section asks what is the relation between dynamical system approaches of consciousness and information topology. At all scales of organization of nervous system, dynamical systems provided a guiding framework to model and predict the activity. For example at the cellular level, the electrical dynamic is investigated at length by the mean of dynamical system in the book of Izhikevich [@Izhikevich2007], and the dynamical system study of neural network was pioneered by Sompolinsky and colleagues [@Sompolinsky1988]. What follows investigate dynamical systems from information topology point of view, in their simplest discrete and finite case, leaving the continuous cases, conjecture to be handled by the Lie algebra cohomology, for further studies. It hence provides only some preliminary directions and results upon the unification of those two fields that will be the subject of a more complete and formal work. **Invariance to conditioning (conditional expectation):** \[dynamical\_system\] Information topology relies fundamentally on the action of random variables on information function, known as conditioning in usual information terms, a peculiar expectation integration summation with respect to a given variable. The invariance condition in information is explicitly given by $Y.H(X;P)=H(X;P)$, the definition given in the section on homeostasis \[Invariancedef\], which is equivalent to the statistical independence of $X$ and $Y$. Hence, a geometry in the sense of Klein, in the context of probability and of random variables and processes, can be defined by the preceding condition of invariance of information functions under the action of random variable, or in more biological terms, under the perturbation of the variable $Y$, and can be called an informational geometry. Such a stability or invariance condition is directly related to information negativity, since we have the following theorem: if $X$ is invariant to $Y$, then for any variable $Z$ we have $I(X;Y;Z)\leq 0$. In the current theory of information, which is commutative, the invariance is “symmetric”, namely, if $X$ is invariant to $Y$, then $Y$ is invariant to $X$. We saw that with regard to mutual informations, the $I_{k+1}$- or ($k+1$)-dimensional dependencies quantify the default of invariance for the conditioning of a k-dimensional system $I(X_1;.;X_k;..;X_n)=I(X_1;.;\hat{X_k};..;X_n)-X_k.I(X_1;.;\hat{X_k};..;X_n)$, where the hat denotes the omission of the variable.\
**Dynamical systems and information isomorphism:** Following Thom’s isomorphism and the structural stability framework, we can propose an isomorphism theorem for information structures and relate the stability condition for a stochastic process to classical results in dynamical systems, in which Shannon entropy plays an important role. The cohomology of dynamical systems proposed by Bergelson, Tao and Ziegler [@Bergelson2010] indeed appears to be the usual Hochschild cohomology with left action on which information cohomology is based, as notably discussed and shown in Tao’s blog [@Tao2008a]:\
**Information structure isomorphism:** let $X^n$ and $Y^n$ be two complexes of random variables; $X^n$ and $Y^n$ are information isomorphic if for whatever subset $X^k$ of $X^n$ and whatever subset $Y^k$ of $Y^n$ the information $I(X^k;Y^k)=I(X^k)=I(Y^k)$ (or equivalently $H(X^k;Y^k)=H(X^k)=H(Y^k)$).\
Proof: $H(X^k,Y^k)=H(X^k)$ is equivalent to $X^k.H(Y^k)=0$ and thus to the fact that $Y^k$ is a deterministic function of $X^k$. Reciprocally if $H(X^k;Y^k)=H(Y^k)$, then $X^k$ is a deterministic function of $Y^k$. Hence $Y^k$ and $X^k$ are isomorphic. If it is true for whatever subset $[k]$ of $[n]$, it is true for $[n]$ $\Box$.\
This theorem includes as a special case of Bernoulli shifts, a part of the Ornstein-Kolmogorov isomorphism theorem which states:\
**Ornstein-Kolmogorov Isomorphism theorem [@Ornstein1971; @Ornstein1970]**: All Bernoulli shifts with the same entropy are isomorphic.\
Proof: let us note the two Bernoulli shifts $X^n$ and $Y^n$; since they are Bernoulli shifts they are independent processes [@Ornstein1971; @Ornstein1970]) and hence $I(X^k)=I(Y^k)=0$ for all subsets of $k\geq2$ elements of $X^n$ and $Y^n$. Moreover, the variables $X_1,...,X_n$ are by definition identically distributed, and we hence have $H(X_1)=...=H(X_n)$, which is also the case for $Y_1,...,Y_n$ and $H(Y_1)=...=H(Y_n)$. In such a case, the preceding informational isomorphism condition $H(X^k;Y^k)=H(X^k)=H(Y^k)$ is reduced to the condition $H(X_1)=H(Y_1)$, the Kolmogorov-Ornstein theorem.$\Box$\
Figure \[integer\_partition\] provides an illustration of Bernoulli shifts that are isomorphic, discovered by Mesalkin [@Ornstein1970]. **From the cognitive point of view, we propose that two informationally isomorphic processes have the same qualitative experience.** Entropy, since the work of Kolmogorov, Sinaï and Ornstein, has been one of the main invariants of ergodic theory and has driven the study of dynamical systems, as discussed at length in Katok’s review [@Katok2007]. The quantification of dynamical systems by entropy relies on attaching a number to an action of a countable group $G$ that preserves the probability measure in Borel space $X$. The Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy is Shannon entropy on this basis, and a short review of the development of the theory to deal with non-amenable groups is provided by Gaboriau [@Gaboriau2016]. The Ornstein-Kolmogorov theorem works for group action when the group is $\mathbb{Z}$, and Ornstein and Weiss could showed that it holds for any countable amenable groups including commutative groups [@Ornstein1987]. The introduction of amenable groups allows making the bridge with the constructive logic that avoids the Axiom of infinite Choice presented in section \[measure\]. Von Neumann defined amenable groups as groups with an invariant mean, which includes all finite and all solvable groups, in order to isolate the groups that are subject to the Banach-Tarski paradox [@Neumann1929]. The following theorem credited to Tarski is more explicit: $G$ is non-amenable if and only if $G$ is paradoxical. Hence in constructive mathematics, or in Solovay’s theory, all groups are amenable, and Ornstein-Kolmogorov isomorphism holds without restriction. So considering the constructive theory of cognition and consciousness, information theory provides a generic quantification of consciousness structure. These studies led Ornstein to conclude that some deterministic dynamical systems and Newtonian dynamics cannot be distinguished from probabilistic systems (and are described by the same informational invariants) [@Ornstein2004]. Concerning stability and instability quantification and entropy, these developments notably led Pesin to develop a theory for which the entropy of a measure is given exactly by the total expansion in the system, the sum of all positive Lyapunov (expansive/unstable) exponents [@Pesin1977]: $$H(X^n;P)=\sum_{i=1}^n \lambda^+_i \operatorname{dim}E_i$$ where $P$ is a Riemann measure of the Riemannian manifold $M$, and holds if and only if $P$ is a Sinai-Ruelle-Bowen (SRB) measure. Although we are conscious that the context of information cohomology is different from Pesin’s theory, conditional mutual information and its sign play an analog role of Lyapunov exponents Lyapunov exponents, whose sign indicates stability or instability, while the complex of free energy summing over information paths with positive conditional information appears analog to Pesin’s formula. The context is different, however’ instead of $n$ Lyapunov exponents for ergodic theory, in the simplest simplicial case we have $n.2^n$ conditional informations. Lyapunov exponents, correlation dimensions and entropy have been used to characterize arousal states, commonly considered as levels of consciousness, further supporting the view that “fully” conscious awake states are high-dimensional chaotic dynamics, usually called complex states. Such a dynamical system characterization and quantification of consciousness could be termed a Newtonian theory of consciousness. EEG recordings, because of their macroscopic resolution, impose an important underestimation of the dimensions and complexity of arousal states. Figure \[eeg\_entropy\] presents the results of the study of El Boustani and Destexhe into EEG recordings of various arousal states, ranging from coma to awake, their associated correlation dimensions and their $\epsilon$-entropy (related to the finite-size Lyapunov exponent). $\epsilon$-entropy is a generalization of the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy rate proposed by Gaspard and Wang, [@Gaspard1993] which is defined for a finite scale $\epsilon$ and time delay $\tau$ by $h(\epsilon,\tau)=\frac{1}{\tau} \lim_{m \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{m} H_m(\epsilon,\tau)$, where $ H_m(\epsilon,\tau)$ is the entropy estimated with a box partition of the phase space for box size given by $\epsilon$ on the attractor, reconstructed with a time delay $\tau$ and an embedding dimension $m$.
\[!h\] ![**Dimension, stability and $\epsilon$-entropy analysis of various arousal states. a,** 5 seconds of EEG recordings with the same amplitude scale (left) and their associated phase portraits during different brain states in humans. **b,** The correlation dimension is plotted as a function of the amplitude range of the EEG for different states. **c,** Scale-dependent $\epsilon$-entropy for different brain states’ EEG recordings. The plateau in slow wave sleep and pathological states indicates the existence of a low-dimensional attractor on the corresponding scales (adapted and modified with permission from Destexhe and El-Boustani [@Destexhe1992] and [@El-Boustani2010])[]{data-label="eeg_entropy"}](figure14.png "fig:"){height="10cm"}
**Homeostasis and multi-equilibrium:** The definition of homeostasis given in section \[homeostasis\] and its associated figure corresponds to the equilibrium condition of vanishing conditional mutual information, conditional independence, and, in the context of information paths and topology, to the minima of free energy, hence corresponding to the usual definition of equilibrium in an organism. Given the definition of a minimum free energy complex, all complex systems are in a homeostatic state or are the result of a homeostatic process, while adaptation and learning correspond to changes in the geometry, changes of the minima and hence of the complex. From an empirical point of view, this definition of homeostasis corresponds exactly to the concept and measures of homeostasis in biology; a process is homeostatic when the perturbation X or the removing of X (like a K.O.) changes nothing in the observed system (the information structure). The signature of such invariance to $X$ is hence a null slope in the corresponding information path segment. **Homeostasis hence corresponds to the maintenance of the shape, of the structure-function**.
Computational mind - from Cybernetic and AI to biological beliefs {#Computational mind2}
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*“Every organic body of a living being is a species of divine machine, or a natural automaton, which infinitely surpasses all artificial automata.”* Leibniz [@Leibniz1714].
### Computation, machines and consciousness
In his editorial to “Special issue: Challenges in neuroscience” [@Stern2017], Stern asked the insidious question “Why do computers presently lack consciousness, and when might they acquire it?”, which implicitly assumes the truth of the statement “computer presently lack consciousness” and avoids any discussion about the fundamental problem that has motivated some key research and developments since Turing. What has been presented here supposes, on basis of the principle of observability, that current computers have a particular form of consciousness, but also offers such a status to a coffee machine, that basically implements thermodynamic principles. The Nagel’s question quoted in the first chapter “What is it like to be a bat?”, has hence become the question “What is it like to be a coffee machine?” [@Nagel1974], which, at first glance, appears much easier to answer: probably quite boring, except maybe when they add milk. Before laughing, beware that this is not so far from the definition of a mathematician by Erdös: *“A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems”*. Indeed, the review of logic, Turing machines, artificial intelligence and machine learning made here has shown that they should be considered some of the first efficient synthetic biology results, or at least synthetic cognitive theories, with historical and scientific results supporting such a thesis. Just as Turing creating his famous test, it is only possible to judge the consciousness or intelligence of a system from its output and input, its actions in the real world - all the observables that can be measured from external point of view. Wiener, one of the fathers of cybernetics, also suppported such a conclusion from the early days of the field. The question of computer or robots rights, or those of other synthetic biology constructions, is difficult, and will be probably asked in the future. An extension and improvement of human rights as occurred during the 18th century will probably have to be considered. We think that the principle of invariance to an action, which highlights a diversity of possible equivalence relations, possibly contextual, may provide a much richer and softer fundamental relation than the rigid equality stated in human rights (which is not biologically rigorous), while still respecting the fundamental equivalence of humans’ right actions. Basically current computers and current humans, are not equal; they are in some cases equivalent but in most cases clearly different with respect to some tasks. Computers notably surpass usual human abilities in the reliability and precision of their computations, a fact that has allowed computing machines to acquire the trust of mathematicians. Mathematicians consider computing machine as deriving rigorous mathematical proofs and theorems (such as in the case of the proof assistant software coq [@Bertot2015]) despite the possible errors induced by thermal noise (which are pragmatically considered as less likely than human errors). In other words, mathematicians consider computers as their equivalent with respect to the mathematical task of producing theorems (which is their very basic purpose). This is one reason, in our very subjective opinion, to respect them as intelligent beings. With regard to AI algorithms, in 1997, Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess, and today, AIs have beat human players in a variety of different games, from Go [@Silver2017] to the card game Poker and many Atari video games with the same algorithm and set up [@Mnih2015]. Leibniz’s view, summarised by the citation at the beginning of this section, turned to be partially wrong; artificial automata now beat humans in specific tasks when the sizes of possible states or actions remain relatively small. Such games tests can be considered as restricted task-specific Turing tests which are not linguistically directed. The sets of inputs and tasks humans treat and achieve represent a significantly bigger space of possible states and actions, including motion in 3 dimensions, linguistic abilities etc., although this is difficult to quantify. The improvements of computers’ performance has been possible, notably if not mainly, thanks to the computational power increase that occurred within the few last decades and algorithm improvements, together with the decrease in the cognitive pretension of the tasks. Retrospectively, inaugurating AI in the 1950’s with a test like the Turing test was a complete underestimation and misunderstanding of the computational task and of the underlying cognitive resources, and has been the source of many failures, notably of the subsequent renaming of the fields AI, cybernetics, cognitive science, machine learning etc.. In the numerical world of the web, the CAPTCHA security system designed to prevent robots from visiting websites is nothing but a reversed Turing test. Humans are now effectively faced with new forms of intelligence and of consciousness not so far from his own, and the predicted increase of computational capacity will aim to complete the panel of human tasks that machines can effectively achieve. The main question now is whether it is possible to significantly increase computational power, notably by effectively taking advantage of the non-deterministic or quantum nature of computation, which would bring the consciousness structure and level (dimension) of our machines close to our.
### Computational hardness of consciousness {#subsection 2}
A general conclusion that comes out of information topology analysis regarding consciousness and biological structures concerns their computational hardiness with respect to the usual computational definitions based around Turing machines and boolean classical logic. Their application to data reveals that the dependences and independences sustaining consciousness and participating in the free energy functional in high dimensions exist in extremely large numbers; there is combinatorial explosion of interactions analogous to the effect that occurs in Van der Walls interactions [@Baudot2018]. Such a problem is well known in physics, which has dedicated many-body interactions to it, notably in Density Functional Theory, and Kohn in his Nobel lecture called this computational problem the exponential wall [@Kohn1999]. In the case of general classical information structures, not even considering quantum, computational complexity follows Bell’s combinatoric in $\mathcal{O}(exp(exp(N^n))$) for $n$ $N$-ary variables; for example, considering 16 variables that can take 8 values each, we have $8^{16}=2^{48} \approx 3.10^{14}$ atomic probabilities and the partition lattice exhibits around $e^{e^{2^{48}}-1}\geq2^{200} $ elements to compute, and hence requires a significantly new form of computing resources - our classical Turing machines, clusters or hypercomputers cannot face such complexity [@Baudot2018; @TapiaPacheco2017]. Considering a restricted simplicial structure, complexity falls to $2^n$, which can be explored in few hours with $n=21$ variables using a simple personal computer. Yet 21 is a small figure with respect to an Avogadro number of particles, a mole of matter, multiplied by 6 (for each position and momenta), and even with such restrictions, computing the information structure and energies would require other methods. Many studies pointed out the fascinating capacity of even “simple” biological systems to solve computationally hard tasks efficiently [@Aloupis2012][@Nakagaki2000] (see the field of research on swarm intelligence), and the present results emphasize this view of the unreasonable effectiveness of natural sciences in mathematics and computation [@Wigner1960] (a trivial observation since mathematics is produced by natural humans). Non-deterministic Turing machines, whose time complexity overcomes deterministic Turing ones, appear pertinent to computationally formalize such a biological calculus [@Blazewicz2012]. As we outlined previously the constructive probabilistic logic that goes hand in hand with information topology, it would be reasonable to ask what computational resource would be adequate to effectively compute it. Analog computing, culminating with quantum computing, appears as an obvious possibility. With a small step beyond this reflection, it appears that human should indeed be a reasonable computable resource for informational and probabilistic logic calculus, and one can reasonably ask the motivation for the idea of replacing or outperforming human cognition. Alternatively, it is also possible to consider in the future a co-evolution of human and machine cognition and consciousnesses, the pitfall being the possibility of the creation of a new slavery status version 10.4 (considering the equivalent output, equivalent freedom and equivalent rights of humans and machines in this hypothetical situation).
Conclusion - the global ecological synthesis
============================================
The most obvious conclusion of this work is that consciousness is a natural and physical phenomenon, in principle ubiquitous, revealing itself in many different forms, that our human, highly specialized consciousness can hardly understand, imagine or even conceive. As a biologist or naturalist considering observed interdependencies and interactions, the almost trivial conclusion is that respect is a necessary condition for the stable and normal development of the self. This synthesis was proposed by the ecological theory of mind and biology inaugurated by Gibson [@Gibson1979] and later formulated clearly by Atick [@Atick1992] in information and adaptive terms. On the mathematical side it is currently promoted and developed by Baez, Fritz and Leinster and all the collaborators of the azimuth project and the Complex System community represented by the CS-DC following Bourgine. These are the most useful aspects we could find about the qualitative aspects of consciousness theory; the rest is just for “the honor” (... or the beauty...) “of the human spirit”, whatever that spirit may be, following Hilbert and Dieudonné [@Dieudonne1987a; @Hilbert1924]. Information topology should be conceived as an environmentally embedded theory of cognition, a global ecology, providing a basic preliminary formalization and quantification of ecology (the modern name of Analysis Situs). The usual definition of ecology is the science that studies relations among living beings (animals, plants, micro-organisms, etc.) with their habitat and environment as well as with other living beings. Information topology formalizes an ecosystem as a complex system, i.e. a complex of free energy minima, and these methods provide rigorous means of quantification:
- statistical, collective interactions in ecosystems including synergistic interactions.
- diversity (biodiversity).
These methods include tools relevant to the issues of sustainable development:
- Risk identification: entropies quantify uncertainty.
- Resource identification: Mutual information quantifies available (free) energies.
We hope that the quantitative aspects of informations will be of help in the ecological and social fields. However, from this exposition it appears clearly that the quantification of the precise information in a real system, such as a protein, a neuron, a cell or a “network”, is far from being achieved, and that we have access to a very tiny window on what information structures really are in biological systems due to limited computational and experimental resources. Moreover, the quantification and monitoring, a la Laplace or the Human Brain Project, of all this information, of a given precise experimental model and form of cognition, is probably not that interesting or even useful, beyond the answering of certain precise, physiologically-motivated questions. Beyond the question of the mathematical and physical nature of consciousness, we believe that the interesting problematics rely on the methods and tools that are used or constructed to gain in precision upon such a positive answer, and researchers in cognitive science and neuroscience gave a large panel of refined methods to answer yes to this question. From a theoretical point of view, the challenges are based more around principles and machine learning development: the fields to explore are immense, from the fundamental to more applied computational problems. Probability theory is essentially unknown [@Gromov2018] and has to be rewritten in a broader, more empirically rooted, and modern mathematical context; a good attempt in the field of category theory is currently being worked on by Fritz and Perrone [@Fritz2018]. The empirical view tends to think that integer partitions will ultimately play a foundational role, underlining the important role of the sample size divisor “m”, as outlined here (although this was more a question than an answer). As regards information theory, the work to be achieved is just as large, firstly because probability theory and information are now fully indistinguishable, as Kolmogorov suspected they would become [@Kolmogorov1983], although they are more precisely probably interrelated by a dual Homology-cohomology relation which is yet beyond our current knowledge. Secondly, because most of the conditions that are classically imposed on information theory and statistical mechanics are unnecessary, the essence of information theory still works without ergodic, Markov, iid or asymptotic hypotheses; some of the urgent questions regarding those aspects are listed in [@Baudot2018]. It just points out that the mathematical theory of information and communication is not yet written: we only have elementary cues of what it will be. Notably, we hope that the Asymptotic Equi-Partition theorem will occur as a special case of a multivalued constructive logic. We saw that renormalization techniques still provide some of the most promising tools concerning data analysis; however, these methods are also essentially not understood. The fundamental objection of Feynman and Dirac is that neglecting infinite energy quantities is a mathematical weakness of the theory that still holds. Here again, constructive logic (bearing in mind that “all functions are continuous”, a view that was originally considered as the default, may be helpful) and information topology provide a possible backbone for such further development. Moreover, we have only tackled very indirectly here the fundamental problem of consciousness and space-time and the question of how we acquire “distinct” representations of space and time following Piaget, since the answer from the topological point of view is beyond the current methods.\
It should be clear that a precise and unified description and account of complex phenomenon such as the consciousness we experience unavoidably requires the use of the big machinery of algebraic topology and category, and even challenges it. The most basic reason for this is that it contains in its very constitutive foundation the germs of diversity, which are lost when one adds very few supplementary axioms or considers more specialized theories.
The topology of psychophysic according to Poincaré {#topology of psychophysic}
==================================================
“**The Physical Continuum [@Poincare1902].** We are next led to ask if the idea of the mathematical continuum is not simply drawn from experiment. If that be so, the rough data of experiment, which are our sensations, could be measured. We might, indeed, be tempted to believe that this is so, for in recent times there has been an attempt to measure them, and a law has even been formulated, known as **Fechner’s law**, according to which sensation is proportional to the logarithm of the stimulus. But if we examine the experiments by which the endeavour has been made to establish this law, we shall be led to a diametrically opposite conclusion. It has, for instance, been observed that a weight A of 10 grammes and a weight B of 11 grammes produced identical sensations, that the weight B could no longer be distinguished from a weight C of 12 grammes, but that the weight A was readily distinguished from the weight C. Thus the rough results of the experiments may be expressed by the following relations: $A=B,\;B=C,\;A<C$, which may be regarded as the formula of the physical continuum. But here is an intolerable disagreement with the law of contradiction, and the necessity of banishing this disagreement has compelled us to invent the mathematical continuum. We are therefore forced to conclude that this notion has been created entirely by the mind, but it is experiment that has provided the opportunity.”\
**Physical continuum of several Dimension** [@Poincare1905] “I have explained in ’Science Hypothesis’ whence we derive the notion of physical continuity and how that of mathematical continuity has arisen from it. It happens that we are capable of distinguishing two impressions one from the other, while each is indistinguishable from a third. Thus we can readily distinguish a weight of 12 grams from a weight of 10 grams, while a weight of 11 grams could neither be distinguished from the one nor the other. Such a statement, translated into symbols, may be written: $A=B,\;B=C,\;A<C$. This would be the formula of the physical continuum, as crude experience gives it to us, whence arises an intolerable contradiction that has been obviated by the introduction of the mathematical continuum. This is a scale of which the steps (commensurable or incommensurable numbers) are infinite in number, but are exterior to one another instead of encroaching on one another as do the elements of the physical continuum, in conformity with the preceding formula. The physical continuum is, so to speak, a nebula not resolved; the most perfect instruments could not attain to its resolution. Doubtless if we measured the weights with a good balance instead of judging them by the hand, we could distinguish the weight of 11 grams from those of 10 and 12 grams, and our formula would become: $A<B,\;B<C,\;A<C$. But we should always find between A and B and between B and C new elements D and E, such that $A=D,\;D=B,\;A<B,\;B=E,\;E=C,\;B<C$, and the difficulty would only have receded and the nebula would always remain unresolved; the mind alone can resolve it and the mathematical continuum it is which is the nebula resolved into stars. Yet up to this point we have not introduced the notion of the number of dimensions. What is meant when we say that a mathematical continuum or that a physical continuum has two or three dimensions? First we must introduce the notion of cut, studying first physical continua. We have seen what characterizes the physical continuum. Each of the elements of this continuum consists of a **manifold of impressions**; and it may happen either that an element can not be discriminated from another element of the same continuum, if this new element corresponds to a manifold of impressions not sufficiently different, or, on the contrary, that the discrimination is possible; finally it may happen that two elements indistinguishable from a third, may, nevertheless, be distinguished one from the other. That postulated, if A and B are two distinguishable elements of a continuum C, a series of elements may be found, $E_{1},E_{2},...,E_{n}$ all belonging to this same continuum C and such that each of them is indistinguishable from the preceding, that $E_{1}$ is indistinguishable from A and $E_{n}$ indistinguishable from B. Therefore we can go from A to B by a continuous route and without quitting C. If this condition is fulfilled for any two elements A and B of the continuum C, we may say that this continuum C is all in one piece. Now let us distinguish certain of the elements of C which may either be all distinguishable from one another, or themselves form one or several continua. The assemblage of the elements thus chosen arbitrarily among all those of C will form what I shall call the cut or the cuts. Take on C any two elements A and B. Either we can also find a series of elements $E_{1},E_{2},...,E_{n}$, such:\
(1) that they all belong to C;\
(2) that each of them is indistinguishable from the following, $E_{1}$ is indistinguishable from A and $E_{n}$ indistinguishable from B;\
(3) and beside that none of the elements E is indistinguishable from any element of the cut. Or else, on the contrary, in each of the series, $E_{1},E_{2},...,E_{n}$ satisfying the first two conditions, there will be an element $E$ indistinguishable from one of the elements of the cut.\
In the first case we can go from A to B by a continuous route without quitting C and without meeting the cuts; in the second case that is impossible. If then for any two elements A and B of the continuum C, it is always the first case which presents itself, we shall say that C remains all in one piece despite the cuts. Thus, if we choose the cuts in a certain way, otherwise arbitrary, it may happen either that the continuum remains all in one piece or that it does not remain all in one piece; in this latter hypothesis we shall then say that it is divided by the cuts. It will be noticed that all these definitions are constructed in setting out solely from this very simple fact, that two manifolds of impressions sometimes can be discriminated, sometimes can not be. That postulated if to divide a continuum, it suffices to consider as cuts a certain number of elements all distinguishable from one another, we say that this continuum is of one dimension; if, on the contrary, to divide a continuum, it is necessary to consider as cuts a system of elements themselves forming one or several continua, we shall say that this continuum is of several dimension. If to divide a continuum C, cuts forming one or several continua of one dimension suffice, we shall say that C is a continuum of two dimension; if cuts suffice which form one or several continua of two dimensions at most, we shall say that C is a continuum of three dimensions; and so on. To justify this definition it is proper to see whether it is in this way that geometers introduce the notion of three dimensions at the beginning of their works. Now, what do we see? Usually they begin by defining surfaces as the boundaries of solids or pieces of space, lines as the boundaries of surfaces, points as the boundaries of lines, and they affirm that the same procedure can not be pushed further. This is just the idea given above: to divide space, cuts that are called surfaces are necessary; to divide surfaces, cuts that are called lines are necessary; to divide lines, cuts that are called points are necessary; we can go no further, the point can not be divided, so the point is not a continuum. Then lines which can be divided by cuts which are not continua will be continua of one dimension; surfaces which can be divided by continuous cuts of one dimension will be continua of two dimensions; finally space which can be divided by continuous cuts of two dimensions will be a continuum of three dimensions.”...\
“The formula $A>C,\;A=B,\;B=C$, which summed up the data of crude experience, implied an intolerable contradiction. To get free from it it was necessary to introduce a new notion while still respecting the essential characteristics of the physical continuum of several dimensions. The mathematical continuum of one dimension admitted of a scale whose divisions, infinite in number, corresponded to the different values, commensurable or not, of one same magnitude. To have the mathematical continuum of n dimensions, it will suffice to take n like scales whose divisions correspond to different values of n independent magnitudes called coordinates. We thus shall have an image of the physical continuum of n dimensions, and this image will be as faithful as it can be after the determination not to allow the contradiction of which I spoke above.”
The objective poetry {#The objective poetry}
====================
“Who’s there?”, What is life?... Those questions pertain to anybody, as do their answers. Academic science provides many trails of an answer to those questions, but art, and notably poets, have worked out nice answers. What was presented here was a vulgar and laborious version of what Rimbaud called the “objective poetry”, a quest of “a universal language”, a universal living algebra. *“Algebra is nothing but a written geometry; geometry is nothing but a depicted algebra”* (Sophie Germain). It is this common essence of geometry and algebra that topology aims to catch. As originally defined by Leibniz with analysis situ or qualitative geometry, topology also aims to put in correspondence two dual worlds, quantities-numbers and qualitative-forms, which is indeed the original idea of Harmonia in mathematics and science developed by Pythagorean school. Scientific research is also a quest, a spiritual and aesthetic quest, as expressed by Schoeller and colleagues [@Schoeller2018]. In this sense, **Mathematics is pure Poetry**, and science an objective poetry, the intimate language of nature and of our sensations. Indeed, the essence of the ideas proposed here was stated much more nicely by de Nerval:
*“ Well then - all things feel! ”* Pythagoras\
*Golden Verses\
Man ! Free thinker - do you believe that you alone can think\
In this world, where life bursts forth in everything :\
Forces you hold your freedom dispose,\
But from all your advices the universe is absent.\
Respect in the beast an acting spirit : ...\
Each flower is a soul of the bloomed Nature ;\
A mystery of love in the metal repose :\
“All things feel !” - And everything on your being is powerfull !\
Fears in the blind wall a glance watching you\
Even to the matter a verb is attached ...\
Do not make it serve to some impuous use !\
Often in the obscure being lives a hidden god ;\
And like a nascent eye covered by its lids,\
A pure spirit grows under the bark of stones !*\
Gerard de Nerval, 1853.
Supplementary material {#supplementary-material .unnumbered}
======================
The software Infotopo that computes all basic information functions and the Information Topological Analysis is available at https://github.com/pierrebaudot/INFOTOPO \[supplementary material\]
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work was funded by the European Research Council (ERC consolidator grant 616827 *CanaloHmics*), developed at UNIS Inserm 1072 - Université Aix-Marseille , and thanks previously to supports and hostings since 2007 of Max Planck Institute for Mathematic in the Sciences (MPI-MIS) and Complex System Instititute Paris-Ile-de-France (ISC-PIF) and Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu - Paris Rive Gauche (IMJ-PRG). This work is dedicated to Daniel Bennequin and addresses a deep and warm acknowledgement to the researchers who participated to its development: i) for the electrophysiological and psychophysical part: Frédéric Chavane, Yves Frégnac, Sebastien Georges, Manuel Levy, Jean Lorenceau, Olivier Marre, Cyril Monier, Marc Pananceau, Peggy Series, ii) for the gene expression and homeostasis part: Jean-Marc Goaillard, Monica Tapia iii) for the topological part: Daniel Bennequin, Juan-Pablo Vigneaux iii) for their encouragement, support and help: Henri Atlan, Frédéric Barbaresco, Habib Bénali, Paul Bourgine, Andrea Brovelli, Jürgen Jost, Guillaume Marrelec, Ali Mohammad-Djafari, Jean-Pierre Nadal, Jean Petitot, Alessandro Sarti, Jonathan Touboul.\
The author declare no competing financial interests.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we review and comment on “A novel protocol-authentication algorithm ruling out a man-in-the-middle attack in quantum cryptography”, \[M. Peev [*et al*]{}., [*Int. J. Quant. Inform.*]{}, [**3**]{}, 225, (2005)\]. In particular, we point out that the proposed primitive is not secure when used in a generic protocol, and needs additional authenticating properties of the surrounding quantum-cryptographic protocol .'
address: |
Department of Mathematics, Linköping University\
581 83 Linköping, Sweden\
E-mail: [email protected] and [email protected]
author:
- 'AYSAJAN ABIDIN and JAN-ÅKE LARSSON'
title: |
VULNERABILITY OF “A NOVEL PROTOCOL-AUTHENTICATION ALGORITHM\
RULING OUT A MAN-IN-THE-MIDDLE ATTACK\
IN QUANTUM CRYPTOGRAPHY”
---
\#1[[\#1:]{}]{}
Introduction
============
Quantum Cryptography, or more accurately Quantum Key Distribution (QKD), is an unconditionally secure key growing technique based on the principles of quantum mechanics. It is unconditionally secure because no quantum state can be copied or measured without disturbing it. However, the practical implementation of QKD protocols requires an immutable public channel. In case the public channel is not immutable, the eavesdropper (Eve) can easily mount a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack, since Eve is in control of both the quantum and the public channels. For the attack to be successful Eve needs, among other things, to substitute the classical message from one legitimate user (Alice) to the other (Bob) without being noticed. To prohibit such an attack on QKD, proper message authentication is needed. Therefore, QKD is secure only if it is combined with an unconditionally secure message authentication scheme. In this paper we will review a recently proposed authentication primitive[@1] and point out that it is not secure when used in a generic QKD system. It has earlier been shown[@BMQS] that an attack is possible against the “privacy amplification” step in a QKD protocol using the proposed authentication, but the attack presented here is more serious and enables a full MITM attack on the whole system, unless some additional part of the protocol has authenticating properties.
The proposed authentication primitive
=====================================
In Ref. , the authors propose an authentication primitive which aims at decreasing the key consumption for the authentication purposes in QKD, and in turn to improve the efficiency of the key growth in QKD. The algorithm works as follows. Let ${\mathcal{M}}$ be the set of all binary strings of length $m$ (or the set of all messages of length $m$), and let ${\mathcal{T}}$ be the set of all binary strings of length $n$ with $n<m$ (or the set of all tags of length $n$). A message $m_\text
A$ is first mapped from ${\mathcal{M}}$ to ${\mathcal{Z}}$, where ${\mathcal{Z}}$ is the set of all binary strings of length $r$ with $n<r<m$, by a single publicly known hash function $f$ so that $z_\text A = f(m_\text A)$. And then, $z_\text A$ is mapped by a secret $h_k\in{\mathcal{H}}_{{\mathcal{Z}}}$ to a tag $t_\text
A=h_k(z_\text A)$, where ${\mathcal{H}}_{{\mathcal{Z}}} : {\mathcal{Z}}\mapsto {\mathcal{T}}$ is a Strongly Universal$_2$ (SU$_2$) family of hash functions[@WC] and the subscript $k$ is the secret key needed to identify a hash function. The message-tag pair $m_\text A+t_\text A$ will be sent over the public channel. To authenticate the message $m_\text A\in{\mathcal{M}}$, the legitimate receiver computes $h_k(f(m_\text A))$ and compares it to $t_\text A$. If they are identical then the message will be accepted as authentic, otherwise it will be rejected. Since $r$ is fixed independently of $m$, the key length required for authentication is constant regardless of the message length to be authenticated.
This authentication algorithm is claimed[@1] to be secure with a probability ${\epsilon}$ of Eve being able to create the correct tag for her fake message. In Ref. , this is calculated as[^1] $$\label{eq:1}
{\epsilon}= {\epsilon}_1+{\epsilon}_2$$ where ${\epsilon}_2 = 1/|{\mathcal{T}}|$ which is the probability of guessing the correct tag when a SU$_2$ hash function family is used and ${\epsilon}_1$ is the probability that the message $m_\text A$ and Eve’s modified message $m_\text E(\neq m_\text A)$ yield the same value under the publicly known hash function $f$.
The problem
===========
This authentication primitive is such that whenever Eve’s message $m_\text E$ happens to coincide with Alice’s message $m_\text A$ under the publicly known hash function $f$, i.e. $f(m_\text E)=f(m_\text
A)$, Eve can just send $m_\text E + t_\text A$ since $t_\text E =
t_\text A$. The problem here is that in Ref. security is derived under the explicit assumption that Eve has a fixed message. The result holds, but in generic QKD Eve is *not* restricted to one message $m_\text E$.
In a full MITM attack on a QKD protocol, Eve impersonates Bob to Alice and Alice to Bob during the quantum transmission process and the subsequent public discussions. We use BB84[@BB84] with simple reconciliation and privacy amplification; and *immediate authentication* of each phase as our first example. This would consist of, in order, raw key generation; sifting and immediate authentication; one-way error correction and immediate authentication; one-way privacy amplification and authentication (see, e.g., Ref. Chapter 12). Eve receives and measures the qubits that Alice has sent to Bob, in her choice of basis. We note here that although QKD requires that Bob randomly selects the basis to measure the qubits in, Eve can ignore this requirement. At the same time she chooses a set of qubits in, again, not necessarily random states and sends these to Bob. After Bob receives and measures the qubits sent by Eve in a randomly selected basis, he sends an authenticated time stamp to Alice to end the quantum transmission phase. Now Alice sends her message $m_\text A$, which contains the settings used for encoding/decoding on the quantum channel, along with the authentication tag $t_\text A$ to Bob. Eve intercepts the message-tag pair and calculates $f(m_\text A)$ and compares it with $f(m_\text
E)$. In the rare event that they are equal, Eve can just send $m_\text
E+ t_\text A$ to Bob. Otherwise, she can change her message $m_\text
E$ which contains the settings. Changing one of the settings, i.e., changing one bit of the message, will at most introduce one noisy bit in the sifted key. Even a few noisy bits will not make a noticeable effect in practical QKD systems because of the error correction used in the reconciliation step.
In this situation, if $f(m_\text E)\neq f(m_\text A)$, Eve can search for a message $m_\text E'$ with $d_\text{Hamming}(m_\text E, m_\text
E') = 1$ (or “small”) such that $f(m_\text E') = f(m_\text A)$. In other words, she tries to find a collision between $m_\text A$ and $m_\text E'$ under $f$ such that $m_\text E'$ is close to $m_\text E$, and it is well known that such collisions may exist for many hash functions and in fact do exist for well-known examples[@2; @3]. Eve can now send the message-tag pair $m_\text E'+t_\text A$ knowing that Bob will accept the message $m_\text E'$ as authentic.
Searching for a collision requires Eve to have sufficient computing power, but usually in QKD no bounds are assumed on Eve’s computing power. One should also note that the computing power needed may be lower than one would first expect[@2; @3]. However, even without sufficient computing power, Eve can make a list of different values of $m_\text E'$ and the corresponding value of $z_\text E' = f(m_\text
E')\in{\mathcal{Z}}$ in advance, and save it in her device. Remember that the usual requirement of having random settings (making the message $m_\text E$ random) does not apply to Eve; the requirement is needed to ensure that the final key is secret, something that Eve can ignore. With a pre-chosen $m_\text E$, a list of pairs $(m_\text E',z_\text
E')$ and her received $m_\text A+t_\text A$, Eve can just compute $z_\text A = f(m_\text A)$ and pick $m_\text E'$ from her list corresponding to $z_\text A$, and then send $m_\text E' + t_\text A$. She can even make a partial list, and simply wait for the first match to occur. In fact, the parameter $\epsilon_1$, now interpreted as the probability that some item in Eve’s list collides with $m_\text A$, depends linearly on the size of this list. If she is able to make a full list (one message $m_\text E'$ for each possible $z_\text A$), or has sufficient computing power, she is certain of success in the sifting phase every time she performs the MITM attack.
Eve now has two sets of sifted keys, one shared with Alice and the other with Bob. The remaining steps are one-way error correction and authentication; and one-way privacy amplification and authentication. These are completed by sending random parity maps over the classical channel, and in case of error correction also the parity values [@BBBSS; @BS; @BBR; @BBCM]. In the case of error correction, Eve intercepts the authenticated error-correction information (random maps and the output values) sent by Alice to Bob, and error-corrects the sifted key that she shares with Alice. She then searches for *non-random* maps (and corresponding output) of the sifted key shared with Bob, that makes her message collide with Alice’s under $f$. Note that Eve at this point may change any bit of the sifted key at the price of introducing an extra bit error in the sifted key. This will enable a collision even if all the possible maps do not. She sends the resulting message to Bob along with Alice’s tag, which will then be accepted by Bob. Bob responds by an authenticated message that signals which subsets matched and which subsets were successfully error-corrected, and also indicates the error rate of the sifted key; in this simple scheme this is used as error estimate. Eve modifies her corresponding but still waiting response to Alice so that it will collide with Bob’s message under $f$. This may introduce some noise into the error-corrected key shared between Alice and Eve, but this goes unnoticed by Alice unless an extra detection phase is present (see below).
The privacy amplification is performed by Alice choosing a random map, and sending that over the classical channel, whereafter Alice and Bob apply this map to their respective reconciled keys. Here, Eve intercepts the description of the map and the tag, and privacy amplifies the reconciled key (shared with Alice) using the received map. She then searches for a new *non-random* map to use for privacy amplification with Bob that makes the message coincide with Alice’s under $f$. If Eve arranges for the reconciled key shared with Alice to be of equal length to that shared with Bob, she can even reuse the map that Alice sent. Then, Eve sends the chosen map along with Alice’s tag to Bob, who will accept them and privacy amplify his error-corrected key accordingly.
Countermeasures
===============
The situation is improved if postponed authentication is used, or for example, when using iterative reconciliation methods. More precisely, if the messages are sent in each phase as usual (sifting, error correction and privacy amplification, etc.) but not authenticated until the end of the round, then Eve’s freedom to change her message is restricted to the message part in the last phase. And this severely restricts Eve’s possibilities, even though an attack is still possible as is shown in Ref. .
Another more effective improvement is to use secret key in an additional phase of the protocol. There is no explicit mention of using more secret key for this purpose in Ref. but it is implicit; it is present in their reference 5 (here Ref.). The procedure basically uses already shared secret key to choose a hash function to detect errors in the reconciled key. Another suggestion is to one-time pad the reconciliation procedure[@Lutken]. Both of these suggestions are intended to keep the information leaked in error correction at a minimum, but they also implicitly add an authentication property of that phase. Using a modification like this will probably improve the situation but the needed formal proof is beyond the scope of this paper. It is perhaps important to note that this puts stronger requirements on the extra cryptographic primitives used since they are used as authentication in addition to limiting the information leakage. But, since the mentioned modifications both use cryptographically secure primitives, it is to be expected that they are resilient to extra demands of this type.
Conclusion
==========
This brief review of a proposed authentication algorithm intended to rule out a man-in-the-middle attack in QKD shows that the proposed method is insecure when used in a generic QKD protocol. The main problem is that Eve is not limited to a fixed (random) message, but can in fact choose what message to send, and can check if her chosen message gives the same tag as Alice’s message, since the first-step hash function $f$ is publicly known.
Using extra shared secret key for an extra authentication in one of the phases probably improves the situation, but it should be stressed that, unlike Wegman-Carter authentication, the security of the proposed authentication procedure is highly dependent of the context in which the authentication is applied.
Therefore, in general, great care should be taken when authentication primitives used in the context of QKD are not information-theoretically secure.
[99]{}
M. Peev [*et al*]{}., A novel protocol-authentication algorithm ruling out a man-in-the-middle attack in quantum cryptography, [*Int. J. Quant. Inform.*]{} [**3**]{}, 225, (2005), quant-ph/0407131.
T. Beth, J. Müller-Quade, and R. Steinwandt, Cryptanalysis of a practical quantum key distribution with polarization-entangled photons, *Quantum Information and Computation* **5**:181-186 (2005), quant-ph/0407130.
M.N. Wegman and J.L. Carter, New Hash Functions and Their Use in Authentication and Set Equality, *J. Comput. Syst. Sci.*, vol. 22, pp. 265-279, (1981).
C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptography: Public key distribution and coin tossing, *Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Comput. Syst. Signal Process.*, pp. 175-179., Bangalore, India (1984).
M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, *Cambridge University Press*, (2000).
X. Wang, Y. L. Yin and H. Yu, Finding Collisions in Full SHA$-1$, in [*Advances in Cryptology- CRYPTO 2005,*]{} 25th Annual International Cryptology Conference, Santa Barbara, California, USA, Proceedings, Vol. 3621 of LNCS, (Springer, 2005), pp. 17-36.
C. D. Cannière and C. Rechberger, Finding SHA$-1$ Characteristics: General Results and Applications, [*Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci.*]{}, Vol. 4284, (Springer, 2006), pp. 1-20.
C. H. Bennett, F. Bessette, G. Brassard, L. Salvail, and J. Smolin, Experimental quantum cryptography *J. Cryptol.*, Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 3-28, (1992).
G. Brassard and L. Salvail, Secret-key reconciliation by public discussion, Advances in Cryptology-Eurocrypt ’93, edited by T. Helleseth, *Lecture Notes in Computer Science* Vol. 765 pp. 410-423., (Springer, Berlin, 1994).
C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard and J. M. Robert, Privacy amplification by public discussion, *SIAM J. Comput.*, Vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 210-229., (1988).
C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, and U. M. Mauer, Generalized privacy amplification, *IEEE Trans. on Inf. Theory*, Vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1915-1923., (1995).
G. Gilbert and M. Hamrick, Practical Quantum Cryptography: a Comprehensive Analysis, quant-ph/0009027.
N. Lütkenhaus, Estimates for practical quantum cryptography, *Phys. Rev. A* Vol. 59, (1999), pp. 3301-3319.
[^1]: Actually, ${\epsilon}\le {\epsilon}_1 + {\epsilon}_2$; eqn. (\[eq:1\]) is an upper bound rather than an equality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'M. Muenks$^{1}$, P. Jacobson$^{1}$, M. Ternes$^{1,} \footnote{Corresponding Author: [email protected]}$ & K. Kern$^{1,2}$'
title: Correlation Driven Transport Asymmetries Through Coupled Spins
---
Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, Heisenbergstrasse 1, 70569 Stuttgart, Germany.
Institut de Physique, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland.
**Correlation is a fundamental statistical measure of order in interacting quantum systems. In solids, electron correlations govern a diverse array of material classes and phenomena such as heavy fermion compounds, Hund’s metals, high-$T_\text{c}$ superconductors, and the Kondo effect [@hewson_kondo_1993; @sachdev_quantum_2000; @lee_doping_2006; @weber_strength_2010; @georges_strong_2013]. Spin-spin correlations, notably investigated by Kaufman and Onsager in the 1940’s [@kaufman_crystal_1949], are at the foundation of numerous theoretical models but are challenging to measure experimentally. Reciprocal space methods can map correlations [@schmidt_electronic_2011], but at the single atom limit new experimental probes are needed. Here, we determine the correlations between a strongly hybridized spin impurity and its electron bath by varying the coupling to a second magnetic impurity in the junction of a scanning tunneling microscope. Electronic transport through these coupled spins reveals an asymmetry in the differential conductance reminiscent of spin-polarized transport in a magnetic field [@loth_spin-polarized_2010]. We show that at zero field, this asymmetry can be controlled by the coupling strength and is directly related to either ferromagnetic (FM) or antiferromagnetic (AFM) spin-spin correlations.**
Using the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) as a manipulation tool, it is possible to construct atomically precise magnetic nanostructures and explore the exchange interaction between neighboring spins on surfaces [@hirjibehedin_spin_2006; @Khajetoorians16; @esat_chemically_2016]. For example, the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida interaction, an oscillatory exchange mechanism, has been observed for spins on magnetically susceptible platinum surfaces and Neel states have been engineered in antiferromagnetically coupled arrays [@zhou_strength_2010; @loth_bistability_2012]. Similarly, the global consequences of correlation, such as the superconducting gap or zero bias anomalies due to the Kondo effect, have been found and explored in STM experiments [@fischer_scanning_2007; @ternes_spectroscopic_2009]. Competing energy scales, a telltale sign of strongly correlated systems, have recently come under investigation in the two-impurity Kondo problem and the coupling of magnetic molecules to superconducting hosts [@bork_tunable_2011; @spinelli_exploring_2015; @franke_competition_2011]. Even with these successes, direct measurements of correlation in nanomagnetic systems have proven elusive [@burtzlaff_shot_2015]. To directly determine spin-spin correlations, transport experiments through coupled spins, much in the same manner as coupled mesoscopic quantum dots [@georges_electronic_1999; @van_der_wiel_electron_2002; @meden_correlation-induced_2006], can be performed with the STM.
Here, we use local spectroscopy to study electronic transport through such a coupled spin system. Each metallic lead, tip and sample, harbors an atomic spin system enabling the coupling between the two spins to be smoothly controlled by varying the tip-sample separation. Our coupled spin system is intrinsically asymmetric; the spin bound to the tip is strongly hybridized with Pt while the spin at the surface is decoupled from the underlying Rh metal by an insulating *h*-BN monolayer. The transport characteristics of this junction reveal a distinctive asymmetry in the differential conductance ($dI/dV$), which is a direct result of spin correlations in the tip. By taking these correlations into account, we can fully describe and model the observed asymmetries within an electronic transport model. We find correlations up to 60% between the localized spin state on the tip and the itinerant electrons of the metal host.
Figure 1 sketches our experiment, in which we probe a CoH complex on the *h*-BN/Rh(111) surface [@jacobson_quantum_2015]. Using vertical atom manipulation [@loth_controlling_2010], we functionalize our initially bare tip apex with a Co atom (Fig. 1b, see methods) and subsequently probe a second CoH complex (Fig. 1c). For the Co-functionalized tip apex, we observe significant changes in the $dI/dV$ spectra when we vary the conductance setpoint, $G_s$ (Fig. 1d). Note that magnetic adatoms on Pt surfaces are subject to strong hybridization with the substrate, making it difficult to determine the spin state using local spectroscopy [@gambardella_giant_2003; @mazurenko_renormalized_2010; @wiebe_atomic_2011; @schweflinghaus_observing_2016]. Therefore, we describe the Co-functionalized tip as a half-integer spin system that is strongly interacting with the Pt substrate electrons.
For a detailed look at the change of the the $dI/dV$ spectra, we incrementally increase $G_s$. Figure 2a shows the result for the non-functionalized, that is, a bare Pt tip. The spectra are characteristic for a $S = 1$ spin system with magnetic anisotropy and no level degeneracy, as shown in our earlier work [@jacobson_quantum_2015]. We observe step-like increases in the $dI/dV$ signal due to current induced transitions from the ground state to the two excited states (Fig. 2b), the energetic position of these transitions does not change when $G_s$ is increased by more than an order of magnitude. However, by employing Co-functionalized tips and increasing $G_s$ over a similar range to the bare tip, the step positions shift to higher energies and a conductance asymmetry appears at the energetically higher (“outer”) step. Two prototypical sets of spectra measured on different CoH complexes and with different Co-functionalized tips are shown in Fig. 2c-d. Apart from slightly different excitation energies due to the *h*-BN corrugation that influences the magnetic anisotropy [@herden_lateral_2014; @jacobson_quantum_2015], these two sets vary in their $dI/dV$ asymmetry at high $G_s$. The data in Fig. 2c show higher $dI/dV$ at positive bias, while the spectra in Fig. 2d show the opposite trend with an enhanced $dI/dV$ at negative bias.
To quantify these changes, we determine the step energies and the $dI/dV$ asymmetry, $\eta$, of the outer step for different $G_s$ (Fig. 3a-f). The asymmetry, $\eta = (h_n - h_p) / (h_n + h_p)$, is defined by the intensity of the outer steps at negative, $h_n$, and positive voltages, $h_p$[@loth_spin-polarized_2010; @von_bergmann_spin_2015]. Spectra obtained with Co-functionalized tips at high $G_s$ show an evolution of the step energies reminiscent of those produced by Zeeman splitting in an external magnetic field oriented along the surface normal [@jacobson_quantum_2015]. Likewise, the asymmetry resembles spectra obtained with a spin polarized tip in an external magnetic field [@loth_spin-polarized_2010; @von_bergmann_spin_2015]. However, the changes observed here occur in the absence of an external magnetic field and as $G_s$ is increased.
To model these results we employ a spin Hamiltonian that includes axial, $D$, and transverse magnetic anisotropy, $E$, for the $S = 1$ sample spin. Similar to earlier experiments [@jacobson_quantum_2015], we find easy-axis anisotropy, $D<0$, which favors states with high magnetic moments, $m_z=\ket{\pm1}$. The non-negligible $E$ term leads to non-magnetic superpositions [@delgado_emergence_2015]: an antisymmetric ground state, $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\ket{-1}-\ket{+1}\right)$, and a symmetric first excited state, $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\ket{-1}+\ket{+1}\right)$ (Fig. 2b). To further account for the functionalized tip, we add a term that explicitly describes the direct exchange coupling between the spin on the sample, $S_1$, and the tip, $S_2$: $$\mathcal{H}_0 = D \hat{S}_{1,z}^2 + E (\hat{S}_{1,x}^2 - \hat{S}_{1,y}^2) +
\vec{J}_{12} \bm{\hat{S}}_1 \cdot \bm{\hat{S}}_2 + \sum_{i=1}^2 g_i
\mu_{\text{B}} B_z \cdot \hat{S}_{i,z},$$ where $\bm{\hat{S}}_i=(\hat{S}_{i,x},\hat{S}_{i,y},\hat{S}_{i,z})$ are the corresponding spin operators of the $i$-th spin and $\vec{J}_{12}$ is the coupling between the two spin systems. The effect of an external magnetic field, $B_z$, is accounted for by Zeeman terms that include the gyromagnetic factor for each spin, $g_i$, and the Bohr magnetron, $\mu_{\text{B}}$.
We approximate the Co-functionalized tip as $S_2 = 1/2$ and diagonalize $\mathcal{H}_0$ yielding six eigenstates, $\ket{\psi_k}$, which are energetically twofold degenerated at $B_z = 0$ T. Surprisingly, this simple model enables us to fit the evolution of the step energies when we assume that the coupling between the two spins is either Heisenberg-like, $\vec{J}_{12} = ( J_{12},
J_{12} , J_{12}$), (Fig. 3b) or Ising-like, $\vec{J}_{12} = ( 0,
0, J_{12}$), (Fig. 3c) [^1]. We find that the direct exchange coupling, $J_{12}$, is proportional to the conductance, $G_s$, and both are an exponential function of the distance between the two spins, therefore excluding the magnetic dipolar interaction. We describe this orbital overlap with an AFM coupling, $J_{12} > 0$. The principle evolution of these six eigenstates with $J_{12}$ is shown in Fig. 3g. We observe that an increase of $J_{12}$ not only leads to higher energies of the excited states but also to a clear separation in states with different total magnetic moment, $m_z^t=\langle \hat{S}_{1,z} \rangle +\langle \hat{S}_{2,z} \rangle $, similar to spintronic magnetic anisotropy [@misiorny_spintronic_2013]. Additionally, the coupling results in a concomitant polarization, $\langle
\hat{S}_{1,z} \rangle$, of the $S = 1$ subsystem, counteracting the $m_{1,z}=\ket{-1}$ and $\ket{+1}$ superposition of the four energetically lowest states. Here, an exchange coupling of $J_{12} = 2$ meV is sufficient to polarize the ground and first excited state doublets with weights greater than 0.85 (Fig. 3h).
We now continue to describe the electrical transport though the junction by employing a Kondo-like interaction, $\bm{\hat{\sigma}} \cdot
\bm{\hat{S}}$, between the tunneling electrons and the coupled spin system, with $\bm{\hat{\sigma}} = (\hat{\sigma}_x,
\hat{\sigma}_y, \hat{\sigma}_z) $ as the standard Pauli matrices and $\bm{\hat{S}}=\bm{\hat{S}}_1 \otimes \bm{\hat{S}}_2$ as the combined spin operator of the two spins. To understand the appearance of the bias asymmetry at the outer step of the spectra we focus on the transition from the ground state which has its main weight in $\ket{m_1,m_2}=\ket{1,\downarrow}$ to the excited state, $\ket{0,\downarrow}$, (solid black arrow in Fig. 3h). During this transition, the spin at the tip stays in the $\ket{\downarrow}$ state while the spin on the sample undergoes a change of $\Delta m_z = -1$ from $\ket{1}$ to $\ket{0}$. This angular momentum has to be provided by the tunneling electron so that the process only occurs if the electron changes from $\ket{\downarrow}$ to $\ket{\uparrow}$. As Pt is polarized by magnetic impurities such as Co[@gambardella_giant_2003; @wiebe_atomic_2011; @mazurenko_renormalized_2010], we expect the functionalized tip to have an imbalance between spin up and spin down electrons. Assuming an AFM correlation between the state of the tip’s spin system and the electrons in the tip, leads to a $\ket{\uparrow}$ polarization, while the weak coupling[@jacobson_quantum_2015] of the sample spin to the host metal does not lead to any significant polarization (Fig. 3i). Therefore, for the highlighted transition, the conductance will be enhanced at negative bias and suppressed at positive bias, in agreement with the data presented in Fig. 2b.
We implement these correlations into our transport model by describing the electron bath in the Pt tip by a density matrix, $\hat{\varrho}_2$, which is directly correlated to the spin state of the attached Co atom: $$\hat{\varrho}_2 =
\begin{pmatrix}
0.5 & 0 \\
0 & 0.5
\end{pmatrix}
+ C
\sum_{i=x,y,z}
\langle \hat{S}_{i,2} \rangle
\cdot \hat{\sigma}_i.$$ The correlation strength, $C$, has been fitted to the evolution of $\eta$ with excellent agreement (Fig. 3d-f). We find an AFM correlation, $C = -0.50 \pm 0.05$, for the dataset with positive asymmetry and a FM correlation, $C = 0.35 \pm 0.04$, for the set with negative asymmetry. To further highlight the validity and quality of our model, we simulate $dI/dV$ spectra by accounting scattering up to third order in the matrix elements (see methods) by considering additional exchange processes between the localized spin on the sample and substrate electrons (Fig. 2e, f) [@ternes_spin_2015].
To further clarify the coupling, $J_{12}$, between the spin 1 and spin 1/2, we measure a similar system as in Fig. 1c, subject to an external magnetic field, $B_z$ = 5 T (Fig. 4a, b). For weak coupling (small $G_s$) the spectra show the expected Zeeman-shift of the transition energies and a step asymmetry $\eta$ due to field-induced spin-polarization in the tip [@loth_spin-polarized_2010]. With increasing coupling, these two effects are counteracted by the previously described state polarization and correlation effects. At strong coupling, this results in a spectrum that is similar to a bare $S = 1$ spectrum obtained at zero field. In particular we observe that $\eta$ approaches zero, only consistent with AFM coupling, $J_{12} > 0$, between the two spins. FM coupling, $J_{12} < 0$, does not fit the data as it would further increase the asymmetry with $G_s$ (see Fig. 4c). This measurement, together with the proportionality of $J_{12}$ with $G_s$, allows us to fix the sign of the direct exchange, $J_{12} > 0$, and distinguish between FM and AFM correlations, $C \in [-1,1]$, within the tip electron bath.
In conclusion, we have shown that the correlation between an atomic spin and an electron bath can be determined by coupling it to a second atomic spin in a tunnel junction. AFM direct exchange coupling was consistently found between the spins, but the correlation of the strongly hybridized spin with the electron bath showed either FM or AFM behavior. Here we note, that different Co adatom binding sites on the Pt tip can lead to a different coupling mechanism with the substrate, especially on a Pt microfacet of unknown structure [@yayon_bimodal_2006; @schweflinghaus_observing_2016]. Additionally, we cannot exclude coupling to other Co atoms in proximity to the apex atom which could also influence the effective correlation to the tip’s electron bath [@zhou_strength_2010; @loth_controlling_2010]. Unexpectedly, our measurements show that the FM or AFM correlation with the electron bath is related to the direct exchange coupling which shows either Ising (classical) or Heisenberg (quantum) character. These correlations introduce a measurable transport asymmetry wholly unrelated to static spin polarization and external magnetic fields and might be used as a method to probe correlated electron materials in an inverted tip-sample geometry.
Methods {#methods .unnumbered}
=======
Sample Preparation.
-------------------
The Rh(111) surface was prepared with multiple Ar$^+$ sputtering cycles and annealing up to a temperature of 1100 K. During the final annealing cycle the temperature was stabilized at 1080 K and the surface was exposed to borazine $(\text{B}_3\text{H}_6\text{N}_3)$ at $1.2 \times 10^6$ mbar for two minutes leading to a self-assembled *h*-BN monolayer. Co atoms were then evaporated onto the sample surface at a temperature of $\approx 20$ K from a Co rod heated by an electron beam. The CoH complexes form during the evaporation from residual hydrogen in the vacuum system.
Spectroscopy.
-------------
Spectroscopy ($dI/dV$) was measured using an external lock-in amplifier and modulating the bias voltage with a sinusoidal of 0.2 mV amplitude and a frequency of 689 Hz. The conductance setpoint of the tunnel junction ($G_s = I_s / V_s$) is defined by the applied bias voltage to the sample, $V_s$, and the setpoint current, $I_s$. This conductance setpoint defines the distance between tip and sample and also the coupling strength $J_{12}$. We disable the $I_s$ feedback loop in order to take the $dI/dV$ spectrum at a constant distance between tip and sample. For measurements in magnetic field, an external field of 5 T was applied along the surface normal. All experiments were performed in ultrahigh vacuum ($\approx 10^{-10}$ mbar) and a base temperature of 1.4 K.
Tip Functionalization.
----------------------
Bare Pt tips from 25 $\mu$m wire have been functionalized by positioning the tip above a CoH complex at a setpoint of $I_s=20$ pA and $V_s=-15$ mV. From this setpoint, we decrease the tip-sample separation until a jump in the current is observed. The surface area is then scanned to confirm vertical atom manipulation. We assume that the hydrogen detaches from the CoH during this manipulation. Successful preparation of Co-functionalized tips results in a sharper topographic contrast [@loth_spin-polarized_2010].
Simulations.
------------
To simulate the $dI/dV$ spectra we use a perturbative scattering model in which spin-flip processes up to the 2nd order Born approximation are accounted for and which has been previously successfully used on different quantum spin systems [@jacobson_quantum_2015; @spinelli_exploring_2015; @ternes_spin_2015; @Khajetoorians16]. In this model the transition probability, $W_{i\rightarrow f}$, for an electron to tunnel between tip and sample or vice versa and simultaneously changing the quantum state of the dimer system between the initial ($i$) and final ($f$) state is given by: $$W_{i\rightarrow f}\propto\left(
|M_{i\rightarrow
f}|^2+J_{1}\rho_1\sum_{m} \left( \frac{M_{i\rightarrow
m}M_{m\rightarrow
f}M_{f\rightarrow i}}{\varepsilon_i-\varepsilon_m} +\mbox{c. c.}\right) \right)
\delta(\varepsilon_i-\varepsilon_f).
\label{equ:W}$$ In this expression, $M_{i\rightarrow j}
=\sum_{i',j'}\sqrt{\lambda_{i'}\lambda_{j'}}\langle
\sigma_{j'},\psi_j|\hat{\sigma} \cdot \bm{\hat{S}}|\sigma_{i'},
\psi_i\rangle$ is the Kondo-like scattering matrix element for scattering from the state vector $\psi_i$ to $\psi_j$ of the coupled spin Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_0$ (equation (1)). The $\sigma_{i',j'}$ are the eigenvectors and $\lambda_{i',j'}$ the eigenvalues of the density matrices $\varrho$ in tip and sample (equation (2)) for the electrons participating in the scattering process [@ternes_spin_2015]. Energy conservation between initial state energy $\varepsilon_i$ and final state energy $\varepsilon_f$ is obeyed by the delta distribution $\delta(\varepsilon_i-\varepsilon_f)$ in equation (\[equ:W\]). The first term is responsible for the conductance steps observed in the spectra, while the second term leads to logarithmic peaks at the intermediate energy $\varepsilon_m$ and scales with the dimensionless coupling $J_{\rm 1}\rho_1$ between the sample electrons and the CoH spin with $J_{\rm 1}$ as the coupling strength and $\rho_1$ as the density of states in the sample close to the Fermi energy [@ternes_spin_2015]. For the systems discussed in figure 2 we found $J_{\rm 1}\rho_1=-0.1\pm0.03$.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Oleg Brovko, Lihui Zhou, Sebastian Loth, Maciej Misiorny, Philipp Hansmann, and Fabian Pauly for fruitful discussions as well as Gennadii Laskin for his help with the experiment. P.J. acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. M.M. and M.T. acknowledge support from the SFB 767.
Author Contributions {#author-contributions .unnumbered}
====================
M.T. and K.K. conceived the experiments. M.M. and P.J. performed the STM measurements. M.M. and M.T. performed 2nd and 3rd order theory simulations. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the manuscript.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
. ** ().
. ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
& . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
*et al.* . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
, , , & . ** ****, ().
, , & . ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
. ** ****, ().
, & . ** ****, ().
{width="1\columnwidth"}
{width="1\columnwidth"}
{width="1\columnwidth"} \[fig3\]
Figure 3:
---------
Fits to the transport model. **a-f**, Evolution of the experimentally obtained step energies and asymmetries (black dots) together with least-square fits to our model (red lines). **a,d**, For the bare Pt tip, the excitation energies remain constant and $\eta\approx 0$. **b,e**, The excitation energies of this set are best described using anisotropy parameters of $D = -4.2$ meV, and $E = 0.87$ meV and a Heisenberg-like AFM coupling between both spins on tip and sample with a strength of $J_{12} = 3.6\
\mu\text{eV}/\text{nS}\times G_s$. The coupling to the bath electrons in the Co-functionalized tip is accounted for by an AFM correlation strength of $C =
-0.5 \pm 0.05$. **c,f**, For this set, an Ising-like AFM coupling between both spins with the parameters $J_{12} = 5.9\ \mu\text{eV}/\text{nS}\times
G_s$ and $D = -3.23$ meV, $E = 0.58$ meV describes the data best. Here the tip is FM correlated to the bath electrons with $C = 0.35 \pm 0.04$. For comparison an Ising (b) and Heisenberg fit (c) is shown (dashed line), not reproducing the experimental data. **g**, Evolution of the state energies and the magnetic moment $m_z$ of the combined system for different AFM Heisenberg couplings $J_{12}$ in the two spin system ($D=-5$ meV, $E=1$ meV). The color code shows the magnetic moment of the $S=1$ CoH complex (blue: $-1$, red: $+1$). **h**, Cut at $J_{12} = 2$ meV of (g). The main transitions from the ground states of the combined spin system are highlighted with arrows (black arrow shows the transition sketched in **i**). **i**, Illustration of the scattering from the state $\ket{1, \downarrow}$ to the excited state $\ket{0, \downarrow}$ of the combined spin system ($S_1 \otimes S_2$) which leads to an asymmetry due to the strongly AFM correlated ($C$) electron bath in the tip with the respective $S_2$ subsystem.
{width="1\columnwidth"}
[^1]: Note, that $S_2 = 3/2$ leads to similar results.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Active illumination is a prominent complement to enhance 2D face recognition and make it more robust, e.g., to spoofing attacks and low-light conditions. In the present work we show that it is possible to adopt active illumination to enhance state-of-the-art 2D face recognition approaches with 3D features, while bypassing the complicated task of 3D reconstruction. The key idea is to project over the test face a high spatial frequency pattern, which allows us to simultaneously recover real 3D information plus a standard 2D facial image. Therefore, state-of-the-art 2D face recognition solution can be transparently applied, while from the high frequency component of the input image, complementary 3D facial features are extracted. Experimental results on ND-2006 dataset show that the proposed ideas can significantly boost face recognition performance and dramatically improve the robustness to spoofing attacks.'
author:
- |
J. Matias Di Martino\
Department of Physics\
Universidad de la Republica\
Montevideo, Uruguay\
`[email protected]`\
Fernando Suzacq\
Department of Electrical Engineering\
Universidad de la Republica\
Montevideo, Uruguay\
[email protected]\
Mauricio Delbracio[^1]\
Department of Electrical Engineering\
Universidad de la Republica\
Montevideo, Uruguay\
[email protected]\
Qiang Qiu\
Department of Electrical Engineering\
Duke University\
Durham, NC, USA\
[email protected]\
Guillermo Sapiro\
Department of Electrical Engineering\
Duke University\
Durham, NC, USA\
[email protected]\
bibliography:
- 'bibfile.bib'
title: |
*Differential 3D Facial Recognition:*\
Adding 3D to your State-of-the-Art 2D Method
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
Two-dimensional face recognition has become extremely popular as it can be ubiquitously deployed and large datasets are available. In the past several years, tremendous progress has been achieved in making 2D approaches more robust and useful in real-world applications. Though 2D face recognition has surpassed human performance in certain conditions, challenges remain to make it robust to facial poses, uncontrolled ambient illumination, aging, low-light conditions, and spoofing attacks [@Ding2016; @kemelmacher2016megaface; @Nech2017; @taigman2014deepface]. In the present work we address some of these issues by enhancing the captured RGB facial image with 3D information as illustrated in Figure \[fig:teaser\]. High resolution cameras became ubiquitous, although for 2D face recognition, we only need a facial image of moderate or low resolution. For example latest phones frontal camera have a very high resolution (e.g., $3088\times2320$ pixels) while the resolution of the input to most face recognition systems is limited to $224\times224$ pixels [@arcface; @parkhi2015deep; @schroff2015facenet; @taigman2014deepface; @Zulqarnain2018]. This means that, in the context of face recognition, we are drastically underutilizing most of the resolution of captured images. We propose an alternative to use the discarded portion of the spectra and extract real 3D information by projecting a high frequency light pattern. Hence, a low resolution version of the RGB image remains approximately invariant allowing the use of standard 2D approaches, while 3D information is extracted efficiently from the local deformation of the projected patterns.
![Real 3D face recognition is possible by capturing one single RGB image if a high frequency pattern is projected. The low frequency components of the captured image can be fed into a state-of-the-art 2D face recognition method, while the high frequency components encode local depth information that can be used to extract 3D facial features. It is important to highlight that, in contrast with most existing 3D alternatives, the proposed approach provides real 3D information, not 3D hallucination from the RGB input. As a result, state-of-the-art 2D face recognition methods can be enhanced with real 3D information.[]{data-label="fig:teaser"}](figures/teaser-3dface.pdf){width=".7\columnwidth"}
The proposed solution to extract 3D facial features has key differences with the two common approaches presented in existing literature: 3D hallucination [@eigen2014depth; @Huber2015; @Liu2015; @Pini2018] and 3D reconstruction [@Zafeiriou2013; @Zou2005]. We will discuss these differences in detail in the following section. We illustrate the main limitation of 3D hallucination in the context of face recognition in Figure \[fig:3dillustration\], which emphasizes the lack of real 3D information on a standard RGB input image. We demonstrate that it is possible to extract actual 3D facial features bypassing the ill-posed problem of explicit depth estimation. Our contributions are summarized as follows:
- Analyzing the spectral content of thousands of facial images, we design a high frequency light pattern that simultaneously allow us to retrieve a standard 2D low resolution facial image plus a 3D gradient facial representation.
- We propose an effective and modular solution that achieves 2D and 3D information decomposition and facial feature extraction in a data-driven fashion (bypassing a 3D facial reconstruction).
- We show that by defining an adequate distance function in the space of the feature embedding, we can leverage the advantages of both 2D and 3D features. We can transparently exploit existing state-of-the-art 2D methods and improve their robustness, e.g., to spoofing attacks.
Related Work {#sec:relatedWork}
============
To recognize or validate the identity of a subject from a 2D color photograph is a longstanding problem of computer vision and has been largely studied for over forty years [@kaya1972basic; @zhao2003face]. Recent advances in machine learning, and in particular, the success of deep neural networks, reshaped the field and yielded more efficient, accurate, and reliable 2D methods such as: ArcFace[@arcface], VGG-Face [@parkhi2015deep], DeepFace [@taigman2014deepface], and FaceNet [@schroff2015facenet]. In spite of this, spoofing attacks and variations in pose, expression and illumination are still active challenges and significant efforts are being made to address them [@Cao2018; @Hayat2017; @He2018; @Kumar2018; @Lezama2017; @Liu2018; @Tran2017; @Yu2017; @Zhao2018; @Zou2005]. For example, Deng et al. [@Deng2018] attempt to handle large pose discrepancy between samples. To that end, they propose an adversarial facial UV map completion GAN. Complementing previous approaches that seek for robust feature representations, several works propose more robust loss and metric functions [@Liu2017; @Wang2018].
#### 3D hallucination from single RGB.
To enhance 2D approaches a common trend is to hallucinate a 3D representation from an input RGB image which is used to extract 3D features [@blanz2003face; @Dou2017; @eigen2014depth; @Huber2015; @Liu2015; @Pini2018]. For example, Cui et al. [@Cui2018] introduce a cascade of networks that simultaneously recover depth from an RGB input while seeking for separability of individual subjects. The estimated depth information is then used as a complementary modality to RGB.
#### 3D face recognition.
The approaches described previously share an important practical advantage that at the same time is their weakness, they extract all the information from a standard (RGB) 2D photograph of the face. As depicted in Figure \[fig:3dillustration\] a single image does not contain actual 3D information. To overcome this intrinsic limitation different ideas have been proposed and datasets with 3D facial information are becoming more popular [@Zulqarnain2018]. For example, Zafeiriou et al. [@Zafeiriou2013] propose a four-light source photometric stereo (PS). A similar idea is elaborated by Zou et al. [@Zou2005] who propose to use active near-infrared illumination and combine a pair of input images to extract an illumination invariant face representation. Despite the previous mentioned techniques, performing a 3D facial reconstruction is still a challenging and complicated task. Many strategies have been proposed to tackle this problem, including time delay based [@marks1992system], image cue based [@eigen2015predicting; @eigen2014depth; @laina2016deeper; @prados2006shape; @saxena2009make3d], and triangulation based methods [@ayubi2010pulse; @DiMartino2015one; @li2014some; @Rosman2016; @zhang2006high]. Although there has been great recent development, available technology for 3D scanning is still too complicated to be ubiquitously deployed [@di2018one; @hartley2003multiple; @zhang2010recent; @zhang2013handbook]. The proposed solution has two key features that make it, to the best of our knowledge, different from existing alternatives. (a) Because the projected pattern is of a high spatial frequency, we can recover a standard (low resolution) RGB facial image that can be fed into state-of-the-art 2D face recognition methods. (b) We avoid the complicated task of 3D facial reconstruction and instead, extract local 3D features from the local deformation of the projected pattern. In that sense our ideas can be implemented exploiting existing and future 2D solutions. In addition, our approach is different from those that hallucinate 3D information. As discussed before and illustrated in Figure \[fig:3dillustration\] this task requires a strong prior of the scene which is ineffective, for example, if a spoofing attack is presented (see the example provided in Figure \[fig:3dmm\] in the supplementary material).
Proposed Approach {#sec:ProposedApproach}
=================
#### Notation.
Let ${\mathcal{I}}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{H\times W\times C}$ denote the space of images with $H\times W$ pixels and $C$ color channels, and ${\mathcal{X}}_{n}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{n}$ a space of n-dimensional column vectors (in the context of this work associated to a facial feature embedding). ${\mathcal{I}}_{rgb}$ denotes the set of RGB images ($C=3$), while ${\mathcal{I}}_{\nabla z}$ is used to denote the space of two channel images ($C=2$) associated to the gradient of a single-channel image $z\in{\mathbb{R}}^{H\times W \times 1}$. (The first/second channel represents the partial derivative with respect to the first/second coordinate.)
{width=".9\textwidth"}
#### Combining depth and RGB information.
The proposed approach consists of three main modules as illustrated in Figure \[fig:proposedFramework\]: $g:{\mathcal{I}}_{rgb}\rightarrow {\mathcal{I}}_{rgb}\times{\mathcal{I}}_{\nabla z}$ performs a decomposition of the input image into texture and depth information, $f_{rgb}:{\mathcal{I}}_{rgb}\rightarrow {\mathcal{X}}_{n/2}$, and $f_{\nabla z}:{\mathcal{I}}_{\nabla z}\rightarrow {\mathcal{X}}_{n/2}$ extract facial features associated to the facial texture and depth respectively. These three components are illustrated in Figure \[fig:proposedFramework\] in blue, yellow, and green, respectively. (We decided to have three modules instead of a single *end-to-end* design for several reasons that will be discussed below.) We denote the facial feature extraction from the input image as $f_{\theta} : {\mathcal{I}}_{rgb} \rightarrow {\mathcal{X}}_n$, where $f_\theta(I) = (f_{rgb}(I_{rgb}), f_{\nabla z}(I_{\nabla z}))^T$ with $\{I_{rgb},I_{\nabla z}\} = g(I)$. The subscript $\theta$ represent the parameters of the mapping $f$, which can be decomposed in three groups $\theta = (\theta_g, \theta_{rgb}, \theta_{\nabla z})$, associated to the image decomposition, RGB feature extraction, and depth feature extraction respectively. In the following we discuss how these parameters are optimized for each specific task, which is one of the advantages of formulating the problem in a modular fashion. Once texture and depth facial information is extracted into a suitable vector representation $x = f_{\theta}(I)$ (as illustrated in Algorithm \[alg:facial\_embedding\]), we can select a distance measure $d:{\mathcal{X}}_n\times{\mathcal{X}}_n\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^+$ to compare facial samples and estimate whether they have a high likelihood of belonging to the same subject or not. It is worth noticing that faces are embedded into a space in which the first half of the dimensions are associated to information extracted from the RGB representation while the other half codes depth information. These two sources of information may have associated different confidence levels (depending on the conditions at deployment). We address this in detail in Section \[sec:distanceDesign\] and propose an anisotropic distance adapted to our solution, and capable of leveraging the good performance of 2D solutions in certain conditions, while improving robustness and handling spoofing attacks in a continuous and unified fashion.
Decompose the input image into texture and depth gradient information. $\left\{ I_{rgb}, I_{\nabla z}\right\} = g(I)$ Extract facial information from each component. $x_{rgb} = f_{rgb}(I_{rgb})$ $x_{\nabla z} = f_{\nabla z}\left(I_{\nabla z}\right)$ Combine texture and depth information. $x = $ Concatenate$(x_{rgb}, x_{\nabla z})$ **return** $x$
Pattern design. {#sec:pattern design}
---------------
When a pattern of light $p(x,y)$ is projected over a surface with a height map $z(x,y)$, it is perceived by a camera located along the $x$-axis with a deformation given by $p(x+\phi(x,y),y)$ ($\phi(x,y) \propto z(x,y)$). A detailed description of active stereo geometry is provided in the supplementary material Section \[sec:reviewActiveStereo\]. Let us denote $I_0(x,y)$ the image we would acquire under homogeneous illumination, and $p(x,y)$ the intensity profile of the projected light. Without loss of generality we assume the system baseline is parallel to the $x$ axis. The image acquired by the camera when the projected light is modulated with a profile $p(x,y)$ is $$\label{eq:pat_desing_1}
I(x,y) = I_0(x,y)p(x+\phi(x,y), y).$$ We will restrict to periodic modulation patterns and let $T$ denote the pattern spatial period, we also define $f_0 \stackrel{def}{=} \frac 1 T$. To simplify the system design and analysis, lets also restrict to periodic patterns that are invariant to the $y$ coordinate. In these conditions we can express $p(x,y) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} a_n\, e^{i2\pi n f_0 x}$ where $a_n$ represent the coefficients of the Fourier series of $p$. (Note that because of the invariance with respect to the $y$ coordinate, the coefficients $a_n$ are constant instead of a function of $y$.) Equation can be expressed as $$\label{eq:pat_design_2}
I(x,y) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} I_0(x,y)\, a_n\, e^{i2\pi n f_0 (x+\phi(x,y))}.$$ Defining $q_n(x,y)\stackrel{def}{=}I_0(x,y)\,a_n\,e^{i2\pi n f_0 \phi(x,y)}$, Equation can be expressed as [@takeda1983fourier] $$\label{eq:pat_design_3}
I(x,y) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} q_n(x,y) e^{i2\pi n f_0 x}.$$ Applying the 2D Fourier Transform (FT) in both sides of Equation and using standard properties of the FT [@distributions] we obtain $$\label{eq:pat_design_4}
\tilde{I}(f_x,f_y) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} \tilde{q_n}(f_x - nf_0, f_y).$$ We denote as $\tilde{I}$ the FT of $I$ and use $(f_x,f_y)$ to represent the 2D frequency domain associated to $x$ and $y$ axis respectively.
Equation shows that the FT of the acquired image can be decomposed into the components $\tilde{q_n}$ centered at $(nf_0,0)$. In the context of this section, we refer to a function $h(x,y)$ being smooth if $$\frac{\|\tilde{h}(f_x,f_y)\|}{\|\tilde{h}(0,0)\|}<10^{-3}\ \ \ \forall \ \ \ |f_x|>\frac{f_0}{2} .$$ Assuming $I_0(x,y)$ and $\phi(x,y)$ are smooth (we empirically validate this hypothesis below), the components $\tilde{q_n}$ can be isolated as illustrated in Figure \[fig:fringesDescomposition\]. The central component is of particular interest, $q_0(x,y) = a_0\, I_0(x,y)$ captures the facial texture information and can be recovered from $I(x,y)$ if $f_0$ is large enough (we provide a more precise quantitative analysis in what follows). On the other hand, relative (gradient) 3D information can be retrieved from the components $\{q_0, q_1\}$ as we show in Proposition \[prop:gradient\_depth\].
\[prop:gradient\_depth\] Gradient depth information is encoded in the components $\{q_0(x,y), q_1(x,y)\}$.
We define the wrapping function $\mathcal{W}(u)={\mbox{atan}}({\mbox{tan}}(u))$. This function wraps the real set into the interval $\left(-\pi/2,\pi/2\right]$ [@ghiglia1998unwrapping]. This definition can be extended to vector inputs wrapping the modulus of the vector field while keeping its direction unchanged, i.e., $\mathcal{W}(\vec{u})=\frac{\mathcal{W}(\|\vec{u}\|)}{\|\vec{u}\|}\vec{u}$ if $\|\vec{u}\|\neq 0$ and $\mathcal{W}(\vec{u})=\vec{0}$ if $\|\vec{u}\| = 0$. From $q_1(x,y)$ and $q_0(x,y)$ we can compute[^2] $$\label{eq:prop_prof_1}
\phi_{\mathcal{W}}(x,y) = \frac{1}{2\pi f_0}\, {\mbox{atan}}\left(\frac{\mbox{Im}\{\frac{q_1(x,y)}{q_0(x,y)}\}}{\mbox{Re}\{\frac{q_1(x,y)}{q_0(x,y)}\}}\right)$$ where $\phi_{\mathcal{W}}$ denotes the wrapped version of $\phi$. Moreover, $\phi_{\mathcal{W}}(x,y)=\phi(x,y) + \pi k(x,y)$ with $k(x,y)\in\mathbb{N}$ (wrapping introduces shifts of magnitude multiple of $\pi$). Computing the gradient both sides leads to $\nabla\phi_{\mathcal{W}}(x,y)=\nabla\phi(x,y) + \pi \nabla k(x,y)$ where $\|\nabla k(x,y)\|\in\mathbb{N}$. Assuming the magnitude of the gradient of $\phi(x,y)$ is bounded by $\pi/2$ and considering that $\|\nabla k(x,y)\|\in\mathbb{N}$, we can apply the wrapping function both sides of the previous equality to obtain $\mathcal{W}(\nabla\phi_{\mathcal{W}})(x,y)=\nabla\phi(x,y)$ which proves (recall Equation ) that the gradient of $\phi$ can be extracted from the components $q_0$ and $q_1$. To conclude the proof, we use the property of linearity of the gradient operation and the fact that $\phi(x,y)$ is proportional to the depth map of the scene (see Equation and Section \[sec:reviewActiveStereo\] in the supplementary material).
![Faces average spectral content. The first column illustrates the mean luminance and depth map for the faces in the dataset ND-2006. The second column shows the mean Fourier Transform of the faces luminance and depth respectively. The third column shows the profile across different sections of the 2D Fourier domain. Columns two and three represent the absolute value of the Fourier transform in logarithmic scale. Faces are registered using the eyes landmarks and the size normalized to $480\times480$ pixels.[]{data-label="fig:face_spectrum"}](figures/face_spectrum.png){width=".6\columnwidth"}
#### Analytic versus data-driven texture and gradient depth extraction
The previous analysis shows that closed forms can be obtained to extract texture and depth gradient information. However, to compute these expressions is necessary to isolate different spectral components $\tilde{q_n}$. To that end, filters need to be carefully designed. The design of these filters is challenging, e.g., one need to control over-smoothing versus introducing ringing artifact which are drastically amplified by a posterior gradient computation [@DiMartino2015one; @zhang2006high]. To overcome these challenges, we chose to perform a depth (gradient) and texture decomposition in a data-driven fashion, which as we show in Section \[sec:Experiments\], provides an efficient and effective solution.
#### Bounds on $f_0$ and optimal spectral orientation.
As discussed above, the projected pattern $p(x,y)$ should have a large fundamental frequency $f_0$. In addition, the orientation of the fringes and the system baseline can be optimized if faces present a narrower spectral content in a particular direction. We study the texture and depth spectrum of the facial images of ND-2006 dataset (this dataset provides ground truth facial texture and depth information). We observed (see Figure \[fig:face\_spectrum\]) that for facial images sampled at a $480\times480$ spatial resolution, most of the energy is concentrated in a third of the discrete spectral domain (observe the extracted one dimensional profiles of the spectrum shown at the left side of Figure \[fig:face\_spectrum\]). In addition, we observe that the spectral content of facial images is approximately isotropic. See, for example, Figure \[fig:face\_spectrum\] and observe how for 1-dimensional sections across different orientations the 2D spectra envelope is almost constant. We conclude that the orientation of the fringes does not play a significant role in the context of facial analysis. In addition, we conclude that the fringes width should be smaller than $7$mm (distance measure over the face).[^3]
Network training and the advantages of modularity. {#sec:networkDesign}
--------------------------------------------------
As described previously, the parameters of the proposed solution can be split in three groups $\theta = (\theta_g, \theta_{rgb}, \theta_{\nabla z})$. This is an important practical property and we designed the proposed solution to meet this condition (in contrast to an end-to-end approach). Let us define $\mathcal{B}_{1}$, $\mathcal{B}_{2}$, and $\mathcal{B}_{3}$ three datasets containing ground truth depth information, ground truth identity for rgb facial images, and ground truth identity for depth facial images, respectively. More precisely, $\mathcal{B}_{1}=\{(I_i(x,y), {I_0}_i(x,y), z_i(x,y)),\ i=1,\,...,\,n_1\}$, $\mathcal{B}_{2}=\{({I_0}_i(x,y), y_i),\ i=1,\,...,\,n_2\}$, and $\mathcal{B}_{3}=\{(z_i(x,y), y_i),\ i=1,\,...,\,n_3\}$, where $I_i(x,y)$ denotes a (facial or generic) RGB image acquired under the projection of the designed pattern, ${I_0}_i(x,y)$ represents (facial or generic) standard RGB images, $z_i(x,y)$ denotes a gray image representing the depth of the scene, and $y_i$ a scalar integer representing the subject id. We denote as $\{g_1(I), g_2(I)\} = g(I)$ the RGB and gradient depth components estimated by the decomposition operation $g$. We partitioned the parameters of $g$ into two sets of dedicated kernels $\theta_g = \{{\theta_g}_1, {\theta_g}_2\}$, the first group focuses on retrieving the texture component while the second group retrieves the depth gradient. These parameters can be optimized as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:loss_g}
{\theta_g}_1 = \operatorname*{argmin}\sum_{({I_0}_i,I_i)\in\mathcal{B}_1} \|g_1(I_i) - {I_0}_i \|_2^2 \\
{\theta_g}_2 = \operatorname*{argmin}\sum_{({z}_i,I_i)\in\mathcal{B}_1} \|g_2(I_i) - \nabla z_i \|_2^2.\end{aligned}$$ (We also evaluated training a shared set of kernels trained with an unified loss, this alternative is harder to train in practice, due to the natural difference between the dynamic range and sparsity of gradient images compared with texture images.) For texture and depth facial feature extraction, we tested models inspired in the Xception architecture [@chollet2017xception]). Additional details are provided in the supplementary material Section \[app:implementation\_details\]. To train these models we add an auxiliary fully connected layer on top of the facial embedding (with as many neurons as identities in the train set) and minimize the cross-entropy between the ground truth and the predicted labels. More precisely, let us denote $\hat{f}_{rgb}(I_{rgb})=[p_1,...,p_c]$ the output of the fully connected layer associated to the embedding $f_{rgb}(I_{rgb})$ where $p_i$ denotes the probability associated to the id $i$, $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{rgb} = \operatorname*{argmin}\sum_{({I_0}_i, y_i)\in\mathcal{B}_2} \sum_{c} -{\bf{1}}_{y_i=c} \log(\hat{f}_{rgb}({I_0}_i)[c]) \\
\theta_{\nabla z} = \operatorname*{argmin}\sum_{({z}_i, y_i)\in\mathcal{B}_3} \sum_{c} -{\bf{1}}_{y_i=c} \log(\hat{f}_{\nabla z}(\nabla z_i)[c])\end{aligned}$$ where ${\bf{1}}_{y_i=c}$ denotes the indicator function. (Of course one can choose other alternative losses to train these modules, see e.g., [@arcface; @Liu2017; @Wang2018; @Zheng2018].) As described above, the proposed design allows to leverage information from three types of datasets ($\mathcal{B}_1$, $\mathcal{B}_2$, $\mathcal{B}_3$). This has an important practical advantage as 2D facial and 3D generic datasets are more abundant, and the pattern dependant set $\mathcal{B}_1$ can be of modest size as $\#(\theta_g)\ll\#(\theta_{rgb})$.
Distance design. {#sec:distanceDesign}
----------------
Once different modules are set we can compute the facial embedding of test images following the procedure described in Algorithm \[alg:facial\_embedding\]. Let us define $x^a\in{\mathcal{X}}_n$ and $x^b\in{\mathcal{X}}_n$ the feature embedding of two facial images $I_a$ and $I_b$ respectively. Recall that the first $n/2$ elements of $x$ are associated to features extracted from (a recovered) RGB facial image while the remaining elements are associated to depth information, i.e., $x = (x_{rgb}[1],..., x_{rgb}[n/2], x_{\nabla z}[1], ..., x_{\nabla z}[n/2])^T$. We define the distance between two feature representations $x^a = (x_{rgb}^a, x_{\nabla z}^a)$, and $x^b = (x_{rgb}^b, x_{\nabla z}^b)$ as $$\label{eq:distance}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle d_{\alpha,\beta,\gamma}(x^a,x^b) \stackrel{def}{=} (1-\gamma)\, d_c(x^a_{rgb},\,x^b_{rgb}) \vspace{2mm} \\
\ \ +\ \gamma\, d_c(x^a_{\nabla z},\,x^b_{\nabla z}) \left(1 + \left(\frac{d_c(x^a_{\nabla z},\,x^b_{\nabla z})}{\beta}\right)^\alpha \right).
\end{array}$$ $d_c:{\mathcal{X}}_{n/2}\times{\mathcal{X}}_{n/2}\rightarrow[0, 1]$ denotes the cosine distance, $\gamma\in[0,1]$ sets the relative weight of RGB and depth features, and $\alpha,\beta \in {\mathbb{R}}$ define a non-linear response for the distance between depth features. As we will describe in the following, this provides robustness against common cases of spoofing attacks. Intuitively, $\gamma$ allows us to set the relative confidence associated to RGB and depth features, for example, $\gamma=1/2$ gives the same weight to RGB and depth features, while $\gamma=0$ ($\gamma=1$) ignores the distance between samples in the depth (RGB) embedding space. This is important in practice, as is common to obtain substantially more data to train RGB models than depth ones ($|\mathcal{B}_2| \gg |\mathcal{B}_3|$). This suggests that in good test conditions (e.g., good lighting) one may trust more RGB features over depth features ($\gamma<1/2$). As we will empirically show in the following section, when two facial candidates are compared, $d_{\alpha,\infty,\gamma}(x^a,x^b) = (1-\gamma)\, \delta(x^a_{rgb},\,x^b_{rgb}) + \gamma\, \delta(x^a_{\nabla z},\,x^b_{\nabla z})$ is an effective distance choice. However, it does not handle robustly common cases of spoofing attacks. The most common deployments of spoofing attacks imitate the facial texture more accurately than the facial depth [@OULU_NPU_2017; @Liu2018spoofing; @Zhang2016], therefore, the global distance between two samples should be large when the distance of the depth features is large (i.e. above a certain threshold). To that end, we introduce an additional non-linear term controlled by parameters $\beta$ and $\alpha$, for $\delta(x^a_{\nabla z}, x^b_{\nabla z}) < \beta$ the standard cosine distance dominates while for large values the distance will be amplified in a non-linear fashion.
Experiments and Discussion {#sec:Experiments}
==========================
#### Data.
Three public dataset are used for experimental validation: FaceScrub [@FaceScrub], CASIA Anti-spoofing [@zhang2012face], and ND-2006 [@nd2006]. FaceScrub contains $100k$ RGB (2D) facial images of $530$ different subjects, and is used to train the texture-based facial embedding. CASIA dataset contains $150$ genuine videos (recording a person) and $450$ videos of different types of spoofing attacks, the data was collected for $50$ subjects. We use this dataset to simulate and imitate the texture properties of images of spoofing attacks. ND-2006 is one of the larges publicly available datasets with 2D and 3D facial information, it contains $13k$ images of $888$ subjects. We used this set to demonstrate that differential 3D features can be extracted from a single RGB input, to compare RGB features with 3D features extracted from the differential 3D input, and to show that when 2D and 3D information is properly combined, the best properties of each can be obtained.
#### Texture and differential 3D decomposition.
In Section \[sec:pattern design\] we discussed how real 3D information and texture information can be coded and later extracted using a single RGB image. In addition, we argue that this decomposition can be learned efficiently and effectively in a data-driven fashion. To that end, we tested simple network architectures composed of standard convolutional layers (a full description of these architectures and the training protocols are provided as supplementary material). Using ground truth texture and depth facial information, we simulated the projection of the designed pattern over the $888$ subjects provided in ND-2006 dataset. Illustrative results are presented in Figure \[fig:nd2006patterns\] and in the supplementary material. The 3D geometrical model and a detailed description of the simulation process is provided in Section \[app:sec:sim\_proj\_pat\]. Though the simulation of the deformation of a projected pattern can be computed in a relatively simple manner (if the depth information is known), the inverse problem is analytically hard [@DiMartino2015one; @Rosman2016; @zhang2013handbook].
![Active light projection. From left to right: ground truth RGB facial image, 3D facial scanner, and finally the image we would acquire if the designed high frequency pattern is projected over the face. Two random samples from ND-2006 are illustrated.[]{data-label="fig:nd2006patterns"}](figures/nd2006patterns.png){width=".6\columnwidth"}
Despite the previous, we observed that a stack of convolutional layers can efficiently learn how to infer from the image with the projected pattern, both depth gradient information, and the standard (2D) facial image. Figure \[fig:texture\_descomposition\] illustrates some results for subjects in the test set. The first column corresponds to the input to the network, the second column the ground truth texture information, and the third column the retrieved texture information. The architecture of the network and the training protocol is described in detail in the supplementary material Section \[app:implementation\_details\]. As we can see in the examples illustrated in Figure \[fig:texture\_descomposition\], an accurate low resolution texture representation of the face can be achieved in general, and visible artifact are observed only in the regions where the depth is discontinuous (see for example, the regions illustrated at the bottom of Figure \[fig:texture\_descomposition\]).
![Examples of the facial texture recovered from the image with the projected pattern. The first column, shows the input image (denoted as $I$ in Algorithm \[alg:facial\_embedding\]). The second column shows the ground truth, and the third column the texture recovered by the network $I_{rgb}$. This examples are from the test set and the images associated to these subjects were never seen during the training phase. []{data-label="fig:texture_descomposition"}](figures/texture_recovery.jpg){width=".6\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:depth\_gradient\_descomposition\] illustrates the ground truth and the retrieved depth gradient (again, for random samples from the test set). To estimate the 3D information, we feed to a different branch of convolutional layers the gray version of the input image. These layers are fully described in the supplementary material Table \[tab:DescompositionNetwork\]. A gray input image is considered instead of a color one because the projected pattern is achromatic, and therefore, no 3D information is encoded in the colors of the image. In addition, we crop the input image to exclude the edges of the face. (Facial registration and cropping is performed automatically using dlib [@king2009dlib] facial landmarks.) As discussed in Section \[sec:ProposedApproach\], and in particular, in the proof of Proposition \[prop:gradient\_depth\], the deformation of the projected fringes only provide local gradient information if the norm of the gradient of the depth is bounded. In other words, where the scene present depth discontinuities, no local depth information can be extracted by our proposed approach. This is one of the main reasons why differential 3D information can be exploited for face recognition, while bypassing the more complicated task of a 3D facial reconstruction.
![Differential depth information extracted from the image with the projected pattern. The first row illustrates the input image (depth information can be extracted from a gray version of the input as the designed patter is achromatic). The second and third row show the ground truth and the retrieved $x$ and $y$ partial derivatives of the depth respectively.[]{data-label="fig:depth_gradient_descomposition"}](figures/results_i3d.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
One of the advantages of the proposed approach is that it extracts local depth information, and therefore, the existence of depth discontinuities does not affect the estimation on the smooth portion of the face. This is illustrated in Figure \[fig:depth\_extraction\_verification\] (a)-(b), where a larger facial patch is fed into the network. The decomposition module is composed exclusively of convolutional layers, and therefore, images of arbitrary size can be evaluated. Figure \[fig:depth\_extraction\_verification\]-(a) shows the input to the network, and Figure \[fig:depth\_extraction\_verification\]-(b) the first channel of the output (for compactness we display only the x-partial derivative). As we can see, the existence of depth discontinuities does not affect the prediction in the interior of the face (we consider the prediction outside this region as noise and we replace it by $0$ for visualization).
![Is the network really extracting depth information? In this figure we show the output of the network for two inputs generated using identical facial texture but different depth ground truth data. (a) Image obtained when the projected pattern is projected over the face with the real texture and the real 3D profile. (b) Output of the network when we input (a) (only the x-partial derivative is displayed for compactness). (c) Image obtained when the projected pattern is projected over a flat surface with the texture of the real face. (d) Output of the network when the input is (c). None of these images were seen during training.[]{data-label="fig:depth_extraction_verification"}](figures/spoofingExample1.png){width=".7\columnwidth"}
Several algorithms have been proposed to hallucinate 3D information from a 2D facial image [@eigen2014depth; @Huber2015; @Liu2015; @Pini2018]. In order to verify that our decomposition network is extracting real depth information (in lieu of hallucinating it from texture cues), we simulated an image where the pattern is projected over a surface with identical texture but with a planar 3D shape (as in the example illustrated in Figure \[fig:3dillustration\]). Figure \[fig:depth\_extraction\_verification\] (a) shows the image acquired when the fringes are projected over the ground truth facial depth, and (c) when instead the depth is set to $0$ (without modifying the texture information). The first component of the output (x-partial derivative) is shown in (b) and (d), as we can see, the network is actually extracting true depth information (from the deformation of the fringes) and not hallucinating 3D information from texture cues. (As we will see next, this property is particularly useful for joint face recognition and spoofing prevention.)
#### 2D and 3D face recognition.
Once the input image is decomposed into a (standard) texture image and depth gradient information, we can proceed to extract 2D and 3D facial features from each component. To this end, state-of-the-art network architectures are evaluated. Our method is agnostic to the RGB and depth feature extractors, moreover, as the retrieved texture image is close to a standard RGB facial images (in sense of the L2-norm), any pre-train 2D feature extractor can be used (e.g., [@arcface; @parkhi2015deep; @schroff2015facenet; @taigman2014deepface; @Zulqarnain2018]). In the experiments presented in this section we tested a network based on the Xception architecture [@chollet2017xception] (details are provided as supplementary material). For the extraction of texture features, the network is trained using FaceScrub [@FaceScrub] dataset (as we previously described, this is a public dataset of 2D facial images). The module that extracts 3D facial features is trained using $2/3$ of the subjects of ND-2006 dataset, leaving the remaining subjects exclusively for testing. The output of each module is a 512-dimensional feature vector (see, e.g., Figure \[fig:proposedFramework\]), hence the concatenation of 2D+3D features leads to a 1024-dimensional feature vector. Figure \[fig:embedding\] illustrates a 2D embedding of the texture features, the depth features, and the combination of both. The 2D mapping is learned by optimizing the t-SNE [@maaten2008visualizing] over the train partition, then a random subset of test subjects are mapped for visualization. As we can see, 3D features favor the compactness and increase the distance between clusters associated to different subjects.
{width="\textwidth"}
To test the recognition performance, the images of the test subjects are partitioned into two sets: gallery and probe. For all the images in both sets, the 2D and 3D feature embedding is computed (using the pre-trained networks described before). Then, for each image in the probe set, the $n$ nearest neighbors in the gallery set are selected. The distance between each sample (in the embedding space) is measured using the distance defined in Section \[sec:ProposedApproach\], Equation . For each sample in the probe set, we consider the classification as accurate, if at least one of the $n$ nearest neighbors is a sample from the same subject. The Rank-n accuracy is the percentage of samples in the probe set accurately classified.
![Rank-n accuracy for 2D, 3D, and 2D+3D face recognition. As discussed in Section \[sec:ProposedApproach\] the value of $\gamma$ can be set to weight texture and depth information in the classification decision. The extreme cases are $\gamma=0$ (only texture is considered) and $\gamma=1$ (only depth is considered). These extreme cases are illustrated in yellow and blue respectively, while intermediate solutions ($0<\gamma<1$) are presented in tones of green.[]{data-label="fig:gammarec"}](figures/rank_acc_varying_gamma.png){width=".6\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:gammarec\] and Table \[tab:Rank-n\_rgb\_vs\_depth\] show the Rank-n accuracy when: only 2D features ($\gamma=0$), only 3D features ($\gamma=1$), or a combination of both ($0<\gamma<1$) is considered. As explained in Section \[sec:distanceDesign\], the value of $\gamma$ can be used to balance the weight of texture and depth features. As we can see, in all the cases a combination of texture and depth information outperforms each of them individually. This is an expected result as classification tends to improve when independent sources of information are combined [@Kuncheva2004]. $\gamma$ is an hyper-parameter that should be set depending on the conditions at deployment. In our particular experiments the best results are obtained for $\gamma=0.3$, which suggests that RGB features are slightly more reliable than depth features. This is an expected result as the module that extract RGB features is typically trained in a much larger datasets (2D facial images became ubiquitous). We believe this may change if, for example, testing is performed under low light conditions [@Lezama2017]. Testing this hypothesis is one of the potential path for future research. In the experiment discussed so far, we ignored the role of $\beta$ and $\alpha$ (i.e., we set $\beta=\infty$ and $\alpha=1$). As we will discuss in the following, these parameters become relevant to achieve jointly face recognition and spoofing prevention.
[L[3.2cm]{} C[1cm]{} C[1cm]{} C[1cm]{} C[1cm]{}]{} Rank-n Accuracy & 1 & 2 & 5 & 10\
RGB baseline ($\gamma=0$) & $78.5$ & $82.6$ & $87.7$ & $90.6$\
Depth baseline ($\gamma=1$) & $77.2$ & $81.4$ & $87.4$ & $90.1$\
(our) $\gamma=0.3$ & $\bf{90.6}$ & $\bf{93.2}$ & $\bf{95.6}$ & $\bf{96.4}$\
(our) $\gamma=0.5$ & $88.6$ & $91.0$ & $94.4$ & $94.9$\
(our) $\gamma=0.8$ & $85.0$ & $87.9$ & $91.5$ & $93.0$\
#### Robustness to spoofing attacks.
Spoofing attack are simulated to test face recognition models, in particular, how robust these frameworks are under (unseen) spoofing attacks. As in the present work we focus on the combination of texture and depth based features, the simulation of spoofing attacks must account for realistic texture and depth models. The models for the synthesis of spoofing attacks are described in detail in the supplementary material Section \[app:implementation\_spoofing\].
![Examples of samples from live subjects and spoofing attacks. From left to right: (1) the ground truth texture, (2) the ground truth depth, (3) the input to our system (image with the projected pattern), (4) the recovered texture component (one of the outputs of the decomposition network), (5)/(6) recovered $x$/$y$ depth partial derivative. The first four rows correspond to spoofing samples (as explained in Section \[app:implementation\_spoofing\]), and the bottom five rows to genuine samples from live subjects.[]{data-label="fig:more_spoofing_examples"}](figures/moreExamples.jpg){width="\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:more\_spoofing\_examples\] illustrates spoofing samples (first four rows) and genuine samples (bottom five rows). The first two columns correspond to the ground truth texture and depth information, the third column illustrates the input to our system, and the last three columns correspond to the outputs of the decomposition network. These three last images are fed into the feature extraction modules for the extraction of texture and depth based features respectively, as illustrated in Figure \[fig:proposedFramework\]. It is extremely important to highlight, that spoofing samples are included exclusively at testing time. In other worlds, during all the training process the entire framework is agnostic to the existence of spoofing examples. If the proposed framework is capable of extracting real 3D facial features, it should be inherently robust to most common types of spoofing attacks. As discussed before, the combination of texture and depth based features improves recognition accuracy. On the other hand, when spoofing attacks are included, we observe that texture based features are more vulnerable to spoofing attacks (see for example figure \[fig:more\_spoofing\_examples\] and \[fig:spoofing\_roc\]). To simultaneously exploit the best of each feature component, we design a non-linear distance as described in Equation . Figure \[fig:distance\_illustration\] illustrates the properties of the defined distance for different values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. As it can be observed, for those genuine samples (relative distances lower than $\beta$) the non linear component can be ignored and the distance behave as the euclidean distance with a relative modulation set by $\gamma$. On the other hand, if the distance between the depth components is above the threshold $\beta$, it will dominate the overall distance achieving a more robust response to spoofing attacks.
![Illustration of the properties of the distance function defined in . On the left side we illustrate the role of the parameter $\alpha$, and on the right, we compare the proposed distance and the standard euclidean distance. As can be observed, both measures are numerically equivalent in the region $[-\beta/2,\beta/2]\times[-\beta/2,\beta/2]$, but the proposed measure gives a higher penalty to vectors whose $u$ coordinate exceeds the value $\beta$.[]{data-label="fig:distance_illustration"}](figures/distance_spoofing.png){width=".9\columnwidth"}
To quantitatively evaluate the robustness against spoofing attacks, spoofing samples are generated for all the subjects in the test set. As before, the test set is separated into a gallery and a probe set and the generated spoofing samples are aggregated into the probe set. For each image in the probe set, the distance to a sample of the same subject in the gallery set is evaluated. If this distance is below a certain threshold $\lambda$, the image is labeled as genuine, otherwise, the image is labeled as spoofing. Comparing the classification label with the ground truth label we obtain the number of true positive (genuine classified as genuine), false positive (spoofing classified as genuine), true negative (spoofing classified as spoofing), and false negative (genuine classified as spoofing). Changing the value of the threshold $\lambda$ we can control the number of false positive versus the number of false negatives as illustrated in Figure \[fig:spoofing\_roc\].
![False acceptance rate and false rejection rate under the presence of spoofing attacks. On color blue we illustrate the RGB baseline ($\gamma=0$), on the other extreme, the red curve illustrates the performance when only depth features are considered. The combination of RGB and depth features is illustrated in tones of green for different values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ (in this experiment we set $\gamma=0.3$).[]{data-label="fig:spoofing_roc"}](figures/roc_gamma.png){width=".6\columnwidth"}
Figure \[fig:spoofing\_roc\] shows the ratio of false positive and false negative for $\lambda\in[0,2]$. As before the distance between the samples is computed using the definition provided in , in blue/red the RGB/depth baseline is illustrated, the other set of curves (displayed in green tones) correspond to a combination of texture and depth features with $\gamma=0.3$ and different values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$. In Table \[tab:spoofing\_tpr\] the ratio of true positive is reported for a fixed ratio of false positives. The ACER measure (last column) corresponds to the average between the ratio of spoofing and genuine samples misclassified.
[L[4.95cm]{}C[1.8cm]{} C[1.8cm]{} C[1.5cm]{}]{} & TPR% @FPR=$10^{-3}$ & TPR% @FPR=$10^{-2}$ & ACER %\
RGB baseline ($\gamma=0$) & $21.8$ & $24.0$ & $38.9$\
Depth baseline ($\gamma=1$) & $\bf{88.4}$ & $\bf{97.1}$ & $4.0$\
(our) $\gamma=0.3,\ \beta=0.35\ \alpha=2$ & $85.5$ & $96.9$ & $4.5$\
(our) $\gamma=0.3,\ \beta=0.35\ \alpha=5$ & $83.8$ & $\bf{97.1}$ & $4.0$\
(our) $\gamma=0.3,\ \beta=0.35\ \alpha=10$ & $85.0$ & $95.6$ & $\bf{3.9}$\
(our) $\gamma=0.3,\ \beta=0.4\ \alpha=2$ & $82.6$ & $96.9$ & $4.7$\
(our) $\gamma=0.3,\ \beta=0.4\ \alpha=5$ & $86.4$ & $\bf{97.1}$ & $4.4$\
(our) $\gamma=0.3,\ \beta=0.4\ \alpha=10$ & $81.8$ & $\bf{97.1}$ & $4.1$\
(our) $\gamma=0.3,\ \beta=0.5\ \alpha=2$ & $86.4$ & $96.4$ & $5.3$\
(our) $\gamma=0.3,\ \beta=0.5\ \alpha=5$ & $82.8$ & $95.6$ & $5.7$\
(our) $\gamma=0.3,\ \beta=0.5\ \alpha=10$ & $85.0$ & $94.4$ & $5.9$\
#### Testing variations on the ambient illumination.
To test the impact of variations on lighting conditions we simulated test samples under different ambient illumination, implementation details are described in the supplementary material Section \[app:simulating\_lighting\_conditions\]. Table \[tab:diff\_light\_acc\] compares the rank-5 accuracy of 2D features and 2D+3D features as the power of the ambient illumination increases. As described in the supplementary material, the ambient illumination is modeled with random orientation, and therefore, the more powerful the illumination is the more diversity between the test and the gallery samples is introduced.
[L[4.95cm]{}C[2.0cm]{} C[2.0cm]{} C[2.0cm]{}]{} Rank-5 Accuracy & power=100% & power=150% & power=200%\
RGB baseline ($\gamma=0$) & $89.2$ & $81.2$ & $53.9$\
(our) $\gamma=0.5$ & $93.6$ & $90.7$ & $80.7$\
In the present experiments, we assumed that both the projected pattern and the ambient illumination have similar spectral content. In practice, one can project the pattern, e.g., on the infrared band. This would make the system invisible to the user, and reduce the sensitivity of 3D features to variations on the ambient illuminations. We provide a hardware implementation feasibility study and illustrate how the proposed ideas can be deployed in practice in the supplementary material Section \[app:hardware implementation\].
#### Improving state of the art 2D face recognition.
To test how the proposed ideas can impact the performance of state-of-the-art 2D face recognition systems, we evaluated our features in combination with texture based features obtained with ArcFace [@arcface]. ArcFace is a powerful method pre-trained on very large datasets, on ND-2006 examples it achieves perfect recognition accuracy (100% rank-1 accuracy). When ArcFace is combined with the proposed 3D features, the accuracy remains excellent (100% rank-1 accuracy), i.e., adding the proposed 3D features does not negatively affects robust 2D solutions. On the other hand, 3D features improve ArcFace on challenging conditions as we discuss in the following. Interesting results are observed when ArcFace is tested under spoofing attacks, as we show in Table \[tab:spoofing\_tpr\_arcface\], ArcFace fails to detect spoofing attacks. ArcFace becomes more robust when it is combined with 3D features, improving from nearly $0$ TPR@FPR($10^{-3}$) to $84\%$. In summary, as 2D methods improve and become more accurate, our 3D features do not affect them negatively when they work well, while improve their robustness in challenging situations.
[L[4.95cm]{}C[2.0cm]{} C[2.0cm]{} C[1.5cm]{}]{} & TPR% @FPR=$10^{-3}$ & TPR% @FPR=$10^{-2}$ & ACER %\
ArcFace ($\gamma=0$) & $0$ & $0$ & $46.2$\
ArcFace + 3D $(\gamma=0.5)$ & $84.7$ & $94.7$ & $7.9$\
Conclusions {#sec:Conclusions}
===========
We proposed an effective and modular alternative to enhance 2D face recognition methods with actual 3D information. A high frequency pattern is designed to exploit the high resolution cameras ubiquitous in modern smartphones and personal devices. Depth gradient information is coded in the high frequency spectrum of the captured image while a standard texture facial image can be recovered to exploit state-of-the-art 2D face recognition methods. We show that the proposed method can be used to simultaneously leverage 3D information and texture information. This allows us to enhance state-of-the-art 2D methods improving their accuracy and making them robust, e.g., to spoofing attack.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Work partially supported by ARO, ONR, NSF, and NGA.
[^1]: Now at Google Research.
[^2]: We assume images are extended in an even fashion outside the image domain, to guaranteed that $a_1\in{\mathbb{R}}$ and avoid an additional offset term.
[^3]: This numerical results is obtained by approximating the bounding box of the face as a $20cm\times 20cm$ region, sampled with $480\times 480$ pixels which corresponds to a pixel length of $2.4mm$, a third of the spectral band correspond to signal of a period of $6$ pixels which leads to a binary fringe of at least $7.2mm$ wide.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The classical Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory Theorem characterizes the behaviour of the derivative of an analytic self-map of a unit disc or of a half-plane of the complex plane at certain boundary points. We prove a version of this result that applies to noncommutative self-maps of noncommutative half-planes in von Neumann algebras at points of the distinguished boundary of the domain. Our result, somehow surprisingly, relies almost entirely on simple geometric properties of noncommutative half-planes, which are quite similar to the geometric properties of classical hyperbolic spaces.'
address: |
CNRS, Institut de Mathématiques de Toulouse\
118 Route de Narbonne\
F-31062 Toulouse Cedex 09, France.
author:
- Serban Teodor Belinschi
title: 'A noncommutative version of the Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory Theorem'
---
Introduction
============
The classical Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory Theorem describes the behaviour of the derivative of an analytic self-map of the unit disc $\mathbb D$ or of the upper half-plane $\mathbb C^+$ of the complex plane $\mathbb
C$ at certain boundary points. Numerous generalizations, to self-maps of balls or polydisks in $\mathbb C^n$, analytic functions with values in spaces of linear operators, analytic self-maps on domains in spaces of operators or in more general Banach spaces etc. - see for example [@Rudin; @Fan; @Jafari; @Wlo; @Abate; @Mellon; @MM; @AbateRaissy] (the list is not exhaustive) - are known. This note gives a version of this theorem for noncommutative self-maps of the noncommutative upper half-plane of a von Neumann algebra $\mathcal A$. The result builds on the recent literature in the field - see [@AMcY; @ATY2; @PTD], and falls under the programme aiming to find the noncommutative versions of classical complex analysis results - see for example [@AKV0; @AKV; @AMc1; @AMc3; @AMc2].
In the second section we state our main result, and provide the required background. The third section is dedicated to proving a Schwarz lemma-type result for noncommutative functions. In this same section we give a simple (not necessarily original, though) proof of the classical Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory Theorem in order to make this article self-contained, and some lemmas that make use of it. Finally, in the last section we prove our main result.
Noncommutative functions and the Julia-Carathéodory Theorem
===========================================================
Noncommutative functions
------------------------
Noncommutative sets and functions originate in [@taylor0; @taylor]. We largely follow [@ncfound] in our presentation below. We refer to this excellent monograph for details on, and proofs of, the statements that follow.
First a notation: if $S$ is a nonempty set, we denote by $M_{m\times n}
(S)$ the set of all matrices with $m$ rows and $n$ columns having entries from $S$. For simplicity, we let $M_n(S):=M_{n\times n}(S)$. Given C${}^*$-algebra $\mathcal A$, a [*noncommutative set*]{} is a family $\Omega:=(\Omega_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ such that
1. for each $n\in\mathbb N$, $\Omega_n\subseteq M_n
(\mathcal A);$
2. for each $m,n\in\mathbb N$, we have $\Omega_m\oplus
\Omega_n\subseteq\Omega_{m+n}$.
The noncommutative set $\Omega$ is called [*right admissible*]{} if in addition the condition (c) below is satisfied:
1. for each $m,n\in\mathbb N$ and $a\in\Omega_m,c\in
\Omega_n,w\in M_{m\times n}(\mathcal A)$, there is an $\epsilon>0$ such that $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a & zw\\
0 & c\end{array}\right)\in\Omega_{m+n}$ for all $z\in\mathbb C,
|z|<\epsilon$.
Given C${}^*$-algebras $\mathcal{A,C}$ and a noncommutative set $\Omega\subseteq\coprod_{n=1}^\infty M_n(\mathcal A)$, a [ *noncommutative function*]{} is a family $f:=(f_n)_{n\in\mathbb N}$ such that $f_n\colon\Omega_n\to M_n(\mathcal C)$ and
1. $f_m(a)\oplus f_n(c)=f_{m+n}(a\oplus c)$ for all $m,n\in\mathbb N$, $a\in\Omega_m,c\in\Omega_n$;
2. for all $n\in\mathbb N$, $f_n(T^{-1}aT)=T^{-1}f_n(a)T$ whenever $a\in\Omega_n$ and $T\in GL_n(\mathbb C)$ are such that $T^{-1}aT$ belongs to the domain of definition of $f_n$.
These two conditions are equivalent to the single condition
1. For any $m,n\in\mathbb N$, $a\in\Omega_m,c\in\Omega_n$, $S\in M_{m\times n}(\mathbb C)$, one has $$aS=Sc\implies f_m(a)S=Sf_n(c).$$
We shall refer to the indices $n$ of $\Omega_n$ or of $f_n$ as the “levels” of the noncommutative set $\Omega$ or of the noncommutative function $f$.
A remarkable result (see [@ncfound Theorem 7.2]) states that, under very mild conditions on $\Omega$, local boundedness for $f$ implies each $f_n$ is analytic as a map between Banach spaces. Indeed, a hint towards the proof of this result is the following essential property of noncommutative functions: if $\Omega$ is admissible, $a\in \Omega_n, c\in\Omega_m, b\in M_{n\times m}
(\mathcal A)$, such that $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
0 & c
\end{array}\right)\in\Omega_{n+m}$, then there exists a linear map $\Delta f_{n,m}(a,c)\colon M_{n\times m}(\mathcal A)\to M_{n\times m}
(\mathcal C)$ such that $$\label{FDQ}
f_{n+m}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
0 & c
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
f_n(a) & \Delta f_{n,m}(a,c)(b) \\
0 & f_m(c)
\end{array}\right).$$ Obviously, this implies in particular that $f_{n+m}$ extends to the set of all elements $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a & b \\
0 & c
\end{array}\right)$ such that $a\in \Omega_n, c\in\Omega_m,
b\in M_{n\times m}(\mathcal A)$ (see [@ncfound Section 2.2]). Two properties of this operator that are important for us are $$\label{FDC}
\Delta f_{n,n}(a,c)(a-c)=f(a)-f(c)=\Delta f_{n,n}(c,a)(a-c),\quad
\Delta f_{n,n}(a,a)(b)=f_n'(a)(b),$$ the classical Frechet derivative of $f_n$ in $a$ aplied to the element $b\in M_n(\mathcal A)$. Moreover, $\Delta f_{n,m}(a,c)$ as functions of $a$ and $c$, respectively, satisfy properties similar to the ones described in items (1), (2) above (see [@ncfound Sections 2.3–2.5] for details). For convenience, from now on we shall suppress the indices denoting the levels for noncommutative functions, as it will almost always be obvious from the context.
We provide three examples of noncommutative sets:
1. The noncommutative upper half-plane $H^+(\mathcal A)=(H^+(M_n(\mathcal A)))_{n\in\mathbb N}$, where $H^+(M_n(\mathcal A))=\{b\in M_n(\mathcal A)\colon\Im b>0\}$ (here $\Im b=\frac{b-b^*}{2i},\Re b=\frac{b+b^*}{2}$),
2. The set of nilpotent matrices with entries from $\mathcal A
$, and
3. The unit ball $(B(M_n(\mathcal A)))_{n\in\mathbb N}$, where $B(M_n(\mathcal A))=\{b\in M_n(\mathcal A)\colon\|b\|<1\}$.
Our paper will focus on the first example.
As the domains we consider in this paper are mostly noncommutative subsets of von Neumann algebras given by an order relation, we give below a few of the well-known results we use systematically in the rest of the paper. For them, we refer to [@Bruce; @Paulsen; @SZ]. First, recall that for any C${}^*$-algebra (hence, in particular, von Neumann algebra) $\mathcal A$, if $x\in\mathcal A$, then $\|x\|^2=\|x^*\|^2=\|x^*x\|=\|xx^*\|$. For a selfadjoint element $x=x^*\in\mathcal A$, $\|x\|$ is equal to the spectral radius of $x$. We say that $x\ge0$ in $\mathcal A$ if $x=x^*$ and the spectrum of $x$ is included in $[0,+\infty)$. Equivalently, if $\mathcal H$ is the Hilbert space on which $\mathcal A$ acts as a von Neumann algebra, then a selfadjoint $x\in\mathcal A$ is greater than or equal to zero if and only if $\langle x\xi,\xi\rangle\ge0$ for all $\xi\in\mathcal H$. We say that $x>0$ means that $x\ge0$ and $x$ is invertible (i.e. its spectrum is included in $(0,+\infty)$). We say $x\ge y$ if $x-y\ge0$, and similarly for “$>$.” In particular, it follows that $xx^*\leq\|x\|^2\cdot1_\mathcal A$ and $x^*x\leq\|x\|^2\cdot1_\mathcal A$. Clearly, for and $\varepsilon\in(0,+\infty)$, $xx^*<(\|x\|^2+\varepsilon)\cdot1_\mathcal A$, with strict inequality achieved only when $\varepsilon>0$.
As proved in [@Paulsen Lemma 3.1], $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & a\\
a^* & 1
\end{array}\right)\ge0\text{ in }M_2(\mathcal A)\iff \|a\|\leq1.$$ We claim that $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & a\\
a^* & 1
\end{array}\right)>0 \text{ in }M_2(\mathcal A)\iff \|a\|<1.$$ Indeed, if $\|a\|<1$, then $1-aa^*$ and $1-a^*a$ are invertible in $\mathcal A$ and $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & a\\
a^* & 1
\end{array}\right)^{-1}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
(1-aa^*)^{-1} & -(1-aa^*)^{-1}a\\
-a^*(1-aa^*)^{-1} & (1-a^*a)^{-1}
\end{array}\right)\ \text{in }M_2(\mathcal A).$$ Conversely, if $\|a\|=1$, then for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $\xi_\varepsilon,\eta_\varepsilon\in\mathcal H$ of norm one such that $\langle a\eta_\varepsilon,\xi_\varepsilon\rangle>
1-\varepsilon.$ Then $$\left|\left\langle
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & a\\
a^* & 1
\end{array}\right)\left[\begin{array}{c}
\xi_\varepsilon\\
\eta_\varepsilon
\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}
\xi_\varepsilon\\
\eta_\varepsilon
\end{array}\right]
\right\rangle\right|=\|\xi_\varepsilon\|^2_2+\|\eta_\varepsilon\|^2_2
-2\langle a\eta_\varepsilon,\xi_\varepsilon\rangle<2\varepsilon,$$ so that zero belongs to the spectrum of $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & a\\
a^* & 1
\end{array}\right)$. This proves our claim.
Observe also that for any selfadjoint $x\in\mathcal A$, we have $x>0$ if and only if for any invertible $a\in\mathcal A$, we have $a^*xa>0$. Indeed, one implication is obvious. Conversely, if $a$ is invertible and $a^*xa>0$, then there is an $\varepsilon_a\in(0,+\infty)$ such that $a^*xa>\varepsilon_a\cdot1_\mathcal A$. For any $\xi\in\mathcal H$, $\langle x\xi,\xi\rangle=\langle x
a(a^{-1}\xi),a(a^{-1}\xi)\rangle=\langle a^*x
a(a^{-1}\xi),(a^{-1}\xi)\rangle>\varepsilon_a\|(a^{-1}\xi)\|_2^2\ge
\varepsilon_a\|a\|^{-2}\|\xi\|_2^2,$ independently of $\xi$, so that $x\ge\varepsilon_a\|a\|^{-2}\cdot1_\mathcal A>0.$ We use these last two results to conclude that $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u & v\\
v^* & w
\end{array}\right)>0\text{ in }M_2(\mathcal A)\iff u,w>0\text{ in }\mathcal A\text{ and }
\left\{\begin{array}{c}
u>vw^{-1}v^* \\
\text{and/or}\\
w>v^*u^{-1}v
\end{array}\right..$$ This follows from the above by writing $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u & v\\
v^* & w
\end{array}\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u^\frac12 & 0\\
0 & w^\frac12
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & u^{-\frac12}vw^{-\frac12}\\
w^{-\frac12}v^*u^{-\frac12} & 1
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
u^\frac12 & 0\\
0 & w^\frac12
\end{array}\right)$$ and recalling the chain of equivalences $\|u^{-1/2}vw^{-1/2}(u^{-1/2}vw^{-1/2})^*\|<1\iff
\|(u^{-1/2}vw^{-1/2})^*u^{-1/2}vw^{-1/2}\|<1\iff
u^{-1/2}vw^{-1/2}(u^{-1/2}vw^{-1/2})^*<1\iff (u^{-1/2}vw^{-1/2})^*u^{-1/2}vw^{-1/2}<1.$ We shall use these facts below without further referencing to them.
The Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory Theorem, classical and noncommutative
------------------------------------------------------------------
We state the classical Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory Theorem for analytic self-maps of the upper half-plane $\mathbb C^+$ at a point of the real line $\mathbb R$. In the following we denote by $\displaystyle
\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow\alpha}{{\sphericalangle}}}$ the nontangential limit at a point $\alpha\in\mathbb R$ (see, for ex. [@garnett]).
\[JC\] Let $f\colon\mathbb C^+\to\mathbb C^+$ be a nonconstant analytic function and $\alpha\in
\mathbb R$ be fixed.
1. Assume that $$\label{3}
c:=\liminf_{z\to\alpha}\frac{\Im f(z)}{\Im z}<\infty.$$ Then $f(\alpha):=\displaystyle\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow\alpha}{{
\sphericalangle}}}f(z)$ exists and belongs to $\mathbb R$, and $$\label{4}
\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow\alpha}{{
\sphericalangle}}}f'(z)=
\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow\alpha}{{
\sphericalangle}}}\frac{f(z)-f(\alpha)}{z-\alpha}=
\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iy)}{y}=c.$$
2. Assume that $\displaystyle\lim_{y\downarrow0}f(\alpha+iy)=:
f(\alpha)$ exists and belongs to $\mathbb R$. If $$\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow\alpha}{{
\sphericalangle}}}\frac{f(z)-f(\alpha)}{z-\alpha}=c\in\mathbb C,$$ then $c\in(0,+\infty)$ and $$c=\liminf_{z\to\alpha}\frac{\Im f(z)}{\Im z}=
\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow\alpha}{{
\sphericalangle}}}f'(z).$$
3. Assume that $\displaystyle\lim_{\stackrel{z\longrightarrow
\alpha}{{\sphericalangle}}}f'(z)=c\in\mathbb C$ and $\displaystyle\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow\alpha}{{
\sphericalangle}}}f(z)=f(\alpha)\in\mathbb R$. Then $$c=\liminf_{z\to\alpha}\frac{\Im f(z)}{\Im z}=
\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow\alpha}{{
\sphericalangle}}}\frac{f(z)-f(\alpha)}{z-\alpha}\in\mathbb R.$$
The noncommutative version of this theorem becomes quite obvious in light of and of the formulations of the corresponding main result from [@Wlo] as well as the recent work [@PTD]. In the following, when we make a statement about a completely positive map, we usually write the statement for level one, and, unless the contrary is explicitly stated, we mean that the property in question holds for all levels $n$. Thus, for example, the statement $$\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow0}{{
\sphericalangle}}}f'(\alpha+zv):=f'(\alpha)$$ exists and is completely positive for $\alpha=\alpha^*\in\mathcal A$ and $v>0$ means that for any $n\in\mathbb N$ and any $v\in M_n(\mathcal A)$, $$\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow0}{{
\sphericalangle}}}f'(\alpha\otimes1_n+zv)=f'(\alpha\otimes1_n)=
f'(\alpha)\otimes{\rm Id}_n$$ is a positive map on $M_n(\mathcal A)$.
\[Main\] Let $\mathcal A$ be a von Neumann algebra and $f\colon
H^+(\mathcal A)\to H^+(\mathcal A)$ be a noncommutative analytic map. Fix $\alpha=\alpha^*\in\mathcal A$.
1. Assume that for any $v\in \mathcal A,
v>0$ and any state $\varphi$ on $\mathcal A$, $$\label{5}
\liminf_{z\to0,z\in\mathbb C^+}\frac{\varphi(\Im f(\alpha
+zv))}{\Im z}<\infty.$$ Then there exists $c=c(v)\in\mathcal A$, $c>0$ such that $$\label{6}
\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv)}{y}=c$$ in the strong operator [(so)]{} topology. Moreover, $\displaystyle\lim_{\stackrel{z\longrightarrow0}{{\sphericalangle}}}
f(\alpha+zv)=f(\alpha)$ exists, does not depend on $v$ and is selfadjoint. The limits $$\label{7}
\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow0}{{
\sphericalangle}}}\Delta f(\alpha+zv_1,\alpha+zv_2)\quad\text{and}\quad
\lim_{\stackrel{z\longrightarrow0}{{\sphericalangle}}}f'(\alpha+zv)$$ exist pointwise [wo]{} for any $v,v_1,v_2>0$, and $\displaystyle\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow0}{{
\sphericalangle}}}f'(\alpha+zv)(v)=c(v)$. All statements remain true for any $n\in\mathbb N$, $v,v_1,v_2>0$ in $M_n(\mathcal A)$ and $\alpha$ replaced by $\alpha\otimes 1_n$.
2. Assume in addition to the hypothesis that for any $v,w>0$ in $\mathcal A$ and any state $\varphi$ on $\mathcal A$, the gradient of the two-variable complex function $\{(z,\zeta)\in\mathbb C^2\colon\Im(zv+\zeta w)>0\}\ni(z,\zeta)\mapsto\varphi(f(\alpha+zv+\zeta w))
\in\mathbb C^+$ admits the limit $$\lim_{\stackrel{y_1,y_2\downarrow0}{(y_1,y_2)\in[0,1)^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}}}
\left(\varphi(f'(\alpha+iy_1v+iy_2w)(v)),\varphi(f'(\alpha+iy_1v+iy_2w)(w))\right).$$ Then the limits are equal to each other, completely positive and do not depend on $v,v_1,v_2$.
3. Assume that the pointwise [wo]{} limit $\displaystyle\lim_{y\downarrow0}f'(\alpha+iyv):=f'(\alpha)$ exists for any $v>0$, does not depend on $v$ and $f'(\alpha)$ is a completely bounded operator on $\mathcal A$. Then $f'(\alpha)$ is completely positive, $\displaystyle\lim_{\stackrel{z
\longrightarrow0}{{\sphericalangle}}}f(\alpha+zv):=f(\alpha)$ exists, does not depend on $v$ and is selfadjoint, and $$f'(\alpha)(v)={\rm so\text{-}}
\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow0}{{
\sphericalangle}}}\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv)}{y}\quad\text{for any }
v>0.$$
Unfortunately, unlike in the classical case of Theorem \[JC\], and similar to the case of functions of several complex variables [@Rudin; @Abate], item (1’) above cannot be improved upon. Indeed, it was observed in [@AMcY] that for analytic functions of two complex variables on the bidisk with values in the unit disk, there exist examples that satisfy the commutative equivalent of for the bidisk, and yet the gradient map does not have a nontangential limit. The equivalent of condition implies the existence of all [*directional*]{} derivatives in permissible directions, but these directional derivatives do not necessarily “add up” to a linear map. This commutative example has a natural noncommutative extension, as shown in [@PTD]. It is enough for our purposes to treat a simplified version of this extension. It is shown in [@ATY] that any Loewner map from the $n$-dimensional upper half-plane $(\mathbb C^+)^n$ to $\mathbb C^+$ has a certain operatorial realization: for any such $h\colon(\mathbb C^+)^n\to\mathbb C^+$ there exist Hilbert spaces $\mathcal N,\mathcal M$, a selfadjoint densely defined operator $A$ on $\mathcal M$, a real number $s$ an orthogonal decomposition $P=
\{P_1,\dots,P_n\}$ of $\mathcal N\oplus\mathcal M$ (i.e. $P_iP_j=P_jP_i=\delta_{ij}P_j=\delta_{ij}P_j^*$ and $P_1+\cdots+P_n=1_{\mathcal M\oplus\mathcal N}$) and a vector state $\varphi_v(\cdot)=\langle\cdot v,v\rangle$ on the von Neumann algebra of bounded linear operators on $\mathcal N\oplus\mathcal M$ such that $$h(z)=s+\varphi_v(M(z)), \quad z=(z_1,\dots,z_n)\in(\mathbb C^+)^n,1\leq j\leq n,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
M(z) & = & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
-i & 0 \\
0 & 1-iA
\end{array}\right)\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & A
\end{array}\right)-(z_1P_1+\cdots+z_nP_n)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right)\right)^{-1}\\
& & \mbox{}\times\left((z_1P_1+\cdots+z_nP_n)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & A
\end{array}\right)+
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{array}\right)\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-i & 0 \\
0 & 1-iA
\end{array}\right)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ The $2\times2$ matrix decomposition is realized with respect to the canonical orthogonal decomposition of $\mathcal N\oplus\mathcal M$. We observe that such maps $M\colon(\mathbb C^+)^n\to B(\mathcal N\oplus\mathcal M)$ have a natural noncommutative extension to $H^+(\mathbb C^n):=
\coprod_{k\ge1}\{a\in M_k(\mathbb C)\colon \Im a>0\}^n$ given by replacing $(z_1P_1+\cdots+z_nP_n)$ in the above formula of $M(z)$ by $$\sum_{j=1}^n
(P_j\otimes1_k) a_j
(P_j\otimes 1_k).$$ (While it is not obvious from its formula that $\Im M$ is positive when evaluated on $(\mathbb C^+)^n$, and even less when its amplification is evaluated on $\{a\in M_k(\mathbb C)\colon \Im a>0\}^n$, a careful reading of the proofs of [@ATY Propositions 3.4 and 3.5] allows one to observe that they adapt without modification to show that $\Im M(a_1,\dots,
a_n)>0$ for $(a_1,\dots,a_n)\in\{a\in M_k(\mathbb C)\colon \Im a>0\}^n$.) The extension of $h$ becomes $$h_k(a)=s\otimes1_k+(\varphi_v\otimes{\rm Id}_k)(M(a)),$$ for all $ a=(a_1,\dots,a_n)\in
\{a\in M_k(\mathbb C)\colon \Im a>0\}^n.$ For $n=2$ [*any*]{} analytic function $h\colon\mathbb C^+\times\mathbb C^+\to\mathbb C^+$ admits such an operatorial realization, and hence it has a noncommutative extension as described above (see [@AMcY; @ATY; @ATY2]). Considering the counterexample $h$ provided in [@AMcY], the map $H\colon H^+(\mathbb C^2)\to H^+(\mathbb C^2)$ defined by $H(a)=(h(a),h(a))$ shows that we cannot dispense of item (1’) in Theorem \[Main\]. However, observe that the noncommutative structure of the function $f$ in Theorem \[Main\] (1) allows for a slightly stronger conclusion than in classical case of [@AMcY; @Abate]: the “directional derivative” becomes a bounded linear operator defined on all of $\mathcal A$.
As noted above, a classical analytic function is itself the first level of a noncommutative function, via the classical analytic functional calculus applied to matrices over $\mathbb C$. Relations , , are the obvious consequences of relations and in this context. Thus the statements of Theorem \[Main\] are anything but surprising. Indeed, if $f$ has an analytic extension around $\alpha$, then the proof of Theorem \[Main\] is absolutely trivial.
A norm estimate
===============
Several slightly different proofs of Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory Theorem can be found in the literature. An essential element in one of them is the Schwarz-Pick Lemma: an analytic self-map of the upper half-plane is a contraction with respect to a “good” metric on $\mathbb C^+$. In the next proposition, we obtain a similar result for noncommutative functions. We think that there is a rather striking resemblance between our result below and [@Mellon Corollary 3.3], but it is not clear to us yet whether the two results can be obtained from each other, or even to what extent they are related. We intend to pursue this question later.
\[prop:3.1\] Let $\mathcal A,\mathcal C$ be two von Neumann algebras and $f\colon H^+(\mathcal A)
\to H^+(\mathcal C)$ be a noncommutative map. For any $n\in\mathbb N$ and $a,c\in
H^+(M_n(\mathcal A))$, the linear map $$M_n(\mathcal A)\ni b\mapsto\left(\Im f(a)\right)^{-\frac12}\Delta f
(a,c)\left((\Im a)^{\frac12}b(\Im c)^\frac12\right)
\left(\Im f(c)\right)^{-\frac12}\in M_n(\mathcal C)$$ is a complete contraction. In particular, $$\left\|\left(\Im f(a)\right)^{-\frac12}\Delta f
(a,c)(b)\left(\Im f(c)\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|_\mathcal C\leq
\left\|\left(\Im a\right)^{-\frac12}b\left(\Im c\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|_\mathcal A,$$ so that, by Equation , for $b=a-c$, $$\left\|\left(\Im f(a)\right)^{-\frac12}(f(a)-f(c))
\left(\Im f(c)\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|_\mathcal C\leq\left\|\left(
\Im a\right)^{-\frac12}(a-c)\left(\Im c\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|_\mathcal A.$$
The estimate will often be used under the equivalent forms $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left[(\Im f(a))^{-\frac12}\Delta f(a,c)(b)(\Im f(c))^{-\frac12}\right]^*
\left[(\Im f(a))^{-\frac12}\Delta f(a,c)(b)(\Im f(c))^{-\frac12}\right]}\nonumber\\ & \leq &
\left\|\left(\Im a\right)^{-\frac12}b\left(\Im c\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|_\mathcal A^2\cdot
1_{M_n(\mathcal C)},\label{est}
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left[(\Im f(a))^{-\frac12}\Delta f(a,c)(b)(\Im f(c))^{-\frac12}\right]
\left[(\Im f(a))^{-\frac12}\Delta f(a,c)(b)(\Im f(c))^{-\frac12}\right]^*}\nonumber\\ & \leq &
\left\|\left(\Im a\right)^{-\frac12}b\left(\Im c\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|_\mathcal A^2\cdot
1_{M_n(\mathcal C)},\label{est'}
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$ $$\Delta f(a,c)(b)^*(\Im f(a))^{-1}
\Delta f(a,c)(b)\leq
\left\|\left(\Im a\right)^{-\frac12}b\left(\Im c\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|_\mathcal A^2\cdot
\Im f(c),\label{est''}$$ $$\Delta f(a,c)(b)(\Im f(c))^{-1}
\Delta f(a,c)(b)^*\leq
\left\|\left(\Im a\right)^{-\frac12}b\left(\Im c\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|_\mathcal A^2\cdot
\Im f(a),\label{est'''}$$ which we give here for convenience. Of course, if $b\in M_n(\mathcal A)$, the notation $\|b\|_\mathcal A$ signifies the C${}^*$-norm of $b$ as an element in $M_n(\mathcal A)$.
As $\Im \left(\begin{array}{cc}
a & b\\
0 & c
\end{array}\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Im a & \frac{b}{2i}\\
\left(\frac{b}{2i}\right)^* & \Im c
\end{array}\right)$, we have $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a & b\\
0 & c
\end{array}\right)\in H^+(M_{2n}(\mathcal A))$ if and only if $a,c\in H^+(M_{n}(\mathcal A))$ and $b^*(\Im a)^{-1}b<4\Im c$. This last relation is equivalent to $\left[(\Im a)^{-\frac12}b
(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\right]^*\left[(\Im a)^{-\frac12}b
(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\right]<4$, or $\|(\Im a)^{-\frac12}b
(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\|_\mathcal A<2$. Thus, as $f$ maps the noncommutative upper half-plane into itself, and for any $b_0\in M_n(\mathcal A)$ there exists an $\varepsilon_{b_0}=\frac{2}{\|(\Im a)^{-\frac12}b_0
(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\|_\mathcal A}>0$ such that $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a & \varepsilon {b_0}\\
0 & c
\end{array}\right)\in H^+(M_{2n}(\mathcal A))\quad\text{for all }
\varepsilon\in[0,\varepsilon_{b_0}),$$ and so $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
f(a) & \varepsilon\Delta f(a,c)({b_0})\\
0 & f(c)
\end{array}\right)\in H^+(M_{2n}(\mathcal A))\quad\text{for all }
\varepsilon\in[0,\varepsilon_{b_0}).$$ In particular $\varepsilon\left\|\left(\Im f(a)\right)^{-\frac12}
\Delta f(a,c)({b_0})\left(\Im f(c)\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|_\mathcal C<2$ for $\varepsilon<\frac{2}{\|(\Im a)^{-\frac12}b_0
(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\|_\mathcal A}$. Letting $\varepsilon\to\frac{2}{\|(\Im a)^{-\frac12}b_0
(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\|_\mathcal A}$ from below, we obtain $$\left\|\left(\Im f(a)\right)^{-\frac12}
\Delta f(a,c)({b_0})\left(\Im f(c)\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|_\mathcal C\leq
\|(\Im a)^{-\frac12}b_0(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\|_\mathcal A.$$ As $b_0\in M_n(\mathcal A)$ has been chosen arbitrarily, we can replace it by $(\Im a)^{\frac12}b(\Im c)^{\frac12}$ to conclude that, as claimed $$\left\|\left(\Im f(a)\right)^{-\frac12}\Delta f
(a,c)\left((\Im a)^{\frac12}b(\Im c)^\frac12\right)
\left(\Im f(c)\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|_\mathcal C\leq\|b\|_\mathcal A,\quad b\in
M_n(\mathcal A).$$
Clearly, the same method can be used to obtain estimates involving $\Delta^jf$ for all $j\in\mathbb N$. We give one such estimate pertaining to a special case of $j=2$. We shall simply apply the above result to appropriately chosen elements in $M_2(\mathcal A)$. Let $$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
a_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & a_2 & c & 0 \\
0 & 0 & a_3 & b \\
0 & 0 & 0 & a_4
\end{array}\right)$$ be such that $\Im a_j>0$ and $
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a_3 & b\\
0 & a_4
\end{array}\right)\in H^+(M_2(\mathcal A))$. From [@ncfound Section 3] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{f\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
a_1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & a_2 & c & 0 \\
0 & 0 & a_3 & b \\
0 & 0 & 0 & a_4
\end{array}\right)}\\
& = &
\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
f(a_1) & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & f(a_2) & \Delta f(a_2,a_3)(c) & \Delta^2 f(a_2,a_3,a_4)(c,b) \\
0 & 0 & f(a_3) & \Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b) \\
0 & 0 & 0 & f(a_4)
\end{array}\right).\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$ Applying Proposition \[prop:3.1\] to $a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a_1 & 0\\
0 & a_2
\end{array}\right),c=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a_3 & b\\
0 & a_4
\end{array}\right)$ and $b=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
c & 0
\end{array}\right)$ under the form of provides an estimate for $\Delta^2 f(a_2,a_3,a_4)(c,b)$. As the size of the formula in question becomes quite large, we shall split it. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\Im f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
a_3 & b\\
0 & a_4
\end{array}\right)^{-1}
& = & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Im f(a_3) & \frac{\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)}{2i}\\
\frac{\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)^*}{-2i} & f(a_4)
\end{array}\right)^{-1}\\
& = & \left(\begin{array}{cc}
e_{11} & e_{12}\\
e_{21} & e_{22}
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
e_{11}&=&\left(\Im f(a_3)-\frac{\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)(\Im f(a_4))^{-1}\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)^*}{4}\right)^{-1}\\
e_{12}&=&\left(\Im f(a_3)-\frac{\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)(\Im f(a_4))^{-1}\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)^*}{4}
\right)^{-1}\\
& & \mbox{}\times\frac{\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)}{-2i}(\Im f(a_4))^{-1}\\
e_{21}&=&(\Im f(a_4))^{-1}\frac{\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)^*}{2i}\\
& & \mbox{}\times\left(\Im f(a_3)-\frac{\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)(\Im f(a_4))^{-1}\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)^*}{4}
\right)^{-1}=e_{12}^*\\
e_{22}&=&\left(\Im f(a_4)-\frac{\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)^*(\Im f(a_3))^{-1}\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)}{4}\right)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, in the left-hand side of preserves only one nonzero element, in the position $22$ (lower right corner), namely $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\Delta f(a_2,a_3)(c)e_{11}\Delta f(a_2,a_3)(c)^*+2\Re\left(\Delta f(a_2,a_3)(c)e_{12}
\Delta^2 f(a_2,a_3,a_4)(c,b)^*\right)}\\
& & \mbox{}+\Delta^2 f(a_2,a_3,a_4)(c,b)e_{22}\Delta^2 f(a_2,a_3,a_4)(c,b)^* \\
&=&\Delta f(a_2,a_3)(c)e_{11}\Delta f(a_2,a_3)(c)^*\\
& & \mbox{}-\Im\left(
\Delta f(a_2,a_3)(c)e_{11}\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)(\Im f(a_4))^{-1}
\Delta^2 f(a_2,a_3,a_4)(c,b)^*\right)\\
& & \mbox{}+\Delta^2 f(a_2,a_3,a_4)(c,b)e_{22}\Delta^2 f(a_2,a_3,a_4)(c,b)^*.\end{aligned}$$ On the right-hand side of we have the norm $$\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
(\Im a_1)^{-\frac12} & 0\\
0 & (\Im a_2)^{-\frac12}
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0\\
c & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\Im a_3 & \frac{b}{2i}\\
\left(\frac{b}{2i}\right)^* & \Im a_4
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|.$$ We use the properties of C${}^*$-norms to conclude that this norm in $M_2(\mathcal A)$ in fact equals the norm $\left\|(\Im a_2)^{-\frac12}c \left(\Im a_3-\frac14b(\Im a_4)^{-1}b^*
\right) c^*(\Im a_2)^{-\frac12}\right\|$ in $\mathcal A$. Thus, inequality for elements in $M_2(\mathcal A)$ translates into an inequality of elements in $\mathcal A$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\Delta f(a_2,a_3)(c)e_{11}\Delta f(a_2,a_3)(c)^*}\nonumber\\
& & \mbox{}-\Im\left(
\Delta f(a_2,a_3)(c)e_{12}\Delta f(a_3,a_4)(b)(\Im f(a_4))^{-1}
\Delta^2 f(a_2,a_3,a_4)(c,b)^*\right)\nonumber\\
& & \mbox{}+\Delta^2 f(a_2,a_3,a_4)(c,b)e_{22}\Delta^2 f(a_2,a_3,a_4)(c,b)^*\nonumber\\
& \leq & \left\|(\Im a_2)^{-\frac12}c \left(\Im a_3-\frac14b(\Im a_4)^{-1}b^*
\right)^{-1} c^*(\Im a_2)^{-\frac12}\right\|\Im f(a_2).\label{secondderiv}\end{aligned}$$
However, for now their form seems to be too complicated when $j>2$, and of no significant use for the purposes of this paper. Since the above proposition is applied in this paper only for $\mathcal A=\mathcal C$, from now on we shall eliminate the subscript from the notation of the C${}^*$-norm of $\mathcal A$.
\[Hyper\] Fix $n\in\mathbb N$, $r>0$ and $c\in H^+(M_n(\mathcal A))$. Denote $$B^+_n(c,r)=\left\{a\in H^+(M_n(\mathcal A))\colon\left\|(\Im a)^{-1/2}(a-c)(\Im c)^{-1/2}\right\|\leq r
\right\}.$$ Then $B_n^+(c,r)$ is a norm-closed norm-bounded convex subset of $H^+(M_n(\mathcal A))$ with nonempty interior, which is bounded away from the topological boundary in the norm topology of $H^+(M_n(\mathcal A))$. Moreover, it is noncommutative. More precisely, $$\label{estimBall}
\|a\|\leq\|\Re c\|+\|\Im c\|\left(\frac{r^2+2+r\sqrt{r^2+4}}{2}+r\sqrt{\frac{r^2+2+r\sqrt{r^2+4}}{2}}\right),\ a\in B^+_n(c,r),$$ and $$\label{estimBdry}
\Im a\ge\frac{1}{2+r^2}\Im c,\quad a\in B^+_n(c,r).$$
The set $B^+_n(c,r)$ is norm-bounded: $a\in B^+_n(c,r)$ if and only if $(\Im a)^{-\frac12}(a-c)
(\Im c)^{-1}(a-c)^*(\Im a)^{-\frac12}\leq r^2\cdot1$, relation which implies $(a-c)(\Im c)^{-1}
(a-c)^*\leq r^2\|\Im a\|\cdot1$, which in its own turn implies $\left\|[(a-c)(\Im c)^{-\frac12}]
[(a-c)(\Im c)^{-\frac12}]^*\right\|\leq r^2\|\Im a\|$. Recalling that in any C${}^*$-algebra the adjoint (star) operation is isometric and that $\|x^*x\|=\|x\|^2$, this implies that $\left\|[(a-c)(\Im c)^{-\frac12}]^*
[(a-c)(\Im c)^{-\frac12}]\right\|\leq r^2\|\Im a\|$, which again implies $(\Im c)^{-\frac12}(a-c)^*(a-c)(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\leq r^2\|\Im a\|\cdot1$. Thus, repeating once again the above computations, we obtain $$\|a-c\|^2\leq r^2\|\Im a\|\|\Im c\|,\quad a\in B^+_n(c,r).$$ Recall that $\Im x=(x-x^*)/2i$, so $\|\Im x\|\leq(\|x\|+\|x^*\|)/2=\|x\|$. Similarly, $\|\Re x\|\leq
\|x\|.$ Applying this to $x=a-c$, we obtain $$\left(\|\Im a\|-\|\Im c\|\right)^2\leq\|\Im (a-c)\|^2\leq\|a-c\|^2\leq r^2\|\Im a\|\|\Im c\|
,\quad a\in B^+_n(c,r).$$ Direct computation shows that this relation imposes $$\label{estimIm}
\frac{\|\Im c\|}{2}\left(r^2+2-r\sqrt{r^2+4}\right)\leq\|\Im a\|\leq
\frac{\|\Im c\|}{2}\left(r^2+2+r\sqrt{r^2+4}\right),$$ for all $a\in B^+_n(c,r).$ Similarly,$\|\Re(a-c)\|^2\leq\|a-c\|^2\leq r^2\|\Im a\|\|\Im c\|$ implies $$\label{estimRe}
0\leq\|\Re a\|\le\|\Re c\|+r\|\Im c\|\sqrt{\frac{r^2+2+r\sqrt{r^2+4}}{2}},\quad a\in B^+_n(c,r).$$ Adding relations and provides the bound $$\|a\|\leq\|\Re c\|+\|\Im c\|
\left(\frac{r^2+2+r\sqrt{r^2+4}}{2}+r\sqrt{\frac{r^2+2+r\sqrt{r^2+4}}{2}}\right),$$ as claimed in our remark.
Relation is proved by a direct application of one of the equivalent definitions of positivity in a von Neumann algebra and the Cauchy-Buniakovsky-Schwarz inequality in Hilbert spaces. Let $\xi$ be an arbitrary vector in the Hilbert space $\mathcal H^n$ on which $M_n(
\mathcal A)$ acts as a von Neumann algebra. As we have seen in the proof of above, $a\in B^+_n(c,r)\iff (a-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a-c)^*\leq r^2\Im a$. This means that $$\left\langle (a-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a-c)^*\xi,\xi\right\rangle\leq r^2\langle\Im a\xi,\xi\rangle.$$ Moving $a-c$ to the right with a star and taking real and imaginary parts provides us with $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left\|(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi\right\|_2^2+\left\|(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Im a\xi\right\|_2^2
+\langle\Im c\xi,\xi\rangle}\\
& & \mbox{}+i\left(\left\langle(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi,(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Im a\xi\right\rangle
-\overline{\left\langle(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi,(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Im a\xi\right\rangle}\right)\\
&\leq &(2+r^2)\langle\Im a\xi,\xi\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Second line above is simply $-2\Im\left\langle(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi,(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Im
a\xi\right\rangle$, which is clearly greater than $-2\left|
\left\langle(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi,(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Im a\xi\right\rangle\right|.$ By the Schwarz-Cauchy inequality (applied in the second inequality below) we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\Im c\xi,\xi\rangle & \leq & \langle\Im c\xi,\xi\rangle+\left(
\left\|(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi\right\|_2-\left\|(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Im a\xi\right\|_2\right)^2\\
& = & \langle\Im c\xi,\xi\rangle+\left\|(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi\right\|_2^2+\left\|(\Im
c)^{-\frac12}\Im a\xi\right\|_2^2\\
& & \mbox{}-2\left\|(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi\right\|_2\left\|(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Im a\xi\right\|_2\\
& \leq & \langle\Im c\xi,\xi\rangle+\left\|(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi\right\|_2^2+\left\|(\Im
c)^{-\frac12}\Im a\xi\right\|_2^2\\
& & \mbox{}-2\left|
\left\langle(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi,(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Im a\xi\right\rangle\right|\\
& \leq & \langle\Im c\xi,\xi\rangle+\left\|(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi\right\|_2^2+\left\|(\Im
c)^{-\frac12}\Im a\xi\right\|_2^2\\
& & \mbox{}-2\Im\left\langle(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Re(a-c)\xi,(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\Im
a\xi\right\rangle\\
&\leq &(2+r^2)\langle\Im a\xi,\xi\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Since this is true for all vectors $\xi\in\mathcal H^n$, we obtain $\Im c\leq(2+r^2)\Im a$, implying .
That $B^+_n(c,r)$ is closed in norm follows even easier: if $a_m\in B^+_n(c,r)$ and $\lim_{m\to\infty}
\|a_m-a\|=0$, then $\lim_{m\to\infty}\|a_m^*-a^*\|=0$, and thus $\lim_{m\to\infty}
\|\Im a_m-\Im a\|=0$. This also implies that $\Im a\ge\frac{1}{2+r^2}\Im c>0$, so that, by analytic functional calculus, $\lim_{m\to\infty}\left\|(\Im a_m)^{-\frac12}-(\Im a)^{-\frac12}\right\|=0$. A few succesive applications of the product-norm inequalities in C${}^*$-algebras provides $$\begin{aligned}
\left\|(\Im a)^{-\frac12}(a-c)(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\right\|&\leq&\left\|(\Im a)^{-\frac12}\right\|\|a_m-a\|
+\left\|(\Im a_m)^{-\frac12}-(\Im a)^{-\frac12}\right\|\\
& & \mbox{}\times\left\|(a_m-c)(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\right\|+\left\|(\Im a_m)^{-\frac12}(a_m-c)
(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\right\|.\end{aligned}$$ First and second right-hand terms converge to zero as $m\to\infty$, and the last is no more than $r$. Thus, $\left\|(\Im a)^{-\frac12}(a-c)(\Im c)^{-\frac12}\right\|\leq r$, which implies $a\in B^+_n(c,r)$.
Midpoint convexity of $B^+_n(c,r)$ follows easily from a direct computation: let $a_1,a_2\in B_n^+(c,r)$. We show that $(a_1+a_2)/2$ is in $B_n^+(c,r)$. As in , this is equivalent to showing that $$\left(\Im\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}\right)^{-\frac12}\left(\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}-c\right)(\Im c)^{-1}
\left(\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}-c\right)^*\left(\Im\frac{a_1+a_2}{2}\right)^{-\frac12}\leq r^2\cdot1,$$ which is in its own turn equivalent to $$\label{conv}
\left(\frac{a_1-c}{2}+\frac{a_2-c}{2}\right)(\Im c)^{-1}\left(\frac{a_1-c}{2}+\frac{a_2-c}{2}\right)^*\leq
\frac{r^2}{2}\Im(a_1+a_2).$$ However, adding the inequalities $(a_1-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_1-c)^*\leq r^2\Im a_1$ and $(a_2-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_2-c)^*\leq r^2\Im a_2$ (assumed to be true by hypothesis) and dividing by 2, we obtain $$\frac12((a_1-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_1-c)^*+\frac12(a_2-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_2-c)^*\leq\frac{r^2}{2}\Im(a_1+a_2).$$ Thus, our statement is proved if we show that the left-hand term of is less than or equal to the left-hand term of the inequality above. Expanding the left-hand of and subtracting from the one above yields $$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac12(a_1-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_1-c)^*+\frac12(a_2-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_2-c)^*\\
& & \mbox{}-\frac14(a_1-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_1-c)^*-\frac14(a_2-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_2-c)^*\\
& & \mbox{}-\frac14(a_1-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_2-c)^*-\frac14(a_2-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_1-c)^*\\
& = & \frac14\left[(a_1-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_1-c-a_2+c)^*+(a_2-c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_2-c-a_1+c)^*\right]\\
& = & \frac14(a_1-c-a_2+c)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_1-a_2)^*=\frac14(a_1-a_2)(\Im c)^{-1}(a_1-a_2)^*\ge0.\end{aligned}$$ Since $B^+_n(c,r)$ is midpoint convex and closed, it is convex.
To conclude, observe that all the above computations hold if $c\in H^+(M_n(\mathcal A))$ is replaced by $c\otimes 1_p\in H^+(M_{np}(\mathcal A))$. Indeed, one only needs to observe that taking imaginary part, inverse and root, as well as multiplication, respect direct sums. Since $\|a\oplus b\|=
\max\{\|a\|,\|b\|\}$, we’re done. Estimates and hold on the amplifications of $c$ to any $c\otimes 1_p$, $p\in\mathbb N$, with the same constants.
The following lemma will be useful when applying Proposition \[prop:3.1\] to the proof of the main result (compare with the method used in [@BPV1 Remark 2.5]).
\[lem:3.2\] Assume that $f$ is a noncommutative self-map of the noncommutative upper half-plane of $\mathcal A$. Let $v_1,v_2>0$ in $\mathcal A$. If $${\rm wo}\text{-}\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv_j)}{y}=c_j\in
\mathcal A,\quad j\in\{1,2\},$$ exist, then the set of limit points of $\Delta f(\alpha+zv_1,
\alpha+\zeta v_2)(w)$ as $z,\zeta\to 0$ nontangentially is bounded uniformly in norm as $w$ varies in the unit ball of $\mathcal A$.
By Proposition \[prop:3.1\], $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left\|\left(\Im f(\alpha+zv_1)\right)^{-\frac12}
\Delta f(\alpha+zv_1,\alpha+\zeta v_2)(w)
\left(\Im f(\alpha+\zeta v_2)\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|}\\
&\leq&\left\|(\Im zv_1)^{-\frac12}w(\Im\zeta v_2)^{-\frac12}\right\|.
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$ Multiplying by $(\Im z\Im\zeta)^{1/2}$ we obtain $$\left\|\left[\frac{\Im f(\alpha+zv_1)}{\Im z}\right]^{-\frac12}
\Delta f(\alpha+zv_1,\alpha+\zeta v_2)(w)\left[\frac{\Im f(\alpha+\zeta v_2)}{\Im\zeta}\right]^{-\frac12}
\right\|\leq\left\|v_1^{-\frac12}wv_2^{-\frac12}\right\|.$$ Let $\varepsilon\ge0$ be fixed, and denote $f_\varepsilon(a)=
f(a)+\varepsilon a$, i.e. $f_\varepsilon=f+\varepsilon{\rm Id}$. Since $\text{Id}$ is completely positive, $f_\varepsilon$ is still a noncommutative self-map of the noncommutative upper half-plane of $\mathcal A$, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left
\|\left(\frac{\Im f(\alpha+zv_1)}{\Im z}+\varepsilon v_1\right)^{-\frac12}
(\Delta f(\alpha+zv_1,\alpha+\zeta v_2)(w)+\varepsilon w)\right.\times}\\
& & \left.\left(\frac{\Im f(\alpha+\zeta v_2)}{\Im\zeta}+\varepsilon v_2
\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|\\
& \leq & \left\|v_1^{-\frac12}wv_2^{-\frac12}\right\|.\quad\quad\quad
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad
\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$ For simplicity, we denote $A_1(\Im z,\varepsilon)=
\frac{\Im f(\alpha+zv_1)}{\Im z}+\varepsilon v_1$, $A_2(\Im\zeta,\varepsilon)=
\frac{\Im f(\alpha+\zeta v_2)}{\Im\zeta}+\varepsilon v_2$, $W(z,\zeta,\varepsilon)=
\Delta f(\alpha+zv_1,\alpha+\zeta v_2)(w)+\varepsilon w$, and $K=\left\|
v_1^{-\frac12}wv_2^{-\frac12}\right\|^2$. As noted in , and following the same procedure as in the proof fo the previous proposition, the above is equivalent to $$A_2(\Im\zeta,\varepsilon)^{-\frac12}W(z,\zeta,\varepsilon)^*
A_1(\Im z,\varepsilon)^{-1}W(z,\zeta,\varepsilon)A_2(\Im\zeta,\varepsilon)^{-\frac12}
\leq K1.$$ As $A_j(\cdot,\varepsilon)\ge\varepsilon1$, we obtain by the same methods as in the proof of Proposition \[Hyper\] that $$\|W(z,\zeta,\varepsilon)\|^2\leq K\|A_1(\Im z,\varepsilon)\|\|A_2(\Im\zeta,\varepsilon)\|.$$ Let $\mathcal H$ be the Hilbert space on which $\mathcal A$ acts as a von Neumann algebra. By our hypothesis, $\lim_{y\downarrow 0}\frac{\langle\Im f(\alpha+iyv_j)\xi,\xi\rangle}{y}=
\lim_{y\downarrow 0}\left\|\left(\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv_j)}{y}
\right)^\frac12\xi\right\|_2^2$ exist and equal $\langle c_j\xi,\xi\rangle$, finite for any $\xi\in\mathcal H$. Thus, the family $\left\{\left\|\frac{\left(\Im f(\alpha+iyv_j)\right)^{1/2}}{\sqrt{y}}
\xi\right\|_2\colon y\in(0,1)\right\}$ is bounded for any $\xi\in\mathcal H$. By the Banach-Steinhaus Theorem and the positivity of the operators $\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv_j)}{{y}}$, it follows that $\left\{\left\|\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv_j)}{{y}}\right\|\colon
y\in(0,1)\right\}$ is a bounded set. Moreover, as it will be seen in the proof of Theorem \[JC\], if $z$ tends to zero nontangentially and $\lim_{y\downarrow 0}\frac{\langle\Im f(\alpha+iyv_j)\xi,\xi\rangle}{y}$ is finite, then $\left\{\frac{\langle\Im f(\alpha+\Im zv_j)\xi,\xi\rangle}{\Im z}\colon|z|<1,z\in\Gamma\right\}$ stays bounded for any closed cone $\Gamma\subset\mathbb C^+\cup\{0\}$. A bound for $c_j$ is $\|c_j\|\leq\limsup_{y\to0}\left\|\frac{\Im f
(\alpha+iyv_j)}{{y}}\right\|$. Thus, $\{\|W(z,\zeta,\varepsilon)\|\colon
z,\zeta\in\Gamma,|z|,|\zeta|<1\}$ is bounded for any closed cone $\Gamma\subset\mathbb C^+$ with vertex at zero. The lemma follows by letting $\varepsilon\downarrow0$.
We note that the bounds depend exclusively on $c_j,v_j (j=1,2),w$. Moreover, the dependence can be bounded (at most) linearly in terms of $\|w\|,\|v_1\|,\|v_2\|,\|v_1^{-1}\|$ and $\|v_2^{-1}\|$.
For the sake of completeness, let us use the results of Proposition \[prop:3.1\] to give a short, elementary proof of Theorem \[JC\].
Assume equation holds. By Proposition \[prop:3.1\], $$\left|\frac{f(z)-f(z')}{\sqrt{\Im f(z)\Im f(z')}}\right|\leq
\left|\frac{z-z'}{\sqrt{\Im z\Im z'}}\right|,\quad z,z'\in
\mathbb C^+.$$ This is equivalent to $$\label{9}
\left|\frac{f(z)-f(z')}{z-z'}\right|^2\leq
\left|\frac{\Im f(z)\Im f(z')}{\Im z\Im z'}\right|,\quad z,z'\in
\mathbb C^+, z\neq z'.$$ Consider a sequence $\{z_n'\}_{n\in\mathbb N}\subset\mathbb C^+$ converging to $\alpha$ such that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\Im f(z_n')}{
\Im z_n'}=c$. Clearly $\Im f(z_n')\to0$ as $n\to\infty$, and $\{\Re
f(z_n')\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is a bounded sequence in $\mathbb R$. Moreover, if $\{z_n\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ and $\{z_n'\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ are two arbitrary sequences converging to $\alpha$ along which $\Im f(z)/\Im z$ stays bounded, then $\{\Re(f(z_n)-f(z_n'))\}_{
n\in\mathbb N}$ converges to zero. This implies that $\lim_{n\to\infty}
f(z_n)$ exists for any sequence $\{z_n\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ such that $\{\Im f(z_n)/\Im z_n\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ is bounded and $\lim_{n\to
\infty}z_n=\alpha$. We agree to call this limit $f(\alpha)$. Taking limit along $z_n'$ in we obtain $$\left|\frac{f(z)-f(\alpha)}{z-\alpha}\right|^2\leq
c\frac{\Im f(z)}{\Im z},\quad z\in\mathbb C^+.$$ Fix an $M\in[0,+\infty)$. Let $D_M=\{z\in\mathbb C^+\colon
|\Re z-\alpha|\leq M\Im z\}$. For any $z\in D_M$, this implies $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\Re f(z)-f(\alpha)\right)^2 & \leq & c\frac{\Im f(z)}{\Im z}|z-
\alpha|^2-\left(\Im f(z)\right)^2\\
& = & \Im f(z)\left(\frac{c|z-\alpha|^2}{\Im z}-\Im f(z)\right)\\
& = & \Im f(z)\left(c\Im z\frac{|\Re z-\alpha|^2}{(\Im z)^2}
+c\Im z-\Im f(z)\right)\\
& \leq & \Im f(z)\left(c(M^2+1)\Im z-\Im f(z)\right).\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that $\Im f(z)/\Im z\leq c(M^2+1)$ for all $z\in D_M$ and thus $\displaystyle\lim_{\stackrel{z\longrightarrow0}{{\sphericalangle}}}
f(z)=f(\alpha)$. Moreover, for $M=0$ (i.e. $z$ of the form $\alpha+iy$) we have $c\geq\Im f(\alpha+iy)/y$, which together with the definition of $c$ implies $\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac{\Im f
(\alpha+iy)}{y}=c$, so that $$\frac{\left(\Re f(\alpha+iy)-f(\alpha)\right)^2}{y^2}\leq \frac{\Im f(\alpha+iy)}{y}
\left(c-\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iy)}{y}\right)\to0\quad\text{as }y\downarrow0.$$ These two facts imply, via direct computation, that $\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac{f(\alpha+iy)-f(\alpha)}{iy}=c$. Since $$\left|\frac{f(z)-f(\alpha)}{z-\alpha}\right|^2\leq
c\frac{\Im f(z)}{\Im z}\leq c^2(M^2+1),\quad z\in D_M, M\ge0,$$ it follows straightforwardly that $$\lim_{\stackrel{z\longrightarrow0}{{\sphericalangle}}}
\frac{f(z)-f(\alpha)}{z-\alpha}=c$$ (see for example [@garnett Exercise 5, Chapter I]).
Considering the classical definition of the derivative, the above directly implies that $\lim_{y\downarrow0}f'(\alpha+iy)=c.$ Relation implies that $|f'(z)|\leq c(M^2+1)$ for $z\in
D_M$, so, by the same [@garnett Exercise 5, Chapter I], $\displaystyle\lim_{\stackrel{z\longrightarrow0}{{\sphericalangle}}}
f'(z)=c$. This proves (1).
To prove (2), simply observe that $$\left|\frac{f(\alpha+iy)-f(\alpha)}{iy}\right|^2=
\left|\frac{(\Re f(\alpha+iy)-f(\alpha))^2+(\Im f(\alpha+iy))^2}{y^2}
\right|\ge\frac{(\Im f(\alpha+iy))^2}{y^2},$$ so that $\liminf_{z\to\alpha}\frac{\Im f(z)}{\Im z}<\infty$. Part (2) follows now from part (1).
To prove part (3), we apply the classical mean value theorem to bound $\Im f(\alpha+iy)/y$. The result follows then from part (1).
We feel it necessary to reiterate that no claim to novelty is made for this proof, and we chose to write it down here for the sake of making the paper more self-contained.
Proof of the main result
========================
In this section we prove Theorem \[Main\]. The proof makes use quite often of the results, and sometimes of the proof, of Theorem \[JC\]. For the sake of simplicity, we will isolate some elements of the proof in separate lemmas.
For any $n\in\mathbb N$ and any state $\varphi$ on $M_n(\mathcal A)$, $z\mapsto\varphi(f(\alpha+zv))$ is a self-map of $\mathbb C^+$ whenever $\alpha$ is selfadjoint and $v>0$ in $M_n(\mathcal A)$. Thus, Theorem \[JC\] applies to it. In particular, if $\mathcal H$ is the Hilbert space on which the von Neumann algebra $\mathcal A$ acts, the above holds for the vector state corresponding to any $\xi\in
\oplus_{j=1}^n\mathcal H$ of $L^2$-norm equal to one. For $n=1$, our hypothesis guarantees that $\liminf_{z\to0}\frac{\langle\Im f(\alpha+zv)\xi,\xi\rangle}{\Im z}$ is finite. Item (1) of Theorem \[JC\] guarantees that $\lim_{y\downarrow 0}\frac{\langle\Im f(\alpha+iyv)\xi,\xi\rangle}{y}=
\lim_{y\downarrow 0}\left\|\left(\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv)}{y}
\right)^\frac12\xi\right\|_2^2$ exists and equals the above $\liminf$, hence it is finite for any $\xi\in
\mathcal H$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:3.2\], the Banach-Steinhaus Theorem and the positivity of the operators $\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv)}{{y}}$ guarantee that $\left\{\left\|\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv)}{{y}}\right\|\colon
y\in(0,1)\right\}$ is a bounded set. Moreover, the existence of the limits $\lim_{y\downarrow 0}\frac{\langle\Im f(\alpha+iyv)\xi,\xi\rangle}{y}$ for all $\xi\in\mathcal H$ implies, via polarization, the existence of $$\lim_{y\downarrow 0}\frac{\langle\Im f(\alpha+iyv)\xi,\eta\rangle}{y},
\quad \xi,\eta\in\mathcal H.$$ We conclude the existence of a bounded operator $0\le c=c(v)\in\mathcal
A$ such that $$\lim_{y\downarrow 0}\frac{\langle\Im f(\alpha+iyv)\xi,\eta\rangle}{y}=
\langle c\xi,\eta\rangle,\quad \xi,\eta\in\mathcal H.$$ The bound for $c$ is $\|c\|\leq\limsup_{y\to0}\left\|\frac{\Im f
(\alpha+iyv)}{{y}}\right\|$. On the other hand, as seen in the proof of Theorem \[JC\], $\Im\langle f(\alpha+iyv)\xi,\xi\rangle\leq y\langle c\xi,\xi\rangle$ for all $y>0$. Since $f$ takes values in $H^+(\mathcal A)$, applying this relation to $y=1$ guaranteres that $c>0$. Now it follows easily that $\lim_{y\downarrow0}\left\|\left(\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv)}{y}-c\right)\xi\right\|=0$ for any $\xi\in\mathcal H$.
We show next that the limit $\lim_{y\downarrow 0}f(\alpha+iyv)=f(\alpha)$ exists in $\mathcal A$ (i.e. does not depend on $v$) and is selfadjoint. Indeed, consider again any state $\varphi$ on $\mathcal A
$ and define $z\mapsto\varphi(f(\alpha+zv))$. We have seen that this is a self-map of $\mathbb C^+$ to which Theorem \[JC\] applies. Thus, there exists a number $k=k(\varphi,\alpha,v)
\in\mathbb R$ such that $\displaystyle\lim_{\stackrel{z\longrightarrow
0}{\sphericalangle}}\varphi(f(\alpha+zv))=k.$ We recall the estimate from Proposition \[prop:3.1\] $$\left|
\frac{\varphi(f(\alpha+zv))-\varphi(f(\alpha+z'v))}{z-z'}\right|^2
\leq\frac{\varphi(\Im f(\alpha+zv))\varphi(\Im f(\alpha+z'v))}{\Im z
\Im z'}.$$ In this estimate we take $z'=i$ and let $z=iy$ tend to zero. We obtain $$\left|k(\varphi,\alpha,v)-\varphi(f(\alpha+iv))\right|^2
\leq\varphi(c)\varphi(\Im f(\alpha+iv)).$$ Obviously, $|\varphi(f(\alpha+iv))|\leq\|f(\alpha+iv)\|,$ a value independent of $\varphi$. Thus, $$|k(\varphi,\alpha,v)|\leq\|f(\alpha+iv)\|+\sqrt{\|c\|
\|\Im f(\alpha+iv)\|},$$ for any state $\varphi$ on $\mathcal A$. By applying as before this result to vector states and using polarization, we find an operator $f_v(\alpha)\in\mathcal A$ such that $$\langle f_v(\alpha)\xi,\eta\rangle=\lim_{y\downarrow 0}
\langle f(\alpha+iv)\xi,\eta\rangle,\quad\xi,\eta\in\mathcal H.$$ Since $\|x\|=\sup\{|\varphi(x)|\colon\varphi\text{ state on }
\mathcal A\}$, the estimate $$\|f_v(\alpha)\|\leq4\left(\|f(\alpha+iv)\|+\sqrt{\|c\|
\|\Im f(\alpha+iv)\|}\right)$$ holds. Since for any state $\varphi$, $k(\varphi,\alpha,v)=
\lim_{y\downarrow0}\varphi(f(\alpha+iyv))\in\mathbb R$, it follows that $f_v(\alpha)=f_v(\alpha)^*$. The fact that $f_v(\alpha)$ does not depend on $v$ follows from Proposition \[prop:3.1\] and Lemma \[lem:3.2\]: indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\left\|\left(\Im f(\alpha+iy_1v)\right)^{-\frac12}
(f(\alpha+iy_1v)-f(\alpha+iy_21))\left(\Im f(\alpha+iy_21)\right)^{-\frac12}
\right\|}\\
& \leq &\left\|\left(y_1v\right)^{-\frac12}
(iy_1v-iy_21)\left(y_21)\right)^{-\frac12}
\right\|\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$ is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\left\|\left(\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iy_1v)}{y_1}\right)^{-\frac12}
(f(\alpha+iy_1v)-f(\alpha+iy_21))\left(\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iy_21)}{y_2}\right)^{-\frac12}
\right\|}\\
& \leq & \left\|v^{-\frac12}\right\|
\left\|y_1v-y_21\right\|.\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$ We obtain as in the proof of Lemma \[lem:3.2\] $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\|f(\alpha+iy_1v)-f(\alpha+iy_21)\|}\nonumber\\
& \leq & \left\|v^{-\frac12}\right\|
\left\|y_1v-y_21\right\|\sqrt{\left\|\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iy_1v)}{y_1}\right\|
\left\|\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iy_21)}{y_2}\right\|}.\label{10}\end{aligned}$$ The two factors under the square root are bounded by hypothesis. Thus, we conclude.
This result is similar to results in [@AMcY; @Fan; @Wlo]. We observe that this essentially improves the convergence to norm convergence, without requiring norm convergence in formula .
In the classical Julia-Carathéodory Theorem, we noted also that $(\Re f(\alpha+iy)-f(\alpha))/y\to0$ as $y\searrow0$. A similar result holds for general noncommuttive functions. Indeed, using relation with $a=\alpha+iyv,c=\alpha+iy'v$, $b=a-c$ we obtain $$\left(f(\alpha+iyv)-f(\alpha+iy'v)\right)^*\left(\Im f(\alpha+iyv)\right)^{-1}
\left(f(\alpha+iyv)-f(\alpha+iy'v)\right)$$ $$\leq\frac{(y-y')^2}{yy'}\Im f(\alpha+iy'v).$$ Letting $y'\searrow0$ we obtain (with the notation from the statement of Theorem \[Main\]) $$\left(f(\alpha+iyv)-f(\alpha)\right)^*\left(\Im f(\alpha+iyv)\right)^{-1}
\left(f(\alpha+iyv)-f(\alpha)\right)\leq yc(v).$$ Recalling that $f(\alpha)=f(\alpha)^*$ we conclude that $$\left(\Re f(\alpha+iyv)-f(\alpha)\right)\left(\Im f(\alpha+iyv)\right)^{-1}
\left(\Re f(\alpha+iyv)-f(\alpha)\right)\leq yc(v)-\Im f(\alpha+iyv).$$ We divide by $y$ and let $y\searrow0$ to conclude that $$\label{Re0}
0\leq\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac{\Re f(\alpha+iyv)-f(\alpha)}{y}\left(\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv)}{y}\right)^{-1}
\frac{\Re f(\alpha+iyv)-f(\alpha)}{y}\leq0.$$ The invertibility of $c(v)$ guarantees that $\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac{\Re f(\alpha+iyv)-f(\alpha)}{y}=0$ in the so-topology. Thus, ${\displaystyle\lim_{\stackrel{ z\longrightarrow0}{{
\sphericalangle}}}}\frac{\Re f(\alpha+zv)-f(\alpha)}{\Im z}=0$.
In order to extend the above result to all levels $n$, we need the following lemma.
\[lem:4.2\] Let $f$ be as in Theorem \[Main\]. Fix $\alpha=\alpha^*\in\mathcal A$, $v_1,v_2>0$ in $\mathcal A$, and $b\in\mathcal A$ of norm $\|b\|^2\cdot1<v_2\|v_1^{-1}\|^{-1}$. Then $$\left\{\frac1y\left\|f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & iyb \\
0 & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)-
f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & \frac{iyb}{2} \\
\frac{iyb^*}{2} & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)
\right\|\colon y\in(0,1)\right\}$$ is bounded
Observe that $\|b\|^21<4\|v_1^{-1}\|^{-1}v_2$ implies $\Im\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & iyb \\
0 & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)>0$ for all $y>0$. We use the same trick as in Lemma \[lem:3.2\]. For simplicity, denote $$\mathfrak D=f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & iyb \\
0 & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)-
f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & \frac{iyb}{2} \\
\frac{iyb^*}{2} & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right).$$ Proposition \[prop:3.1\] (in the guise of inequality ) applied to $a$ and $c$ equal to the two arguments of the function $f$ in the formula of $\mathfrak D$ above give $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{
\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & {b} \\
0 & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)^{-\frac12}
\mathfrak D^*\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)^{-1}}\\
& & \mbox{}\times
\mathfrak D
\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & {b} \\
0 & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)^{-\frac12}\\
& \leq & \left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
yv_1 & \frac{yb}{2} \\
\frac{yb^*}{2} & yv_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \frac{-iyb}{2} \\
\frac{iyb^*}{2} & 0
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
yv_1 & \frac{yb}{2} \\
\frac{yb^*}{2} & yv_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}
\right\|^2\cdot1_{M_2(\mathcal A)},
\quad\quad\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$ for all $y>0$ (we have kept the $y$’s on the right hand side for transparency of the method). As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:3.2\], we “multiply out” the imaginary parts of $f$ on the left to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\mathfrak D\mathfrak D^*\leq\|\mathfrak D\|^21}\\
& \leq & \left\|y\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|
\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \frac{-ib}{2} \\
\frac{ib^*}{2} & 0
\end{array}\right)\right.\\
& & \mbox{}\times\left.
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}
\right\|^2
\left\|\frac1y\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & {b} \\
0 & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)
\right\|\cdot1.\end{aligned}$$ The last factor on the right hand side is bounded by the hypothesis, formula , Lemma \[lem:3.2\] and the above arguments. The first factor needs not apriori tend to zero, but it is clearly bounded. However, if this factor is nonzero, consider $\mathcal H$ to be the Hilbert space on which $\mathcal A$ acts as a von Neumann algebra. Then there exists a vector $\xi\in\mathcal H^2$ of norm one such that $\lim_{y\downarrow0}y\varphi_\xi\left(
\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right)$ exists and belongs to $(0,+\infty)$, so that necessarily $$\left\|\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|\to+\infty,\quad y\to0.$$ (Recall that we have denoted by $\varphi_\xi$ the vector state corresponding to $\xi$: $\varphi_\xi(a)
=\langle a\xi,\xi\rangle$.) But then $2\|\Im\mathfrak D\|=\|\mathfrak D-\mathfrak D^*\|\le2\|\mathfrak D\|$ is unbounded as $y$ tends to zero, so that $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\|\Im\mathfrak D\|^2\leq\|\mathfrak D\|^2}\nonumber\\
& \leq & \left\|y\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|
\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\nonumber
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \frac{-ib}{2} \\
\frac{ib^*}{2} & 0
\end{array}\right)\right.\\
& & \mbox{}\times\left.
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}
\right\|^2
\left\|\frac1y\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & {b} \\
0 & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)
\right\|,\label{12}\end{aligned}$$ making the right hand side unbounded, a contradiction. Thus, $$\lim_{y\to0}\left\|y\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|=0,$$ so, by a second application of inequality , $$\lim_{y\to0}\left\|\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|=0.$$ However, more can be concluded from : dividing by $y^2$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\frac{\|\Im \mathfrak D\|^2}{y^2}=\left\|\frac1y\Im f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & iyb \\
0 & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)-
\frac1y\Im f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & \frac{iyb}{2} \\
\frac{iyb^*}{2} & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)\right\|^2}\\
& \leq & \left\|\frac1y\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|
\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\nonumber
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \frac{-ib}{2} \\
\frac{ib^*}{2} & 0
\end{array}\right)\right.\\
& & \mbox{}\times\left.
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}
\right\|^2
\left\|\frac1y\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & {b} \\
0 & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)
\right\|.\end{aligned}$$ We know from our hypothesis and Lemma \[lem:3.2\] that the set of real positive numbers $\left\{\left\|\frac1y\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & iyb \\
0 & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|\colon y\in(0,1)\right\}$ is bounded. If we assume that the set $\left\{\left\|
\frac1y\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & \frac{iyb}{2} \\
\frac{iyb^*}{2} & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|\colon y\in(0,1)\right\}$ is unbounded and choose a sequence $\{y_n\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ converging to zero so that the strictly positive real number $$\ell:=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left\|\frac{1}{y_n}\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iy_nv_1 & iy_nb \\
0 & \alpha+iy_nv_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|\text{ exists, and}$$ $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\left\|
\frac{1}{y_n}\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iy_nv_1 & \frac{iy_nb}{2} \\
\frac{iy_nb^*}{2} & \alpha+iy_nv_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|=+\infty,$$ then $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left\|
\frac1{y_n}\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iy_nv_1 & \frac{iy_nb}{2} \\
\frac{iy_nb^*}{2} & \alpha+iy_nv_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|-
\left\|\frac{1}{y_n}\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iy_nv_1 & iy_nb \\
0 & \alpha+iy_nv_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|}\\
& \leq & \left\|\frac{1}{y_n}\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy_n
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|^\frac12
\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\nonumber
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \frac{-ib}{2} \\
\frac{ib^*}{2} & 0
\end{array}\right)\right.\\
& & \mbox{}\times\left.
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}
\right\|
\left\|\frac{1}{y_n}\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy_n
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & {b} \\
0 & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)
\right\|^\frac12\end{aligned}$$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left\|
\frac{\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iy_nv_1 & \frac{iy_nb}{2} \\
\frac{iy_nb^*}{2} & \alpha+iy_nv_2
\end{array}\right)\right)}{y_n}\right\|^\frac12-\frac{
\left\|\frac{1}{y_n}\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iy_nv_1 & iy_nb \\
0 & \alpha+iy_nv_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|}{
\left\|
\frac1{y_n}\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iy_nv_1 & \frac{iy_nb}{2} \\
\frac{iy_nb^*}{2} & \alpha+iy_nv_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|^\frac12}}\\
& \leq &
\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \frac{-ib}{2} \\
\frac{ib^*}{2} & 0
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}
\right\|\\
& & \mbox{}\times
\left\|\frac{1}{y_n}\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha & 0 \\
0 & \alpha
\end{array}\right)+iy_n
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & {b} \\
0 & v_2
\end{array}\right)\right)
\right\|^\frac12;\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\end{aligned}$$ by letting $n\to\infty$, we obtain $$\infty-0\leq\ell\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & \frac{-ib}{2} \\
\frac{ib^*}{2} & 0
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{b}{2} \\
\frac{b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}
\right\|,$$ an obvious contradiction. We have thus shown that $\|\Im \mathfrak D\|/y$ stays bounded as $y\searrow0$. By relation , the same holds for $\Re\mathfrak D.$ This proves the lemma.
The previous lemma implies more: since $\left\|\frac1y\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & iyb \\
0 & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right\|$ is bounded as $y\in(0,1),$ it follows immediately from the lemma that $$\liminf_{y\downarrow0}\frac{1}{y}\varphi\left(\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & \frac{iyb}{2} \\
\frac{iyb^*}{2} & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)\right)\right)<\infty,$$ for all states $\varphi$ on $M_2(\mathcal A)$, and so, as proved above, $$\label{2x2}
{\rm so-}\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac{1}{y}\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & \frac{iyb}{2} \\
\frac{iyb^*}{2} & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)\right):=C>0 \text{ in }M_2(\mathcal A).$$ In particular, it follows that the finiteness of the liminf in guarantees the boundedness of the sets $\Im f(\alpha\otimes 1_n+iyv)/y, y\in(0,1),$ for all $n\in\mathbb N$, $v>0$ in $M_n(\mathcal A)$, and so the existence of the corresponding so-limits for all $n$, as well as the norm-convergence of $f(\alpha\otimes 1_n+zv)$ to $f(\alpha)\otimes 1_n$ as $z\to0$ nontangentially.
We show next the existence of the limit of $\Delta f(\alpha+iyv_1,\alpha+iyv_2)(b)$ as $y\searrow0$. Let $v_1,v_2,b,\alpha$ be as in the above lemma. Fix $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ and denote $V_\epsilon=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
0 & \sqrt\epsilon
\end{array}\right)$. Observe that $$V_\epsilon^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {iyb} \\
iy\epsilon b^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)V_\epsilon=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i\sqrt\epsilon yb} \\
i\sqrt\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right),$$ so that, by the definition of a noncommutative function, $$f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {iyb} \\
iy\epsilon b^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)=V_\epsilon f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i\sqrt\epsilon yb} \\
i\sqrt\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)
V_\epsilon^{-1},$$ The methods used in the proof of Lemma \[lem:4.2\] allow for an estimate of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\frac{1}{y^2}\left\|f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i\sqrt\epsilon yb} \\
i\sqrt\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)-\left(\begin{array}{cc}
f(\alpha) & 0 \\
0 & f(\alpha)
\end{array}\right)
\right\|^2}\\
& \leq &
\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & 0 \\
0 & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
iv_1 & {i\sqrt\epsilon b} \\
i\sqrt\epsilon b^* & iv_2
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{\sqrt\epsilon b}{2} \\
\frac{\sqrt\epsilon b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|^2\\
& & \mbox{}\times\left\|
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
c(v_1) & 0 \\
0 & c(v_2)
\end{array}\right)
\right\|
\left\|
\frac1y\Im f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i\sqrt\epsilon yb} \\
i\sqrt\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)
\right\|.\end{aligned}$$ If we denote $C_\epsilon:=\lim_{y\downarrow0}
\frac1y\Im f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i\sqrt\epsilon yb} \\
i\sqrt\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)$, the above allows us to conclude that $$\|C_\epsilon\|\leq\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & 0 \\
0 & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & {\sqrt\epsilon b} \\
\sqrt\epsilon b^* & v_2
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{\sqrt\epsilon b}{2} \\
\frac{\sqrt\epsilon b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|^2\max_{1\le j\le 2}\|c(v_j)\|.$$ Thus, for any $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ we have $\|C_\epsilon\|\leq\textrm{const}(v_1,v_2,b)$. However, a bit more can be obtained: since conjugation by $V_\epsilon$ does not affect diagonal elements, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\frac{1}{y^2}\left\|f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i yb} \\
i\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)-\left(\begin{array}{cc}
f(\alpha) & 0 \\
0 & f(\alpha)
\end{array}\right)
\right\|^2}\\
& = & \frac{1}{y^2}\left\|V_\epsilon \left(f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i\sqrt\epsilon yb} \\
i\sqrt\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)-\left(\begin{array}{cc}
f(\alpha) & 0 \\
0 & f(\alpha)
\end{array}\right)\right)V_\epsilon^{-1}
\right\|^2\\
& \leq & \frac1\epsilon
\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & 0 \\
0 & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
iv_1 & {i\sqrt\epsilon b} \\
i\sqrt\epsilon b^* & iv_2
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
v_1 & \frac{\sqrt\epsilon b}{2} \\
\frac{\sqrt\epsilon b^*}{2} & v_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|^2\\
& & \mbox{}\times\left\|
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
c(v_1) & 0 \\
0 & c(v_2)
\end{array}\right)
\right\|
\left\|
\frac1y\Im f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i\sqrt\epsilon yb} \\
i\sqrt\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)
\right\|,\end{aligned}$$ as $\|V_\epsilon\|=1,\|V_\epsilon^{-1}\|=\epsilon^{-1/2}$. The existence of the limit $$\ell_\epsilon:=\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac1y\left[
f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i\sqrt\epsilon yb} \\
i\sqrt\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)-\left(\begin{array}{cc}
f(\alpha) & 0 \\
0 & f(\alpha)
\end{array}\right)\right]$$ implies the existence of $$\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac1y\left[f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i yb} \\
i\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)-\left(\begin{array}{cc}
f(\alpha) & 0 \\
0 & f(\alpha)
\end{array}\right)\right]=V_\epsilon\ell_\epsilon V_\epsilon^{-1}.$$ Let us now continue our estimates on the derivative: $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\frac{1}{y^2}\left\|f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i yb} \\
i\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)-f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & iyb \\
0 & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)
\right\|^2}\\
& \leq &
\left\|\left(\begin{array}{cc}
yv_1 & \frac{yb}{2} \\
\frac{yb^*}{2} & yv_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 0 \\
i\epsilon yb^* & 0
\end{array}\right)
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
yv_1 & \frac{(1+\epsilon)yb}{2} \\
\frac{(1+\epsilon)y b^*}{2} & yv_2
\end{array}\right)^{-\frac12}\right\|^2\\
& & \mbox{}\times\left\|
\frac1y\Im f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & iyb \\
0 & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)
\right\|
\left\|
\frac1y\Im f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {iyb} \\
i\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)
\right\|.\end{aligned}$$ The first factor on the right hand side is bounded by $\epsilon^2\textrm{const}(b,v_1,v_2)$, for a constant $\textrm{const}(b,v_1,v_2)\in\mathbb R$, independent of $y,\epsilon\in(0,1)$. The second factor has been shown in Lemma \[lem:3.2\] to be bounded uniformly in $y\in(0,1)$. Finally, the last term is dominated, as seen above, by $\epsilon^{-1}\textrm{const}(b,v_1,v_2)$. Thus, $$\frac{1}{y^2}\left\|f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & {i yb} \\
i\epsilon yb^* & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)-f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv_1 & iyb \\
0 & \alpha+iyv_2
\end{array}\right)
\right\|^2\leq\epsilon\textrm{const}(v_1,v_2,b),$$ for any $y,\epsilon\in(0,1)$. By weak compactness of norm-bounded sets, any sequence tending to zero has a subsequence $\{y_n\}$ such that ${\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}}\Delta f(\alpha+iy_nv_1,\alpha+iy_nv_2)(b)$ exists in the weak operator topology. Adding and subtracting $\left(\begin{array}{cc}
f(\alpha) & 0 \\
0 & f(\alpha)
\end{array}\right)$ under the norm in the left hand side above and letting $y\searrow0$ along such a sequence provides $$\left\|V_\epsilon\ell_\epsilon V_\epsilon^{-1}-\left(\begin{array}{cc}
c(v_1) & {\displaystyle\lim_{n\to\infty}}\Delta f(\alpha+iy_nv_1,\alpha+iy_nv_2)(b) \\
0 & c(v_2)
\end{array}\right)
\right\|\leq\sqrt{\epsilon}\textrm{const}(v_1,v_2,b),$$ for any fixed $\epsilon\in(0,1)$. This restricts the diameter of the cluster set of $\Delta f(\alpha+iyv_1,\alpha+iyv_2)(b)$ at zero to a set of norm-diameter of order $\sqrt\epsilon$ for any $\epsilon>0$. Thus, the limit ${\displaystyle\lim_{y\downarrow0}}\Delta f(\alpha+iyv_1,\alpha+iyv_2)(b)$ must exist.
We conclude that $\displaystyle\lim_{y\downarrow0}\Delta f(\alpha+iyv_1,\alpha+iyv_2)(b)$ exists and is uniformly bounded as $b\in\mathcal A$ stays in a bounded subset of $\mathcal A$. Clearly the limit depends linearly on $b$, since each of $\Delta f(\alpha+iyv_1,\alpha+iyv_2)(b)$ does. In particular, if $v_1=v_2=v$, $\Delta f(\alpha+iyv,\alpha+iyv)(b)=f'(\alpha+iyv)(b)$ has a limit as $y\to0$, as claimed in part (1) of Theorem \[Main\]. Let now in addition $b=v/4$. For any state $\varphi$ on $\mathcal A$ and $v>0$, $z\mapsto\varphi(f(\alpha+zv))$ is a self-map of $\mathbb C^+$ which satisfies the conditions of Theorem \[JC\] at $z=0$. Thus, $\displaystyle\lim_{y\downarrow0}\varphi(f'(\alpha+iyv)(v))=
\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac{\varphi(\Im f(\alpha+iyv))}{y}$, so that indeed $$\lim_{y\downarrow0}f'(\alpha+iyv)(v)=\lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iyv)}{y}=c(v)>0.$$
Until now we have proved that the finiteness of the liminf in (which is applied to elements in $\mathcal A=M_1(\mathcal A)$) implies not only the existence of $f(\alpha)$ and of limits of $\Delta f(\alpha+iyv_1,\alpha+iyv_2)$ as $y\downarrow0$, but also the existence and finiteness of the liminf in applied to $\alpha$ replaced by $\alpha\otimes 1_{M_2(\mathbb C)}$ and $v$ replaced by a positive in $M_2(\mathcal A)$. Obviously, we now apply the above results to elements in $M_2(\mathcal A)$ to obtain the same conclusion for elements in $M_4(\mathcal A)$ and so on. This, according to [@ncfound Chapters 2 and 3], allows us to conclude the proof of part (1).
We prove next part (1’) of Theorem \[Main\]. Let $v,w>0$ be fixed. Recall that we have shown in the proof of part (1) that $\displaystyle\lim_{t\downarrow0}f'(\alpha+ity_1v+ity_2w)$ exists pointwise. Our hypothesis that $$\lim_{y_1,y_2\to0}
(\varphi(f'(\alpha+iy_1v+iy_2w)(v)),\varphi(f'(\alpha+iy_1v+iy_2w)(w)))$$ exists and is finite for any state $\varphi$ on $\mathcal A$ implies that $f'(\alpha+iy_1v+iy_2w)(v),f'(\alpha+iy_1v+iy_2w)(w)$ have a weak limit as $(y_1,y_2)\downarrow(0,0)$ in $[0,1)^2\setminus\{(0,0)\}$. Note that the domain $\{(z,\zeta)\in
\mathbb C^2\colon\Im(zv+\zeta w)>0\}$ of the function $(z,\zeta)\mapsto\varphi(f(\alpha+zv+\zeta w))$ includes $\overline{\mathbb C^+}\times\mathbb C^+
\cup\mathbb C^+\times\overline{\mathbb C^+}$ (closures taken in $\mathbb C$). In particular, $\{(z,0)\colon z\in\mathbb C^+\}\cup\{(0,\zeta)\colon\zeta\in\mathbb C^+\}\subset
\{(z,\zeta)\in\mathbb C^2\colon\Im(zv+\zeta w)>0\}.$ The existence of the above displayed limit thus guarantees that $\lim_{y\downarrow0}\varphi(f'(\alpha+iyw)(v))=
\lim_{y\downarrow0}\varphi(f'(\alpha+iyv)(v))$. This means that the limit of $f'(\alpha+iyv)$ as $y\downarrow0$ does not depend on $v$ and is positive. Applying this same result to $M_n(\mathcal A)$ and recalling the properties of noncommutative functions guarantee complete positivity for $f'(\alpha)$. To conclude the proof of (1’), simply observe that $\Delta f(\alpha+iyv_1,\alpha+iyv_2)(b)-
f'(\alpha+iyv_1)(b)$ converges to zero as $y\downarrow0$.
The proof of (2) is much simpler. Indeed, the existence of the limit $\lim_{y\downarrow0}f'(\alpha+iyv)$ implies the existence of the limit $\lim_{y\downarrow0}\varphi(f'(\alpha+iyv)(v))$ for all states $\varphi$ on $\mathcal A$. An application of Theorem \[JC\] and of parts (1) and (1’) of Theorem \[Main\] allows us to conclude.
It might be useful to note that the operator $C$ from equality can be written in terms of the small $c$’s form the statement of Theorem \[Main\], at least when $v_1=v_2$. We use here the condition (A) of the definition of noncommutative functions. Let $v>0$ be fixed and let $b$ be such that $v>b>0$ in $\mathcal A$. Then $$\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv & iyb \\
iyb & \alpha+iyv
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 0
\end{array}\right)=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha+iy(v+b) & iyb &\alpha+iyv \\
\alpha+iy(v+b) & \alpha+iyv & iyb
\end{array}\right),$$ which is in its own turn equal to the product $$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 0
\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha+iy(v+b) & iyb & 0 \\
0 & \alpha+iy(v-b) & iyb \\
0 & 0 & \alpha+iyv
\end{array}\right).$$ We recognize in the $2\times2$ matrix the argument of one of the terms involved in the statement of Lemma \[lem:4.2\]. If we denote $$f\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iyv & iyb \\
iyb & \alpha+iyv
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
f_{11} & f_{12} \\
f_{21} & f_{22}
\end{array}\right),$$ then condition (A) tells us that [$$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
f_{11}+f_{12} & f_{12} & f_{11} \\
f_{21}+f_{22} & f_{22} & f_{21}
\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 1 & 0
\end{array}\right)\times}\\
& &
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
f(\alpha+iy(v+b)) & \frac{f(\alpha+iy(v+b))-f(\alpha+iy(v-b))}{2} & \Delta^2f \\
0 & f(\alpha+iy(v-b)) & f(\alpha+iyv)-f(\alpha+iy(v-b)) \\
0 & 0 & f(\alpha+iyv)
\end{array}\right)= \\
& & \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
f(\alpha+iy(v+b)) & \frac{f(\alpha+iy(v+b))-f(\alpha+iy(v-b))}{2} & \Delta^2f+f(\alpha+iyv) \\
f(\alpha+iy(v+b)) & \frac{f(\alpha+iy(v+b))+f(\alpha+iy(v-b))}{2} & f(\alpha+iyv)-f(\alpha+iy(v-b))+
\Delta^2f
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$]{} where $\Delta^2f$ stands for $\Delta^2f(\alpha+iy(v+b),\alpha+iy(v-b),\alpha+iyv)
( iyb , iyb )$. We obtain immediately the relations $$\begin{aligned}
f_{11}=f_{22}&=&\frac{f(\alpha+iy(v+b))+f(\alpha+iy(v-b))}{2}\\
f_{21}=f_{12}&=&\frac{f(\alpha+iy(v+b))-f(\alpha+iy(v-b))}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ It follows that, for $v_1=v_2>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
C & = & \lim_{y\downarrow0}\frac1y\Im f\left(\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha+iy & iyb \\
iyb & \alpha+iyv
\end{array}\right)\right)\\
& = & \frac12\lim_{y\downarrow0}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iy(v+b))+\Im f(\alpha+iy(v-b))}{y}&\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iy(v+b))-\Im f(\alpha+iy(v-b))}{y}
\\
\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iy(v+b))-\Im f(\alpha+iy(v-b))}{y}&\frac{\Im f(\alpha+iy(v+b))+\Im f(\alpha+iy(v-b))}{y}
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ By considering the functions $z\mapsto\varphi( f(\alpha+z(v\pm b)))$, we obtain on the off-diagonal entries precisely $[f'(\alpha)(v+b)-f'(\alpha)(v-b)]/2$ and on the diagonal entries $[f'(\alpha)(v+b)+f'(\alpha)(v-b)]/2$.
Moreover, the set of elements $b\in\mathcal A$ such that $0<b<v$ is open in the set of selfadjoints, and the set of selfadjoints is a set of uniqueness for analytic maps. Thus, the above formulas for $f_{ij}$ hold for any $b$ from the connected component of the domain of the maps in question (viewed as functions of $b$).
During the inception and elaboration of this paper I had the privilege to discuss various aspects related to it with Hari Bercovici, Victor Vinnikov and Gilles Pisier. I thank them very much both for valuable advices and encouragements. I would also like to thank Marco Abate for discussions on the first draft of this paper that motivated me to expand it. Clearly, any mistakes are entirely mine.
[10]{}
M. Abate, [*The Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory Theorem in polydisks*]{}. J. Anal. Math., [**74**]{} (1998), 275–306.
M. Abate and J. Raissy, [*A Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory theorem for infinitesimal generators in the unit ball*]{}. To appear in Trans. AMS, (2014), 1–17.
G. Abduvalieva and D. S. Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi, [*Implicit/inverse function theorems for free noncommutative functions.*]{} J. Funct. Anal. [**269**]{} (2015), no. 9, 2813–2844.
G. Abduvalieva and D. S. Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi. [*Fixed point theorems for noncommutative functions*]{}. J. Math. Anal. Appl. [**401**]{} (2013) 436–446.
Jim Agler, John E. M${}^{\rm c}$Carthy and N. J. Young, [*A Carathéodory Theorem for the bidisk via Hilbert space methods*]{}. Math. Ann. [**352**]{} (2012), no. 3, 581–624.
J. Agler, R. Tully-Doyle and N. J. Young, [*Nevanlinna representations in several variables*]{}. Preprint 2012 arXiv:1203.2261 \[math.CV\]
J. Agler, R. Tully-Doyle and N. J. Young, [ *Boundary behavior of analytic functions of two variables via generalized models*]{}. Indagationes Mathematicae [**23**]{} (2012) 995–1027.
J. Agler and J. E. ${\rm M^c}$Carthy, [*Global holomorphic functions in several non-commuting variables*]{}. Canad. J. Math. [**67**]{} (2015), no. 2, 241–285.
J. Agler and J. E. ${\rm M^c}$Carthy, [*Pick interpolation for free holomorphic functions*]{}. Preprint 2013 arXiv:1308.3730v1 \[math.OA\].
J. Agler and J. E. ${\rm M^c}$Carthy, [*The implicit function theorem and free algebraic sets*]{}. Preprint 2014 arXiv:1404.6032v1 \[math.AG\].
S. T. Belinschi, M. Popa and V. Vinnikov, [*Infinite divisibility and a noncommutative Boolean-to-free Bercovici-Pata bijection.*]{} Journal of Functional Analysis, [**262**]{}, (2012), 94–123.
B. Blackadar, Operator Algebras. Theory of C${}^*$-Algebras and von Neumann Algebras. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, Volume 122. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006.
C. Carathéodory. [*Über die Winkelderivierten von beschränkten analytischen Funktionen.*]{} Sitzunber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., (1929), 39–52.
S. Dineen, [*The Schwarz Lemma*]{}. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Ky Fan, [*The angular derivative of an operator-valued analytic function*]{}. Pacific J. Math. [**121**]{} (1986), 67–72.
Chiara Frosini, [*Busemann functions and the Julia-Wolff-Carathéodory theorem for polydiscs.*]{} Adv. Geom. [**10**]{} (2010), no. 3, 435–463.
John B. Garnett, [*Bounded Analytic Functions*]{}, First revised edition, Springer (2007)
F. Jafari, [*Angular derivatives in polydisks*]{}. Indian J. Math., [**35**]{}, (1993) 197–212.
D. S. Kaliuzhnyi-Verbovetskyi and V. Vinnikov, *Foundations of free noncommutative function theory*, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, 199. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2014.
M. Mackey and P. Mellon, [*Angular derivatives on bounded symmetric domains*]{}. Israel Journal of Mathematics [**138**]{} (2003), 291–315
P. Mellon, [*Holomorphic invariance on bounded symmetric domains*]{}, J. reine angew. Math. [**523**]{} (2000), 199–223.
J. E. Pascoe and R. Tully-Doyle, [*Free Pick functions: representations, asymptotic behavior and matrix monotonicity in several noncommuting variables*]{}. Preprint (2013), arXiv:1309.1791v2 \[math.FA\].
Vern Paulsen, [*Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras*]{}. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 78, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
W. Rudin, [*Function theory in the unit ball of $\mathbb C^n$*]{}, Springer, New York, 1980.
Şerban Strǎtilǎ and László Zsidó. [*Lectures on von Neumann algebras.* ]{} Editura Academiei, Bucharest, 1979. Revision of the 1975 original, Translated from the Romanian by Silviu Teleman.
J.L. Taylor, *A General Framework for a Multi-Operator Functional Calculus*, Adv. Math. [**9**]{} (1972), 183–252.
J.L. Taylor, *Functions of several noncommuting variables*, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. **79** (1973), 1–34.
K. W[ł]{}odarczyk and A. Sza[ł]{}owska, [*Angular Derivatives of Holomorphic Maps in Infinite Dimensions*]{}. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications [**204**]{}, (1996) 1–28.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
**Nanoscale fluid structure of liquid-solid-vapour**
**contact lines for a wide range of contact angles**
**A. Nold$^a$, D. N. Sibley $^a$, B. D. Goddard $^b$ and S. Kalliadasis $^a$ [^1]**
$^a$ Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK
$^b$ The School of Mathematics and Maxwell Institute for Mathematical Sciences
The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK
[**Abstract.**]{} We study the nanoscale behaviour of the density of a simple fluid in the vicinity of an equilibrium contact line for a wide range of Young contact angles ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}\in [40^\circ,135^\circ]$. Cuts of the density profile at various positions along the contact line are presented, unravelling the apparent step-wise increase of the film height profile observed in contour plots of the density. The density profile is employed to compute the normal pressure acting on the substrate along the contact line. We observe that for the full range of contact angles, the maximal normal pressure cannot solely be predicted by the curvature of the adsorption film height, but is instead softened – [likely]{} by the width of the liquid-vapour interface. Somewhat surprisingly however, the adsorption film height profile can be predicted to a very good accuracy by the Derjaguin-Frumkin disjoining pressure obtained from planar computations, as was first shown in \[Nold , Phys. Fluids, [**26**]{}, 072001, 2014\] for contact angles ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}< 90^\circ$, a result which here we show to be valid for the full range of contact angles. This suggests that while two-dimensional effects cannot be neglected for the computation of the normal pressure distribution along the substrate, one-dimensional planar computations of the Derjaguin-Frumkin disjoining pressure are sufficient to accurately predict the adsorption height profile.
[**Key words:**]{} adsorption, contact line, simple fluid, disjoining pressure, Derjaguin-Frumkin, Hamiltonian
Introduction
============
Consider a fluid interface in contact with a solid substrate. This scenario describes a container filled with liquid, a drop sitting on a leaf, or a vapour bubble [inside a liquid filled bottle.]{} Imagine observing a point in the vapour phase. As the liquid phase is approached, a [rapid, yet]{} smooth transition in the density occurs at the liquid-vapour interface. Staying [on]{} this interface and approaching the substrate, would reveal a variety of physical effects that [become significant.]{} First, the fluid feels an attractive force of the wall particles. At the same time, the nature of the solid substrate forces the fluid particles to [‘jam’]{} and restrict their mobility as the wall is approached.
In this work, we are interested in the effect [of]{} the wall attractive forces on the density profile in the vicinity of a three-phase contact line for a wide range of contact angles. Developing a fundamental understanding of these small-scale phenomena at equilibrium is important to predict the dynamic nanoscale behaviour of the moving contact line, which is still a controversial problem with a wide range of physical explanations being offered (for a review, see Bonn [@Bonn.20090527] or Snoeijer and Andreotti [@SnoeijerAndreotti:2013]). In this context, our intention is twofold: First, to illustrate and give a general understanding for the density structure of the fluid as well as its [form]{} and scale of variations in the vicinity of the contact line; [and second]{}, to illustrate the impact of the contact line on the normal pressure distribution acting on the substrate. The latter point is directly connected with the definiton of the disjoining pressure. The uniqueness of disjoining pressure definitions was recently discussed critically in several papers [@Herring:2010vn; @Henderson:2011:EPJST:DisjoiningPressure; @MacDowell:2011:ResponseEPJST; @Henderson:EPJST:ResponseMacDowell; @Henderson:NoteContinuingContactLine; @Nold:2014:FluidStructure].
To describe the interaction between a solid substrate and a fluid interface, we choose to model a simple fluid, [i.e. ]{}a system of identical particles in contact with a homogeneous, perfectly flat[,]{} hard wall. The particles of the fluid are modelled as hard spheres interacting with a Lennard-Jones type potential decaying with $r^{-6}$, where $r$ is the interparticle distance. [The wall and fluid particles are assumed to interact via a similar Lennard-Jones type potential.]{}
Contact line models, including nonlocal contributions to the free energy beyond those of the disjoining pressure, have previously been studied analytically [@Merchant:1992kx; @Pismen:2001fk; @Snoeijer:2008fk; @Getta:1998ly; @SnoeijerAndreotti:2013]. However, for the sake of analytical attainability, only simple models of the free energy model can be considered and restrictive assumptions on the nature of the density profile at the contact line have to be made.
In contrast, we consider the density structure at the contact line numerically employing classical density functional theory (DFT), an approach derived from the statistical mechanics of fluids [@Evans]. DFT has proven to be a numerically efficient way to model equilibrium properties of inhomogeneous fluid systems. It can be viewed as middle ground between continuum hydrodynamics, which is inapplicable at small fluid volumes, and particle-based Monte-Carlo (MC) or Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations, which despite dramatic improvements in computational power are still restricted to small fluid volumes. In fact, compared to MC or MD simulations, for which the numerical complexity scales with the number of particles modelled, DFT gives the ability to solve directly for the density distribution, with the advantage that its computational complexity is formally independent of the number of particles. Thus, modelling larger systems, such as contact lines, becomes feasible.
The predictive qualities of the DFT results depend on the accuracy of the free-energy model employed. Here, we model the hard-sphere free energy with a fundamental measure theory (FMT) [@Rosenfeld:1989qc], while the attractive forces are included as a Barker-Henderson perturbation [@Barker:1967rq] in a mean-field manner. DFT-FMT has been applied successfully in studies of critical point wedge filling [@Malijevsky:2013:CriticalPointWedgeFilling], phase transitions in nanocapillaries [@PeterPRE], thin films on planar substrates [@Peter2012] and density computations in the vicinity of liquid wedges [@Merath:2008]. A previous study by [@Antonio2010] on equilibrium contact lines utilised a DFT local-density approximation (LDA) which is not appropriate to describe structuring in the fluid and fails to describe the oscillatory behavior of the density in the immediate vicinity of a wall.
The present work parallels our previous study in [@Nold:2014:FluidStructure] where DFT-FMT was used to analyse the fluid structure in the immediate vicinity of a contact line for ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}<
90^\circ$. Here we investigate a wide spectrum of contact angles $40^\circ <
{\theta_{\text{Y}}}< 135^\circ$ and we shed further light on the density structure in the vicinity of the contact line and its dependency [on]{} the wall strength. A discussion of the special case of a $90^\circ$ contact angle is also included. We present density profiles slice by slice as we sweep through the contact line region and we contrast the profiles with that of a planar liquid film on a substrate with the same film thickness, but at an off-saturation chemical potential. Interestingly, the two are not that different, which suggests that results of the planar film case may be transferable to the contact line. In particular, as in [@Nold:2014:FluidStructure] we shall scrutinize the ability of Derjaguin-Frumkin theory [@Derjaguin:1987:50YearsOfSurfaFceScience] for planar liquid films on a substrate to predict the height profile at the contact line. We offer a unified Derjaguin-Frumkin treatment of the contact line for ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}< 90^\circ$ and ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}> 90^\circ$ by appropriately extending the boundary conditions for the disjoining pressure equation to account for the case ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}> 90^\circ$. We further study the connection between the Derjaguin-Frumkin disjoining pressure and the normal pressure distribution acting on the substrate for non-planar liquid films, such as given by the contact line, for $40^\circ < {\theta_{\text{Y}}}< 135^\circ$.
In section 2 we give an overview of the DFT model employed to solve for the equilibrium density profile. The numerical scheme to compute the contact angles is introduced in section 3. A description of the density structure in the vicinity of the contact line is given in section 4, before discussing coarse-grained Hamiltonian approaches in section 5. Finally, a general discussion of the results and concluding remarks are in section 6.
Statistical mechanics framework \[sec:DFTmodel\]
================================================
As done for contact angles less than $90^\circ$ in Ref. [@Nold:2014:FluidStructure], we employ classical DFT to investigate the density distribution in the vicinity of an equilibrium contact line at contact angles both greater and less than $90^\circ$. It is based on a statistical mechanics description and has been successfully applied in the study of inhomogeneous fluids. It is based on the theorem of Mermin [@Mermin:1965lo], which allows the Helmholtz free energy ${\mathcal{F}}$ to be written as a unique functional of the number density ${n}({\bf
r})$ [@Wu-DFT]. The equilibrium density distribution minimizes the grand potential [@Evans] $$\begin{aligned}
{\Omega}[{n}] = {\mathcal{F}}[{n}] + \int {n}({{\bf r}}) {\left\{ {V_{\text{ext}}}({\bf r}) - {{\mu}}\right\}} {\text{d}}{{\bf r}}, \label{eq:GrandPotential}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\mu}}$ is the chemical potential and ${V_{\text{ext}}}$ is the external potential, dependent on the position vector ${{\bf r}}$. We then minimize Eq. (\[eq:GrandPotential\]) by solving the Euler-Lagrange equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\delta \Omega[{n}]}{\delta {n}({{{\bf r}}})} = 0,\label{eq:EulerLagrangeEquation}\end{aligned}$$ where for a simple fluid of particles interacting with a Lennard-Jones potential, the free energy is usually separated into a repulsive hard-sphere part and an attractive contribution $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{F}}[{n}] = {\mathcal{F}_{\text{HS}}}[{n}] + {\mathcal{F}_{\text{attr}}}[{n}].\end{aligned}$$ To accurately model both the structure and thermodynamics of hard-sphere fluids, we use the Rosenfeld FMT approach [@Rosenfeld:1989qc] for the hard-sphere contribution [@Roth:2010fk]. The attractive interactions are [modelled]{} with a mean-field Barker-Henderson approach [@Barker:1967rq] $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{F}_{\text{attr}}}[{n}] &= \frac{1}{2 } \iint \phi_{\text{attr}}({|{{\bf r}}- {{\bf r}}'|}) {n}({{\bf r}}){n}({{\bf r}}') {\text{d}}{{\bf r}}' {\text{d}}{{\bf r}}, \label{eq:FEattr}\end{aligned}$$ where the attractive interaction potential is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\phi_{\text{attr}}}{\left(r\right)} =
{\varepsilon}\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
0 & \text{for } r \leq {\sigma}\\
4 {\left(
{\left(\frac{{\sigma}}{r}\right)}^{12} -
{\left(\frac{{\sigma}}{r}\right)}^{6}
\right)} & \text{for } r > {\sigma}\end{array} \right. .\label{eq:pattr}\end{aligned}$$ Here, [${\varepsilon}$ is the depth of the Lennard-Jones potential, ${\sigma}$ is the distance from the center of the particle at which the Lennard-Jones potential is zero, and $r$ is a (scalar) radial distance]{}. The simple fluid described by (\[eq:GrandPotential\])–(\[eq:pattr\]) has a critical point at [$k_B T_c/{\varepsilon}= 1.0$]{}, where $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant. [Computations]{} in this work are performed at $T = 0.75 T_c$, at which the liquid and vapour number densities are well-separated (${{n}_{\text{liq}}}{\sigma}^3= 0.622$, ${{n}_{\text{vap}}}{\sigma}^3= 0.003$) and at which the liquid-vapour surface tension [resulting from planar DFT computations]{} is ${{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}= 0.3463 {\varepsilon}/{\sigma}^2$. All two-dimensional (2D) computations are performed at the saturation chemical potential, at which the bulk [vapour]{} and bulk liquid are equally stable.
The wall-fluid particle interaction is modelled analogously to the fluid-fluid interaction as $$\begin{aligned}
{\phi_{\text{attr}}^{\text{wf}} }{\left(r\right)} =
{{\varepsilon}_{\text{w}}}\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\infty & \text{for } r \leq {\sigma}\\
4 {\left(
{\left(\frac{{\sigma}}{r}\right)}^{12} -
{\left(\frac{{\sigma}}{r}\right)}^{6}
\right)} & \text{for } r > {\sigma}\end{array} \right. , \label{eq:WallFluidInteraction}\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\varepsilon}_{\text{w}}}$ is the depth of the wall-fluid interactions. Let us take a Cartesian coordinate system with the $x$-$z$ plane parallel to the wall and the $y$-coordinate [in the]{} direction normal to the wall. The external potential can then be obtained analytically from the integration of the interactions over the uniform density distribution of wall particles ${{n}_{\text{w}}}$ for $y \leq -{\sigma}$, giving $$\begin{aligned}
{V_{\text{ext}}}{\left(y\right)}
&=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\infty & y \leq 0\\
\frac{2}{3}\pi \alpha_{\text{w}} {\sigma}^3 {\left[ \frac{2}{15} {\left(\frac{{\sigma}}{y + {\sigma}} \right)}^9 - {\left(\frac{{\sigma}}{y+ {\sigma}}\right)}^3 \right]} & y > 0
\end{array}
\right.,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_{\text{w}} = {{n}_{\text{w}}}{{\varepsilon}_{\text{w}}}$ is the strength of the wall potential.
![Plot of the Young contact angle $\theta_{\text{Y}}$ dependence on the strength of the wall attraction $\alpha_{\text{w}}$. Computations for [${{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}$, ${{\gamma}_{\text{wv}}}$ and ${{\gamma}_{\text{wl}}}$]{} are done in a planar geometry, which are then inserted in (\[YoungEquation\]). In the bottom left inset $\theta_{\text{Y}}$ is compared [to]{} 2D contact angle measurements $\theta$ which are solved for $y < y_{\text{max}}= 15 {\sigma}$ and with $\theta_{\text{n}} = 90^\circ$ ($\bullet)$, $\theta_{\text{n}} = 120^\circ$ ($+$) and $\theta_{\text{n}} = 40^\circ$ ($\vardiamond$). The top right inset depicts the contour lines of the density profile for a Cartesian grid ($\theta_{\text{n}} = 90^\circ$) and $\alpha_{\text{w}} \sigma^3 /{\varepsilon}= 0.55$ [(giving $\theta_{\text{Y}}=134.2^\circ$)]{} for $y_{\text{max}}=15 \sigma$.[]{data-label="fig:ContactAngleMeasurements90"}](Figure1.eps){width="9cm"}
Numerical Method \[sec:NumericalMethod\]
========================================
To solve (\[eq:EulerLagrangeEquation\]) numerically in a 2D domain, we employ a spectral collocation method [@Trefethen_2000]. We have used this method successfully in our previous studies with both DFT-LDA and DFT-FMT (e.g. [@PeterPRE; @Peter2012; @Nold:2014:FluidStructure]). It should be emphasized that because the equations we wish to solve are non-local, the resulting matrices following discretization are dense, however the advantage with the spectral collocation method is that through a convenient choice of collocation points their number may be kept relatively low, leading to significant reduction in the size of the matrices. The reduction in the number of points becomes increasingly important when going to higher dimensions (as the number of points in a product grid scales exponentially with the dimension).
Consider the tensor product of two one-dimensional (1D) Chebychev grids on the box $(\xi,\eta) \in [-1,1]\times [-1,1]$. This computational domain is mapped onto the half space $[-\infty,\infty]\times[0,\infty]$ by $$\begin{aligned}
x' = L_1 \frac{\xi}{\sqrt{1-\xi^2}}
,\qquad
y' = L_2 \frac{1+\eta}{1-\eta}. \label{eq:CartesianMap}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $L_1$ and $L_2$ are numerical parameters determining the spatial resolution of the collocation points close to $x'=0$ and in the vicinity of the wall, respectively. This Cartesian grid in the physical half-space is then skewed by an angle $\theta_n$ using the map $$\begin{aligned}
x = \frac{x'}{\sin \theta_n} + y' \cot \theta_n
, \qquad
y = y'. \label{eq:SkewedMap}\end{aligned}$$ The skewed grid allows us to have more discretization points near the fluid-fluid and fluid-solid interface where higher density gradients are expected. In our computations, we assume that the liquid-vapour interface is at an angle of $\theta_n$ for values $y \geq y_{\text{max}}$, and only solve for collocation points located at $y < y_{\text{max}}$, such that the resulting density profiles may only be interpreted for $y < y_{\text{max}}$. In order to minimize the numerical inaccuracy caused by this cut-off, we iteratively adapt $\theta_n$ and increase $y_{\text{max}}$ to obtain a final result which is fully physically interpretable.
Physically, the contact angle of a liquid wedge is uniquely defined through the surface tensions of the liquid-[vapour]{} phase[, ${{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}$,]{} and the wall-fluid pair [(${{\gamma}_{\text{wv}}}$ and ${{\gamma}_{\text{wl}}}$ being wall-vapour and wall-liquid surface tensions, respectively)]{}, given by [the Young]{} equation $$\begin{aligned}
{{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}\cos \theta_{\text{Y}} = {{\gamma}_{\text{wv}}}- {{\gamma}_{\text{wl}}}, \label{YoungEquation}\end{aligned}$$ where the surface tensions are quantities that can be extracted from planar/[(1D)]{} DFT computations and $\theta_{\text{Y}}$ is defined as the Young contact angle. Given that we restrict our attention to systems at temperature $T/T_c = 0.75$, the only parameter on which [$\theta_{\text{Y}}$]{} depends is the strength of the wall attraction $\alpha_{\text{w}}$. In figure \[fig:ContactAngleMeasurements90\], we plot the dependence of [$\theta_{\text{Y}}$]{} on the wall attraction. As expected intuitively, the contact angle decreases with increasing wall-fluid attraction and reaches complete wetting at the critical value of $\alpha_{\text{w,crit}} \sigma^3/{\varepsilon}= 1.50$. In 2D computations, the contact angle of the liquid-vapour interface has to converge to [$\theta_{\text{Y}}$]{} at large distances from the wall.
To check this, we have performed computations on a Cartesian grid, employing (\[eq:CartesianMap\]) [and (\[eq:SkewedMap\]) with $\theta_n =
90^\circ$]{}, and assuming that above a limiting value $y_{\text{max}}$, the density at the collocation points corresponds to an equilibrium liquid-vapour interface with a $90^\circ$ contact angle. The result of the density profile for such a computation is depicted in the top right inset of figure \[fig:ContactAngleMeasurements90\]. By measuring the slope of the isodensity line for ${n}= ({{n}_{\text{liq}}}+ {{n}_{\text{vap}}})/2$ in the interval $y \in [10\sigma,14\sigma]$, we obtain an estimate for the contact angle in a 2D setting. The deviations to the [$\theta_{\text{Y}}$]{} are shown in the bottom left inset of figure \[fig:ContactAngleMeasurements90\], showing very good agreement.
We have also performed computations on skewed grids, to increase the number of collocation points in the vicinity of the contact line and the liquid-vapour interface, by assuming that the liquid-vapour interface is at an angle of $\theta_n$ for values $y > y_{\text{max}}$. This allowed us to increase the value of $y_{\text{max}}$ to higher values. The corresponding behaviour is shown in figure \[fig:CA\], where for a wall attraction of $\alpha_w \sigma^3 / {\varepsilon}=0.55$ [corresponding to ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}=
134.14^\circ$]{}, the numerical parameters $y_{\text{max}}$ and $\theta_n$ are varied. It is seen that for all values of $y_{\max}$ and $\theta_n$ the contact angle approaches $\theta_{\text{Y}}$ for increasing $y$, before converging to $\theta =
\theta_n$ near $y=y_{\max}$ due to the imposed boundary condition. For reference, the principal results presented in figure \[fig:DensitySlices135\] were computed on a grid with $45 \times 75$ collocation points and parameters $y_{\text{max}} = 35\sigma$ and $\theta_n = \{135^\circ,120^\circ,90^\circ,60^\circ,40^\circ\}$ for the different rows, respectively.
![Slope of the isodensity line for ${n}= {\left({{n}_{\text{vap}}}+ {{n}_{\text{liq}}}\right)}/2$ for $y_{\max} = \{20,25,35\}$, represented by the dotted, dash-dotted and solid lines, respectively. Computations are done on a skewed grid with $\theta_n = 135^\circ$, $134^\circ$ and $134.2^\circ$, represented by horizontal dashed lines, and results for which are drawn with magenta, blue and black lines, respectively. The substrate strength is $\alpha_w \sigma^3/{\varepsilon}= 0.55$, leading to [$\theta_{\text{Y}} =
134.14^\circ$]{}, depicted by the red horizontal line. The inset shows a typical contour plot for the density, where the contour lines correspond to number densities ${\left({n}-
{{n}_{\text{vap}}}\right)}/{\left({{n}_{\text{liq}}}- {{n}_{\text{vap}}}\right)} = \{0.05,0.5,0.95\}$ from left to right, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:CA"}](Figure2.eps){width="9cm"}
Fluid structure in the vicinity of the contact line \[sec:DensityStructure\]
============================================================================
Figure \[fig:DensitySlices135\] reveals the density structure for a fluid in the vicinity of the contact line for different wall strengths. It can be seen that depending on the wall strength parameter $\alpha_{\text{w}}$, the contact density at the wall for the wall-liquid interface changes significantly. In particular, we have checked the consistency of the observed behaviour with the wall-fluid virial equation [@Herring:2010vn] $$\begin{aligned}
p = - \int_{-\infty}^\infty {n}(y) V'_{\text{ext}}(y) {\text{d}}y = {n}(0) - \int_{0}^\infty {n}(y) V'_{\text{ext}}(y) {\text{d}}y,\end{aligned}$$ where ${n}(0)$ stems from the delta-function contribution to $V'_{\text{ext}}$ at $y=0$.
{width="15cm"}
![Contour lines for the number density (left column, [subfigures I]{}) and density profiles as [a]{} function of the distance to the substrate at various positions $x$ along the substrate (right column, [subfigures II]{}). In the left column, the contour lines correspond to number densities ${\left({n}- {{n}_{\text{vap}}}\right)}/{\left({{n}_{\text{liq}}}- {{n}_{\text{vap}}}\right)} = \{0.05,0.5,0.95\}$ from left to right. The height profiles $h_{\text{I,II,III}}$, defined through equation (\[eq:MinimizingHamiltonian:Condition\]) with boundary conditions (\[eq:h:BC1\])-(\[eq:h:BC2\]) and equation (\[eq:Def\_HIII\]), are depicted by black dash-dotted, dashed and solid lines, respectively, $h_{\text{I}}$ being virtually indistinguishable from $h_{\text{III}}$. The solid lines in the right column represent the 2D density profile, plotted along the dashed vertical lines of corresponding colour in the left column figures. These density profiles are compared to the equivalent planar off-saturation liquid or vapour film of the same adsorption film thickness, drawn with dashed lines. \[fig:DensitySlices135\] ](Figure3b.eps){width="15cm"}
The density plots at different positions in $x$ across the contact line in the right column of figure \[fig:DensitySlices135\] provide an insight as to how the transition between a wall-vapour and a wall-liquid interface leads to a quasi step-like increase of the density in the contour plots. We note that this transition is accompanied by a gradual increase of the distance between the liquid-vapour interface [and]{} the wall. A similar transition can be observed when gradually varying the chemical potential for a fluid film in contact with a planar wall. A typical example [of]{} the bifurcation diagram, also widely denoted as the adsorption isotherm, representing this transition, is shown in figure \[fig:AdsorptionIsotherm41\], where the film thickness ${\ell}$ of the liquid or vapour film, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ell}{{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}}& \frac{1}{\Delta {n}} \int_0^\infty |{n}(\infty) - {n}(y)| {\text{d}}y \label{eq:AdsorptionFilmThickness:Def}\\
\qquad\text{with} \qquad \Delta n =& {{n}_{\text{liq}}}- {{n}_{\text{vap}}},\end{aligned}$$ is plotted versus the deviation of the chemical potential from its saturation value $\Delta {\mu}$. In particular, figure \[fig:AdsorptionIsotherm41\] shows the behaviour for a dewetting scenario of a growing vapour film. Each point on the adsorption isotherm represents a density profile which satisfies the Euler-Lagrange equation (\[eq:EulerLagrangeEquation\]) for a planar configuration. As saturation is approached, the adsorption isotherm satisfies the expected inverse cubic decay of $\Delta {\mu}$ with ${\ell}$ for systems with dispersion forces [@DietrichNap:1991], such as shown in the inset of figure \[fig:AdsorptionIsotherm41\].
These density profiles are compared in the right column of figure \[fig:DensitySlices135\] with density profiles across the contact line which have the same adsorption (\[eq:AdsorptionFilmThickness:Def\]). We note that the contact line is computed at saturation chemical potential, whereas the chemical potential for the density profiles of the adsorption isotherm is naturally off-saturation. Nevertheless, the result is unexpected and shows a surprisingly good agreement, where for large film thicknesses, the density profiles at the liquid-vapour interfaces differ because for a contact line the liquid-vapour interface is at an angle to the wall, while the dashed lines always describe planar films.
![Plot of the adsorption isotherm for a dewetting scenario with wall attraction [of]{} $\alpha_{\text{w}} {\sigma}^3/{\varepsilon}= 0.7$, corresponding to $\theta_{\text{Y}} = 119.9^\circ$. The inset shows the asymptotic behaviour for [large]{} ${\ell}$, as $\Delta \mu \sim {\ell}^{-3}$, [where the]{} dashed line is a fit for ${\ell}\in [10 {\sigma},15 {\sigma}]$ to $\Delta \mu = a
{\ell}^{-3}$, [with computed]{} coefficient $a = -1.21 {\varepsilon}{\sigma}^3$. [In the inset]{} individual DFT computations of the equilibrium density [are marked with circles and are connected by the solid line [in the main plot]{} for clarity.]{}[]{data-label="fig:AdsorptionIsotherm41"}](Figure4.eps){width="8cm"}
Hamiltonian approaches, Derjaguin-Frumkin route and disjoining pressure \[sec:HamiltonianApproaches\]
=====================================================================================================
In a coarse-grained description of the contact line, the two-dimensional density profile is reduced to a height profile $h(x)$ representing the liquid-vapour interface [@Lipowsky:1987; @Mikheev:1991pi]. At equilibrium, this height profile minimizes the Hamiltonian [@Herring:2010vn] $$\begin{aligned}
H[h] = \int_{-\infty}^\infty {\left\{ {{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}{\left( \sqrt{ 1+ (h')^2 } -1 \right)} + V(h) \right\}} {\text{d}}x, \label{eq:Hamiltonian_h}\end{aligned}$$ where $h' = {{\text{d}}h}/{{\text{d}}x}$ is the slope of the interface and $V(h)$ is the effective interface potential. The first term in (\[eq:Hamiltonian\_h\]) accounts for the excess energy stored through the surface tension due to the curvature of the liquid-vapour interface, while the second term accounts for corrections due to the presence of the substrate. This not only includes direct attractive forces between fluid and wall particles, but also corrections due to the distorted fluid density profile caused by the presence of the wall. The effective interface potential $V$ is linked to the disjoining potential ${\Pi}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\Pi}{\left(h\right)} {{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}}- \frac{{\text{d}}V}{{\text{d}}h}. \label{eq:DisjoiningPressureVh}\end{aligned}$$
Usually, (\[eq:Hamiltonian\_h\]) is only applied in the lubrication approximation. For larger slopes, both the separate inclusion of the effective surface potential and surface energy [@Pismen:2001fk] as well as the functional dependence of $V$ on $h$ alone, as opposed to a functional dependence on $h(x)$, were put into question [@Henderson:2011:EPJST:DisjoiningPressure; @MacDowell:2011:ResponseEPJST; @Henderson:EPJST:ResponseMacDowell; @Henderson:NoteContinuingContactLine]. Here, we test for different disjoining pressure definitions whether (\[eq:Hamiltonian\_h\]) may be used to to define height profiles for a large range of contact angles.
In [@Nold:2014:FluidStructure] we have compared height profiles resulting from minimizing (\[eq:Hamiltonian\_h\]) with two different definitions of the disjoining pressure for contact angles $\theta < 90^\circ$. We note that these disjoining pressure definitions are different from phenomenological analytical models such as used e.g. in [@Schwartz:1998; @Sibley:JengMath:2014] in that they are obtained directly from DFT computations, and therefore include the full information of hard-sphere as well as the attractive particle interactions. The first disjoining pressure definition we consider is based on the celebrated Derjaguin and Frumkin theory [@Derjaguin:1936; @Frumkin1938I]: $$\begin{aligned}
{\Pi}_{\text{I}}{\left({\ell}\right)} {{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}}- \Delta {\mu}\Delta {n}\times
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \text{for } {n}|_{y=\infty} = {{n}_{\text{vap}}}\\
-1 & \text{for } {n}|_{y=\infty} = {{n}_{\text{liq}}}\end{array}
\right. , \label{eq:DisjoiningPressureAdsorptionIsotherm}\end{aligned}$$ for a system at saturation chemical potential ${\mu}_{\text{sat}}$. ${{\mu}}_{\text{eq}}$ is the chemical potential at which a film of thickness ${\ell}$ is at equilibrium, such as depicted in the adsorption isotherm in figure \[fig:AdsorptionIsotherm41\], and where $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta {\mu}&= {{\mu}}_{\text{eq}}{\left({\ell}\right)} - {{\mu}}_{\text{sat}}.\end{aligned}$$
The first case of (\[eq:DisjoiningPressureAdsorptionIsotherm\]), [${n}|_{y=\infty} = {{n}_{\text{vap}}}$]{}, describes a wetting scenario where the density at infinite distance from the wall corresponds to the equilibrium vapour density. In this case, a liquid film will slowly build as the chemical potential reaches its saturation value. In contrast, the dewetting case [${n}|_{y=\infty} = {{n}_{\text{liq}}}$]{} describes a vapour film in a bulk [liquid]{} environment, as in figure \[fig:AdsorptionIsotherm41\]. The sign switch in (\[eq:DisjoiningPressureAdsorptionIsotherm\]) originates from the sign difference between the density in the film vs. the bulk density. We note that contact lines with contact angle ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}> 90^\circ$ are described by a vapour film of varying height, whereas contact lines with contact angle [${\theta_{\text{Y}}}< 90^\circ$]{} are described by a liquid film of varying height.
[As an alternative]{} to the Derjaguin and Frumkin definition of the disjoining pressure (\[eq:DisjoiningPressureAdsorptionIsotherm\]), one can define the disjoining pressure based on the normal force balance at the substrate. The disjoining pressure is then defined as the excess pressure acting on the substrate due to the deviation from the equilibrium density profile, caused e.g. by the boundary conditions imposed on the system [@Herring:2010vn; @Henderson:2011:EPJST:DisjoiningPressure] $$\begin{aligned}
{\Pi}_{\text{II}}{\left(x\right)} {{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}}- \int_{-\infty}^\infty {\left( {n}(x,y) - {n}(\infty,y) \right)} V_{\text{ext}}'(y) {\text{d}}y. \label{eq:SumRuleDisjoiningPressue2D}\end{aligned}$$ Note that ${n}(x,y) V_{\text{ext}}'(y)$ is the force acting through the external potential—representing the wall—on the fluid element at point $(x,y)$. In our case, ${n}(x,y)$ is the density profile originating from a 2D DFT computation of the contact line, and hence ${\Pi}_{\text{II}}$ is a quantity containing information of the full 2D equilibrium density profile; in contrast (\[eq:DisjoiningPressureAdsorptionIsotherm\]) is derived from planar 1D computations.
The equilibrium height profiles $h_{\text{I}}$ and $h_{\text{II}}$ corresponding to the disjoining pressures ${\Pi}_{\text{I}}$ and ${\Pi}_{\text{II}}$, respectively, are obtained by minimizing the Hamiltonian (\[eq:Hamiltonian\_h\]), leading to the defining equation for $h_{\text{I/II}}$ $$\begin{aligned}
- {\Pi}_{\text{I}/\text{II}} = {{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}\frac{{\text{d}}}{{\text{d}}x} {\left( \frac{h_{\text{I}/\text{II}}'}{\sqrt{1+ (h_{\text{I}/\text{II}}')^2}} \right)}, \label{eq:MinimizingHamiltonian:Condition}\end{aligned}$$ with boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{x\to -\infty } h_{\text{I}} = h_0 \qquad \text{for } {\theta_{\text{Y}}}< 90^\circ, \label{eq:h:BC1}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{x\to \infty } h_{\text{I}} = h_0 \qquad \text{for } {\theta_{\text{Y}}}> 90^\circ, \label{eq:h:BC2}\end{aligned}$$ where $h_0$ is the film thickness representing the wall-vapour interface in the wetting case and the wall-liquid interface in the drying case. We note that $h_0$ corresponds to the (finite) value at $\Delta {\mu}= 0$ of the adsorption isotherm in [figure \[fig:AdsorptionIsotherm41\]]{}. Given that ${\Pi}_{\text{I}}$ is a function of [$h$, and not of $x$ directly]{}, (\[eq:MinimizingHamiltonian:Condition\]) for $h_{\text{I}}$ is an autonomous ordinary differential equation. This means that with (\[eq:h:BC1\]), [(\[eq:h:BC2\])]{} $h_{\text{I}}$ is translationally invariant in $x$. For simplicity, in figures \[fig:DensitySlices135\] and \[fig:DisjoiningPressures\], we depict one plot for $h_{\text{I}}$ or ${\Pi}_{\text{I}}(h_{\text{I}})$.
The ordinary differential equation (\[eq:MinimizingHamiltonian:Condition\]) defining the film heights $h_{\text{I/II}}$ can also be interpreted as a form of the Young-Laplace equation for a pressure jump across a fluid interface, where the left hand side describes the difference between the pressure acting on the substrate and the fluid pressure at $y=\infty$, while the right hand side represents the product of the surface tension with the curvature of the interface.
Integrating (\[eq:MinimizingHamiltonian:Condition\]) with respect to $x$ and $h$, respectively, leads to the normal-force balance of Young’s equation $$\begin{aligned}
-\int_{-\infty}^\infty {\Pi}_{\text{I}/\text{II}}(x) {\text{d}}x = {{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}\sin \theta_{\text{Y},\text{I}/\text{II}}, \label{eq:SumRuleNormalForceBalance}\end{aligned}$$ and the important expression of Derjaguin-Frumkin theory [@derjaguin1986properties; @Schwartz:1998] $$\begin{aligned}
- \int_{h_0}^\infty {\Pi}_{\text{I}/\text{II}}{\left(h\right)} {\text{d}}h = {{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}{\left(1 - |\cos \theta_{\text{Y},\text{I}/\text{II}}|\right)}, \label{eq:FrumkinResultDisjoiningPressure1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_{\text{Y},\text{I}/\text{II}} \in [0,180^\circ]$ corresponds to the limiting slope of the height profiles $h_{\text{I,II}}$, respectively, at distances far away from the wall: $$\begin{aligned}
\theta_{\text{Y},\text{I}/\text{II}} = \lim_{h_{\text{I/II}} \to \infty} \tan^{-1} {\left( h'_{\text{I/II}}(x)\right)}. \label{eq:definethetaI_II}\end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[eq:FrumkinResultDisjoiningPressure1\]) can be interpreted as a force balance in direction parallel to the substrate. For ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}<
90^\circ$, the right hand side of the equation represents the forces of the liquid-vapour interface acting in the negative $x$-direction. For ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}>
90^\circ$, the height profile decreases from $\infty$ to $h_0$ as $x$ increases. Due to this inversion of the height profile, (\[eq:FrumkinResultDisjoiningPressure1\]) represents the force balance in the positive $x$-direction. The force of the liquid-vapour interface acting in the positive $x$-direction is ${{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}$, whereas the force acting in the negative direction is ${{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}|\cos {\theta_{\text{Y}}}|$. We note that here, the modulus accounts for the fact that for ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}> 90^\circ$, $\cos {\theta_{\text{Y}}}< 0$, given that we have defined $\theta_{\text{Y},\text{I}/\text{II}} \in [0,180^\circ]$, as opposed to allowing for negative values of $\theta_{\text{Y,I/II}}$ in (\[eq:definethetaI\_II\]).
Since both sum rules are derived from (\[eq:MinimizingHamiltonian:Condition\]), $\theta_{\text{Y},\text{I}/\text{II}}$ in equations (\[eq:SumRuleNormalForceBalance\]) and (\[eq:FrumkinResultDisjoiningPressure1\]) are equivalent and ultimately, both height profiles converge to the slope dictated by the Young contact angle. Thus $\theta_{\text{Y},\text{I}/\text{II}}$ both correspond to ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}$ defined in the Young equation (\[YoungEquation\]). We will exploit this property to estimate the accuracy of our numerical method.
$\alpha_w \sigma^3/\varepsilon$ $\theta_{\text{Y}}$ $-\int_{h_0}^\infty {\Pi}_{\text{I}}{\left(h\right)} {\text{d}}h$ $\theta_{\text{Y,I}}$ $-\int_{-\infty}^\infty {\Pi}_{\text{II}}{\left(x\right)} {\text{d}}x$ $\theta_{\text{Y,II}}$
--------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------
$0.55$ $134.2^\circ \pm 0.1^\circ$ $0.103\pm 0.002$ $134.5^\circ \pm 0.4^\circ$ $-0.244 \pm 0.005$ $135.2^\circ \pm 1.1^\circ$
$0.7$ $119.9^\circ\pm 0.05^\circ$ $0.172\pm 0.003$ $120.3^\circ \pm 0.5^\circ$ $-0.298 \pm 0.002$ $120.5^\circ \pm 0.7^\circ$
$1.0$ $89.6^\circ \pm 0.1^\circ$ $0.345 \pm 0.001$ $89.8^\circ \pm 0.2^\circ$ $-0.3463 \pm 10^{-4}$ ($\star$)
$1.25$ $59.9^\circ \pm 0.1^\circ$ $0.173 \pm 0.001$ $60.0^\circ \pm 0.2^\circ$ $-0.297 \pm 0.003$ $59.1^\circ \pm 0.8^\circ$
$1.375$ $41.0^\circ\pm 0.1^\circ$ $0.085 \pm 0.001$ $41.1^\circ \pm 0.2^\circ$ $-0.234 \pm 0.007$ $42.5^\circ \pm 1.6^\circ$
: Comparison of $\theta_{\text{Y}}$ as defined in (\[YoungEquation\]), the contact angles $\theta_{\text{I,II}}$ defined through (\[eq:definethetaI\_II\]) as well as the absolute errors of the integrals on the left hand sides of equations (\[eq:SumRuleNormalForceBalance\]) and (\[eq:FrumkinResultDisjoiningPressure1\]), respectively. ($\star$): Here, the integral expression gives $\sin \theta_{\text{Y,II}} = 1.0001 \pm 0.0001$, such that an estimate for $\theta_{\text{Y,II}}$ cannot formally be given.[]{data-label="tab:thetaY_I_II_Comparison"}
In table \[tab:thetaY\_I\_II\_Comparison\], numerical values for the integrals of the disjoining pressures are given. Error bounds $\Delta$ are estimated by comparing the integral expressions with ${{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}\sin {\theta_{\text{Y}}}$ and ${{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}{\left(1 - |\cos {\theta_{\text{Y}}}|\right)}$, respectively. These error bounds are then used to estimate error bounds of $\theta_{\text{Y,I/II}}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \theta_{\text{Y,II}} = \left| \frac{\Delta {\left\{ -\int_{-\infty}^\infty {\Pi}_{\text{II}}(x) {\text{d}}x \right\}}}{{{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}\cos \theta_{\text{Y},\text{II}}} \right|
\qquad \text{and} \qquad
\Delta \theta_{\text{Y,I}} = \left|\frac{\Delta {\left\{ - \int_{h_0}^\infty {\Pi}_{\text{I}}{\left(h\right)} {\text{d}}h \right\}}}{ {{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}\sin \theta_{\text{Y},\text{I}} }\right|.\end{aligned}$$ The above formulations can be derived from (\[eq:SumRuleNormalForceBalance\]) and (\[eq:FrumkinResultDisjoiningPressure1\]) by using $\theta_{\text{Y},\text{I/II}} + \Delta \theta_{\text{Y},\text{I/II}}$ and linearly expanding to first order in $\Delta \theta_{\text{Y},\text{I/II}}$ the right hand side of the respective equation around $\theta_{\text{Y},\text{I/II}}$. Finally, we compare the film height profiles $h_{\text{I}}$ and $h_{\text{II}}$ with the adsorption film thickness $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\text{III}}(x) {{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}}\frac{1}{\Delta {n}} \int_0^\infty |{\left({n}(x,y) - {n}(x,\infty)\right)}| {\text{d}}y, \label{eq:Def_HIII}\end{aligned}$$ [which is the 2D generalisation of (\[eq:AdsorptionFilmThickness:Def\]).]{} This allows us to define a disjoining pressure suggested by the adsorption film height, obtained by inserting $h_{\text{III}}$ into (\[eq:MinimizingHamiltonian:Condition\]), giving the rescaled curvature $$\begin{aligned}
- {\Pi}_{\text{III}}(h) {{\mathrel{\mathop:}=}}{{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}\frac{{\text{d}}}{{\text{d}}x} {\left( \frac{h_{\text{III}}'}{\sqrt{1+ (h_{\text{III}}')^2}} \right)}.\end{aligned}$$
Discussion and conclusion \[sec:Conclusion\]
============================================
We have scrutinized the fluid structure and its properties in the vicinity of a three-phase contact line by employing a DFT-FMT model. In particular, we presented density profiles slice by slice as we sweep through the contact line region and we contrast the density profiles with the profile of a planar liquid film on a substrate, but with the same film thickness, demonstrating that the two are quite similar. We also scrutinized the ability of Derjaguin-Frumkin theory [@Derjaguin:1987:50YearsOfSurfaFceScience] for planar liquid films on a substrate to predict the height profile at the contact line and we offered a unified Derjaguin-Frumkin treatment of the contact line for ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}< 90^\circ$ and ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}> 90^\circ$ by appropriately extending the boundary conditions for the disjoining pressure equation to account for the case ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}> 90^\circ$.
In figure \[fig:DensitySlices135\] we plot the height profiles $h_{\text{I/II/III}}$ for contact angles in the region $40^\circ < {\theta_{\text{Y}}}<
135^\circ$ and compare them with the contour lines of the density. The figure summarizes some of the main results of our study as far as the behaviour close to the contact line is concerned. Additional information on this can be extracted from figure \[fig:DisjoiningPressures\] where we compare the disjoining pressure profiles ${\Pi}_{\text{I/II/III}}$. An observation we made in our previous study in [@Nold:2014:FluidStructure] for contact angles ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}<90^\circ$, was that the location of maximal curvature for the height profile $h_{\text{II}}$ is shifted towards the fluid phase if compared with the adsorption height profile $h_{\text{III}}$. This observation can also be made in figures \[fig:DensitySlices135\] [(g,i)]{} and in figure \[fig:DisjoiningPressures\] [(b)]{}. However, this does not occur to the same extent in cases where ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}>90^\circ$—such as observed in figures \[fig:DensitySlices135\] (a,c) and in figure \[fig:DisjoiningPressures\] [(a)]{}.
![Plots of different disjoining pressure definitions for different wall attractions. [Dash-dotted, dashed and solid]{} lines depict disjoining pressures [${\Pi}_{\text{I}}$, ${\Pi}_{\text{II}}$ and ${\Pi}_{\text{III}}$]{}, respectively. In [subfigure (a)]{}, the black and green lines show data for $\alpha_w \sigma^3/\varepsilon = 0.55$ and $0.7$, respectively, [whilst in (b)]{}, the black, green and magenta lines show data for $\alpha_w \sigma^3/\varepsilon = 1.375, 1.25$ and $1.0$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:DisjoiningPressures"}](Figure5.eps){width="14cm"}
Furthermore, the maximal absolute curvature of the height profile $h_{\text{II}}$ [(see dashed lines in figures \[fig:DensitySlices135\] and \[fig:DisjoiningPressures\])]{} is lower than the maximal absolute curvature of the adsorption film height $h_{\text{III}}$ [(see solid lines in figures \[fig:DensitySlices135\] and \[fig:DisjoiningPressures\])]{}. This can best be seen in figure \[fig:DisjoiningPressures\] [(we note that the disjoining pressure corresponds to the rescaled curvature of the corresponding height profile)]{}. While the difference is less pronounced for large contact angles ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}>
90^\circ$, it is still observable. In contrast, the film thickness $h_{\text{I}}$ [(see dash-dotted lines in figures \[fig:DensitySlices135\] and \[fig:DisjoiningPressures\])]{} based on the adsorption isotherm, agrees very well with $h_{\text{III}}$, often to the point of being virtually indistinguishable (compare the left column of figure \[fig:DensitySlices135\]).
It should be noted that for a varying height profile, here enforced by the boundary conditions, there exist conflicting definitions of the disjoining pressure—one based on the adsorption isotherm, the other based on the normal force balance. These two definitions lead to distinct height profiles, which suggest that the use of the disjoining pressure based on the adsorption isotherm is more appropriate, given the good agreement of the corresponding height profile with the adsorption height profile. This is [somewhat]{} surprising, given that the disjoining pressure based on the normal force balance ${\Pi}_{\text{II}}$ contains information from the full equilibrium 2D density profile, whereas ${\Pi}_{\text{I}}$ is derived from purely 1D computations.
At the same time the behaviour of ${\Pi}_{\text{II}}$ is such that the maximum absolute normal pressure acting on the substrate is lower than the curvature of the adsorption height profile would suggest. Also, for ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}< 90^\circ$, the maximal normal pressure does [*not*]{} act in the vicinity of the contact line, but instead at a slightly shifted position towards the liquid phase. This interpretation could be of interest for the nanoscale behaviour of contact lines at soft substrates, such as considered e.g. by Lubbers [@DubbersSnoeijer:2014:SoftSolids].
The special case of ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}$ being very close to $90^\circ$, such as depicted in figure \[fig:DensitySlices135\] [(e,f)]{} for $\alpha_w
\sigma^3/\varepsilon = 1.0$, as well as the magenta lines in figure \[fig:DisjoiningPressures\] [(b)]{}, deserves a comment. In this case, the density at very large distances from the wall ${n}|_{y \to \infty}$ depends on the position $x$, and hence does not allow for the definition of an adsorption height profile $h_{\text{III}}$ through (\[eq:Def\_HIII\]). While the disjoining pressure ${\Pi}_{\text{I}}$ based on the adsorption isotherm has a very high absolute maximum, the absolute maximum of ${\Pi}_{\text{II}}$ is less pronounced. Also, [the]{} width of ${\Pi}_{\text{II}}$ corresponds roughly to the width of the interface and is slightly shifted towards the fluid phase.
An important observation, therefore, is that the maximal normal pressure acting on the substrate does not correspond with the maximal curvature of the adsorption film thickness or the maximal value of the Derjaguin-Frumkin disjoining pressure ${\Pi}_{\text{I}}$. One reason for the softening of the normal pressure profile could be the width of the fluid interface. In particular, one can observe in figure \[fig:DisjoiningPressures\] (b), that the width of ${\Pi}_{\text{II}}$ for ${\theta_{\text{Y}}}\approx 90^\circ$, denoted by the dashed magenta line, corresponds approximately with the width of the liquid-vapour interface.
It is noteworthy that the main limitation of the model is that its mean-field nature does not include the description of thermal fluctuations [@ArcherEvans:2013; @EvansHendersonHoyle:1993; @MacDowellBenet:2014]. Inclusion of thermal fluctuations, which become more pronounced with increasing film thicknesses ${\ell}$, lead to a broadening of the liquid-vapour interface and a renormalization of the dependence of ${\ell}$ on the chemical potential deviation from saturation $\Delta {\mu}$ [@ArcherEvans:2013] is needed. A detailed recent study based on molecular simulations and experiments has found that thermal fluctuations lead to an effective film-height dependent surface tension ${{\gamma}_{\text{lv}}}({\ell})$ in (\[eq:Hamiltonian\_h\]) [@MacDowellBenet:2014]. A final conclusion about the effect on thermal fluctuations for the results presented here could be reached by a molecular simulations study in the spirit of Herring and Henderson’s analysis [@Herring:2010vn], but including dispersion forces and a comparison with the corresponding Derjaguin-Frumkin disjoining pressure. This, however, is beyond the scope of the present study.
The important observation made here is that in a mean-field model, disjoining pressures obtained from planar films via the Derjaguin-Frumkin route do allow us to predict with good accuracy the structure of the contact line, hence implying a small contribution of non-locality. It would be interesting to see if this holds for other settings, e.g. spherical droplets.
Of particular interest would also be to investigate very large contact angles close to $180^\circ$, given interesting recent results in this case [@benilov2013contact] as well as the influence of surface roughness and chemical heterogeneities which are known to influence wetting phenomena substantially (e.g. [@PhysFluids_21_2009; @Savva2011; @PhysRevLett_104_2010; @Raj2011]. We shall address these and related issues in future studies.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We acknowledge financial support from ERC Advanced Grant No. 247031 and Imperial College through a DTG International Studentship.
[10]{}
A. J. Archer and R. Evans. Relationship between local molecular field theory and density functional theory for non-uniform liquids. , 138(1):014502, 2013.
J. A. Barker and D. Henderson. Perturbation theory and equation of state for fluids. [II]{}. [A]{} successful theory of liquids. , 47(11):4714–4721, 1967.
E. S. Benilov and M. Vynnycky. Contact lines with a contact angle. , 718:481–506, 2013.
D. Bonn, J. Eggers, J. Indekeu, J. Meunier, and E. Rolley. Wetting and spreading. , 81:739–805, 2009.
B. V. Derjaguin. Some results from 50 years’ research on surface forces. In [*Surface Forces and Surfactant Systems*]{}, volume 74 of [ *Progress in Colloid & Polymer Science*]{}, pages 17–30. Steinkopff, 1987.
B. V. Derjaguin and N. V. Churaev. Properties of water layers adjacent to interfaces. In Clive A. Croxton, editor, [*Fluid interfacial phenomena*]{}, pages 663–738. Wiley, New York, 1986.
B. V. Derjaguin and E. Obuchov. Anomalien dünner [F]{}lüssigkeitsschichten. [III.]{} , 5:1, 1936.
S. Dietrich and M. Napiórkowski. . , 43:1861–1885, 1991.
R. Evans. The nature of the liquid-vapour interface and other topics in the statistical mechanics of non-uniform, classical fluids. , 28(2):143–200, 1979.
R. Evans, J.R. Henderson, D.C. Hoyle, A.O. Parry, and Z.A. Sabeur. . , 80(4):755–775, 1993.
A. N. Frumkin. . , 9:313, 1938.
T. Getta and S. Dietrich. Line tension between fluid phases and a substrate. , 57(1):655–671, 1998.
J. R. Henderson. Discussion notes: Note continuing the discussion on the contact line problem. , 197(1):129–130, 2011.
J. R. Henderson. Discussion notes on “[C]{}omputer simulation of interface potentials: [T]{}owards a first principle description of complex interfaces?”, by [L. G.]{} [M]{}ac[D]{}owell. , 197(1):147–148, 2011.
J. R. Henderson. Disjoining pressure of planar adsorbed films. , 197(1):115–124, 2011.
A. R. Herring and J. R. Henderson. Simulation study of the disjoining pressure profile through a three-phase contact line. , 132(8):084702, 2010.
R. Lipowsky and M. E. Fisher. Scaling regimes and functional renormalization for wetting transitions. , 36:2126–2141, 1987.
L. A. Lubbers, J. H. Weijs, L. Botto, S. Das, B. Andreotti, and J. H. Snoeijer. Drops on soft solids: free energy and double transition of contact angles. , 747, 2014.
L. G. MacDowell. Discussion notes on “[D]{}isjoining pressure of planar adsorbed films”, by [J]{}.[R]{}. [H]{}enderson. , 197(1):149–150, 2011.
L. G. MacDowell, J. Benet, N. A. Katcho, and J. M. G. Palanco. Disjoining pressure and the film-height-dependent surface tension of thin liquid films: New insight from capillary wave fluctuations. , 206:150–171, 2014.
A. Malijevský and A. O. Parry. Critical point wedge filling. , 110:166101, 2013.
R.-J. C. Merath. . PhD thesis, Universität Stuttgart, 2008.
G. J. Merchant and J. B. Keller. Contact angles. , 4(3):477–485, 1992.
N. D. Mermin. Thermal properties of the inhomogeneous electron gas. , 137:A1441–A1443, 1965.
L. V. Mikheev and J. D. Weeks. Sum rules for interface [H]{}amiltonians. , 177(1–3):495–504, 1991.
A. Nold, D. N. Sibley, B. D. Goddard, and S. Kalliadasis. Fluid structure in the immediate vicinity of an equilibrium three-phase contact line and assessment of disjoining pressure models using density functional theory. , 26(7):072001, 2014.
A. Pereira and S. Kalliadasis. Equilibrium gas-liquid-solid contact angle from density-functional theory. , 692:53–77, 2012.
L. M. Pismen. Nonlocal diffuse interface theory of thin films and the moving contact line. , 64(2):021603, 2001.
Y. Rosenfeld. Free-energy model for the inhomogeneous hard-sphere fluid mixture and density-functional theory of freezing. , 63:980–983, 1989.
R. Roth. Fundamental measure theory for hard-sphere mixtures: a review. , 22(6):063102, 2010.
N. Savva and S. Kalliadasis. Two-dimensional droplet spreading over topographical substrates. , 21:092192, 2009.
N. Savva and S. Kalliadasis. Dynamics of moving contact lines: A comparison between slip and precursor film models. , 94(6):64004, 2011.
N. Savva, S. Kalliadasis, and G. A. Pavliotis. Two-dimensional droplet spreading over random topographical substrates. , 104:084501, 2010.
L. W. Schwartz. Hysteretic effects in droplet motions on heterogeneous substrates: direct numerical simulation. , 14(12):3440–3453, 1998.
D. N. Sibley, A. Nold, N. Savva, and S. Kalliadasis. A comparison of slip, disjoining pressure, and interface formation models for contact line motion through asymptotic analysis of thin two- dimensional droplet spreading. , [DOI]{}: 10.1007/s10665-014-9702-9, 2014.
J. H. Snoeijer and B. Andreotti. A microscopic view on contact angle selection. , 20(5):057101, 05 2008.
J. H. Snoeijer and B. Andreotti. Moving contact lines: Scales, regimes, and dynamical transitions. , 45(1):269–292, 2013.
N. L. Trefethen. . SIAM, Philadelphia, 2000.
R. Vellingiri, N. Savva, and S. Kalliadasis. Droplet spreading on chemically heterogeneous substrates. , 84:036305, 2011.
J. Wu. Density functional theory for chemical engineering: [F]{}rom capillarity to soft materials. , 52(3):1169–1193, 2006.
P. Yatsyshin, N. Savva, and S. Kalliadasis. Spectral methods for the equations of classical density-functional theory: [R]{}elaxational dynamics of microscopic films. , 136:124113, 2012.
P. Yatsyshin, N. Savva, and S. Kalliadasis. Geometry-induced phase transition in fluids: [C]{}apillary prewetting. , 87:020402, 2013.
[^1]: Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Jean-François Fortin$^{\ast,}$ and Kuver Sinha$^{\dagger,}$'
bibliography:
- 'Stokes.bib'
date: July 2018
title: |
X-Ray Polarization Signals from Magnetars\
with Axion-Like-Particles
---
Introduction {#SIntro}
============
X-ray polarimetry is a nascent field that can explore different astrophysical sources, ranging from compact objects to pulsar wind nebulas, supernova remnants, and molecular clouds. For a recent review of the astrophysical processes that can lead to polarized X-rays, as well as a description of current and planned missions, we refer to [@fabiani].
The emission from compact objects, which are the focus of this article, can exhibit polarization due to the different opacities of the surface plasma to different components of the photon electric field. However, polarization of X-ray radiation from neutron stars can also arise due to fundamental physics whose origin is distinct from astrophysics, and it is this possibility that we will entertain in our work. It is worthwhile to remember that polarization experiments probe physical anisotropies, and there is an important anisotropy in the photon Lagrangian if axion-like-particles (ALPs) [@Peccei:1977hh; @Peccei:1977ur; @Wilczek:1977pj; @Weinberg:1977ma] exist. Namely, ALPs mix only with the parallel and not the perpendicular component of the electric field in the presence of an external magnetic field. This anisotropy of the photon-ALP Lagrangian can thus be probed by X-ray polarimetry if the magnetic field near a compact object is strong enough.
Magnetars are an interesting subclass of neutron stars characterized by extremely strong magnetic fields, generally exceeding the quantum critical value $B_c=m_e^2/e=4.414\times10^{13}\,\text{G}$ [@Turolla:2015mwa; @Beloborodov:2016mmx; @Kaspi:2017fwg], and constitute the natural target for our investigations.
In a previous paper [@Fortin:2018ehg], we considered the production of ALPs from the core of magnetars and their subsequent conversion into photons (we refer to [@Lai:2006af; @Chelouche:2008ta; @Jimenez:2011pg; @Perna:2012wn] for previous work in this direction). The relevant terms in the ALP-photon Lagrangian are \[EqnL\] where $a$ denotes the ALP and the coupling constants $g\equiv g_{a\gamma}$ and $g_{aN}$ have mass dimension $-1$. The first term is responsible for ALP-photon conversion in an external magnetic field [@Raffelt:1987im; @Marsh:2015xka; @Graham:2015ouw], while the second term in is the coupling between the ALP and nucleons $N$ that leads to ALP production in the core of neutron stars. As mentioned before, ALPs mix with the component of the electric field that lies in the plane containing the external magnetic field $B$ and the radial direction of motion, while the perpendicular component of the electric field propagates unaffected. This implies that the polarization pattern of the observed spectrum will be affected by the presence of ALPs.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the changes in polarization patterns in the observed X-ray spectra of magnetars in the presence of ALPs. Our approach consists of the following steps. Firstly, we assume that for every frequency $\omega\sim1-\mathcal{O}(\text{few hundred})\,\text{keV}$, both photons and ALPs are produced near the surface of the magnetar, in an uncorrelated manner. The important observation is that the astrophysical processes leading to photon production both in the soft as well as the hard X-ray regime are completely independent of the processes that give rise to ALPs, mainly by nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung [@Iwamoto:1984ir; @Iwamoto:1992jp; @Nakagawa:1987pga; @Nakagawa:1988rhp; @Raffelt:1996wa; @Umeda:1997da; @Paul:2018msp; @Maruyama:2017xzl].
The evolution of the ALP-photon system in the magnetic field of the magnetar is conveniently described in terms of a set of first-order differential equations coupling the amplitudes and phase difference of the ALP and photon fields. This parametrization has been shown to drastically simplify numerical analyses of the system [@Fortin:2018ehg]. The uncorrelated production mechanism of ALPs and photons alluded to above allows us to average over the initial phase differences. On the other hand, we parametrize the initial relative amplitudes by the angle $\chi_0$. For example, $\chi_0=0$ signifies a pure ALP initial state. The introduction of $\chi_0$ allows us to remain agnostic about astrophysical models of production of X-ray photons near a magnetar’s surface.
Our second step is to define an astrophysics-subtracted (or surface-subtracted) normalized Stokes parameter $R$. This is done as follows. The sum ($I=\bar{I}_\perp+\bar{I}_\parallel$) and difference ($Q=\bar{I}_\perp-\bar{I}_\parallel$) of the phase-averaged photon intensities in the parallel and perpendicular planes are first computed, and then the quantities $\Delta I$ and $\Delta Q$ are defined, which are the values of the respective Stokes parameters away from the magnetar, minus their values at the magnetar’s surface $r_0$. This is very useful, since at the surface (which we take to also include the plasma) astrophysical effects due to differential opacities of the plasma lead to polarization, which should be subtracted away to extract the contribution to the polarization coming purely from ALP-photon mixing in the magnetosphere. In the absence of ALPs (*i.e.* if ALPs do not exist in the Universe), and assuming that astrophysical processes in the magnetosphere do not lead to substantial polarization, the surface-subtracted Stokes parameters should vanish.
We find, remarkably, that the surface-subtracted Stokes parameters $\Delta I$ and $\Delta Q$ factorize into two pieces: the ALP-to-photon conversion probability and a factor that encodes the composition of the initial state. Specfically, normalizing the surface-subtracted Stokes parameter and defining the quantity where $A$ is related to the initial amplitudes of the ALP and parallel photon states, we find that \[EqnRfact\] This is our main result. It has several implications. Firstly, the spatial dependence of the Stokes parameters, as well as their dependence on the properties of the magnetar and the ALP parameters like the mass and coupling constant, are all encoded in the ALP-to-photon conversion probability $P_{a\to\gamma}$. Secondly, given the conversion probability, one can obtain the value of $R$ simply by scaling with the appropriate initial condition $\cos(2\chi_0)$. Most importantly, the factorization of $R$ in can be utilized to provide an analytic expression for the Stokes parameter $Q$ in , which is the parameter we prefer when discussing the observational aspects of our work.
We utilize the methods of our previous paper [@Fortin:2018ehg] to display the dependence of $R$ on the photon energy as well as ALP parameters. As a benchmark point, we take the CAST-allowed values for the ALP mass and coupling, $m_a=10^{-8}\,\text{keV}$ and $g/e=5\times10^{-17}\,\text{keV}^{-1}$, respectively. The dependence of $Q$ on $\bar{I}_\parallel/\bar{I}_\perp$ and $\bar{I}_a/\bar{I}_\perp$ is shown in Fig. \[FigStokesQ\], where $\bar{I}_a$ is the phase-averaged ALP intensity.
In the absence of ALPs, astrophysical modeling of thermal and hard X-rays from magnetars predicts mainly X-mode polarization, for which the electric field is perpendicular to the plane containing the external magnetic field and the direction of propagation. For the strong magnetic fields of magnetars, the polarization in the X-mode is expected to be especially pronounced due to the vacuum birefringence effect. The polarization radius, which is the location where the polarization vector stops tracking the magnetic field, is large for strong magnetic fields and the overall polarization is enhanced.
The unique observational signature of ALP-photon conversion is the change in the predicted polarization pattern. ALPs add to the astrophysical picture described above by producing O-mode photons, for which the electric field is parallel to the plane containing the external magnetic field and the direction of propagation. We compute the radius of conversion, where the probability of conversion becomes significant, and find that it is typically of the same order or larger than the polarization radius, implying an overall O-mode superposed on the X-mode coming purely from astrophysics. These results are displayed in terms of the Stokes parameter $Q$ in Fig. \[FigQ\]. The astrophysical prediction of $Q$ is expected to be $Q\sim\bar{I}_\perp$, while the presence of ALP-to-photon conversion drives $Q$ to be smaller, and perhaps even negative depending on the intensity of ALPs produced from the core. The next generation of X-ray polarimeters [@polstar; @ixpe] and increasingly sophisticated modeling of the astrophysics of magnetars [@Lai:2006af; @Chelouche:2008ta; @Jimenez:2011pg; @Perna:2012wn; @Wadiasingh:2017rcq] provide an opportunity to investigate ALPs using polarization.
Our paper is organized as follows. In Section \[SOsc\], we recapitulate the ALP-photon coupled system and the results of [@Fortin:2018ehg]. In Section \[SPP\], we perform the calculation of the Stokes parameters. In Section \[SResults\], we find analytical approximations for the parameter $R$ and display it as a function of the photon energy and ALP-photon coupling. We also describe the observational possibilities and contrast our results with previous work in Section \[SObs\]. We end with our conclusions in Section \[SConclusion\]. Finally, Appendix \[SApp\] demonstrates the factorization property of the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter $R$.
Oscillations {#SOsc}
============
In this section we introduce the evolution equations for the photon and the ALP relevant to magnetars. We use the general formalism of [@Fortin:2018ehg] for oscillations in the limits where the space variations of the magnetic field are large compared to the particle wavelength and dispersion is weak. The reader interested in the details of this formalism is referred to [@Fortin:2018ehg].
Evolution Equations
-------------------
For particles with energies in the $1$ to $200$ keV range (corresponding to soft and hard X-ray photons) propagating radially outwards from a magnetar, the system is in the appropriate limits (as long as the magnetic field is not too large) with negligible plasma contributions to the evolution equations [@Raffelt:1987im; @Lai:2006af], leading to \[EqnDiffMat\] where Here $a(x)$, $E_\parallel(x)$ and $E_\perp(x)$ are the ALP and parallel and perpendicular photon electric fields respectively while $x=r/r_0$ with $r$ the distance from the center of the magnetar and $r_0$ the magnetar’s radius. Moreover, $\omega$ is the energy of the particles, $m_a$ is the ALP mass, $g$ is the ALP-photon coupling constant and $\theta$ is the angle between the magnetic field and the direction of propagation of the particle. $q_\parallel$ and $q_\perp$ are dimensionless functions of the magnetic field $B$ given by [@Lai:2006af; @Raffelt:1987im] with $b=B/B_c$ where $B_c=m_e^2/e=4.414\times10^{13}\,\text{G}$ is the critical QED field strength. Here $e=\sqrt{4\pi\alpha}$ where the fine structure constant is approximatively $\alpha\approx1/137$.
Since the plasma contributions are negligible, the three-state system effectively decomposes into two independent oscillation systems, a two-state system for the ALP and the parallel photon, and a one-state system for the perpendicular photon.
Due to the probability conservation property $\frac{d}{dx}[|a(x)|^2+|E_\parallel(x)|^2]=0$ discussed in [@Fortin:2018ehg], the different states can be expressed as \[EqnaEE\] where $A_a=A\cos[\chi(x)]$, $A_\parallel=A\sin[\chi(x)]$ and $A_\perp$ are the amplitudes at position $xr_0$ of the ALP field, the parallel photon field and the perpendicular photon field respectively. It is important to note that $A$ and $A_\perp$ are constants which can always be chosen real and positive while $\chi(x)$, $\phi_a(x)$, $\phi_\parallel(x)$ and $\phi_\perp(x)$ are real functions. Hence, the intensities at position $xr_0$ are given by the respective amplitudes squared, *i.e.* $I_a(x)=A^2\cos^2[\chi(x)]$, $I_\parallel(x)=A^2\sin^2[\chi(x)]$ and $I_\perp(x)=A_\perp^2$ for the ALP field, the parallel photon field and the perpendicular photon field. Probability conservation then implies that $I_a(x)+I_\parallel(x)=A^2$ and $I_\perp(x)=A_\perp^2$ are constants.
Using in , the evolution equations become \[EqnEE\] where $\Delta\phi(x)=\phi_a(x)-\phi_\parallel(x)$ is the phase difference between the ALP field and the parallel photon field while $\Sigma\phi(x)=\phi_a(x)+\phi_\parallel(x)$ is the sum of the phases of the ALP field and the parallel photon field. In addition to showing that the differential equation for $\phi_\perp(x)$ decouples, the evolution equations imply also that the differential equation for $\Sigma\phi(x)$ decouples in the sense that it is completely determined once the solutions to the coupled $\chi(x)$ and $\Delta\phi(x)$ differential equations are known. Hence both $\Sigma\phi(x)$ and $\phi_\perp(x)$ are irrelevant in computing the intensities.
The initial states are determined at the surface of the magnetar from the boundary conditions at $x=1$. For the two-state system described by $\chi(x)$ and $\Delta\phi(x)$, pure initial states satisfy $\chi(1)=n\pi/2$ with $n\in\mathbb{Z}$, and the boundary condition for $\Delta\phi(1)$ must satisfy $\Delta\phi(1)=m\pi$ with $m\in\mathbb{Z}$ to avoid singularities. The two different choices of phase difference for pure initial states lead to the same intensities.
Indeed, it is straightforward to verify that the transformation leaves the evolution equations invariant. Therefore, for boundary conditions given by $\chi(1)=\chi_0$ and $\Delta\phi(1)=\Delta\phi_0$, the intensities verify Thus, for the pure ALP initial state $\chi_0=0$, the two different choices of phase difference, say $\Delta\phi_0=0$ and $\Delta\phi_0=\pi$, give the same intensities. For the pure parallel photon initial state $\chi_0=\pi/2$, the two different choices of phase difference, say $\Delta\phi_0=0$ and $\Delta\phi_0=\pi$ again, give the same intensities since are also invariant under the transformation $\chi(x)\to\chi(x)\pm\pi$. By using such arguments, more can be said about the intensities.
Indeed, two other transformations play an important role in the following. First, the transformation \[EqnTpi\] leaves the evolution equations invariant, which implies that the intensities satisfy the following relations, \[EqnTpiI\] Second, in general in the definitions , one can always take $\chi(x)\in[0,\pi/2]$. With that interval in mind, it is interesting to note that $\pi/2-\chi(x)\in[0,\pi/2]$. Hence, applying the transformation \[EqnTpi2\] leaves the evolution equations of the coupled $\chi(x)$ and $\Delta\phi(x)$ invariant while keeping the boundary condition on $\chi(x)$ in the appropriate interval. Therefore, it is easy to conclude that if $\chi(x)$ and $\Delta\phi(x)$ are solutions to , then from $\pi/2-\chi(x)$ and $\Delta\phi(x)\pm\pi$ are also solutions to . As before, this implies some conditions on the intensities which are here given by \[EqnTpi2I\] It is important to note that are true simply because the intensities do not care about the sum of the phases. Indeed, if $\Sigma\phi(x)$ had been important for the intensities, *i.e.* if it had not decoupled, then the relations would not be true because the transformation does not leave the differential equation for $\Sigma\phi(x)$ in invariant.
Mixed Initial States
--------------------
As discussed in the introduction, in the X-ray regime, production mechanisms in magnetars have very different origins for ALPs and photons. The former comes predominantly from nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung of ALPs [@Iwamoto:1984ir; @Iwamoto:1992jp; @Nakagawa:1987pga; @Nakagawa:1988rhp; @Raffelt:1996wa; @Umeda:1997da; @Paul:2018msp; @Maruyama:2017xzl] while the latter originates from the magnetar itself and interactions with the plasma in the magnetar’s atmosphere (*e.g.* parallel-perpendicular mode conversion in inhomogeneous magnetar’s atmosphere) [@Lai:2006af].
Hence, it is expected that at the magnetar’s surface, where the ALP and parallel photon fields start oscillating into one another as they travel outwards, their amplitudes can differ substantially depending on the actual values of the ALP parameters. Moreover, their phase difference is effectively random.
Thus, for given initial amplitudes corresponding to specific ALP parameters, *i.e.* for a specific $A$ and $\chi(1)=\chi_0$, it is natural to average over the initial phase difference $\Delta\phi(1)=\Delta\phi_0$ to determine the intensities away from the magnetar. This implies that, at a distance $xr_0$ from the magnetar’s surface, the averaged intensities $\bar{I}(x)$ for initial $\chi(1)=\chi_0$ are \[EqnIb\] Due to the singularities appearing for pure initial states and the equality of the intensities for the two different choices of phase difference, there is no averaging for pure initial states and only one initial phase difference (say $\Delta\phi_0=0$) is necessary to determine the averaged intensities at position $xr_0$.
Since the intensities transform as in under the transformation and under the transformation , the averaged intensities also behave as \[EqnTpiIb\] and \[EqnTpi2Ib\] Moreover, from the invariance under the transformation $\chi(x)\to\chi(x)\pm\pi$, the averaged intensities are periodic functions of $\chi_0$ with period $\pi$. Hence from the averaged intensities are even functions of $\chi_0$ with respect to $\pi/2$ while from the averaged intensities for some initial amplitudes are related to the averaged intensities for the inverted initial amplitudes. As a corollary of , it is straightforward to see that $\bar{I}_a(\pi/4,x)=\bar{I}_\parallel(\pi/4,x)=A^2/2$. Therefore, for a half-and-half initial state, the averaged intensities are exactly $1/2$ of the sum of the ALP and parallel photon initial intensities. Thus, it is only necessary to compute the averaged intensities for initial $\chi(1)\in[0,\pi/4)$ to determine the averaged intensities for all possible initial states. In fact, the next section demonstrates that we can do better.
Obviously, averaging over the perpendicular photon initial phase is of no consequence for the averaged perpendicular photon intensity, hence $\bar{I}_\perp(x)=A_\perp^2$ and the averaged perpendicular photon intensity remains constant.
Photon Polarizations {#SPP}
====================
This section introduces the Stokes parameters describing the polarization state of the photon signal. The effect of ALP-photon coupling is discussed qualitatively, with a more quantitative analysis for a particular magnetar presented in the next section.
Stokes Parameters
-----------------
At a given position $xr_0$ from the magnetar, the relevant Stokes parameters are $I$ and $Q$ which correspond respectively to the sum of and the difference between the averaged perpendicular photon intensity and the averaged parallel photon intensity, *i.e.* \[EqnStokes\] As pointed out before, since the perpendicular photon field does not mix with the ALP-parallel photon two-state system, its averaged intensity is constant. Therefore, all modifications to the Stokes parameter are driven by the averaged parallel photon intensity.
Moreover, since plasma contributions are negligible outside the magnetar’s atmosphere, in the absence of ALPs the evolution equations correspond to two independent one-state systems, one for the parallel photon field and one for the perpendicular photon field. Hence without ALPs the Stokes parameters at a distance $xr_0$ from the magnetar would be the same as the Stokes parameters at the magnetar’s surface. The effects of the existence of ALPs and the possible photon oscillations with them on the Stokes parameters can therefore be conveniently analysed by studying the differences between the Stokes parameters at $xr_0$ and the Stokes parameters at $r_0$, *i.e.* \[EqnStokesDiff\] The relation $\Delta Q(\chi_0,x)=-\Delta I(\chi_0,x)$ demonstrates perfect anti-correlation between the surface-subtracted Stokes parameter $\Delta I(\chi_0,x)$ and the surface-subtracted Stokes parameter $\Delta Q(\chi_0,x)$. Therefore, in our scenario, there is only one independent quantity to keep track of, which we choose as the surface-subtracted Stokes parameter $\Delta I(\chi_0,x)$.
It is clear from this analysis and especially that an astrophysical understanding of soft and hard X-ray polarized emission from magnetars can constrain or even discover ALPs. Indeed, on the one hand standard astrophysical considerations dictate the expected Stokes parameters $I^\text{exp}$ and $Q^\text{exp}$ at the magnetar’s surface. On the other hand, observations on Earth lead to observed Stokes parameters $I^\text{obs}$ and $Q^\text{obs}$. Thus theoretical and observational astrophysics determine the differences of the Stokes parameters $\Delta I^\text{astro}=I^\text{obs}-I^\text{exp}$ and $\Delta Q^\text{astro}=Q^\text{obs}-Q^\text{exp}$. Non-vanishing values for $\Delta I^\text{astro}$ and $\Delta Q^\text{astro}$ suggest either a misunderstanding of the astrophysical processes at play in magnetars or observational errors. However, from non-vanishing values for $\Delta I^\text{astro}$ and $\Delta Q^\text{astro}$ such that $\Delta Q^\text{astro}=-\Delta I^\text{astro}$ strongly suggest that ALPs exist and ALP-photon oscillations occur in the magnetic field of the magnetar. The relation $\Delta Q^\text{astro}=-\Delta I^\text{astro}$ originating from can thus be seen as a smoking gun signal for ALPs.
Before turning to an analysis of the transformation properties of the surface-subtracted Stokes parameters and their consequences, it is of interest to define a new quantity, the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter $R(\chi_0,x)$.
Normalized Surface-Subtracted Stokes Parameter
----------------------------------------------
Since we do not rely on any specific models for the ALP and photon production mechanisms, the values of $A$, $\chi_0$ and $A_\perp$ which determine the initial ALP and photon amplitudes at the magnetar’s surface are not fixed. However, from it is clear that the differences of the Stokes parameters at infinity and at the magnetar’s surface does not depend on $A_\perp$. Moreover, since $\bar{I}_\parallel(\chi_0,x)\propto A^2$, their dependence on $A$ is simple. It is thus convenient in the following to study the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter \[EqnR\] Alternatively, one can set $A=1$ in to compute the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter . Apart from the implicit dependence on the ALP and magnetar parameters, the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter is thus a function of the boundary condition $\chi_0$ only instead of the boundary conditions $A$, $\chi_0$ and $A_\perp$.
The transformation properties of the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter (and its non-normalized counterpart) are easily obtained. They are \[EqnTR\] from the invariance of under the transformations $\chi(x)\to\chi(x)\pm\pi$, and respectively. Therefore implies that the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter is a periodic function of $\chi_0$ with period $\pi$ which is even in $\chi_0$ with respect to $\pi/2$ and odd in $\chi_0$ with respect to $\pi/4$. As such, it can be expanded in Fourier modes as \[EqnRF\] with the modes given by \[EqnRFM\] The latter can be computed directly from since the integral is $\chi_0$-independent. Indeed, averaging over $\Delta\phi_0$ eliminates all dependence on the boundary conditions (this statement is highly non-trivial, for a proof the reader is referred to Appendix \[SApp\]). Then the Fourier modes are simply \[EqnRFMSoln\] which are $\chi_0$-independent and thus the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter is \[EqnRFSoln\] It can be written in a more familiar form by setting $\chi_0=0$. Indeed, since is $\chi_0$-independent, we can set $\chi_0=0$ and replace the average over $\Delta\phi_0$ by $\Delta\phi_0=0$. Analogously, we can set $\chi_0=0$ directly in and compare both sides. Both approaches lead to our final result \[EqnRSoln\] where is the ALP-to-photon conversion probability at a distance $xr_0$ for pure ALP initial state. Therefore, the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter factorizes into two parts, the ALP-to-photon conversion probability for pure ALP initial state $P_{a\to\gamma}(x)$ that is a function of the ALP and magnetar parameters, and $\cos(2\chi_0)$ which encodes the dependence on the mixed initial state. In addition, from it is clear that $-1\leq R(\chi_0,x)\leq1$ with $R(\pi/4,x)=0$ as proven before.
Using , the surface-subtracted Stokes parameters are \[EqnStokesDiffSoln\] which implies that the Stokes parameters and the averaged intensities are \[EqnStokesSoln\] and \[EqnIbSoln\] respectively.
The behavior on the mixture of the initial state has been completely uncovered in , , and . Indeed, the dependences on $A$, $\chi_0$ and $A_\perp$ are exhibited explicitly. Hence it is easy to determine the behavior of the averaged intensities or the Stokes parameters under changes of the mixed initial state. For example, the Stokes parameter $Q(\chi_0,x)$ at a distance $xr_0$ is always smaller (larger) than or equal to the Stokes parameter $Q(\chi_0,1)$ at the magnetar’s surface if $\chi_0\in[0,\pi/4]$ ($\chi_0\in[\pi/4,\pi/2]$), *i.e.* if the initial state is a mixture dominated by ALP (parallel photon).
Moreover, the ALP-to-photon conversion probability for pure ALP initial state is the only necessary quantity to compute in order to determine all the remaining quantities of interest. This important observation simplifies greatly the problem since $P_{a\to\gamma}(x)$ is independent of $\chi_0$ and no averaging on $\Delta\phi_0$ is necessary.
The remarkable factorization of the dependence on the initial state in the averaged intensities is a consequence of the averaging over the initial phase difference. If the average had not been performed, there would have been no such factorization. Hence, if there exists a common origin for the production of ALPs and photons, then the initial phase difference would be fixed and the dependence on $\chi_0$ would not be as straightforward as in .
Finally, since the argument leading to the results above relies only on the probability conservation property of the system, it is important to note that relations analogous to for averaged intensities exist for any two-state oscillation system satisfying the probability conservation property. Although we have not investigated it further, we expect that relations analogous to for averaged intensities can be found for any $n$-state oscillation system as long as probability is conserved.
Results {#SResults}
=======
In this section we solve numerically the evolution equations with dipole magnetic field (valid a few $r_0$ away from the magnetar) for magnetar parameters corresponding to SGR 1806-20 in the soft and hard X-ray range. As mentioned in the introduction, we stay agnostic with respect to the different production mechanisms for ALPs and photons. Our results are therefore conveniently expressed with the help of the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter far away from the magnetar where the magnetic field is effectively turned off.
In principle, forces us to compute $R$ by averaging over the initial phase difference for several mixed initial states. However, the relation allows us to focus only on the ALP-to-photon conversion probability for pure ALP initial state. Nevertheless, to verify the relation , we compute (for various ALP and magnetar parameters) $R$ the hard way using and compare with the ALP-to-photon conversion probability for pure ALP initial state through , validating the argument of the previous section.
For SGR 1806-20, the ALP-to-photon conversion probability for pure ALP initial state in the soft and hard X-ray range was studied in [@Fortin:2018ehg]. For completeness, we include here the relevant plots as well as a discussion of the relevant features of $R(\chi_0=0)\equiv R(\chi_0=0,x=\infty)$ for a benchmark point that is not excluded by CAST [@Anastassopoulos:2017ftl].
Dependence on the ALP and Magnetar Parameters
---------------------------------------------
As mentioned previously, standard astrophysical considerations dictates how the magnetar and its atmosphere behave. Hence, theoretical astrophysics determines the initial amplitudes of the particles at the magnetar’s surface. The particles then travel through the plasma in the magnetar’s atmosphere, which is of the order of centimeters, where they can encounter a resonance in the parallel-perpendicular photon space [@Lai:2006af]. Since we remain agnostic about the astrophysical processes at play, we can start evolving the evolution equations once the particles exit the magnetar’s atmosphere, which is the only region where plasma effects are non-negligible. Therefore, our initial amplitudes at the magnetar’s surface correspond more precisely to the amplitudes outside the magnetar’s atmosphere. However, since the magnetar radius is of the order of kilometers while the atmosphere’s thickness is of the order of centimeters, we can choose $x=1$ as our initial point to solve the evolution equations without consequences. From this point on, the plasma is completely negligible and the analysis presented before is valid.
However, the dipolar approximation holds only several radii away from the magnetar. Hence, to assume a dipole magnetic field, it is necessary to redefine the initial amplitudes at the magnetar’s surface by the amplitudes several radii away from the magnetar where the dipolar approximation is valid. The evolution equations are thus evolved numerically from there and the average in is performed on the phase difference at that position. Since the conversion radius, where most of the ALP-parallel photon conversion occurs, is a few hundred radii away from the magnetar for our benchmark point, the dipolar approximation is clearly justified.
The particles thus evolve through an astrophysical sector consisting of the production region (either inside or closely by the magnetar), the plasma region and the region where the dipolar approximation is not valid. The amplitudes at the end of this sector are then used as initial amplitudes for the particles evolving through a vacuum sector consisting of the dipolar magnetic field of the magnetar with negligible plasma effects. It is now clear that our work focuses on the vacuum sector.
On the one hand, the ALP-to-photon conversion probability $P_{a\to\gamma}$ for pure ALP initial state in the limit of dipolar magnetic field depends on six ALP and magnetar parameters corresponding to the ALP energy $\omega$, the ALP mass $m_a$, the ALP-photon coupling constant $g$, the magnetar’s radius $r_0$, the (dimensionless) magnetar magnetic field at the surface $b_0=B_0/B_c$ and the angle between the direction of propagation and the magnetic field $\theta$. On the other hand, the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter $R(\chi_0)\equiv R(\chi_0,\infty)$ depends also on the mixed initial state through $\chi_0$.
Fig. \[FigR\] shows the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter for two points in the ALP and magnetar parameter space in function of $\chi_0$. A comparison with $P_{a\to\gamma}\cos(2\chi_0)$ is also shown, confirming the validity of (they are undistinguishable).
Focusing now on the benchmark points $\omega=1$ and $100\,\text{keV}$, $m_a=10^{-8}\,\text{keV}$, $g/e=5\times10^{-17}\,\text{keV}^{-1}$, $r_0=10\,\text{km}$, $B_0=20\times10^{14}\,\text{G}$ and $\theta=\pi/2$, which lie in the soft and hard X-ray range with appropriate magnetar parameters for SGR 1806-20 and are not excluded by CAST, different dependences of $R(\chi_0=0)$ around the benchmark points are shown in Fig. \[FigBP\].
As explained in [@Fortin:2018ehg], the fact that the conversion probability peaks in the X-ray range (as shown in the first panel of Fig. \[FigBP\]) has interesting consequences since the ALP nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung emission spectrum peaks in the hard X-ray range for our benchmark model (for a degenerate medium relevant to magnetars). The second panel shows $R$ as a function of the ALP-photon coupling constant $g$. It is shown that the conversion probability drops dramatically for smaller ALP-photon coupling constant, as expected from physical arguments. Indeed, for small ALP-photon coupling constant $g$, there is effectively no oscillations and the conversion probability decreases.
Furthermore, contrary to some of the benchmark points used in [@Fortin:2018ehg], the conversion probability for the CAST-friendly benchmark points used here can be obtained by analogy to time-dependent perturbation theory in quantum mechanics, leading to the approximation [@Raffelt:1987im] \[EqnPapprox\] These equations are correct as long as the numerical value for $g$ is small enough for the approximation to make sense. The second equality, written in terms of the dimensionless conversion radius [@Fortin:2018ehg] \[EqnConvRadius\] is valid in the large conversion radius limit since in that limit $\hat{q}_\parallel\to1$ and the integral in the exponential can be trivially computed. Hence, from in the large conversion radius limit the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter $R(\chi_0)$ at infinity is given by \[EqnRapprox\] where the norm of the integral in is a number of order one for our benchmark points.
Since the integral in is valid in the large conversion radius limit, it is possible to approximate it by integrating from the origin to infinity. Indeed, the integral is negligible in the interval $[0,r_0/r_{a\to\gamma}]$ due to the $1/(5t^5)$ term. The integral in can therefore be seen as a function of the product $\Delta_ar_{a\to\gamma}$ only. It can be evaluated approximatively in the large and small $|\Delta_ar_{a\to\gamma}|$ regimes using the steepest descent method or a change of variables respectively, leading to \[EqnRapproxanal\] Fig. \[FigBP\] compares the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter $R$ for pure ALP initial state obtained from the evolution equations (blue) and the approximation (red), showing that they agree for small $g$, including our benchmark value $g/e=5\times10^{-17}\,\text{keV}^{-1}$. Moreover, for our benchmark point relevant to SGR 1806-20, the analytic solution with $|\Delta_ar_{a\to\gamma}|\gtrsim0.45$ is valid in the soft X-ray regime (*i.e.* from its lower boundary at $\omega\sim0.1\,\text{keV}$ to $\omega\lesssim3.89\,\text{keV}$) while the analytic solution with $|\Delta_ar_{a\to\gamma}|\lesssim0.45$ is valid in the hard X-ray regime (*i.e.* from $\omega\gtrsim3.89\,\text{keV}$ to its upper boundary at $\omega\sim200\,\text{keV}$) and beyond. Both analytic solutions overestimate $R$ in the region around $\omega=3.89\,\text{keV}$.
Observational Outlook {#SObs}
=====================
We now turn to some comments on the observational outlook of our methods.
The field of X-ray polarimetry is currently very active, with several new instrument designs being proposed and detectors that have either been launched or are in the planning stage [@fabiani]. The theoretical targets include understanding the emission from white dwarfs and neutron stars in binary systems, and the coupling of the plasma to the magnetic field in accreting X-ray pulsars [@gnedin; @Marin:2017vdv].
The targets most germane to our work are neutron stars and magnetars. For these stellar objects, there are two sources of polarization that have been explored theoretically: the polarization due to non-linear QED effects [@gnedin2] and the polarization due to the anisotropic opacities of the surface plasma [@Lai:2003nd; @Taverna:2015vpa]. While polarization due to ALP-photon mixing has been studied, this has mainly been in the context of soft thermal emission [@Lai:2006af].
The specific observational features of our work are summarized below.
Astrophysical Polarization of Surface Radiation
-----------------------------------------------
The polarization of X-rays at the surface of magnetars has been extensively studied in the astrophysics community. Here, we briefly summarize this vast literature.
The photon energies that are relevant for us are far below the electron cyclotron frequency, given by $\omega_{ce}=m_e(B/B_c)$. In this regime, the photons can be described in terms of two normal modes: the ordinary (O-mode) and the extraordinary (X-mode) which are respectively parallel and perpendicular to the plane containing the external magnetic field and the direction of propagation. The X-mode opacity is generally suppressed compared to the O-mode opacity by a factor [@Lai:2003nd] \[ratioOX\] This implies that the radiation that escapes from the magnetar atmosphere is almost fully linearly polarized. Since the ALP and X-mode intensities are independent and it is assumed that ALP production is significant compared to photon production, we can recast into the requirement that $\chi_0\sim0$.
There is an additional subtlety to the issues discussed above, namely, the effect of vacuum birefringence. This has been considered by many authors (*e.g.* [@Lai:2006af]), and we summarize the main points. Generally, the combined contributions of plasma and vacuum polarization to the dielectric tensor can cause a vacuum resonance, where the X-mode and O-mode can convert into each other. The relevant evolution of the O-mode and X-mode is given by the following equation, In the above, the $\sigma_{ii}$ denote components of the dielectric tensor of the plasma, neglecting damping terms and in the limit that the proton is massive. Since the electron cyclotron frequency is much larger than the relevant photon energies, we can take where we have used the electron plasma frequency $\omega_{pe}^2=4\pi e^2n_e/m_e$ with $n_e=Y_e\rho/m_p$ the electron density, $Y_e$ the electron fraction, $\rho$ the density and $m_p$ the proton mass.
A vacuum resonance can occur when $\sigma_{11}=\sigma_{22}$. This happens when the contributions due to the plasma and QED exactly cancel, that is The corresponding resonant density is given by \[densityneeded\] When the plasma density reaches the value required for resonance, the dominant polarization mode can change, since the O-mode and X-mode photons can convert into each other and the two modes have different opacities.
From , it is clear that for the strong magnetic fields that we are interested in, the required density for resonant conversion between O-modes and X-modes is extremely high. The emergent radiation is thus largely dominated by the X-mode.
Besides thermal soft X-ray radiation, magnetars also exhibit considerable emission in the hard X-ray regime. In [@Wadiasingh:2017rcq], resonant inverse Compton scattering of thermal photons by ultra-relativistic charges was considered as the dominant production mechanism of hard X-rays. The resulting spectrum was found to be strongly polarized in the X-mode, in the range of energies between $50\,\text{keV}-1\,\text{MeV}$, for a broad selection of viewing angles, magnetic field strengths $B/B_c\sim10-100$ and electron Lorentz factors $\gamma_e\sim10-100$.
Similarly, [@Beloborodov:2012ug] considered the injection of relativistic particles into the magnetosphere, which fill the large magnetic loops and spawn $e^+e^-$ pairs by scattering with photons. In the outer parts of the loop where the magnetic field is reduced, the scattered photons are not energetic enough to spawn $e^+e^-$ pairs and are instead radiated out, giving rise to the hard X-ray spectrum. A detailed analysis of the resulting spectrum by the authors showed that it is strongly polarized in the X-mode.
We note that in the non-thermal regime, the extent of polarization in the X-mode is dependent on the photon energy, electron Lorentz factor, field loop altitude and azimuth. For the thermal regime, the extent of polarization is likewise dependent on the full physics of the plasma. Nevertheless, from an astrophysical standpoint, the expectation is that for magnetars, the emission should be mostly polarized along the X-mode.
For the benchmark scenarios shown here, we will thus take $\chi_0=0$ as our initial condition, that is, we will assume that the photons coming from thermal and non-thermal emissions are completely polarized along the X-mode, and that any parallel mode photons come from ALP-to-photon conversion. The case of $\chi_0>0$ can be obtained by simple rescaling.
Polarization Limiting Radius
----------------------------
We have seen that astrophysical models predict dominant X-mode polarization near the magnetar. The polarization vector adiabatically tracks the variation of the direction of the dipolar magnetic field. Moreover, the strong magnetic field in the magnetosphere endows the parallel and perpendicular modes with different refractive indices, preventing the mixing of modes and enhancing the polarization.
The adiabatic tracking of the polarization vector continues up to the polarization radius. For a bipolar magnetic field, the radius is given by [@Heyl:2018kah] where $\beta$ is the angle between the dipole axis and the line of sight.
The observed X-mode polarization will be perpendicular to the magnetic field direction at the polarization radius. Since the radius is large, the polarization will not track the magnetic field structure near the magnetar, but rather, will be oriented perpendicularly to the direction of the magnetic axis.
We thus note that the effect of QED is to enhance the observed degree of polarization up to 70% or even more in the X-mode. Thus, a large amount of polarization can be an indicator of non-linear QED effects [@Heyl:2018kah].
Effect of ALPs on Polarization Pattern
--------------------------------------
In the previous subsections, we have discussed the polarization pattern expected at the polarization radius, which can be observed at upcoming polarization experiments. We now turn to the effect of ALPs on this polarization pattern.
ALPs produced inside the magnetar will escape into the magnetosphere with soft and hard X-ray energies. Assuming that ALP production is large compared to the negligible O-mode photon production from astrophysics, the correct initial condition is $\chi_0=0$. On the other hand, the relative magnitude of the ALP and X-mode intensities at the surface, $\bar{I}_a/\bar{I}_\perp$, depends on ALP production luminosity from the core.
The ALPs coming into the magnetosphere will eventually convert to O-mode photons. The maximum conversion occurs around \[see \] We note that and thus $r_{PL}\lesssim r_{a\to\gamma}$ for our benchmark points, implying that the effect of ALPs on the observed polarization pattern will be to add an O-mode intensity to the purely astrophysical X-mode intensity.
The previous effect can be demonstrated by the $Q$-parameter defined in , which can be re-expressed as where here $\bar{I}_\parallel\equiv\bar{I}_\parallel(1)$ and $\bar{I}_a\equiv\bar{I}_a(1)$ are surface intensities. For example, the variation of $Q/\bar{I}_\perp$ at infinity in the plane $(\bar{I}_\parallel/\bar{I}_\perp,\bar{I}_a/\bar{I}_\perp)$ at the surface is shown in Fig. \[FigStokesQ\] for $\omega=1$ and $100\,\text{keV}$ with ALP and magnetar parameters $m_a=10^{-8}\,\text{keV}$, $g/e=5\times10^{-17}\,\text{keV}^{-1}$, $r_0=10\,\text{km}$, $B_0=20\times10^{14}\,\text{G}$ and $\theta=\pi/2$ relevant to SGR 1806-20. The differences between the (normalized) Stokes parameter $Q/\bar{I}_\perp$ for $\omega=1$ and $100\,\text{keV}$ exhibited in Fig. \[FigStokesQ\] come solely from the different conversion probabilities.
As we already argued above, since for magnetars with $B_0\gtrsim7\times10^{14}\,\text{G}$ radiation from the surface is dominated by the perpendicular mode [@Lai:2006af], it is expected that $\bar{I}_\parallel/\bar{I}_\perp\sim0$ for SGR 1806-20. On the one hand, for negligible magnetar ALP production, one has $\bar{I}_a/\bar{I}_\perp\sim0$ and the Stokes parameter is simply $Q\sim\bar{I}_\perp$. On the other hand, for significant magnetar ALP production, $\bar{I}_a/\bar{I}_\perp$ can be quite large leading to negative Stokes parameter $Q$.
Indeed, it was argued in [@Fortin:2018ehg] that ALP production in magnetars (with a luminosity subdominant to neutrinos such that magnetar cooling is not disturbed[^1]) could generate the necessary photon luminosity through ALP-to-photon conversion in the magnetosphere without violating the CAST bound. For such a scenario, the ALP intensity at the surface $\bar{I}_a$ can be four or five orders of magnitude larger than the observed photon luminosity [@Beloborodov:2016mmx], implying ratios as large as $\bar{I}_a/\bar{I}_\perp\sim\mathcal{O}(10^4)$, and negative Stokes parameters $Q\sim-10\bar{I}_\perp$ for $\omega=1\,\text{keV}$ or negligible Stokes parameter $Q\sim0$ for $\omega=100\,\text{keV}$ (see Fig. \[FigQ\]). Observations of negative or vanishing Stokes parameter could then be seen as evidence of ALP production in magnetars.
Conclusion {#SConclusion}
==========
X-ray polarimetry is an emerging field in astronomy that is capable of probing both extended and compact objects. Polarimetry is particularly suited to probe anisotropic couplings of the photon. From the perspective of fundamental physics, one particularly important coupling that can be probed by polarimetry is the ALP-photon coupling. Magnetars, with their extreme magnetic fields, are natural laboratories in this context.
In this paper we investigated oscillations between ALPs and photons in the magnetosphere of a magnetar. Since ALP and photon production mechanisms in the soft and hard X-ray regimes are independent, we remained agnostic with respect to the production mechanisms and studied the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter averaged over the initial phase difference.
We then found that the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter $R$, which is the normalized Stokes parameter $I$ at infinity minus the normalized Stokes parameter $I$ at the magnetar’s surface, factorizes into the ALP-to-photon conversion probability for pure ALP initial state times a simple function of the ALP-parallel photon mixture of the initial state. This highly non-trivial statement was then proved mathematically and checked numerically for several ALP and magnetar parameters. The averaged intensities as well as the Stokes parameters at infinity were then obtained in terms of the parameters describing the initial state and the ALP-to-photon conversion probability.
Apart from the factorization property, $R$ has several important properties. Firstly, it vanishes when ALPs do not exist or ALP-parallel photon oscillations do not occur. Moreover, it is non-zero if ALP-parallel photon oscillations occur and the initial state is not an equal mixture of ALPs and parallel photons. For benchmark values corresponding to SGR 1806-20, we exhibited the behavior of $R$ in the ALP mass and ALP-photon coupling plane for different ALP energies. Our results show that the changes in the Stokes parameter $Q$ can be quite large for magnetars, implying large deviations from the no-ALP case.
Indeed, the main new feature of our analysis has been to study the changes in the polarization pattern in both the soft as well as the hard X-ray regimes of magnetars, due to ALPs. In the absence of ALPs, astrophysical modeling of thermal and hard X-rays from magnetars predicts mainly X-mode polarization, for which the electric field is perpendicular to the plane containing the external magnetic field and the direction of propagation. ALPs add to the astrophysical picture described above by producing O-mode photons, for which the electric field is parallel to the plane containing the external magnetic field and the direction of propagation. We have computed the radius of conversion, where the probability of conversion becomes significant, and find that it is typically of the same order or larger than the polarization radius, implying an overall O-mode superposed on the X-mode coming purely from astrophysics.
There are several missions that are poised to explore these features. Both the Imaging X-ray Polarimetry Explorer (IXPE) [@ixpe] and the Enhanced X-Ray Timing and Polarimetry Mission (eXTP) [@extp] missions will launch in the next few years, and look for signals in the $2-10\,\text{keV}$ range. Among the missions that study hard X-rays, most are focused on solar flares and gamma-ray bursts. However, X-Calibur and PolariS will be sensitive to signals in the $20-60\,\text{keV}$ and $10-80\,\text{keV}$ range from neutron stars, respectively [@xcalibur].
Finally, since our general approach is applicable to other oscillation systems with the probability conservation property, one could investigate changes in polarizations for neutrino oscillation problems.
Proof of the Factorization Property {#SApp}
===================================
To prove the factorization property, we focus on a generic two-state oscillation system given by \[EqnOsc\] where $M^T(x)=M(x)$ such that probability is conserved.[^2] With $a_1(x)=A\cos[\chi(x)]e^{-i\phi_1}$ and $a_2(x)=iA\sin[\chi(x)]e^{-i\phi_2}$, the evolution equations for are generalized to \[EqnOscEvol\] where $C(x)=M_{11}(x)-M_{22}(x)$ and $D(x)=M_{12}(x)=M_{21}(x)$.
We now introduce the quantity of interest \[EqnP\] which is the integral appearing in the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter . From the evolution equations , it is easy to verify that $P(\chi_0,\Delta\phi_0,x)$ satisfies the following differential equation, \[EqnPdiff\] with boundary conditions \[EqnPbound\] To simplify the notation in and , we introduced primes to denote derivatives with respect to $x$.
On the one hand, the evolution equation for $P(\chi_0,\Delta\phi_0,x)$ is $\chi_0$-independent while the boundary conditions for $P(\chi_0,\Delta\phi_0,x)$ are not. Moreover the boundary conditions for $P(\chi_0,\Delta\phi_0,x)$ are also $\Delta\phi_0$-dependent, as expected. On the other hand, with the average over $\Delta\phi_0$, both the evolution equation and the boundary conditions for $\bar{P}(\chi_0,x)$ are $\chi_0$-independent, and thus we conclude that $\bar{P}(\chi_0,x)\equiv\bar{P}(x)$. In particular, $\bar{P}(x)$ satisfies the same differential equation with the same boundary conditions than the conversion probability. This demonstrates that $\bar{P}(\chi_0,x)\equiv\bar{P}(x)$ is $\chi_0$-independent and corresponds to the conversion probability $\bar{P}(x)=P_{a_1\to a_2}(x)=\sin^2[\left.\chi(x)\right|_{\chi(1)=0,\Delta\phi(1)=0}]$, proving the factorization property of the normalized surface-subtracted Stokes parameter .
It is interesting to note that if the average over $\Delta\phi_0$ is not performed, the differential equation for the non-averaged quantity is the same than but the boundary conditions are modified such that the first and second derivatives at $x=1$ of the non-averaged quantity depend on $\chi_0$ (and $\Delta\phi_0$). The average is thus necessary for the factorization property to hold. Another important point to mention is that the choice of the integrand in is crucial since different choices do not necessarily lead to the factorization property even if they evaluate to the original integrand $P(\chi_0,\Delta\phi_0,x)$ at $\chi_0=0$. Moreover, it might be curious at first to see that $P(\chi_0,\Delta\phi_0,x)$ and $\bar{P}(\chi_0,x)$ satisfy a third-order differential equation instead of a second-order differential equation. The reason why this occurs is most clearly understood from the non-averaged quantity, since without the average on $\Delta\phi_0$, one needs a third-order differential equation for the non-averaged quantity to have two genuine boundary conditions, the boundary condition of the non-averaged quantity being zero for any $\chi_0$ and $\Delta\phi_0$.
Finally, we verified numerically that the differential equation and the boundary conditions lead to the same value of the conversion probability than the evolution equations .
[^1]: For comparison, this argument implies that where $\rho$ is the magnetar density, $\rho_0$ is the nuclear saturation density and $R_M\leq1$ is a suppression factor which turns on with the onset of proton and/or neutron superfluidity. Hence the bound on $g_{aN}$ from magnetar cooling constraint is roughly of the same order of magnitude than the CAST constraint on $g$.
[^2]: The case $M^\dagger(x)=M(x)$, which also leads to probability conservation, is left to the reader.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper establishes a new existence and uniqueness result of solutions for multidimensional backward stochastic differential equations (BSDEs) whose generators satisfy a weak monotonicity condition and a general growth condition in $y$, which generalizes the corresponding results in \[2\], \[3\] and \[5\].'
address: |
1. College of Sciences, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, PR China\
2. School of Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, PR China
author:
- ShaoYa XU$^1$
- 'ShengJun FAN$^{1,2}$'
title: '[**A general existence and uniqueness result on multidimensional BSDEs** ]{}'
---
Backward stochastic differential equation ,Existence and uniqueness,Weakly monotonic condition,Lipschitz condition,Mao’s condition
60H10
Introduction
============
In this paper, we are concerned with the following multidimensional backward stochastic differential equation (BSDE for short in the remaining): $$y_t=\xi+\int_t^Tg(s,y_s,z_s){\rm d}s-\int_t^Tz_s {\rm d}B_s,\ \
t\in{[0,T]},$$ where $T>0$ is a constant called the time horizon, $\xi$ is a $k$-dimensional random vector called the terminal condition, the random function $g(\omega,t,y,z):\Omega{\times}{[0,T]}{\times}{{{\mathbb R}}}^{k }{\times}{{{\mathbb R}}}^{k\times d}{\rightarrow}{{{\mathbb R}}}^k$ is progressively measurable for each $(y,z)$, called the generator of BSDE (1), and $B$ is a $d$-dimensional Brownian motion. BSDE (1) is denoted by BSDE ($\xi,T,g$). The solution ($y_{\cdot},z_{\cdot}$) is a pair of adapted processes.
BSDEs were initially introduced in a nonlinear form in 1990 by Pardoux and Peng \[4\], who established an existence and uniqueness result for the adapted and squared integrable solutions of BSDEs under the Lipschitz assumption of the generator $g$. From then on, many researchers have been working on this subject, and many applications have been found in mathematical finance, stochastic control, and partial differential equations, etc. In particular, an interesting and important question is how to improve the existence and uniqueness result of \[4\] by weakening the Lipschitz continuity condition on the generator $g$. Here, we would like to cite some efforts devoted to this direction and related closely to this paper. In 1995, Mao \[3\] obtained an existence and uniqueness result of a solution for (1) where $g$ satisfies some kind of non-Lipschitz condition in $y$ called usually the Mao’s condition. In 1999, Pardoux \[5\] established an existence and uniqueness result of a solution for (1) where $g$ satisfies some kind of monotonicity condition and a general growth condition in $y$. Furthermore, in 2003, using the same monotonicity condition as in \[5\] and a more general growth condition in $y$ for $g$, Briand et al. \[1\] investigated the existence and uniqueness of a solution for (1). Recently, under the general growth condition employed in \[5\] as well as a weaker monotonicity condition in $y$ for $g$, Fan and Jiang \[2\] proved an existence and uniqueness result of a solution for (1), which unifies the results obtained in \[3\] and \[5\].
The objective of this paper is to further generalize the existence and uniqueness result obtained in \[2\]. We establish a new existence and uniqueness result for solutions of multidimensional BSDEs whose generators satisfy the weaker monotonicity condition in $y$ put forward by \[2\] and the more general growth condition in $y$ employed in \[1\] (see Theorem 1 in Section 3), which generalizes the corresponding results in \[3\], \[5\] and \[2\]. Particularly, it should be mentioned that the integrability condition on the process ${\{ g(t,0,0)\} _{t \in [0,T]}}$ used in \[2\] is also weakened in Theorem 1 of this paper. The remainder is organized as follows. We introduce some preliminaries and establish a technical proposition in Section 2, and put forward and prove our main result in Section 3.
Preliminaries
==============
Let us fix a number $T> 0$, and two positive integers $k$ and $d$. Let $(\Omega,{\mathcal{F}},P)$ be a probability space carrying a standard $d$-dimensional Brownian motion $(B_t)_{t\geq 0}$. Let $({\mathcal{F}}_t)_{t\geq 0}$ be the natural $\sigma$-algebra generated by $(B_t)_{t\geq 0}$ and ${\mathcal{F}}={\mathcal{F}}_T$. In this paper, the Euclidean norm of a vector $y\in{{\mathbb R}}^k$ will be defined by $|y|$, and for an $k\times
d$ matrix $z$, we define $|z|=\sqrt{{\rm Tr}(zz^*)}$, where $z^*$ is the transpose of $z$. Let $\langle x,y\rangle$ represent the inner product of $x,y\in{{\mathbb R}}^k$. We denote by ${L^2(\mathcal{F}_T;{{\mathbb R}}^k)}$ the set of all ${{\mathbb R}}^k$-valued, square integral and ${\mathcal{F}}_T$-measurable random vectors. Let ${{\mathcal{S}}}^2(0,T;{{\mathbb R}}^k)$ denote the set of ${{\mathbb R}}^k$-valued, adapted and continuous processes $(\phi_t)_{t\in{[0,T]}}$ such that $$\|\phi\|_{{{\mathcal{S}}}^2}^2:={\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{t\in{[0,T]}} |\phi_t|^2]<+\infty.
\vspace{0.05cm}$$ Moreover, let ${\rm M}^2(0,T;{{\mathbb R}}^{k\times d})$ denote the set of $({\mathcal{F}}_t)$-progressively measurable ${{{\mathbb R}}}^{k\times
d}$-valued processes $(\varphi _t)_{ t\in{[0,T]}}$ such that $$\quad\|\varphi\|_{{\rm M}^2}^2:={\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_0^T |\varphi_t|^2\
{\rm d}t\right]<+\infty. \vspace{0.1cm}$$ Obviously, ${{\mathcal{S}}}^2(0,T;{{\mathbb R}}^{k})$ is a Banach space and ${\rm
M}^2(0,T;{{\mathbb R}}^{k\times d})$ is a Hilbert space.
As mentioned in the introduction, we will deal only with BSDEs which are equations of type (1), where the terminal condition $\xi\in
{L^2(\mathcal{F}_T;{{\mathbb R}}^k)}$, and the generator $g$ is $({\mathcal{F}}_t)$-progressively measurable for each $(y,z)$.
[**Definition 1**]{} A pair of processes $(y_t,z_t)_{t\in{[0,T]}}$ is called a solution to BSDE (1), if $(y_t,z_t)_{t\in{[0,T]}}\in
{{\mathcal{S}}}^2(0,T;{{\mathbb R}}^k)\times {\rm M}^2(0,T;{{\mathbb R}}^{k\times d})$ and satisfies (1).
Now, let us introduce the following Proposition 1, which will play an important role in the proof of our main result. In stating it, the following assumption on the generator $g$ is useful:
[(A)]{} ${{\rm d}P\times {\rm d}t-a.e.},{\forall}\ (y,z)\in{{\mathbb R}}^k\times{{\mathbb R}}^{k\times d}$, $\langle y, g(\omega,t,y,z)\rangle\leq
\psi(|y|^2)+\lambda|y||z|+|y|f_t,$\
where $\lambda>0$ is a constant, $(f_t)_{t \in [0,T]}$ is a nonnegative and $({\mathcal{F}}_t)$-measurable process with\
$${\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(\int_0^T f_t{\rm d}t\right)^2\right]
<+\infty,$$\
and $\psi(\cdot)$ is a nondecreasing and concave function from ${{\mathbb R}}^+$ to itself with $\psi(0)=0$.
[**Proposition 1**]{} Let $g$ satisfy (A) and $(y_t,z_t)_{t\in{[0,T]}}$ be a solution to BSDE $(\xi,T,g)$. Then there exists a constant $C>0$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $T$ such that for each $0\leq
u\leq t\leq T$, $$\begin{array}{lll}
&&{\displaystyle}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\sup\limits_{r\in
[t,T]}|y_r|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\int_t^T
|z_s|^2\ {\rm d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\\
&\leq & {\displaystyle}C\left\{{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.|\xi|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+\int_t^T
\psi\left({\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.|y_s|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\right)\ {\rm
d}s+{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\left(\int_t^T f_s\ {\rm
d}s\right)^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\right\}.
\end{array}$$ [**Proof.**]{} Applying Itô’s formula to $|y_t|^2$ leads that for each $t\in {[0,T]}$, $$|y_t|^2+\int_t^T |z_s|^2\ {\rm d}s=|\xi|^2+2\int_t^T \langle
y_s,g(s,y_s,z_s)\rangle \ {\rm d}s-2\int_t^T\langle y_s,z_s{\rm
d}B_s\rangle.$$ By assumption (A) and the inequality $ 2ab\leq 2a^2+{b^2/2}$ we have $$\begin{array}{lll}
2\langle y_s,g(s,y_s,z_s)\rangle &\leq &2\psi(|y_s|^2)+2
\lambda|y_s||z_s|+2|y_s|f_s\\
& \leq &
2\psi(|y_s|^2)+2\lambda^2|y_s|^2+{1\over 2}|z_s|^2+2|y_s|f_s.
\end{array}$$ It follows from the Burkholder-Davis-Gundy inequality that $\{M_t:=\int_0^t\langle
y_s,z_s{\rm d}B_s\rangle\}_{t\in{[0,T]}}$ is a uniformly integrable martingale. In fact, for each $0\leq u\leq t\leq T$, we have $$\begin{array}{lll}
{\displaystyle}2{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left. \sup\limits_{r\in
[t,T]}\left|\int_r^T\langle y_s,z_s{\rm
d}B_s\rangle\right|\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]&\leq & {\displaystyle}2c{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\sup\limits_{r\in [t,T]}|y_r|\cdot\left(
\int_t^T|z_s|^2\ {\rm
d}s\right)^{1/2}\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\\
&\leq &{\displaystyle}{1\over 2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\sup\limits_{r\in
[t,T]}|y_r|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+2c^2{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\int_t^T|z_s|^2\
{\rm d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\\
&<&+\infty,
\end{array}$$ where $c>0$ is a constant. Then, it follows from (2), (3) and (4) that for each $0\leq u\leq t\leq T$, $${\displaystyle}{1\over 2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\int_t^T |z_s|^2\ {\rm
d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\leq {\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.X_t\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]
+2{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\int_t^T|y_s|f_s{\rm d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right],$$ where $$X_t=|\xi|^2+2\lambda^2\int_t^T |y_s|^2{\rm d}s+2\int_t^T
\psi(|y_s|^2)\ {\rm d}s.$$
Furthermore, by virtue of (3), (4) and the following inequality $$\begin{array}{lll}
{\displaystyle}2{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\int_t^T|y_s|f_s{\rm d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]& \leq
&{\displaystyle}2{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\sup_{r\in [t,T]}|y_r|\cdot\int_t^T f_s{\rm
d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\\
&\leq & {\displaystyle}{1\over 4}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\sup_{r\in
[t,T]}|y_r|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+4{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\left(\int_t^T f_s\
{\rm d}s\right)^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right],
\end{array}$$ it follows from (2) that for each $0\leq u\leq t\leq
T$, $$\begin{array}{lll}
&& {\displaystyle}{1\over 4}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\sup\limits_{r\in
[t,T]}|y_r|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+{1\over 2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\int_t^T |z_s|^2
\ {\rm d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\\
&\leq & {\displaystyle}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.X_t\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+4{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\left(\int_t^T
f_s\ {\rm d}s\right)^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]
{\displaystyle}+2c^2{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\int_t^T |z_s|^2\ {\rm d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right].
\end{array}$$ Combining the above inequality, (5) and (6) with $4$ being replaced by $32c^2$ yields that for each $0\leq u\leq
t\leq T$, $$\begin{array}{lll}
&& {\displaystyle}\hspace{-1.8cm}\quad{1\over 8}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\sup\limits_{r\in
[t,T]}|y_r|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+{1\over 2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\int_t^T |z_s|^2\ {\rm
d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\\
\hspace{-1.5cm}\leq&& {\displaystyle}\hspace{-1.6cm}(4c^2+1){\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.X_t\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]
+(16c^2+4){\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\left(\int_t^T f_s\ {\rm
d}s\right)^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right],
\end{array}$$ and then, in view of the definition of $X_t$, Fubini’s theorem, the concavity of $\psi(\cdot)$ and Jensen’s inequality, we have $$\begin{array}{lll}
\quad\quad&& {\displaystyle}{1\over 8}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\sup\limits_{r\in
[t,T]}|y_r|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+{1\over 2}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\int_t^T |z_s|^2\ {\rm
d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\\
\quad\quad\quad\quad&\leq & {\displaystyle}(4c^2+1){\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.|\xi|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+2(4c^2+1)\int_t^T
\psi\left({\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.|y_s|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\right)\ {\rm
d}s\\
&& {\displaystyle}+(16c^2+4){\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\left(\int_t^T f_s\ {\rm
d}s\right)^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+2\lambda^2(4c^2+1)\int_t^T
{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\sup\limits_{r\in [s,T]}|y_r|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]{\rm
d}s,
\end{array}$$ from which together with Gronwall’s inequality, the desired result follows. The proof is then completed.
[**Remark 1**]{}Proposition 1 improves the corresponding result in \[2\], where the process $(f_t)$ defined in assumption (A) is assumed to satisfy the condition that $${\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_0^T |f_t|^2{\rm
d}t\right]<+\infty.$$
Main result and its proof
===========================
In this section, we will put forward and prove our main result. Let us first introduce the following assumptions on the generator $g$:
(H1) $g$ satisfies the weakly monotonic condition in $y$, i.e., there exists a nondecreasing and concave function $\kappa(\cdot):{{\mathbb R}}^+\mapsto {{\mathbb R}}^+$ with $\kappa(0)=0$, $\kappa(u)>0$ for $u>0$ and $\int_{0^+} {{\rm d}u\over \kappa(u)}=+\infty$ such that ${{\rm d}P\times {\rm d}t-a.e.}$, $${\forall}y_1,y_2\in {{\mathbb R}}^k,z\in{{\mathbb R}}^{k\times d}, \ \
\langle
y_1-y_2,g(\omega,t,y_1,z)-g(\omega,t,y_2,z)\rangle\leq
\kappa(|y_1-y_2|^2).$$
(H2) ${{\rm d}P\times {\rm d}t-a.e.}$, ${\forall}\ z\in {{{\mathbb R}}^{k\times d}},\ \ \ y\longmapsto
g(\omega,t,y,z)$ is continuous.
(H3) ${\forall}\ \alpha>0,\ \phi_\alpha(t):=\sup\limits_{|y|\leq \alpha}
|g(\omega,t,y,0)-g(\omega,t,0,0)|\in L^1({[0,T]}{\times}\Omega)$.
(H4) $g$ is Lipschitz continuous in $z$ uniformly with respect to $(\omega,t,y)$, i.e., there exists a constant $\mu\geq 0$ such that ${{\rm d}P\times {\rm d}t-a.e.},$ $${\forall}\ y\in {{\mathbb R}}^k,z_1,z_2\in{{\mathbb R}}^{k\times d},\ \
|g(\omega,t,y,z_1)-g(\omega,t,y,z_2)|\leq \mu
|z_1-z_2|.$$
(H5) ${\displaystyle}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(\int_0^T |g(\omega,t,0,0)|\ {\rm
d}t\right)^2\right]<+\infty$.\
In this paper, we want to obtain an existence and uniqueness result for BSDE (1) under the previous assumptions (H1)-(H5) and $\xi\in{L^2(\mathcal{F}_T;{{\mathbb R}}^k)}$. Firstly, let us recall a result in \[2\], which unifies the existence and uniqueness results obtained in \[3\] and \[5\]. For this, let us introduce the following assumptions:
(H3’) $g$ has a general growth with respect to $y$, i.e, ${{\rm d}P\times {\rm d}t-a.e.},$ $${\forall}\ y\in {{\mathbb R}}^k,\ \ |g(\omega,t,y,0)|\leq
|g(\omega,t,0,0)|+\varphi(|y|),$$ where $\varphi:{{{\mathbb R}}}^+{\rightarrow}{{{\mathbb R}}}^+$ is an increasing continuous function.
(H5’) ${\displaystyle}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_0^T |g(\omega,t,0,0)|^2\ {\rm
d}t\right]<+\infty$.
[**Proposition 2**]{} (see Theorem 2.1 in [@Fan10]) Let assumptions (H1), (H2), (H3’), (H4) and (H5’) hold. Then for each $\xi\in{L^2(\mathcal{F}_T;{{\mathbb R}}^k)}$, BSDE $(\xi,T,g)$ has a unique solution.
The following Theorem 1 is the main result of this paper.
[**Theorem 1**]{} Let assumptions (H1)-(H5) hold. Then for each $\xi\in{L^2(\mathcal{F}_T;{{\mathbb R}}^k)}$, BSDE $(\xi,T,g)$ has a unique solution.
[**Remark 2**]{} Note that (H3) and (H5) are strictly weaker than (H3’) and (H5’) respectively. It is clear that Theorem 1 generalizes Proposition 2 and the corresponding results in \[3, 5\].
[**Example 1**]{} Let $k = 2$ and for each $y=(y_1,y_2)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}$ and $z\in\mathbb{R}^{2\times d}$, let $g(t,y,z) = ({g_1}(t,y,z),{g_2}(t,y,z))$ be defined by $${g_i}(t,y,z) = |B_t|\cdot{e^{ - {y_i}}} + h(|y|) + |z| + \frac{1}{{\sqrt t }}\cdot {1_{t > 0}}, \ \ i=1,2,$$ where $$h(x) = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
{ - x\ln x}\\
{{h^{'}}(x)(x - \delta ) + h(\delta )}\\
0
\end{array}} \right.\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
,\\
,\\
,
\end{array}\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}
{0 < x \le \delta ;}\\
{x > \delta ;}\\
{\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}
{other}&{cases}
\end{array}}
\end{array}$$ with $\delta>0$ small enough.
It is not hard to check that this $g$ satisfies (H3) and (H5), but does not satisfy (H3’) and (H5’). At the same time, it is clear that $g$ satisfies (H2) and (H4) with $\mu=1$. In addition, we can also prove that $g$ satisfies (H1) (see Examples 2.4-2.5 and Remark 2.2 in \[2\] for details). Then, it follows from Theorem 1 that for each $\xi\in{L^2(\mathcal{F}_T;{{\mathbb R}}^k)}$, BSDE$(\xi,T,g)$ has a unique solution. It should be mentioned that this conclusion can not be obtained by any known results including the previous proposition 2.
[**The Proof of Theorem 1.**]{} Assume that $g$ satisfies assumptions (H1)-(H5). The proof of the uniqueness part is similar to that of the uniqueness part of Theorem 2.1 in \[2\], so we omit it. Let us turn to the existence part. The proof will be split into two steps.
First step: We shall prove that under assumptions (H1)-(H5), provided that there exists a constant $K>0$ such that $${{\rm d}P-a.s.},\ |\xi|\leq K,\ \ {\rm and}\ \ {{\rm d}P\times {\rm d}t-a.e.},\ |g(t,0,0)|\leq K,$$ BSDE $(\xi,T,g)$ has a solution.
For some large enough integer $\alpha>0$ which will be chosen later, let $\theta_\alpha$ be a smooth function such that $0\leq
\theta_\alpha\leq 1$, $\theta_\alpha(y)=1$ for $|y|\leq \alpha$ and $\theta_\alpha(y)=0$ as soon as $|y|\geq \alpha+1$. For each $n\geq
1$ and $z\in {{\mathbb R}}^{k\times d}$, we denote $q_n(z)=zn/(|z|\vee n)$ and set $$h_n(t,y,z):=\theta_\alpha(y)(g(t,y,q_n(z))-g(t,0,0))
{n\over \phi_{\alpha+1}(t)\vee n}+g(t,0,0),$$ where $\phi_{\alpha}(\cdot)$ is defined in (H3).
It is clear from (7) that $h_n$ satisfies assumptions (H2) and (H4) and (H5’) for each $n\geq 1$. It is also easy from (7) and (H3) to check that $|h_n(t,y,0)|\leq n+K$, which means that $h_n$ satisfies (H3’). We now prove that $h_n$ satisfies also assumption (H1) but with another concave function $\bar\kappa(\cdot)$ which will be chosen later. Indeed, let us pick $y_1$ and $y_2$ in ${{\mathbb R}}^k$. If $|y_1|>\alpha+1$ and $|y_2|>\alpha+1$, (H1) is trivially satisfied and thus we reduce to the case where $|y_2|\leq \alpha+1$. We write $$\begin{array}{lll}
&&{\displaystyle}\langle y_1-y_2,h_n(t,y_1,z)- h_n(t,y_2,z)\rangle\\
&=& {\displaystyle}\theta_\alpha(y_1){n\over \phi_{\alpha+1}(t)\vee n}\langle
y_1-y_2,g(t,y_1,q_n(z))- g(t,y_2,q_n(z))\rangle\\
&& +{\displaystyle}{n\over \phi_{\alpha+1}(t)\vee
n}(\theta_\alpha(y_1)-\theta_\alpha(y_2))\langle
y_1-y_2,g(t,y_2,q_n(z))- g(t,0,0)\rangle.
\end{array}$$ Since $g$ satisfies (H1), the first term of the right-hand side of the previous equality is smaller than the term $\kappa(|y_1-y_2|^2)$. For the second term, we can use the fact that $\theta_\alpha$ is $C(\alpha)$-Lipschitz, to get, since $|y_2|\leq \alpha+1$, $$\begin{array}{lll}
&&{\displaystyle}(\theta_\alpha(y_1)-\theta_\alpha(y_2))\langle
y_1-y_2,g(t,y_2,q_n(z))-
g(t,0,0)\rangle\\
&\leq & {\displaystyle}C(\alpha)|y_1-y_2|^2|g(t,y_2,q_n(z))-g(t,0,0)|\leq
C(\alpha)(\phi_{\alpha+1}(t)+\mu n)|y_1-y_2|^2
\end{array}$$ and thus $${n\over \phi_{\alpha+1}(t)\vee
n}(\theta_\alpha(y_1)-\theta_\alpha(y_2))\langle
y_1-y_2,g(t,y_2,q_n(z))- g(t,0,0)\rangle\leq C(\alpha)(1+\mu
)n|y_1-y_2|^2.$$Hence, letting $\bar\kappa(x)=C(\alpha)(1+\mu
)nx+\kappa(x)$, we have $$\langle y_1-y_2,h_n(t,y_1,z)- h_n(t,y_2,z)\rangle\leq
\bar\kappa(|y_1-y_2|^2).$$ It is clear that $\bar\kappa(\cdot)$ is a nondecreasing concave function with $\bar\kappa(0)=0$ and $\bar\kappa(u)>0$ for $u>0$. Moreover, it follows from the concavity of $\kappa(\cdot)$ that $$\kappa(u)=\rho(u\cdot 1+(1-u)\cdot 0)\geq
u\kappa(1)+(1-u) \rho(0)=u\kappa(1),\ \ u\in [0,1],$$ and then $$\int_{0^+} {{\rm d}u\over \bar\kappa(u)}=\int_{0^+} {{\rm
d}u\over C(\alpha)(1+\mu )nu+\kappa(u)}\geq {\kappa(1)\over
C(\alpha)(1+\mu )n+\kappa(1)}\int_{0^+} {{\rm d}u\over
\kappa(u)}=+\infty.\vspace{0.1cm}$$ Then the pair $(\xi,h_n)$ satisfies all the assumptions of Proposition 2. Hence, for each $n\geq 1$, BSDE $(\xi,T,h_n)$ has a unique solution $(y_t^n,z_t^n)_{t\in {[0,T]}}$.
Furthermore, it follows from (H1), (H4) and (7) that $$\begin{array}{lll}
{\displaystyle}\langle y, h_n(t,y,z)\rangle &=& {\displaystyle}\theta_\alpha(y){n\over
\phi_{\alpha+1}(t)\vee n}\langle y,
g(t,y,q_n(z))-g(t,0,q_n(z))\\
&& {\displaystyle}\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad+g(t,0,q_n(z))-g(t,0,0)\rangle+\langle y,g(t,0,0)\rangle\\
&\leq & \kappa(|y|^2)+\mu |y||z|+K|y|.
\end{array}$$ Consequently, assumption (A) is satisfied for the generator $h_n$ of BSDE $(\xi,T,h_n)$ with $\psi(u)=\kappa(u)$, $\lambda=\mu$ and $f_t\equiv K$. It then follows from Proposition 1 and (7) that there exists a constant $C>0$ depending only on $\mu$ and $T$ such that for each $0\leq u\leq t\leq T$, $${\displaystyle}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\sup\limits_{r\in
[t,T]}|y_r^n|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\int_t^T
|z_s^n|^2\ {\rm d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\\
\leq {\displaystyle}CK^2(1+T^2)+C\int_t^T
\kappa\left({\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.|y_s^n|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\right)\ {\rm
d}s.$$ Since $\kappa(\cdot)$ is a nondecreasing and concave function with $\kappa(0)=0$, it increases at most linearly, i.e., there exists a constant $A>0$ such that $\kappa(u)\leq A(u+1)$ for each $u\geq 0$. Applying Gronwall’s inequality to the previous inequality yields that $${\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.|y^n_t|^2\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]+{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left.\int_t^T
|z^n_s|^2\ {\rm d}s\right|{\mathcal{F}}_u\right]\leq \alpha^2,$$ where $\alpha:=\sqrt {CK^2(1+T^2)+CAT}\cdot e^{{CAT/2}}$. Substituting $u=t$ in the previous inequality yields that for each $n\geq 1$ and $t\in{[0,T]}$, $$|y^n_t|\leq \alpha,\ \ {\rm and}\ \ \ \mathbb{E}\left[\int_0^T
|z^n_s|^2\ {\rm d}s\right]\leq \alpha^2.\vspace{0.1cm}$$ As a byproduct, $(y^n_t,z^n_t)_{t\in {[0,T]}}$ solves the BSDE $(\xi,T,g_n)$, where $$g_n(t,y,z)=(g(t,y,q_n(z))-g(t,0,0)){n\over
\phi_{\alpha+1}(t)\vee n} +g(t,0,0).$$
In the sequel, for each $n\geq 1$ and $i\geq 1$, let $\hat{y}_\cdot^{n,i}=y_\cdot^{n+i}-y_\cdot^{n}$, $\hat{z}_\cdot^{n,i}=z_\cdot^{n+i}-z_\cdot^{n}$. We have $$\hat{y}_t^{n,i}=\int_t^T \hat{g}^{n,i}(s,\hat{y}_s^{n,i}, \hat
z_s^{n,i})\ {\rm d}s-\int_t^T \hat{z}_s^{n,i}{\rm d}B_s,\ \ \ t\in
{[0,T]},$$ where for each $y\in {{\mathbb R}}^k$, $$\begin{array}{lll}
\hat{g}^{n,i}(s,y,z)&:= & {\displaystyle}(g(s,y+y_s^n,q_{n+i}(z+z_s^n))-g(s,0,0)){(n+i)\over
\phi_{\alpha+1}(s)\vee (n+i)}\\
&& {\displaystyle}-(g(s,y_s^n,q_n(z_s^n))-g(s,0,0)){n\over
\phi_{\alpha+1}(s)\vee n}.
\end{array}$$ It also follows from (H1) and (H4) that $$\begin {array}{lll}
\hspace{-0.6cm}$$\langle y,\hat{g}^{n,i}(s,y,z)\rangle &=& {\displaystyle}{(n+i)\over
\phi_{\alpha+1}(s)\vee
(n+i)} \langle y, g(s,y+y_s^n,q_{n+i}(z+z_s^n))-g(s,y_s^n,q_n(z_s^n))\rangle\\
&& {\displaystyle}+({(n+i)\over \phi_{\alpha+1}(s)\vee (n+i)}-{n\over
\phi_{\alpha+1}(s)\vee n})
\langle y,g(s,y_s^n,q_{n}(z_s^n))-g(s,0,0)\rangle \\
&\leq& \kappa(|y|^2)+\mu|y|(|z|+2|z_s^n|1_{|z_s^n|>n})
+21_{\phi_{\alpha+1}(s)>n}|y| (\phi_{\alpha+1}(s)+\mu |z_s^n|),$$
\end{array}$$ where we have used the fact that $$\begin{array}{lll}
|q_{n+i}(z+z_s^n)-q_n(z_s^n)| &\leq
&|q_{n+i}(z+z_s^n)-q_{n+i}(z_s^n)|
+|q_{n+i}(z_s^n)-q_n(z_s^n)|\\
&\leq & |z|+2|z_s^n|1_{|z_s^n|>n}.
\end{array}$$ Then, combining (8), (9) and the inequality $2ab\leq 2a^2+{b^2/2}$ we deduce that $$\begin{array}{lll}
2\langle \hat{y}_s^{n,i},\hat{g}^{n,i}(s,\hat{y}_s^{n,i},\hat{z}_s^{n,i})\rangle &\leq &2\kappa(|\hat{y}_s^{n,i}|^2)+2
\mu^2|\hat{y}_s^{n,i}|^2+{1\over 2}|\hat{z}_s^{n,i}|^2+4\alpha\mu|z_s^n|1_{|z_s^n|>n}\\
&& {\displaystyle}+4\alpha1_{\phi_{\alpha+1}(s)>n}(\phi_{\alpha+1}(s)+\mu |z_s^n|).
\end{array}$$ With this inequality in hand, using a similar argument to the proof of Proposition 3.1 in \[2\], we can deduce that there exists a constant $C>0$ depending only on $\mu$ and $T$ such that for each $t\in {[0,T]}$ and each $n,i\geq1$, $$\begin{array}{lll}
&& {\displaystyle}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\sup\limits_{r\in [t,T]}|\hat{y}_r^{n,i}|^2 +\int_t^T
|\hat{z}_s^{n,i}|^2\ {\rm d}s\right]\\
&\leq & {\displaystyle}C\int_t^T \kappa\left({\mathbb{E}}\left[\sup\limits_{r\in
[s,T]}|\hat{y}_r^{n,i}|^2\right]\right)\ {\rm
d}s+2C\alpha\mu{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_t^T
|z_s^{n}|1_{|z_s^{n}|>n}\ {\rm d}s\right]\\
&& {\displaystyle}+2C\alpha{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_t^T
1_{\phi_{\alpha+1}(s)>n}(\phi_{\alpha+1}(s)+\mu |z_s^{n}|)\ {\rm
d}s\right].
\end{array}$$ Furthermore, with the help of (8), (H3) and the assumptions of $\kappa(\cdot)$, taking the limsup with respect to $n$ in the previous inequality and using Fatou’s lemma and Bihari’s inequality yields that $\{(y^n_t,z^n_t)_{t\in {[0,T]}}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a Cauchy sequence in the process space ${{\mathcal{S}}}^2(0,T;{{\mathbb R}}^k)\times {\rm
M}^2(0,T;{{\mathbb R}}^{k\times d})$. Finally, we can pass to the limit in the approximating BSDE $(\xi,T,g_n)$, which yields a solution to BSDE $(\xi,T,g)$.
Second step: We now treat the general case. For each $n\geq 1$, let $$\xi_n:=q_n(\xi)\ \ {\rm and}\ \
g_n(t,y,z):=g(t,y,z)-g(t,0,0)+q_n(g(t,0,0)).$$ Clearly, the $(\xi_n,g_n)$ satisfies the assumptions of the first step and $${\mathbb{E}}\left[|\xi_n-\xi|^2\right]{\rightarrow}0,\ \ {\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(\int_0^T
|q_n(g(s,0,0))-g(s,0,0)|\ {\rm d}s\right)^{2}\right]{\rightarrow}0$$ as $n{\rightarrow}\infty$ by (H5). For each $n\geq 1$, thanks to the first step of this proof, let $(y^n_t,z^n_t)_{t\in {[0,T]}}$ denote the unique solution to BSDE $(\xi_n,T,g_n)$. For each $n\geq 1$ and $m\geq
1$, let $\hat{y}_\cdot^{n,m}=y_\cdot^{n}-y_\cdot^{m}$, $\hat{z}_\cdot^{n,m}=z_\cdot^{n}-z_\cdot^{m}$, we have $$\hat{y}_t^{n,m}=\xi_n-\xi_m+\int_t^T
\hat{g}^{n,m}(s,\hat{y}_s^{n,m}, \hat{z}_s^{n,m})\ {\rm d}s-\int_t^T
\hat{z}_s^{n,m}{\rm d}B_s,\ \ \ t\in {[0,T]},$$ where for each $(y,z)\in {{\mathbb R}}^k\times {{\mathbb R}}^{k\times d}$, $$\hat{g}^{n,m}(s,y,z):=g_{n}(s,y+y_s^m,z+z_s^m)-g_m(s,y_s^m,z_s^m).$$ We write $$\begin {array}{lll}
\langle y, \hat{g}^{n,m}(t,y,z)\rangle&=& \langle
y,g_{n}(t,y+y_t^m,z+z_t^m)
-g_{m}(t,y+y_t^m,z+z_t^m)\rangle\\
&& +\langle y, g_{m}(t,y+y_t^m,z+z_t^m)-g_m(t,y_t^m,z_t^m)\rangle.
\end{array}$$ It follows from (10), (H1) and (H4) that for each $(y,z)\in
{{\mathbb R}}^k\times {{\mathbb R}}^{k\times d}$, ${{\rm d}P\times {\rm d}t-a.e.}$, $$\begin {array}{lll}
\quad\langle y, \hat{g}^{n,m}(t,y,z)\rangle
&=&\langle y,q_n(g(t,0,0))-q_m(g(t,0,0))\rangle\\
&& +\langle y, g(t,y+y_t^m,z+z_t^m)-g(t,y_t^m,z_t^m)\rangle\\
&\leq & |y||q_n(g(t,0,0))-q_m(g(t,0,0))|+\kappa(|y|^2)+\mu
|y||z|.\end{array}$$ Consequently, assumption (A) is satisfied for the generator $\hat g^{n,m}(t,y,z)$ of BSDE (12) with $\psi(u)=\kappa(u)$, $\lambda=\mu$ and $f_t=
|q_n(g(t,0,0))-q_m(g(t,0,0))|$. It then follows from Proposition 1 with $u=0$ that there exists a constant $C>0$ depending only on $T$ and $\mu$ such that for each $t\in [0,T]$, $$\begin{array}{lll}
\hspace{-7cm}&& {\displaystyle}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\sup\limits_{r\in [t,T]}|\hat
y^{n,m}_r|^2\right]+{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_t^T |\hat z^{n,m}_s|^2\ {\rm
d}s\right]\\
&\leq & {\displaystyle}C{\mathbb{E}}\left[|\xi_n-\xi_m|^2\right]+C\int_t^T\kappa
\left({\mathbb{E}}\left[\sup_{r\in
[s,T]}|\hat y^{n,m}_r|^2 \right]\right){\rm d}s\\
&& {\displaystyle}+C{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(\int_0^T |q_n(g(s,0,0))-q_m(g(s,0,0))|\ {\rm
d}s\right)^2\right].
\end{array}$$ Note that there exists a constant $A>0$ such that $\kappa(u)\leq
A(u+1)$ for each $u\geq 0$. Gronwall’s inequality yields that for each $t\in {[0,T]}$ and each $n,m\geq 1$, $$\begin{array}{lll}
\quad\quad\quad\quad&&{\displaystyle}{\mathbb{E}}\left[\sup\limits_{r\in [t,T]}|\hat
y^{n,m}_r|^2\right]+{\mathbb{E}}\left[\int_t^T |\hat z^{n,m}_s|^2\ {\rm
d}s\right]\\
&\leq & {\displaystyle}e^{CAT}\cdot
\left(4C{\mathbb{E}}\left[|\xi|^2\right]+CAT+4C{\mathbb{E}}\left[\left(\int_0^T
|g(s,0,0)| {\rm d}s\right)^2\right]\right).
\end{array}$$ Thus, in view of (11), by taking the limsup in (13) with respect to $n,m$ and using Fatou’s lemma, the monotonicity and continuity of $\kappa(\cdot)$ and Bihari’s inequality we know that $\{(y^n_t,z^n_t)_{t\in {[0,T]}}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is a Cauchy sequence in the process space ${{\mathcal{S}}}^2(0,T;{{\mathbb R}}^k)\times {\rm M}^2(0,T;{{\mathbb R}}^{k\times
d})$. Let $(y_t,z_t)_{t\in {[0,T]}}$ be the limit process of the sequence $\{(y^n_t,z^n_t)_{t\in {[0,T]}}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$. We pass to the limit in uniform convergence in probability for BSDEs $(\xi_n,T,g_n)$, thanks to (H2), (H3) and (H4), to see that $(y_t,z_t)_{t\in {[0,T]}}$ solves BSDE $(\xi,T,g)$. Thus, we complete the proof of Theorem 1.
[9]{}
Briand, Ph., Delyon, B., Hu, Y., Pardoux, E., Stoica, L., 2003. $L^p$ solutions of backward stochastic differential equations. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 108:109-129.
Fan, S., Jiang, L., 2013. Multidimensional BSDEs with weakly monotonic generators. Acta Mathematica Sinica, English Series, 29:1885-1906.
Mao, X., 1995. Adapted solutions of backward stochastic differential equations with non-Lipschitz coefficients. Stochastic Process and their Applications, 58:281-292.
Pardoux, E., Peng, S., 1990. Adapted solution of a backward stochastic differential equation. Systems Control Letters, 14:55-61.
Pardoux, E., 1999. BSDEs, weak convergence and homogenization of semilinear PDEs. Nonlinear Analysis, Differential Equations and Control (Montreal, QC,1998). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp:503-549.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Correlated [*ab initio*]{} electronic structure calculations are reported for the polymers lithium hydride chain $[LiH]_{\infty}$ and beryllium hydride $[Be_{2}H_{4}]_{\infty}$. First, employing a Wannier-function-based approach, the systems are studied at the Hartree-Fock level, by considering chains, simulating the infinite polymers. Subsequently, for the model system $[LiH]_{\infty}$, the correlation effects are computed by considering virtual excitations from the occupied Hartree-Fock Wannier functions of the infinite chain into the complementary space of localized unoccupied orbitals, employing a full-configuration-interaction scheme. For $[Be_{2}H_{4}]_{\infty}$, however, the electron correlation contributions to its ground state energy are calculated by considering finite clusters of increasing size modelling the system. Methods such as M$\o$ller–Plesset second–order perturbation theory and coupled–cluster singles, doubles and triples level of theory were employed. Equilibrium geometry, cohesive energy and polymerization energy are presented for both polymers, and the rapid convergence of electron correlation effects, when based upon a localized orbital scheme, is demonstrated.'
address:
- '$^1$ Max-Planck-Institut für Physik komplexer Systeme, Nöthnitzer Str. 38, D-01187 Dresden, Germany'
- '$^2$Department of Physics and The Optical Sciences Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721'
author:
- 'Ayjamal Abdurahman,$^{1}$ [@email] Alok Shukla,$^{2}$ [@add1] and Michael Dolg$^{1}$[@add2]'
title: 'Ab initio treatment of electron correlations in polymers: lithium hydride chain and beryllium hydride polymer'
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Polymers represent a class of one–dimensional infinite crystalline systems where [*ab initio*]{} Hartree–Fock (HF) self–consistent field (SCF) methods are well developed [@ladik]. An available program package is CRYSTAL [@crystal]. However, in order to be able to calculate the structural and electronic properties of polymers with an accuracy that allows a meaningful comparison with experiment, it is usually necessary to include the effects of electron correlations into the theory. The most widely used approach here is density–functional theory (DFT). Despite its indisputable success in solid state physics and computational chemistry as a computationally cheap routine tool for large-scale investigations, DFT has the drawback that results depend highly on the chosen functional, and cannot be improved in a systematic way. Wave-function–based quantum chemical [*ab initio* ]{} techniques on the other hand are free from this flaw, and provide a large array of methods of different accuracy and computational cost. Thus it is desirable to extend their applicability to infinite systems such as polymers.
Electron correlations are mostly a local effect and therefore localized molecular orbitals are preferable to the canonical HF solutions for the treatment of large molecules. [@hampel] Similarly, in infinite systems (localized) Wannier functions provide a better starting point for an [*ab initio*]{} treatment of electronic correlations than the (canonical) Bloch functions. Previous studies of polymers obtained the Wannier orbitals from an [*a posteriori*]{} localization of the Bloch functions according to a given prescription. [@ladik] During the last years, in our group a HF approach was developed which allows the direct determination of Wannier orbitals within the SCF process. [@shukla1] Various applications to one- and three-dimensional infinite systems proved the numerical equivalence of our Wannier–function–based HF approach to the conventional Bloch–function–based counterpart. [@shukla2; @shukla3]
In this paper HF–SCF calculations and subsequent correlation energy calculations are presented for the lithium hydride chain $[LiH]_{\infty}$ and the beryllium hydride polymer $[Be_{2}H_{4}]_{\infty}$. As a simple, but due to its ionic character, nontrivial model polymer, the lithium hydride chain system has been previously dealt with in a number of studies. [@shukla3; @teramae; @tunega]. In the present contribution we extend our previous calculation [@shukla3] to a wave-function-based [*ab initio*]{} study of electron correlation effects using a combination of the full configuration interaction (FCI) method and the the so-called incremental scheme. [@stoll1; @stoll2; @stoll3] The latter approach consists basically in an expansion of the total correlation energy per unit cell in terms of interactions of increasing complexity among the electrons assigned to localized orbitals (Wannier functions) comprising the polymer under consideration. The electron correlation energy increments needed to establish the total energy per unit cell are evaluated by considering virtual excitations from a small region of space in and around the reference cell, keeping the electrons of the rest of the crystal frozen at the Hartree–Fock (HF) level. The fast convergence of the incremental expansion allows to truncate it at relatively low order and thus to calculate the correlation energy of an infinite system without modelling it as a finite cluster. However, neither the FCI method nor the incremental approach based on polymer Wannier orbitals can at present be used for systems with a more complicated unit cell. Therefore, the second system investigated by us, the beryllium hydride polymer, was treated at the coupled-cluster (CC) and M$\o$ller–Plesset second–order perturbation (MP2) level of theory. Starting from the Wannier HF data the correlation corrections to the total energy per unit cell were derived from quantum chemical calculations of finite model systems using the MOLPRO molecular orbital [*ab initio*]{} program package. [@molpro] To our knowledge, this system was studied at the HF level two decades ago by Karpfen using the crystal orbital method, i.e., without including correlation effects. [@karpfen] Recently, its monomer beryllium dihydride $BeH_{2}$ has been well characterized theoretically using reliable ab initio and density functional theory methods. [@hinze; @jursic]
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In section \[methods\] the applied methods are briefly described. The calculations and results are then presented in section \[results\]. Finally, a summary is given in section \[summary\].
Applied methods {#methods}
===============
Section \[wanhf\] gives brief outline for the theory within a restricted HF (RHF) framework. Sections \[inc\] and \[sa\], respectively, describe the incremental scheme and a simple approach, to compute electron correlation effects in polymers.
Wannier–orbital–based Hartree–Fock approach {#wanhf}
-------------------------------------------
Our approach, described in more detail in previous publications. [@shukla1; @shukla2; @shukla3] is based upon the direct determination of the orthonormal Wannier–type (localized) orbitals for the polymer. Denoting by $\mid\alpha(\mathbf{R}_{j})\rangle$ the Wannier orbitals of a unit cell located at lattice vector $\mathbf{R}_{j}$, the set $\{ |\alpha({\bf R}_{i})\rangle;
{\alpha} = 1, n_c; j = 1, N \}$ spans the occupied HF space. Here, $n_{c}$ is the number of orbitals per unit cell, and $N (\to \infty)$ is the total number of unit cells in the system. In our previous work we showed that one can obtain $n_c$ RHF Wannier functions, $\{|\alpha \rangle, \; \alpha =1,n_c\}$ occupied by $2n_c$ electrons localized in the reference unit cell (denoted ${\cal C}$) by solving the equations [@shukla1; @shukla2; @shukla3] $$( T + U
+ \sum_{\beta} (2 J_{\beta}- K_{\beta})
+\sum_{k \in{\cal N}} \sum_{\gamma} \lambda_{\gamma}^{k}
|\gamma({\bf R}_{k})\rangle
\langle\gamma({\bf R}_{k})| ) |\alpha\rangle
= \epsilon_{\alpha} |\alpha\rangle
\mbox{,}
\label{eq-rhf}$$ where $T$ represents the kinetic-energy operator, $U$ represents the interaction of the electrons of ${\cal C}$ with the nuclei of the whole of the crystal, while $J_{\beta}$, $K_{\beta}$, respectively, represent the Coulomb and exchange interactions felt by the electrons occupying the $\beta$-th Wannier function of ${\cal C}$, due to the rest of the electrons of the infinite system. The first three terms of Eq.(\[eq-rhf\]) constitute the canonical Hartree-Fock operator, while the last term is a projection operator which makes the orbitals localized in ${\cal C}$ orthogonal to those localized in the unit cells in the immediate neighborhood of ${\cal C}$ by means of infinitely high shift parameters $\lambda_{\gamma}^{k}$’s. These neighborhood unit cells, whose origins are labeled by lattice vectors ${\bf R}_{k}$, are collectively referred to as ${\cal N}$. The projection operators along with the shift parameters play the role of a localizing potential in the Fock matrix, and once self-consistency has been achieved, the occupied eigenvectors of Eq.(\[eq-rhf\]) are localized in ${\cal C}$, and are orthogonal to the orbitals of ${\cal N}$—thus making them Wannier functions [@shukla1; @shukla2; @shukla3]. As far as the orthogonality of the orbitals of ${\cal C}$ to those contained in unit cells beyond ${\cal N}$ is concerned, it should be automatic for systems with a band gap once ${\cal N}$ has been chosen to be large enough. Based upon our past experience regarding a suitable choice of ${\cal N}$, [@shukla1; @shukla2; @shukla3] in the present calculation we included up to the third nearest-neighbor unit cells in ${\cal N}$. For the details concerning the computation of various terms involving lattice sums ($U$, $J$, and $K$) involved in Eq. (\[eq-rhf\]) for the case of polymers, we refer the reader to reference [[@shukla3]]{}.
Incremental method {#inc}
------------------
Electron correlation effects in the ground states of a large number of three-dimensional ionic and covalent solids, [@inc-cal] as well as polymers [@yu] have been studied with the incremental scheme. All these calculations used localized orbitals of finite clusters as a basis set for the correlation treatment. In the present work on the lithium hydride chain we use directly the Wannier–functions of the infinite system. A related study of the three–dimensional lithium hydride solid has been published elsewhere [@lih].
The correlation energy per unit cell is expanded as $$E_{corr} = \sum_{i} \varepsilon_{i}
+ \sum_{<ij>} \Delta\varepsilon_{ij}
+ \sum_{<ijk>} \Delta\varepsilon_{ijk}
+ ... \label{eq-inc}$$ where the summation over $i$ involves Wannier functions located the reference cell, while those over $j$ and $k$ include all the Wannier functions of the crystal. The “one–body" increments $\varepsilon_{i}$ = $\Delta\varepsilon_{i}$ are computed by considering virtual excitations only from the $i$-th Wannier function, freezing the rest of the polymer at the HF level. The “two–body" increments $\Delta\varepsilon_{ij}$ are defined as $\Delta\varepsilon_{ij}$ = $\varepsilon_{ij}-(\Delta\varepsilon_{i}+\Delta\varepsilon_{j})$ where $\varepsilon_{ij}$ is the correlation energy of the system obtained by correlating two distinct Wannier functions ${i}$ and ${j}$. Thus $\Delta\varepsilon_{ij}$ represents the correlation contribution of electrons localized on two “bodies" ${i}$ and ${j}$. Higher–order increments are defined in an analogous way. Finally, summing up all increments, with the proper weight factors (according to their occurrence in the unit cell of the polymer), one obtains the exact correlation energy per unit cell of the infinite system. In order to get reliable results a size–extensive correlation method should be used, although non size–extensive schemes also may provide reasonable estimates if the incremental expansion is truncated at low order. In the present work for the lithium hydride chain we choose the strictly size-extensive full configuration interaction (FCI) method. As mentioned earlier, when computing the correlation contributions via Eq. (\[eq-inc\]), except for the orbitals involved (say orbitals $i$ and $j$ for the two-body increment $\Delta \epsilon_{ij}$), the rest of the occupied Wannier orbitals of the infinite solid are held frozen at the HF level. The region containing these frozen orbitals plays the role of the “environment” for the electrons involved in the correlated calculations, and its contribution can be absorbed in the so-called “environment potential” $U^{\mbox{env}}$ defined as $$U^{\mbox{env}}_{pq}= \sum_{\alpha({\bf R}_{j}) \in {\cal E} }
( 2 \langle p \alpha({\bf R}_{j})|\frac{1}{r_{12}}|q \alpha({\bf R}_{j}) \rangle
- \langle p \alpha({\bf R}_{j})|\frac{1}{r_{12}}|\alpha({\bf R}_{j}) q \rangle
) \; \mbox{,} \label{eq-uenv}$$ where ${\cal E}$ represents the unit cells of the environment, $p$ and $q$ are two arbitrary basis functions, and the factor of two in the first term is due to the spin summation. The sum of Eq.(\[eq-uenv\]) involves infinite lattice sum over the environment unit cells, and is computed by simply subtracting from the lattice summed $J$ and $K$ integrals (cf. Eq. (\[eq-rhf\])) obtained at the end of the HF iterations, the contributions corresponding to the orbitals being correlated. Once $U^{\mbox{env}}_{pq}$ has been computed, one is left with an effective Hamiltonian involving a finite number of electrons located in the region whose Wannier orbitals are being correlated. Physically speaking $U^{\mbox{env}}_{pq}$ represents the influence of the environment electrons on the electrons being correlated, explicitly. In the present calculations the Li $1s^2$ core shell was also kept frozen, and its contribution was also included in $U^{\mbox{env}}_{pq}$. The basis functions $p$ and $q$ were restricted to those of the reference cell and the adjacent cells up to the third-nearest neighbors.
The virtual orbitals used for computing the correlation effects were also localized. They were obtained by first orthogonalizing the basis set to the occupied space by using corresponding projection operators, as suggested by Pulay. [@pulay] Subsequently the basis functions are orthogonalized to each other using the symmetric-orthogonalization procedure, yielding a localized and orthonormal virtual orbital set. [@lih] The number of virtual orbitals per unit cell considered for a specific increment corresponds to the number of basis functions per unit cell minus the number of occupied orbitals per unit cell. The virtual orbitals have been expanded in the same basis set as described above for $U^{\mbox{env}}_{pq}$.
A simple approach {#sa}
-----------------
In principle the total energy $E_{tot}$ per $[Be_{2}H_{4}]$ unit cell of beryllium hydride may be obtained as the limit $$E=\lim_{n \to \infty}{E(Be_{2n+1}H_{4n+2})\over n} ,$$ i.e., by performing calculations for increasingly long oligomers $H(BeH_{2})_{2n}BeH$. In order to reduce finite-size effects due to the termination of the oligomers by one beryllium and two hydrogen atoms saturating the dangling bonds of ${\cdot } (BeH_{2})_{2n} {\cdot }$ , one may consider instead $$E=\lim_{n \to \infty}\bigtriangleup E_{n}=\lim_{n \to
\infty}\biggl[E(Be_{2n+3}H_{4n+6})-E(Be_{2n+1}H_{4n+2})\biggr],
\label{eq-sa}$$ i.e., the energy change between subsequent oligomers differing by a single unit cell. Therefore, identical unit cells were used as building blocks for both oligomers, i.e., the geometrical optimization was restricted only to parameters relevant for the polymer beryllium hydride.\
Since the convergence of $\bigtriangleup E_{n}$ with respect to n is much faster for the correlation contributions than for the HF energy, and HF programs treating the infinite system are at hand (CRYSTAL, WANNIER), we use Eq. (\[eq-sa\]) only for the correlation energy per unit cell. This approach has previously been used successfully in calculations for trans-polyacetylene, [@yu] and some boron-nitrogen polymers. [@ayjamal]
Calculations and Results {#results}
========================
$[LiH]_{\infty}$
----------------
HF ground state calculations are a necessary prerequisite for the application of the incremental approach to electron correlation. We performed such calculations for a lithium hydride chain oriented along the x-axis using the WANNIER code [@wannier]. The reference cell contained hydrogen at the (0,0,0) and lithium at the $({\it a}/2,0,0)$, where ${\it a}$ is lattice constant. We adopted the extended basis set optimized by Dovesi [*et al.*]{} [@dovesi] First, all–electron Wannier HF calculations were performed at the different lattice constants in the range 2.8–4.0 (Å) and the total HF energy per unit cell for various lattice constants near the equilibrium was fitted to a cubic polynomial in order to derive the ground state HF equilibrium lattice constant and total energy. After determining the Wannier orbitals for each value of the lattice constant, the corresponding FCI calculations were performed by means of the incremental scheme. The expansion of the correlation energy per unit cell was restricted to one– and two–body increments, and included interactions up to third–nearest neighbor unit cells. Contributions from higher order increments as well as from interactions between more distant cells proved to be negligible. The equilibrium values for the FCI energy per unit cell and the lattice constant were determined as described for the HF results. The main contribution of 98.8 % to the correlation energy per unit cell at the equilibrium geometry ($E$=$-0.0307 a.u.$) comes from the one-body term. Two-body terms for first–, second– and third–nearest neighbors contribute with 1.15, 0.01 and 0.001 %, respectively. Our results are summarized in table \[t1\]. It is quite obvious from table \[t1\] that, as a function of distance, the two-body correlation effects converge very rapidly.
Since the Li basis set used here is suitable only for the ionic LiH molecule, we cannot get a good result for the atomic reference energy of the neutral Li atom (which is needed to determine the cohesive energy). Therefore, for this almost ideally ionic chain the cohesive energies both at the HF and the correlated level are obtained by subtracting the electron affinities (EA) and ionization potential (IP) from the dissociation energy calculated with respect to the ions $Li^{+}$ and $H^{-}$. The HF values of EA and IP are determined using the finite–difference atomic HF program MCHF [@mchf]. The experimental values of EA and IP were taken as the CI limit, i.e., disregarding the very small relativistic effects. For the polymerization energy we optimized the Li–H distance for the $^1\Sigma^+$ ground state of the monomer at the HF and CI level. Our results are summarized in table \[t2\]. It is clear from table \[t2\] that, as expected, correlation effects contribute significantly to the cohesive energy. However, they do not make any significant contribution to the lattice constant of the system.
$[Be_{2}H_{4}]_{\infty}$
------------------------
Beryllium hydride has attracted considerable interest as a rocket fuel on account of its high heat of combustion. It has also been considered as a moderator for nuclear reactors. From the previous studies [@bery] we also know that it is poisonous and difficult to prepare for experiment. Even though there is no or very little experimental information about the polymer, it has been studied theoretically using reliable [*ab initio*]{} methods at the HF level by Karpfen [@karpfen]. In the present work we have studied this polymer at the HF and the correlated level. The Wannier–orbital–based HF–SCF approach, coupled-cluster (CC), and M$\o$ller–Plesset second–order perturbation (MP2) theory were employed to determine the equilibrium structures and total energies per unit cell. In our calculations the unit cell included two beryllium and four hydrogen atoms and has a perfect tetrahedral structure with all four Be-H bond distances equal, i.e., there are two HBeHBeH planes that are perpendicular to each other, with the beryllium atoms in their crossings. In the cluster approximation the unit cell is terminated by one beryllium and two hydrogen atoms. In this structure the terminal beryllium atoms have trigonal coordination while all others are distorted tetrahedrons. First we optimized the structure of this polymer at the HF–SCF level using the CRYSTAL [@crystal] program. The total HF energies obtained with the CRYSTAL program were then taken as an input for a re-optimization at the MP2, CCSD (CC singles and doubles) and CCSD(T) (CCSD with a perturbative estimate of triples) level. The correlation energy contributions at each geometry have been calculated with the MOLPRO molecular orbital [*ab initio*]{} program package [@molpro] by using the simplified finite–cluster approach in which we put [*n*]{}=3 in Eq. (\[eq-sa\]). In this system the correlation energy converges rapidly with respect to cluster size, i.e., for [*n*]{}=3, one finds $\bigtriangleup E_{4}-\bigtriangleup E_{3}{\approx}10^{-6}$ a.u.. We have optimized the beryllium–hydride bond length $(r_{BeH})$ and the lattice constant (a). We adopted polarized valence double–zeta ( 6–31G$^{**}$) basis sets for beryllium and for hydrogen. The polarization functions consisted of a single p–type exponent of $0.75$ Bohr$^{-2}$ on hydrogen and single d–type exponents of $0.4$ Bohr$^{-2}$ on beryllium. In our HF calculations for polymers we optimized the most diffuse s–type exponent, which is less than $0.1$ in the original 6–31G$^{**}$ basis set, and obtained $0.15$. A smaller value causes linear dependencies in the basis set when applied in the infinite system.\
We have also calculated the cohesive energy per unit cell at the HF and correlated level. The atomic HF–SCF, MP2, CCSD and CCSD(T) reference energies (Be: $-14.5668$ a.u., $-14.5928$ a.u., $-14.6131$ a.u. and $-14.6131$ a.u.; H: $-0.4982$ a.u.) were obtained with the original 6–31G$^{**}$ basis sets. In addition to the cohesive energy, we have also calculated the polymerization energy. The geometry of the monomers was optimized at the SCF, MP2, CCSD, and CCSD(T) levels of theory employing the MOLPRO program [@molpro]. Our final results are summarized in table \[t3\]. Due to the absence of experimental data or theoretical results at the correlated level, we compare our result only at the HF level. To the best of our knowledge, only Karpfen [@karpfen] has performed a geometry optimization for this polymer within an ab initio crystal Hartree–Fock approach and his results are also given in table \[t3\]. Our beryllium–hydrogen bond length is in good agreement with the one obtained by Karpfen, but our HF energy is lower 0.05 a.u. than the value of Karpfen [@karpfen]. A possible reason is the use of d functions in our basis sets.
Summary
=======
In conclusion, given a well-localized basis set of Wannier orbitals size-extensive standard quantum chemical methods such as full configuration interaction, coupled-cluster or many-body perturbation theory can be applied to evaluate ground state properties of polymers. Rapid convergence of the incremental expansion of the correlation energy is obtained for ionic systems, e.g., the simple model of the lithium hydride chain. In beryllium hydride polymer electron correlation accounts for 12–14[%]{} of the cohesive energy and 22–24[%]{} of the polymerization energy at all three levels of theory and reduces the lattice constant. In all the cases it was demonstrated that the use of localized orbitals leads to a rapid convergence of electron correlation effects, thus making it possible for one to compute the electron correlation effects of infinite systems.
[99]{} See, e.g., J. J. Ladik, Quantum Theory of Polymers as Solids. Plenum press, New York, NY (1988). R. Dovesi, V.R. Saunders, C. Roetti, M. Causa, N.M. Harrison, R. Orlando, E. Apra CRYSTAL95 user’s manual. University of Turin, Italy (1996). C. Hampel and H. -J. Werner, J. Chem. Phys. [**104**]{}, 6286 (1996), and references cited therein. A. Shukla, M. Dolg, H.Stoll and P. Fulde, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**262**]{}, 213 (1996). A. Shukla, M. Dolg, P. Fulde, and H. Stoll, Phys. Rev. B, [**57**]{}, 1471 (1998). A. Shukla, M. Dolg, and H. Stoll, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 4325 (1998). H. Teramae, Theor. Chim. Acta [**94**]{}, 311 (1996). D. Tunega, J. Noga, Theor. Chim. Acta [**100**]{}, 78 (1998). H. Stoll, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 6700 (1991). H. Stoll, J. Chem. Phys. [**97**]{}, 8449 (1992). H. Stoll, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**191**]{}, 548 (1992). H.-J. Werner and P. Knowles, MOLPRO, 1994, is a package of [*ab initio*]{} programs written by H.-J. Werner and P.J. Knowles, with contributions from J.Alml[ö]{}f, R. D. Amos, A. Berning, C. Hampel, R. Lindh, W. Meyer, A. Nicklass, P. Palmieri, K.A. Peterson, R.M. Pitzer, H. Stoll, A.J. Stone, P.R. Taylor. A. Karpfen, Theor. Chim. Acta [**50**]{}, 49 (1978). J. Hinze, O. Friedrich, and A. Sundermann, Mol. Phys, [**96**]{}, 711 (1999). B. S. Jursic J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem) [**467**]{}, 7 (1999). M. Yu, S. Kalvoda, and M. Dolg, Chem, Phys [**224**]{}, 121 (1997). A. Shukla, M. Dolg, P. Fulde, and H. Stoll, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, 5211 (1999). Computer program WANNIER, A. Shukla, M. Dolg, H. Stoll, and P. Fulde (unpublished). R. Dovesi, C. Ermondi, E. Ferrero, C. Pisani, and C. Roetti Phys. Rev. B [**29**]{}, 3591 (1984). MCHF atomic electronic structure code, C. Froese-Fischer, The Hartree-Fock Method for Atoms – A Numerical Approach, Wiley, New York, 1976. Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, Fifth, Completely Revised Edition [**A13**]{}, 205 (1989).
---------------- -- ------------
Correlation Energy
Increment
one-body -0.0303345
two-body (1NN) -0.0003538
two-body (2NN) -0.0000035
two-body (3NN) -0.0000003
---------------- -- ------------
: Various increments to the correlation energy (in Hartrees) computed by the Wannier-function-based approach presented in this work. The results refer to lattice constant of 3.30 (Å). NN stands for nearest neighbors.[]{data-label="t1"}
Method E$_{tot}$ $\bigtriangleup$E$_{coh}$ $\bigtriangleup$E$_{pol}$ a
------------- ----------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------
WANNIER SCF -8.038047 3.8760 1.8067 3.3273
CRYSTAL SCF -8.038031 3.8759 1.8063 3.3274
FCI -8.068744 4.6545 1.4854 3.3300
: Total energy E$_{tot}$ (Hartree), cohesive energy $\bigtriangleup$E$_{coh}$ (eV), polymerization energy $\bigtriangleup$E$_{pol}$ (eV) per unit cell and lattice constant a (Å) of the lithium hydride chain.[]{data-label="t2"}
Method E$_{tot}$ $\bigtriangleup$E$_{coh}$ $\bigtriangleup$E$_{pol}$ a h
--------------- ----------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ------- -------
CRYSTAL SCF -31.6300 13.70 2.645 3.958 1.467
MP2$^{a}$ -31.7608 15.85 3.445 3.958 1.456
CCSD$^{a}$ -31.7908 15.56 3.402 3.969 1.457
CCSD(T)$^{a}$ -31.7944 15.66 3.478 3.968 1.458
Karpfen$^{b}$ -31.5780 – – 4.024 1.470
: Total energy E$_{tot}$ (Hartree), cohesive energy $\bigtriangleup$E$_{coh}$ (eV), polymerization energy $\bigtriangleup$E$_{pol}$ (eV) per unit $Be_{2}H_{4}$ and lattice constant a (Å), Be–H distance h (Å) of beryllium hydride.[]{data-label="t3"}
$^{a}$ correlation contributions added to CRYSTAL SCF energies.\
$^{b}$ performed with $7, 1/4$ basis sets considering third neighbor’s interactions.\
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This article investigates the monodromy conjecture for a space monomial curve that appears as the special fiber of an equisingular family of curves with a plane branch as generic fiber. Roughly speaking, the monodromy conjecture states that every pole of the motivic, or related, Igusa zeta function induces an eigenvalue of monodromy. As the poles of the motivic zeta function associated with such a space monomial curve have been determined in earlier work, it remains to study the eigenvalues of monodromy. After reducing the problem to the curve seen as a Cartier divisor on a generic embedding surface, we construct an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution of this situation and use an A’Campo formula in terms of this resolution to compute the zeta function of monodromy. Combining all results, we prove the monodromy conjecture for this class of monomial curves.'
address:
- |
Centro Universitario de la Defensa, IUMA\
Academia General Militar\
Ctra. de Huesca s/n.\
50090 Zaragoza, Spain
- |
KU Leuven\
Departement wiskunde\
Celestijnenlaan 200B, bus 2400\
3001 Leuven, Belgium
author:
- 'Jorge Martín-Morales'
- Willem Veys
- Lena Vos
title: The monodromy conjecture for a space monomial curve with a plane semigroup
---
Introduction {#Intro .unnumbered}
============
The classical *monodromy conjecture* was originally formulated by Igusa in the seventies and predicts a relation between two invariants of a polynomial, one originating from number theory and the other from differential topology. More precisely, it states that the poles of the motivic, or related, Igusa zeta function of a polynomial $f \in {\mathbb C}[x_0, \ldots, x_n]$ induce eigenvalues of the local monodromy action of $f$, seen as a function $f:{\mathbb C}^{n+1}\rightarrow {\mathbb C}$, on the cohomology of its Milnor fiber at some point $x \in f^{-1}(0) \subset {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$. Generalizing the motivic Igusa zeta function to an ideal and using the notion of Verdier monodromy, one can similarly formulate the monodromy conjecture for ideals. To date, both conjectures have only been proven in full generality for polynomials and ideals in two variables, see [@L] and [@VV], respectively. In higher dimension, various partial results were shown for one polynomial (see for instance the introduction of [@BV] for a list of references), but for multiple polynomials, the most general result so far is a proof for monomial ideals [@HMY].
In this article, the monodromy conjecture is investigated for a class of binomial ideals in arbitrary dimension that define space curves deforming to plane branches. To construct these ideals, we start with a germ ${\mathcal C}:=\{f=0\}\subset ({\mathbb C}^2,0)$ of a complex plane curve defined by an irreducible series $f\in{\mathbb C}[[x_0,x_1]]$ with $f(0) = 0$. The semigroup $\Gamma({\mathcal C})$ of ${\mathcal C}$ is the image of the associated valuation $$\nu_{{\mathbb C}}: \frac{{\mathbb C}[[x_0,x_1]]}{(f)}\setminus \{0\} \rightarrow {\mathbb N}: h \mapsto \dim_{{\mathbb C}}\frac{{\mathbb C}[[x_0,x_1]]}{(f,h)}.$$ This semigroup is finitely generated and has a unique minimal generating set $({\bar{\beta}}_0,\ldots,{\bar{\beta}}_g)$. Define $Y$ as the image of the monomial map $M:({\mathbb C},0) \rightarrow ({\mathbb C}^{g+1},0): t\mapsto (t^{\bar{\beta}_0},t^{\bar{\beta}_1},\ldots,t^{\bar{\beta}_g}).$ This is an irreducible curve which is smooth outside the origin and whose semigroup is the plane semigroup $\Gamma({\mathcal C})$. Furthermore, it is the special fiber of an equisingular family $\eta:(\chi,0) \subset ({\mathbb C}^{g+1},0)\rightarrow ({\mathbb C},0)$ with generic fiber isomorphic to ${\mathcal C}$. The ideal ${\mathcal I}\subset {\mathbb C}[x_0,\ldots,x_g]$ that defines $Y$ in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ is generated by binomial equations of the form $$\left\{
\begin{array}{r c l l}
f_1 := x_1^{n_1} & - & x_0^{n_0} & = 0 \\
f_2 := x_2^{n_2} &- & x_0^{b_{20}}x_1^{b_{21}} &= 0 \\
& \vdots & &\\
f_g := x_g^{n_g} &- & x_0^{b_{g0}}x_1^{b_{g1}}\cdots x_{g-1}^{b_{g(g-1)}} & = 0.\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Here, $n_i > 1$ and $b_{ij} \geq 0$ are integers that can be expressed in terms of $(\bar{\beta}_0,\ldots, \bar{\beta}_g)$. The curve $Y$ is called the *monomial curve associated with ${\mathcal C}$*, but, to simplify the notation, we will refer to it as a *(space) monomial curve* $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$. Since such a monomial curve for $g = 1$ is just a cusp in the complex plane, of which the monodromy conjecture is already well-known, we are interested in the case where $g \geq 2$.
The first part in the monodromy conjecture for these curves (or their corresponding binomial ideals) has already been studied in [@MVV]: a complete list of poles of the motivic zeta function associated with a space monomial curve $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ is given by $${\mathbb L}^g, \qquad {\mathbb L}^{\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}}, \qquad k = 1,\ldots, g,$$ where $$\frac{\nu_k}{N_k} = \frac{1}{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}\bigg(\sum_{l=0}^k {\bar{\beta}}_l - \sum_{l=1}^{k-1}n_l{\bar{\beta}}_l\bigg) + (k-1) + \sum_{l=k+1}^g\frac{1}{n_l}, \qquad k = 1,\ldots, g.$$Here, ${\mathbb L}$ denotes the class of the affine line in the *Grothendieck ring* of complex varieties.
It thus remains to investigate the monodromy eigenvalues of a space monomial curve $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ and to show that every pole in the above list yields such an eigenvalue. To this end, we will make use of the following *A’Campo formula* for the monodromy eigenvalues in terms of a principalization $\varphi: \tilde X \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ of the ideal ${\mathcal I}$ defining $Y$. Let $E_j$ for $j \in J$ be the irreducible components of $\varphi^{-1}(Y)$ and denote by $N_j$ and $\nu_j - 1$ the multiplicity of $E_j$ in the divisor of $\varphi^{\ast}{\mathcal I}$ and $\varphi^{\ast}(dx_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge dx_n)$, respectively. Let $\sigma: X' \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ be the blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ along $Y$ with exceptional divisor $E' := \sigma^{-1}(Y)$. By the universal property of the blow-up, there exists a unique morphism $\psi: \tilde X \rightarrow X'$ such that $\sigma \circ \psi = \varphi$. Then, from [@VV], a complex number is a monodromy eigenvalue associated with $Y$ if and only if it is a zero or pole of the *zeta function of monodromy* at a point $e \in E'$ given by $$\label{eq:ACampo-princ}
Z_{Y,e}^{mon} (t)= \prod_{j \in J}(1-t^{N_j})^{\chi(E^{\circ}_j \cap \psi^{-1}(e))},$$ where $\chi$ denotes the topological Euler characteristic and $E_j^\circ := E_j \backslash \cup_{i \neq j}(E_i\cap E_j)$ for every $j \in J$. This is a generalization of the original formula of A’Campo [@AC] expressing the monodromy eigenvalues of one polynomial $f \in {\mathbb C}[x_0,\ldots, x_g]$ in terms of an embedded resolution $\varphi: \tilde X \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ of $f$: they are zeros or poles of the monodromy zeta functions $$Z_{f,y}^{mon} (t)= \prod_{j \in J}(1-t^{N_j})^{\chi(E^{\circ}_j\cap \varphi^{-1}(y))}$$ for points $y \in \{f=0\}$. Both A’Campo formulas can be generalized in a straightforward way to ideals and polynomials, respectively, defining a subscheme $Y$ of a general variety $X$ with $\text{Sing}(X) \subset Y$.
We will apply formula to a specific point in the exceptional divisor $E'$ that we define by means of a *generic embedding surface* of $Y$. For every set $(\lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_g) $ of $g-1$ non-zero complex numbers, we introduce an affine scheme $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ given by the equations $$\left\{
\begin{array}{c c l l l}
f_1& + & \lambda_2f_2 & = 0 \\
f_2& + & \lambda_3f_3 &= 0 \\
& \vdots & &\\
f_{g-1} & + & \lambda_gf_g & = 0.\\
\end{array}
\right.$$ Every such scheme contains $Y$ as a Cartier divisor defined by one of the equations $f_i = 0$. For *generic* coefficients $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$, the scheme $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ is a normal surface which is smooth outside the origin. If we denote by $S'$ the strict transform of such a generic embedding surface $S := S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ under the blow-up $\sigma$, then our interest goes to the monodromy zeta function $Z_{Y,p}^{mon}(t)$ at the point $p := S' \cap \sigma^{-1}(0)$. Using the above A’Campo’s formulas, it turns out that, for generic coefficients, $Z_{Y,p}^{mon}(t)$ is equal to the monodromy zeta function $Z_{Y,0}^{mon}(t)$ of $Y$ considered on $S$ at the origin; this will be shown in Theorem \[thm:red-to-on-curve-surface\]. In fact, this result will be stated and proven in a more general context, which makes it possibly useful for other instances of the monodromy conjecture.
To compute the monodromy zeta function $Z_{Y,0}^{mon}(t)$ of $Y \subset S$ at the origin, we will consider another generalization of A’Campo’s formula in terms of an *embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution* of $Y \subset S$ that was proven in [@Ma1]. Roughly speaking, a ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution is a resolution in which the final ambient space is allowed to have abelian quotient singularities, and the zeta function of monodromy at the origin can be written as $$Z^{mon}_{Y,0}(t) = \prod_{\underset{t \in T}{1 \leq j \leq r}} \left(1-t^{m_{j,t}}\right)^{\chi(E_{j,t}^{\circ})},$$ where $\{E_{j,t}\}_{j=1,\ldots,r,t \in T}$ defines a finite stratification of the exceptional varieties $E_1,\ldots,E_r$ of the ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution such that the *multiplicity* $m_{j,s}$ of $E_j$ along each $E_{j,t}$ is constant. To construct an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution of $Y \subset S$, we will compute $g$ *weighted blow-ups*. After each blow-up, we will be able to eliminate one variable so that we obtain a situation very similar to the one we have started with, but with one equation in $Y$ and $S$ less. Therefore, in the last step, the problem will have been reduced to the resolution of a cusp in a Hirzebruch-Jung singularity of type $\frac{1}{d}(1,q)$, which can be solved with a single weighted blow-up. One can compare this process to the resolution of an irreducible plane curve with $g$ Puiseux pairs using toric modifications; after each weighted blow-up, the number of Puiseux pairs is lowered by one and the last step coincides with the resolution of an irreducible plane curve with one Puiseux pair. Our case, however, will be more challenging as the strict transform of $Y$ after the first blow-up will pass in general through the singular locus of the ambient space. The resulting ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution is described in Theorem \[thm:resolutionY\], and its resolution graph is a tree as in Figure \[fig:dual-graph\]. Stratifying the exceptional divisor of the resolution such that the multiplicity is constant along each stratum and computing the Euler characteristics of the strata yields $$Z^{mon}_{Y,0}(t) = \frac{\prod\limits_{k = 0}^g(1-t^{M_k})^{\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{M_k}}}{\prod\limits_{k = 1}^g(1-t^{N_k})^{\frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{N_k}}},$$ where $$M_k := \operatorname{lcm}\Big(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{\gcd({\bar{\beta}}_0,\ldots, {\bar{\beta}}_k)},n_{k+1},\ldots, n_g\Big), \quad k = 0,\ldots, g,$$ and $$N_k := \operatorname{lcm}\Big(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{\gcd({\bar{\beta}}_0,\ldots, {\bar{\beta}}_k)},n_k,\ldots, n_g\Big), \quad k = 1,\ldots, g.$$ It follows that the monodromy zeta function $Z_{Y,p}^{mon}(t)$ of $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ at $p = S' \cap \sigma^{-1}(0)$ is given by the same expression, see Theorem \[thm:zeta-function-mon-Y\].
With this expression for $Z_{Y,p}^{mon}(t)$, we will be able to prove the monodromy conjecture for a space monomial curve $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$. More precisely, we will show in Theorem \[thm:mon-conj\] that every pole ${\mathbb L}^{-s_0}$ of the motivic Igusa zeta function associated with $Y$ yields a monodromy eigenvalue $e^{2\pi is_0}$ of $Y$. We will see that the poles ${\mathbb L}^{g}$ and ${\mathbb L}^{\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}}$ with $\frac{\nu_k}{N_k} \in {\mathbb N}$ induce the trivial monodromy eigenvalue $1$, being a zero of the monodromy zeta function at any point in $E' \setminus \sigma^{-1}(0)$. For the other poles ${\mathbb L}^{\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}}$ with $\frac{\nu_k}{N_k} \notin {\mathbb N}$, we will prove that the candidate monodromy eigenvalue $e^{-2\pi i\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}}$ is a pole of $Z^{mon}_{Y,p}(t)$.
This article consists of the following sections. Section \[SpaceMonomial\] introduces the monomial curves $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ of our interest. In Section \[MonodromyGeneral\], we discuss the monodromy conjecture for ideals in more detail, and in Section \[MonodromyWeighted\], we present the A’Campo formula for the zeta function of monodromy in terms of an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution. Section \[RedCurveSurface\] explains how the monodromy eigenvalues of a space monomial curve $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ relate to those of $Y$ seen as a Cartier divisor on a generic embedding surface $S$. Then, we construct an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution of $Y$ on such a generic surface $S$ in Section \[Resolution\], and we use the A’Campo formula with this resolution to compute the monodromy zeta function in Section \[ZetaFunction\]. Finally, in Section \[MonConj\], we give a proof of the monodromy conjecture for this class of curves.
We end the introduction with fixing some notation used throughout this article. We let ${\mathbb N}$ be the set of non-negative integers. The greatest common divisor and lowest common multiple of a set of integers $m_1,\ldots,m_r \in \mathbb Z$ is denoted by $\gcd(m_1,\ldots, m_r)$ and $\operatorname{lcm}(m_1,\ldots,m_r)$, respectively. To shorten the notation, we will sometimes use $(m_1,\ldots, m_r)$ for the greatest common divisor. A useful relation between these two numbers for $m_1,\ldots, m_r$ a set of non-zero integers and $m$ a common multiple is $$\label{eq:rel-gcd-lcm}
\gcd\Big(\frac{m}{m_1}, \ldots, \frac{m}{m_r} \Big) = \frac{m}{\operatorname{lcm}(m_1,\ldots, m_r)}.$$ Finally, by a *complex variety*, we mean a reduced separated scheme of finite type over ${\mathbb C}$, which is not necessarily irreducible. A *curve* is a variety of dimension one, and a *surface* a variety of dimension two.
**Acknowledgement.** The authors would like to thank Hussein Mourtada for the idea of investigating the monodromy conjecture for the class of space monomial curves with a plane semigroup. The first author would also like to thank the Fulbright Program (within the José Castillejo grant by Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte) for its financial support while writing this paper and the University of Illinois at Chicago, especially Lawrence Ein, for the warm welcome and support in hosting him.
Space monomial curves with a plane semigroup {#SpaceMonomial}
============================================
We start this article with introducing the class of monomial curves we are interested in. They arise in a natural way as the special fibers of equisingular families of curves whose generic fibers are isomorphic to some plane branch. More precisely, let ${{\mathcal C}:= {\{f = 0\}} \subset ({\mathbb C}^2,0)}$ be the germ at the origin of an irreducible plane curve defined by a complex irreducible series $f \in {\mathbb C}[[x_0,x_1]]$ with $f(0)=0$. Carrying out a linear change of variables if necessary, we can assume that the curve $\{x_0=0\}$ is transversal to ${\mathcal C}$ and that the curve $\{x_1 = 0\}$ has maximal contact (among smooth curves) with ${\mathcal C}$. For $h \in {\mathbb C}[[x_0,x_1]]$, the *local intersection multiplicity* of ${\mathcal C}$ and the curve $\{h = 0\}$ is defined as $$(f,h)_0 := \dim_{\mathbb C}\frac{{\mathbb C}[[x_0,x_1]]}{(f,h)}.$$ This induces a valuation $$\nu_{\mathcal C}: \frac{{\mathbb C}[[x_0,x_1]]}{(f)} \setminus \{0\} \longrightarrow {\mathbb N}: h \mapsto (f,h)_0.$$ The image of this valuation is called the *semigroup of ${\mathcal C}$* and denoted by $\Gamma({\mathcal C})$. Because ${\mathbb N}\setminus \Gamma({\mathcal C})$ is finite, there exists a unique minimal system of generators $(\bar{\beta}_0,\ldots,\bar{\beta}_g)$ of $\Gamma({\mathcal C})$ satisfying ${\bar{\beta}}_0 < \cdots < {\bar{\beta}}_g$ and $\gcd({\bar{\beta}}_0, \ldots, {\bar{\beta}}_g) = 1$, see for instance [@Z]. Additionally, we introduce the integers $e_i:=\gcd(\bar{\beta}_0,\ldots,\bar{\beta}_i)$ for $i=0,\ldots,g$ and $n_i:=\frac{e_{i-1}}{e_i}$ for $i=1,\ldots,g.$ From the minimality of the generators $(\bar{\beta}_0,\ldots,\bar{\beta}_g)$, one can easily see that ${{\bar{\beta}}_0 = e_0 > e_1 > \cdots > e_g = 1}$ and that $n_i \geq 2$ for all $i = 1,\ldots, g$. One can also show that every $n_i\bar{\beta}_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,g$ is contained in the semigroup generated by $\bar{\beta}_0,\ldots,\bar{\beta}_{i-1}$; this follows for example from [@Az]. In other words, for each $i = 1, \ldots, g$, we can find non-negative integers $b_{ij}$ for $0 \leq j < i$ such that $$\label{eq:ni-betai}
n_i\bar{\beta}_i=b_{i0}\bar{\beta}_0+\cdots +b_{i(i-1)}\bar{\beta}_{i-1}.$$ If we require in addition that $b_{ij}<n_j$ for $j \neq 0$, then these integers are unique. For later purposes, we denote $n_0 := b_{10}$ and we list some other properties used in this article:
1. for $i = 0,\ldots, g-1$, we have that $e_i = n_{i+1}\cdots n_g$;
2. for $i = 0,\ldots, g-1$, we have that $n_j \mid {\bar{\beta}}_i$ for all $j > i$;
3. for $i = 1,\ldots, g$, we have that $\gcd(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_i}{e_i},n_i) = \gcd(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_i}{e_i},\frac{e_{i-1}}{e_i}) = 1$, and, in particular, that $\gcd(n_0,n_1) = \gcd(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_1}{e_1},n_1) = 1$; and
4. for $i = 1,\ldots, g$, we have that $n_i{\bar{\beta}}_i < {\bar{\beta}}_{i+1}$.
In terms of the generators $({\bar{\beta}}_0,\ldots, {\bar{\beta}}_g)$, the curve we will consider is defined as the image of the monomial map $M:({\mathbb C},0) \rightarrow ({\mathbb C}^{g+1},0): t \mapsto (t^{\bar{\beta}_0},t^{\bar{\beta}_1},\ldots,t^{\bar{\beta}_g})$. We denote it by $Y$ and call it the *monomial curve associated with* ${\mathcal C}$. It is an irreducible (germ of a) curve with $\Gamma({\mathcal C})$ as semigroup and which is smooth outside the origin, see [@T1] for these and other properties of $Y$.
We can construct $Y$ as a deformation of ${\mathcal C}$ as follows. First of all, we can consider a *system of approximate roots* or a *minimal generating sequence* $(x_0, \ldots, x_g)$ of the valuation $\nu_{{\mathbb C}}$, which consists of elements $x_i \in {\mathbb C}[[x_0,x_1]]$ for $i=0,\ldots,g$ such that $\nu_{{\mathbb C}}(x_i)=\bar{\beta}_i$. For $i=0,1$, this condition is equivalent to the above assumptions on $x_0$ and $x_1$, respectively. These elements satisfy equations of the form $$x_{i+1}=x_i^{n_i}-c_ix_0^{b_{i0}}\cdots x_{i-1}^{b_{i(i-1)}}- \sum_{\gamma=(\gamma_0,\ldots,\gamma_i)} c_{i,\gamma }x_0^{\gamma_0}\cdots x_i^{\gamma_i}, \qquad i = 0, \ldots, g,$$ where $x_{g+1}=0, c_i \in {\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\}, c_{i,\gamma }\in {\mathbb C},$ $0\leq \gamma_j <n_j$ for $1\leq j \leq i$, and $\sum_{j=0}^i \gamma_j\bar{\beta}_{j}>n_i\bar{\beta}_{i}.$ For more details, we refer to [@AM], [@Sp] and [@T1]. Note that these equations realize ${\mathcal C}$ as a complete intersection in $({\mathbb C}^{g+1},0)$. Even more, this complete intersection is Newton non-degenerate in the sense of [@AGS] and [@Te1]. It was proven (resp. conjectured) that such an embedding always exists in characteristic $0$ [@Te2] (resp. in positive characteristic [@T2]). We now consider the following slight modification of the above equations in the variables $x_0,\ldots, x_g$ including an extra variable $v$: $$vx_{i+1}=x_i^{n_i}-c_ix_0^{b_{i0}}\cdots x_{i-1}^{b_{i(i-1)}}- \sum_{\gamma=(\gamma_0,\ldots,\gamma_i)} c_{i,\gamma }vx_0^{\gamma_0}\cdots x_i^{\gamma_i}, \qquad i = 0, \ldots, g.$$ For varying $v$ in $({\mathbb C},0)$, these equations define a family of germs of curves in $({\mathbb C}^{g+1} \times {\mathbb C},0)$, which is *equisingular* for instance in the sense that $\Gamma({\mathcal C})$ is the semigroup of all curves in the family. We denote this family by $(\chi,0)$ and we let $\eta:(\chi,0)\rightarrow ({\mathbb C},0)$ be the restriction of the projection onto the second factor $({\mathbb C}^{g+1}\times {\mathbb C},0)\rightarrow ({\mathbb C},0)$. The generic fiber $\eta^{-1}(v)$ for $v \neq 0$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal C}$, and the special fiber $\eta^{-1}(0)$ is defined in $({\mathbb C}^{g+1},0)$ by the equations $x_i^{n_i} - c_ix_0^{b_{i0}} \cdots x_{i-1}^{b_{i(i-1)}} = 0$ for $i = 1, \ldots, g$. The coefficients $c_i$ are needed to see that any irreducible plane branch is a (equisingular) deformation of a such a curve. However, for simplicity, we will assume that every $c_i = 1$, which is always possible after a suitable change of coordinates. This leads to the monomial curve $Y$ associated with ${\mathcal C}$.
Clearly, we can also consider the global curve in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ defined by the above binomial equations; from now on, we define *a (space) monomial curve* $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ as the complete intersection curve given by $$\label{eq:equations-Y}
\left\{\begin{array}{r c l l}
f_1:= x_1^{n_1} & - & x_0^{n_0} & = 0 \\
f_2:= x_2^{n_2} &- & x_0^{b_{20}}x_1^{b_{21}} &= 0 \\
& \vdots & &\\
f_g := x_g^{n_g} &- & x_0^{b_{g0}}x_1^{b_{g1}}\cdots x_{g-1}^{b_{g(g-1)}} & = 0.\\
\end{array}\right.$$ This is still an irreducible curve which is smooth outside the origin. One can also show that the equations $f_1,\ldots, f_g$ form a regular sequence in ${\mathbb C}[x_0,\ldots, x_g]$; this can, for example, be done by showing that the map ${\mathbb C}[x_0,\ldots,x_i] \rightarrow {\mathbb C}[t^{{\bar{\beta}}_0},\ldots, t^{{\bar{\beta}}_i}]$ defined by $x_j \mapsto t^{{\bar{\beta}}_j}$ is a surjective ring homomorphism with kernel $(f_1,\ldots, f_i)$, which implies the even stronger property that every $(f_1,\ldots,f_i)$ is a prime ideal in ${\mathbb C}[x_0,\ldots,x_g]$. Finally, as such a monomial curve for $g = 1$ is just a cusp in the complex plane, of which the monodromy conjecture is well-known, we will assume that $g \geq 2$.
The monodromy conjecture for ideals {#MonodromyGeneral}
===================================
This section provides a short introduction to the monodromy conjecture for ideals, focusing on the motivic version. Let ${\mathcal I}= (f_1, \ldots, f_r)$ be a non-trivial ideal in ${\mathbb C}[x_0, \ldots, x_n]$ and let $Y := V({\mathcal I})$ be its associated subscheme in the affine space ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$. Assume that $Y$ contains the origin.
An important notion needed to introduce the monodromy conjecture for ${\mathcal I}$ is a *principalization (or log-principalization, log-resolution, monomialization) of an ideal*. If ${\mathcal I}= (f)$ is generated by a single polynomial, one can desingularize the hypersurface $Y = \{f = 0\}$ in ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ by repeatedly blowing up along well-chosen centers. This construction is called an *embedded resolution (of singularities)* of $\{f=0\}$ and always exists by Hironaka’s theorem [@Hi]. A sequence of blow-ups can also be used to transform a general ideal ${\mathcal I}= (f_1, \ldots, f_r)$ into a locally principal and monomial ideal. More formally, a *principalization* of ${\mathcal I}$ is a proper birational morphism $\varphi: \tilde{X} \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ from a smooth variety $\tilde{X}$ to ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ such that the total transform $\varphi^{\ast}{\mathcal I}$ is a locally principal and monomial ideal with support a simple normal crossings divisor, and such that the exceptional locus (or exceptional divisor) of $\sigma$ is contained in the support of $\varphi^{\ast}{\mathcal I}$. The existence of a principalization is again a result of Hironaka [@Hi].
The motivic Igusa zeta function associated with ${\mathcal I}$ can be expressed in terms of a principalization $\varphi: \tilde{X} \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ of ${\mathcal I}$ as follows. Let $E_j$ for $j \in J$ be the irreducible components (with their reduced scheme structure) of the total transform $\varphi^{-1}(Y)$. Among these, the components of the exceptional divisor are called the *exceptional varieties*; the other components are components of the *strict transform* of $Y$. Denote by $N_j$ the multiplicity of $E_j$ in the divisor on $\tilde{X}$ of $\varphi^{\ast}{\mathcal I}$, that is, the divisor of $\varphi^{\ast}{\mathcal I}$ is given by $\sum_{i \in J}N_jE_j$. Similarly, let $\nu_j-1$ be the multiplicity of $E_j$ in the divisor on $\tilde{X}$ of $\varphi^{\ast}(dx_1 \wedge \ldots \wedge dx_n)$. The numbers $(N_j,\nu_j)$ for $j \in J$ are called the *numerical data* of the principalization. For every subset $I \subset J$, we also define $E_I^\circ := (\cap_{i \in I} E_i) \backslash (\cup_{l \not \in I}E_l)$. In terms of this notation, the *local motivic Igusa zeta function* associated with the ideal ${\mathcal I}$ (or with the scheme $Y$) is given by $$Z^{mot}_{{\mathcal I}}(T) = {\mathbb L}^{-(n+1)}\sum_{I\subset J} [E^{\circ}_I \cap\varphi^{-1}(0)]\prod_{i \in I} \frac{({\mathbb L}-1){\mathbb L}^{-\nu_i}T^{N_i}}{1-{\mathbb L}^{-\nu_i}T^{ N_i}} \in \mathcal{M}_{{\mathbb C}}[[T]].$$ Here, $[E^{\circ}_I\cap\varphi^{-1}(0)]$ and ${\mathbb L}:= [{\mathbb C}]$ are the class of $E^{\circ}_I\cap\varphi^{-1}(0)$ and the affine line, respectively, in the *Grothendieck ring* of complex varieties $K_0(\text{Var}_{\mathbb C})$, and $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb C}$ is the localization of $K_0(\text{Var}_{\mathbb C})$ with respect to ${\mathbb L}$. The precise definition of the Grothendieck ring of complex varieties can be found for instance in [@MVV]. In the *global version* of the motivic zeta function, we replace $[E^{\circ}_I\cap\varphi^{-1}(0)]$ by $[E^{\circ}_I]$. From this expression, it is immediate that both the local and the global motivic zeta function are rational functions in $T$, and that all candidate poles are of the form ${\mathbb L}^{\frac{\nu_j}{N_j}}$ for some $j \in J$. In concrete examples ‘most’ of these candidate poles cancel; a phenomenon that the monodromy conjecture tries to explain.
It is worth mentioning that the above expression (for one polynomial) is not the original definition given by Denef and Loeser in [@DL2]; they introduced the motivic Igusa zeta function for a polynomial $f$ using the *jet schemes* of $\{f = 0\}$. However, in the same article, they showed the equivalence between both expressions. Similarly, one can write the motivic zeta function associated with a general ideal ${\mathcal I}$ in terms of the jet schemes of its corresponding scheme $V({\mathcal I})$. In fact, this is the definition used to compute the motivic zeta function of a space monomial curve $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ in [@MVV]. We have chosen to introduce the motivic Igusa zeta function by means of a principalization in this article because the *monodromy eigenvalues* associated with ${\mathcal I}$ can also be expressed in terms of a principalization of ${\mathcal I}$.
Before going into the details of this, we first briefly discuss the original definition of monodromy eigenvalues for a polynomial $f\in {\mathbb C}[x_0,\ldots, x_n]$ with $f(0) = 0$. Consider $f$ as a map from ${\mathbb C}^{n+1} \rightarrow {\mathbb C}$ and take a point $y \in Y = \{f=0\}$. Let $B$ be a ball in ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ with center $y$ and $D$ a disc in ${\mathbb C}$ with center $0$. Denote by $D^{\ast} := D \setminus \{0\}$ the punctured disc. For $B$ and $D$ small enough, Milnor [@Mi] proved that the restriction $f\vert_{B \cap f^{-1}(D^{\ast})}: B \cap f^{-1}(D^{\ast}) \rightarrow D^{\ast}$ is a smooth locally trivial fibration. We call this map the *(local) Milnor fibration* of $f$ at $y$ and its fiber the *(local) Milnor fiber* $F_y$ of $f$ at $y$. The lifting under the Milnor fibration of a loop in $D^{\ast}$ of the form $[0,1] \rightarrow D^{\ast}: t \mapsto \delta e^{2\pi it}$ yields a diffeomorphism $h_y: F_y \rightarrow F_y$ of the Milnor fiber, which is well-defined up to homotopy. This diffeomorphism in turn yields well-defined automorphisms of cohomology $M^k_y: H^k(F_y,{\mathbb C}) \rightarrow H^k(F_y, {\mathbb C})$ for all $k \geq 0$, called the *(local) monodromy transformations* of $f$ at $y$. An *eigenvalue of monodromy* or *monodromy eigenvalue* of $f$ (or of $Y$) is an eigenvalue of such a transformation $M^k_y$ for some $y \in Y$ and $k \geq 0$. It is well known that $H^k(F_y,{\mathbb C}) = 0$ for $k \geq n+1$ and that all monodromy eigenvalues are roots of unity. To investigate these monodromy eigenvalues, they are usually collected in the *zeta function of monodromy* or *monodromy zeta function* of $f$ at $y \in Y$ given by $$\label{eq:zeta-function-mon}
Z_{f,y}^{mon}(t) = \prod_{k=0}^{n} \det(\text{Id} - tM^k_y)^{(-1)^k},$$ where $\text{Id}: H^k(F_y, {\mathbb C})\rightarrow H^k(F_y,{\mathbb C})$ is the identity. Denef [@Den2 Lemma 4.6] proved that every eigenvalue of monodromy of $f$ is a zero or pole of the monodromy zeta function of $f$ at some point $y \in Y$.
Unfortunately, this definition does not have a (straightforward) generalization to ideals. However, for one polynomial $f$, there is a more abstract description by Deligne [@De] using the notion of the *complex of nearby cycles* on $Y = \{f=0\}$, which was the inspiration for Verdier [@Ver] to define monodromy eigenvalues for an ideal by introducing the notion of the *specialization complex*. We explain these constructions very briefly; for more details, we refer to [@Di] and [@VV]. For a scheme $Z$, we denote by $D^b_c(Z)$ the full subcategory of the derived category $D(Z)$ consisting of complexes of sheaves of ${\mathbb C}$-vector spaces with bounded and constructible cohomology, and by ${\mathbb C}^{\boldsymbol\cdot} \in D^b_c(Z)$ the complex concentrated in degree zero induced by the constant sheaf ${\mathbb C}_Z$ on $Z$. With ${\mathbb C}^{\boldsymbol\cdot} \in D^b_c({\mathbb C}^{n+1})$, one can associate the *complex of nearby cycles* $\psi_f({\mathbb C}^{\boldsymbol{\cdot}}) \in D^b_c(Y)$ having the property that, for each $k\geq 0$ and $y \in Y$, the stalk $\mathcal H^k(\psi_f{\mathbb C}^{\boldsymbol{\cdot}})_y$ of its $k$th cohomology sheaf is isomorphic to $H^k(F_y,{\mathbb C})$, the $k$th cohomology of the Milnor fiber of $f$ at $y$. Furthermore, for every $y \in Y$, there exists a monodromy transformation $\tilde{M}^k_y: \mathcal H^k(\psi_f{\mathbb C}^{\boldsymbol{\cdot}})_y \rightarrow \mathcal H^k(\psi_f{\mathbb C}^{\boldsymbol{\cdot}})_y$ that corresponds to the automorphism $M^k_y$ on $H^k(F_y,{\mathbb C})$ under this isomorphism. In other words, the monodromy eigenvalues of $f$ can be defined as the eigenvalues of these operators $\tilde{M}^k_y$. For an ideal ${\mathcal I}$, Verdier considered the *normal cone* $C_Y{\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ of $Y = V({\mathcal I})$ in ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ defined as $$C_Y{\mathbb C}^{n+1} := \text{Spec}(\oplus_{k\geq 0}{\mathcal I}^k/{\mathcal I}^{k+1}),$$ and related to ${\mathbb C}^{\boldsymbol{\cdot}} \in D^b_c({\mathbb C}^{n+1})$ the *specialization complex* $\text{Sp}_Y({\mathbb C}^{\boldsymbol{\cdot}}) \in D^b_c(C_Y{\mathbb C}^{n+1})$ with a canonical monodromy transformation $\tilde{M}^k_y: \mathcal H^k(\text{Sp}_Y({\mathbb C}^{\boldsymbol{\cdot}}))_y \rightarrow \mathcal H^k(\text{Sp}_Y({\mathbb C}^{\boldsymbol{\cdot}}))_y$ for each $y \in C_Y{\mathbb C}^{n+1}\setminus Y$. The *(Verdier) monodromy eigenvalues* of ${\mathcal I}$ (or of $Y$) are the eigenvalues of these automorphisms, and we can collect them in zeta functions of monodromy similar to . Despite the fact that the specialization complex lives on the normal cone of $Y$ instead of on $Y$ itself, where the complex of nearby cycles lives, it turns out that these two definitions for the monodromy eigenvalues in the hypersurface case are equivalent.
Let us now take a look at how we can express these monodromy eigenvalues in terms of a principalization. In [@AC], A’Campo proved a formula for the monodromy zeta function of a polynomial $f$ at a point $y \in Y = \{f = 0\}$ in terms of an embedded resolution of singularities. This formula was generalized to ideals in [@VV]. Later in this article, we will make use of an A’Campo formula in the more general context of a Cartier divisor on a normal surface. In fact, the notion of monodromy eigenvalues can be generalized in a straightforward way to any ideal sheaf ${\mathcal I}$ on a general variety $X$. Therefore, we state the formula in the following general context. Let ${\mathcal I}$ be a sheaf of ideals on a variety $X$, let $Y := V({\mathcal I})$ be the associated subscheme in $X$ and suppose that $\text{Sing}(X) \subset Y$. Consider the blow-up $\sigma: X' \rightarrow X$ of $X$ with center $Y$ and let $E'$ be its exceptional divisor, that is, the inverse image $\sigma^{-1}(Y)$ (with its non-reduced scheme structure). One can show that $E'$ is the projectivization $P(C_YX)$ of the normal cone $C_YX$ of $Y$ in $X$. Denote the corresponding projectivization map by $p:C_YX \rightarrow E' = P(C_YX)$. For a point $e\in E'$, we define the monodromy eigenvalues of ${\mathcal I}$ at $e$ as the eigenvalues of the monodromy transformations $\tilde{M}^k_y$ for some $y \in C_Y{\mathbb C}^{n+1}\setminus Y$ mapped to $e$ under $p$; this is independent of the choice of $y$. Hence, we can define the *zeta function of monodromy* of ${\mathcal I}$ at $e \in E'$ as $$Z_{{\mathcal I},e}^{mon}(t) := \prod_{k \geq 0}\det(\text{Id} - t\tilde{M}^k_y)^{(-1)^k},$$ where $y \in C_YX\setminus Y$ is an arbitrary point in $p^{-1}(e)$. Denef’s result [@Den2 Lemma 4.6] can be generalized to this situation stating that every monodromy eigenvalue associated with ${\mathcal I}$ is a zero or pole of the monodromy zeta function of ${\mathcal I}$ at some point $e \in E'$.
[@VV] \[thm:ACampo-Princ\] Let ${\mathcal I}$ be a sheaf of ideals on a variety $X$. Let $Y = V({\mathcal I})$ be the associated subscheme in $X$ and suppose that $\text{Sing}(X) \subset Y$. Consider a principalization $\varphi: \tilde X \rightarrow X$ of ${\mathcal I}$. Denote by $E_j$ for $j \in J$ the irreducible components of $\varphi^{-1}(Y)$ with numerical data $(N_j,\nu_j)$ and define $E^{\circ}_j = E_j \setminus \cup_{i \neq j}(E_i \cap E_j)$ for every $j \in J$. Let $\sigma: X' \rightarrow X$ be the blow-up of $X$ with center $Y$ and let $E' = \sigma^{-1}(Y)$ be its exceptional divisor. By the universal property of the blow-up, there exists a unique morphism $\psi: \tilde X \rightarrow X'$ such that $\sigma \circ \psi = \varphi$. For a point $e \in E'$, the zeta function of monodromy of ${\mathcal I}$ at $e$ is given by $$Z_{{\mathcal I},e}^{mon} (t)= \prod_{j \in J}(1-t^{N_j})^{\chi(E^{\circ}_j \cap \psi^{-1}(e))},$$ where $\chi$ denotes the topological Euler characteristic.
When ${\mathcal I}= (f)$ is a principal ideal, we can consider the blow-up $\sigma$ as the identity so that $\varphi = \psi$ and $$\label{eq:ACampo-poly}
Z_{{\mathcal I},y}^{mon} (t)= \prod_{j \in J}(1-t^{N_j})^{\chi(E^{\circ}_j\cap \varphi^{-1}(y))},$$ which is the classical A’Campo formula for $y \in Y = \{f=0\}$. In the next section, we will introduce another generalization of this formula in which the final ambient space $\tilde X$ of the embedded resolution $\varphi: \tilde X \rightarrow X$ of $f$ is allowed to have abelian quotient singularities. Such a resolution is called an *embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution*, and it is this formula that we will use to compute the monodromy eigenvalues associated with a space monomial curve $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ by considering it as a Cartier divisor on a generic embedding surface.
After having introduced the two invariants of an ideal that are investigated in the monodromy conjecture, we can now state this conjecture in more detail.
Let ${\mathcal I}= (f_1,\ldots, f_r)$ be an ideal in ${\mathbb C}[x_0,\ldots, x_n]$ and assume that its associated subscheme $Y = V({\mathcal I})$ in ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ contains the origin. Let $\sigma: X' \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ be the blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ with center $Y$. If ${\mathbb L}^{-s_0}$ is a pole of the local motivic Igusa zeta function associated with ${\mathcal I}$, then $e^{2\pi i s_0}$ is a zero or pole of the monodromy zeta function of ${\mathcal I}$ at a point in $\sigma^{-1}(B \cap Y)$ for $B \subset {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ a small ball around the origin.
So far, this conjecture has only been proven for ideals in two variables [@VV]. In higher dimension, there are various partial results in the hypersurface case ${\mathcal I}= (f)$ (we refer to the introduction of [@BV] for a list of references), while in the general case, the main result so far is a proof for monomial ideals [@HMY]. Very recently, Mustaţă [@Mu] showed that the monodromy conjecture for polynomials implies the one for general ideals. However, to conclude the conjecture for an ideal ${\mathcal I}= (f_1,\ldots, f_r)$ generated by $r$ polynomials in $n+1$ variables, we need the conjecture for polynomials in $r+ n+1$ variables; the monodromy conjecture for one polynomial being still open in more than two variables, this does not provide an immediate solution of the monodromy conjecture for ideals. In this article, we will show the conjecture for the space monomial curves introduced in Section \[SpaceMonomial\]; this solves it for an interesting class of binomial ideals in arbitrary dimension. Along the same lines, we will also prove the global version of the monodromy conjecture stating that every pole ${\mathbb L}^{-s_0}$ of the global motivic Igusa zeta function associated with an ideal ${\mathcal I}$ induces a monodromy eigenvalue $e^{2\pi i s_0}$ of ${\mathcal I}$ at some point in $E'$.
Monodromy zeta function formula for embedded Q-resolutions {#MonodromyWeighted}
==========================================================
As mentioned earlier in this article, we will make use of an A’Campo formula for the monodromy zeta function of a polynomial $f \in {\mathbb C}[x_0,\ldots, x_n]$ in terms of an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution of $f$. Roughly speaking, this is a resolution $\varphi: \tilde X \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ in which we allow $\tilde X$ to have abelian quotient singularities and the divisor $\varphi^{-1}(\{f=0\})$ to have normal crossings on such a variety. In this section, we briefly introduce all concepts needed to understand this formula. We refer to [@AMO1] for more details.
We start with the notion of a *$V$-manifold* of dimension $n$ which was introduced by Satake [@Sa] as a complex analytic space admitting an open covering $\{U_i\}$ in which each $U_i$ is analytically isomorphic to some quotient $B_i/G_i$ for $B_i \subset {\mathbb C}^n$ an open ball and $G_i$ a finite subgroup of $GL(n,{\mathbb C})$. We are interested in $V$-manifolds in which every $G_i$ is a finite abelian subgroup of $GL(n,{\mathbb C})$. In fact, every quotient ${\mathbb C}^n/G$ for $G \subset GL(n,{\mathbb C})$ a finite abelian group is isomorphic to a specific kind of quotient space, called *a quotient space of type $({\mathbf d};A)$* in which ${\mathbf d}$ is an $r$-tuple of positive integers and $A$ is an $(r\times n)$-matrix over the integers. More precisely, we can write $G = \mu_{d_1} \times \cdots \times \mu_{d_r}$ as a product of finite cyclic groups, where $\mu_{d_i}$ is the cyclic group of the $d_i$th roots of unity. We will denote $G$ by $\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$ where ${\mathbf d}$ is the $r$-tuple $(d_1,\ldots, d_r)$ and an element in $\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$ by ${\mathbf \xi}_{{\mathbf d}} := (\xi_{d_1},\ldots, \xi_{d_r})$. For a matrix $A = (a_{ij})_{i,j} \in \mathbb Z^{r\times n}$, we can define an action of $\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$ on ${\mathbb C}^n$ by $$\label{eq:action}
\mu_{{\mathbf d}} \times {\mathbb C}^n \longrightarrow {\mathbb C}^n:({\mathbf \xi}_{{\mathbf d}} , {\mathbf x}) \mapsto (\xi_{{\mathbf d}}^{{\mathbf a}_1}x_1,\ldots, \xi_{{\mathbf d}}^{{\mathbf a}_n}x_n) = (\xi_{d_1}^{a_{11}} \cdots \xi_{d_r}^{a_{r1}}\, x_1,\, \ldots\, , \xi_{d_1}^{a_{1n}} \cdots \xi_{d_r}^{a_{rn}}\, x_n ),$$ where ${\mathbf a}_j := (a_{1j},\ldots, a_{rj})^t$ is the $j$th column of $A$. Note that we can always consider the $i$th row $(a_{i1},\ldots, a_{in})$ of $A$ modulo $d_i$. The resulting quotient space ${\mathbb C}^n/\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$ is called the *quotient space of type $({\mathbf d};A)$* and denoted by $$X({\mathbf d}; A) := X \left( \begin{array}{c|ccc} d_1 & a_{11} & \cdots & a_{1n}\\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ d_r & a_{r1} & \cdots & a_{rn} \end{array} \right).$$ If $r = 1$, the quotient space $X(d;a_1,\ldots, a_n)$ is said to be *cyclic*. The class of an element ${\mathbf x}= (x_1,\ldots, x_n) \in {\mathbb C}^n$ under an action $({\mathbf d};A)$ will be denoted by $[{\mathbf x}]_{({\mathbf d};A)} = [(x_1,\ldots, x_n)]_{({\mathbf d};A)}$, where the subindex is omitted if there is no confusion possible. The image of each coordinate hyperplane $\{x_i = 0\}$ in ${\mathbb C}^n$ for $i = 1,\ldots, n$ under the natural projection ${\mathbb C}^n \rightarrow X({\mathbf d};A): {\mathbf x}\mapsto [{\mathbf x}]_{({\mathbf d};A)}$ will still be denoted by $\{x_i = 0\}$ and called a *coordinate hyperplane* in $X({\mathbf d};A)$. One can show that the original quotient space ${\mathbb C}^n/G$ is isomorphic to $X({\mathbf d};A)$ for some matrix $A$, and that every space $X({\mathbf d};A)$ is a normal irreducible algebraic variety of dimension $n$ with its singular locus, which is of codimension at least two, situated on the coordinate hyperplanes. Hence, a $V$-manifold with abelian quotient singularities is a normal variety which can locally be written like $X({\mathbf d};A)$.
\[ex:quotient-space\] If $n = 1$, then each quotient space $X((d_1,\ldots, d_r);(a_{11},\ldots, a_{r1})^t)$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb C}$: let $$l = \operatorname{lcm}\bigg(\frac{d_1}{\gcd(d_1,a_{11})},\ldots, \frac{d_r}{\gcd(d_r,a_{r1})}\bigg),$$ then $X((d_1,\ldots, d_r);(a_{11},\ldots, a_{r1})^t) \rightarrow {\mathbb C}:[x] \rightarrow x^l$ is an isomorphism.
Different types $({\mathbf d};A)$ can induce isomorphic quotient spaces: for example, if $k$ divides $d,a_2,\ldots, a_n$, then $X(d;a_1,\ldots, a_n)$ is isomorphic to $X(\frac{d}{k};a_1,\frac{a_2}{k},\ldots, \frac{a_n}{k})$ under the isomorphism defined by $$\label{eq:normalizing}
[(x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_n)]\longmapsto [(x_1^k,x_2,\ldots,x_n)].$$ A particularly interesting kind of types are the *normalized* types. These are types $({\mathbf d};A)$ in which the group $\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$ is small as subgroup of $GL(n,{\mathbb C})$ (i.e. it does not contain rotations around hyperplanes other than the identity) and acts freely on $({\mathbb C}^{\ast})^n$. In this case, we will also say that the quotient space $X({\mathbf d};A)$ is *written in a normalized form*. Equivalently, a space $X({\mathbf d};A)$ is written in a normalized form if and only if for all ${\mathbf x}\in {\mathbb C}^n$ with exactly $n-1$ coordinates different from $0$, the stabilizer subgroup is trivial. Note that in the cyclic case, the stabilizer subgroup of a point $(x_1, \ldots, x_n) \in {\mathbb C}^n$ with only $x_i = 0$ has order $\gcd(d,a_1,\ldots, \hat{a}_i,\ldots, a_n)$.
The space $X(d;a_1,a_2)$ is written in normalized form if and only if both $\gcd(d,a_1)$ and $\gcd(d,a_2)$ are equal to $1$. We can normalize it with the isomorphism (assuming that $\gcd(d,a_1,a_2) = 1$) $$X(d;a_1,a_2) \longrightarrow X \bigg( \frac{d}{(d,a_1)(d,a_2)}; \frac{a_1}{(d,a_1)}, \frac{a_2}{(d,a_2)}\bigg): [(x_1,x_2)] \mapsto \big[ (x_1^{(d,a_2)},x_2^{(d,a_1)}) \big],$$ which is the composition of two isomorphisms of the form .
In general, it is possible to convert any type into its normalized form. Especially in the cyclic case this is not hard, using isomorphisms such as . See [@AMO1 Lemma 1.8] for a list of some other useful isomorphisms.
An *analytic function* $f: X({\mathbf d};A) \rightarrow {\mathbb C}$ on a quotient space of some type $({\mathbf d};A)$ is a holomorphic function $f: {\mathbb C}^n \rightarrow {\mathbb C}$ compatible with the action, that is, $f({\bf\xi}_{{\mathbf d}}\cdot {\mathbf x}) = f({\mathbf x})$ for all ${\bf\xi}_{{\mathbf d}}\in \mu_{{\mathbf d}}$ and ${\mathbf x}\in {\mathbb C}^n$. To compute the local equation of the divisor defined by $f:(X({\mathbf d};A), [{\bf p}]) \rightarrow ({\mathbb C},0)$ as a germ of functions at ${\bf p} = (p_1, \ldots, p_n) \in {\mathbb C}^n \setminus \{0\}$, one would naturally use the change of coordinates $x_i \mapsto x_i + p_i$. However, this coordinate change induces an isomorphism on $X({\mathbf d};A)$ if and only if the $i$th row of $A$ is zero (modulo $d_i$) for all $i$ for which $p_i \neq 0$. Hence, we first need to find an isomorphism induced by the identity $(X({\mathbf d};A),[{\bf p}]) \simeq (X({\mathbf d}';A'),[{\bf p}])$ with $({\mathbf d}';A')$ having this property. One can show that this is satisfied by $({\mathbf d}';A')$ with $X({\mathbf d}';A') = {\mathbb C}^n/(\mu_{{\mathbf d}})_{\bf p}$, where $(\mu_{{\mathbf d}})_{\bf p}$ is the stabilizer subgroup of ${\bf p}$. In particular, if $X(d;a_1,\ldots, a_n)$ is cyclic, then the order of the stabilizer subgroup of ${\bf p}$ is $m = \gcd(d,\{a_i \mid p_i \neq 0\})$ so that $({\mathbf d}';A') = (m;a_1,\ldots,a_n)$ in which $a_i$ modulo $m$ will be zero if $p_i \neq 0$. On $X({\mathbf d}';A')$, we can apply the usual change of coordinates $x_i \mapsto x_i + p_i$ to find the local equation of $f$ at ${\bf p}$. This method will be very useful for the description of the ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution of a space monomial curve seen as a Cartier divisor on a generic embedding surface in Section \[Resolution\].
An important class of $V$-manifolds are the *weighted projective spaces*. Consider a weight vector $\omega = (p_0,\ldots, p_n)$ of positive integers. The *weighted projective space of type $\omega$*, denoted by ${\mathbb P}^n_{\omega}$, is the set of orbits $({\mathbb C}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\})/{\mathbb C}^{\ast}$ under the action $${\mathbb C}^{\ast} \times ({\mathbb C}^{n+1}\setminus \{0\}) \longrightarrow {\mathbb C}^{n+1}\setminus \{0\}: (x_0,\ldots,x_n) \mapsto (t^{p_0}x_0,\ldots, t^{p_n}x_n).$$ We denote the class of an element ${\mathbf x}= (x_0,\ldots, x_n)\in{\mathbb C}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}$ by $[{\mathbf x}]_{\omega} = [x_0:\ldots:x_n]_{\omega}$, where we again omit $\omega$ if possible. Note that for the trivial weight vector $\omega =(1,\ldots,1)$, we obtain the classical projective space ${\mathbb P}^n$. Furthermore, one can show that ${\mathbb P}^1_{\omega}$ is always isomorphic to ${\mathbb P}^1$, cf. Example \[ex:quotient-space\]. As for the classical projective space, we can define an open covering ${\mathbb P}^n_{\omega} = V_0 \cup \cdots \cup V_n,$ where $V_i := \{x_i \neq 0\}$. It is easy to see that for every $i$, the map $$X(p_i;p_0, \ldots, \hat{p}_i, \ldots, p_n) \longrightarrow V_i: (x_0, \ldots, \hat{x}_i, \ldots,x_n) \mapsto [x_0: \ldots:x_{i-1}:1:x_{i+1} \ldots:x_n]_{\omega}$$ is an isomorphism. It follows that ${\mathbb P}^n_{\omega}$ contains cyclic quotient singularities. Even more, each weighted projective space ${\mathbb P}^n_{\omega}$ is a normal irreducible projective variety of dimension $n$ whose singular locus, which is of codimension at least two, consists of quotient singularities lying on the intersection of at least two coordinate hyperplanes. For more information on weighted projective spaces, see for instance [@Dolgachev82].
Another notion we need is a *${\mathbb Q}$-normal crossings divisor*, which was first introduced by Steenbrink [@Steenbrink77]. Let $X$ be a $V$-manifold with abelian quotient singularities and $D$ a hypersurface on $X$. We say that $D$ has *${\mathbb Q}$-normal crossings* if it is locally isomorphic to the quotient of a normal crossings divisor under an action $({\mathbf d};A)$. More precisely, for every point $p \in X$, there exists an isomorphism of germs $(X,p) \simeq (X({\mathbf d};A),[0])$ such that $(D,p) \subseteq (X,p)$ is identified with a germ of the form $$(\{[{\mathbf x}] \in X({\mathbf d};A)\mid x_1^{m_1}\cdots x_k^{m_k} = 0\},[0]).$$ The *multiplicity* of a ${\mathbb Q}$-normal crossings divisor $D$ at a point $p \in D$ is defined as follows. Suppose that $p$ is contained in only one irreducible component of $D$; we will only consider this situation, see [@Ma2] for a more general definition in case $p$ is possibly contained in multiple irreducible components. In this case, the local equation of $D$ at $p$ is of the form $x_i^m: X({\mathbf d};A) \rightarrow {\mathbb C}$ for $x_i$ a local coordinate of $X$ at $p$. The *multiplicity* $m(D,p)$ of $D$ at $p$ is defined as $$\label{eq:def-mult}
m(D,p) := \frac{m}{l_i}, \qquad l_i := \operatorname{lcm}\bigg(\frac{d_1}{\gcd(d_1,a_{1i})},\ldots, \frac{d_r}{\gcd(d_r,a_{ri})}\bigg).$$ One can show that this definition is independent of the type $({\mathbf d};A)$.
We can now define an *embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution*, see for instance [@AMO2]. Let $X$ be an abelian quotient space and $Y \subseteq X$ an analytic subvariety of codimension one. An *embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution* of $(Y,0) \subseteq (X,0)$ is a proper analytic map $\varphi: \tilde{X} \rightarrow (X,0)$ such that the following properties hold:
1. $\tilde{X}$ is a $V$-manifold with abelian quotient singularities;
2. $\varphi$ is an isomorphism over $\tilde{X} \setminus \varphi^{-1}(\text{Sing}(Y))$; and
3. the total transform $\varphi^{-1}(Y)$ is a hypersurface with ${\mathbb Q}$-normal crossings on $\tilde{X}$.
As for usual embedded resolutions, we can use the construction of blowing up to compute an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution, but in this case, we use *weighted blow-ups*. Because we will only make use of weighted blow-ups at a point in this article, we restrict to explaining this kind of blow-ups.
We first briefly recall the classical blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ at the origin. We use the notation ${\mathbf x}:= (x_0,\ldots,x_n) \in {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ and $[{\bf u}] := [u_0:\ldots:u_n] \in {\mathbb P}^n$. Define $$\hat{{\mathbb C}}^{n+1}:= \big\{({\mathbf x},[{\bf u}])\in {\mathbb C}^{n+1} \times {\mathbb P}^n \mid {\bf x } \in \overline{[{\bf u}]}\big\},$$ where the condition about the closure is equivalent to $u_ix_j=u_jx_i$ for all $i,j = 0, \ldots, n$. The *blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ at $0$* is given by the projection $\pi: \hat{{\mathbb C}}^{n+1} \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$. This is a proper birational morphism inducing an isomorphism $\hat{{\mathbb C}}^{n+1} \setminus \pi^{-1}(0) \simeq {\mathbb C}^{n+1} \setminus \{0\}$. The exceptional divisor $\pi^{-1}(0)$ can be identified with ${\mathbb P}^n$, and $\hat{{\mathbb C}}^{n+1}$ can be covered by $n+1$ charts ${U_i := \{u_i \neq 0\}}$ which are isomorphic to ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ under maps of the form $${\mathbb C}^{n+1} \longrightarrow U_i: {\bf x } \mapsto \big((x_0x_i, \ldots,x_i,\ldots, x_nx_i),[x_0: \ldots:x_{i-1}:1:x_{i+1}: \ldots:x_n] \big).$$
The weighted blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ at the origin with respect to a weight vector $\omega = (p_0,\ldots,p_n)$ of positive integers is defined similarly. Let $$\hat{{\mathbb C}}_{\omega}^{n+1}:= \big\{({\mathbf x}, [{\bf u}]_{\omega})\in {\mathbb C}^{n+1} \times {\mathbb P}^{n}_{\omega} \mid {\mathbf x}\in \overline{[{\bf u}]}_{\omega}\big\},$$ then *the $\omega$-weighted blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ at $0$* is the projection $\pi: \hat{{\mathbb C}}_{\omega}^{n+1} \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$. In this case, the condition about the closure can be rewritten as $x_i=t^{p_i}u_i$ for all $i = 0, \ldots, n$ and some fixed $t \in {\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\}$. This blow-up is again a proper birational morphism and it is an isomorphism on $\hat{{\mathbb C}}_{\omega}^{n+1} \setminus \pi^{-1}(0)$. The exceptional divisor can now be identified with the weighted projective space ${\mathbb P}_{\omega}^n$, and $\hat{{\mathbb C}}_{\omega}^{n+1}$ can be covered by $n+1$ charts $U_i := \{u_i \neq 0\}$ where each $U_i$ is isomorphic to $X(p_i;p_0, \ldots,p_{i-1},-1,p_{i+1}, \ldots, p_n)$ under the morphism $$\begin{aligned}
X(p_i;p_0, \ldots,-1, \ldots, p_n) & \longrightarrow & U_0 \\
{\mathbf x}\ & \mapsto & \big( (x_0x_i^{p_0}, \ldots, x_i^{p_i},\ldots,x_nx_i^{p_n}),[x_0: \ldots:1:\ldots: x_n]_{\omega} \big).
\end{aligned}$$ These charts are compatible with the charts $V_i$ of ${\mathbb P}^n_{\omega}$ described above in the following sense: in $U_i$, the exceptional divisor is described by $x_i = 0$ and the $i$th chart of ${\mathbb P}^n_{\omega}$ is $X(p_i;p_0,\ldots, \hat{p}_i,\ldots, p_n)$.
For a general abelian quotient space $X({\mathbf d};A) = {\mathbb C}^{n+1}/\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$, the weighted blow-up at $0$ with respect to $\omega =(p_0,\ldots, p_n)$ can be obtained from the $\omega$-weighted blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ at $0$ as follows. The action of $\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$ on ${\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ extends in a natural way to an action on $\hat{{\mathbb C}}^{n+1}_{\omega}$ by $${\mathbf \xi}_{{\mathbf d}} \cdot ({\mathbf x},[{\bf u}]_{\omega}) = \big(({\mathbf \xi}_{{\mathbf d}}^{{\mathbf a}_0}\, x_0,\, \ldots\, ,{\mathbf \xi}_{{\mathbf d}}^{{\mathbf a}_n}\, x_n),\, [{\mathbf \xi}_{{\mathbf d}}^{{\mathbf a}_0}\, u_0:\, \ldots\, :{\mathbf \xi}_{{\mathbf d}}^{{\mathbf a}_n}\, u_n]_{\omega}\big).$$ The *$\omega$-weighted blow-up of $X({\mathbf d};A)$ at $0$* is defined as the projection $$\pi: \hat{X}({\mathbf d};A)_{\omega} := \hat{{\mathbb C}}^{n+1}_{\omega} / \mu_{{\mathbf d}} \longrightarrow X({\mathbf d};A):[({\mathbf x}, [{\bf u}]_{\omega})]_{({\mathbf d};A)} \mapsto [{\mathbf x}]_{({\mathbf d};A)},$$ which is once more a proper birational morphism. It induces an isomorphism on $\hat{X}({\mathbf d};A)_{\omega} \setminus \pi^{-1}(0)$, and the exceptional divisor is identified with ${\mathbb P}^n_{\omega}/{\mu_{{\mathbf d}}}$, which we will also write as ${\mathbb P}^n_w({\mathbf d};A)$. Because the action of $\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$ on $\hat{{\mathbb C}}^{n+1}_{\omega}$ respects the chart $U_i = \{u_i \neq 0\}$ of $\hat{{\mathbb C}}^{n+1}_{\omega}$, we can cover $\hat{X}({\mathbf d};A)_{\omega}$ with the $n+1$ charts $\hat{U}_i := U_i/\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$. Using the isomorphisms $U_i \simeq X(p_i;p_0, \ldots, -1,\ldots, p_n)$, one can show that each $\hat{U}_i$ is also isomorphic to an abelian quotient space. For example, under the isomorphism $U_0 \simeq X(p_0;-1,p_1, \ldots,p_n)$, the action of $\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$ on $U_0$ can be identified with the action of $\mu_{{\mathbf d}p_0}/(\mu_{p_0}\times \underset{r}{\cdots}\times \mu_{p_0})$ on $X(p_0;-1,p_1, \ldots,p_n)$ given by $$[{\bf\xi}] \cdot [{\mathbf x}]_{({\mathbf d};A)} = [({\mathbf \xi}^{{\mathbf a}_0}\,x_0,{\mathbf \xi}^{p_0{\mathbf a}_1-p_1{\mathbf a}_0}\,x_1, \ldots, \xi^{p_0{\mathbf a}_n-p_n{\mathbf a}_0}\,x_n)]_{({\mathbf d};A)}.$$ Hence, the quotient space $$\label{eq:chart-blow-up-quotient-space}
X\left(\begin{array}{c | cccc}
p_0 & -1 & p_1 & \cdots & p_n \\
{\mathbf d}p_0 & {\mathbf a}_0 & p_0{\mathbf a}_1-p_1{\mathbf a}_0 & \cdots &p_0{\mathbf a}_n-p_n{\mathbf a}_0
\end{array} \right)$$ is isomorphic to $\hat{U}_0$ under the map $$[{\mathbf x}] \longmapsto \big[\big((x_0^{p_0}, x_0^{p_1}x_1, \ldots, x_0^{p_n}x_n),[1:x_1: \ldots:x_n]_{\omega}\big)\big]_{({\mathbf d};A)}.$$ The other charts are similar. The charts of $\hat{X}({\mathbf d};A)_{\omega}$ are again compatible with those of the exceptional divisor: we can cover ${\mathbb P}^n_{\omega}/{\mu_{{\mathbf d}}} = \hat{V}_0\cup \cdots \cup \hat{V}_k$ with $\hat{V}_i := V_i/\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$ and $\hat{V}_i = \hat{U}_i\vert_{\{x_i=0\}}$. It follows, for example, that the space $$\label{eq:chart-weighted-proj-space-with-action}
X\left(\begin{array}{c | ccc} p_0 & p_1 & \cdots & p_n \\
{\mathbf d}p_0 & p_0{\mathbf a}_1-p_1{\mathbf a}_0 & \cdots &p_0{\mathbf a}_n-p_n{\mathbf a}_0 \end{array} \right)$$ is isomorphic to $\hat{V}_0$.
We are finally ready to introduce the generalization of A’Campo’s formula in terms of an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution. As in the previous section, we again work in a slightly more general situation; let $f: (X,0) \rightarrow ({\mathbb C},0)$ be a non-constant regular function on a variety $X$ and let $(Y,0)$ be the hypersurface defined by $f$. Consider an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution $\varphi: \tilde X \rightarrow X$ of $(Y,0)$ and denote by $E_0$ and $E_j$ for $j = 1,\ldots, r$ the strict transform of $Y$ and the exceptional varieties, respectively. Define $E_I^{\circ} := ( \cap_{i \in I} E_i) \setminus ( \cup_{i\notin I} E_i)$ for every $I \subset \{0,\ldots,r\}$. Let $\tilde X = \sqcup_{t\in T} Q_t$ be a finite stratification of $\tilde X$ given by its quotient singularities so that for every $I$ and $t$, there exist a fixed abelian group $G$ and positive integers $m_1,\ldots, m_l$ such that the local equation of $f \circ \varphi$ at a point $p \in E_I^{\circ} \cap Q_t$ is of the form $x_1^{m_1}\cdots x_l^{m_l}: B/G \rightarrow {\mathbb C}$ for $B$ an open ball around $p$ on which $G$ acts diagonally such as in and $x_1,\ldots, x_l$ local coordinates of $\tilde X$ at $p$. Lastly, for every $j = 1,\ldots, r$ and $t\in T$, put $E_{j,t}^{\circ} := E_j^{\circ} \cap Q_t$ and $m_{j,t} := m(E_j,p)$ for a point $p \in E_{j,t}^{\circ}$, where the multiplicity defined as in is independent of the chosen point $p$.
[@Ma1]\[thm:ACampo-QEmb\] Let $f: (X,0) \rightarrow ({\mathbb C},0)$ be a non-constant regular function on a variety $X$. Let $Y = \{f=0\}$ be its associated hypersurface in $X$ and suppose that $\text{Sing}(X) \subset Y$. Consider an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution $\varphi: \tilde X \rightarrow X$ of $(Y,0)$. Using the notation above, the zeta function of monodromy of $f$ at $0$ is given by $$Z^{mon}_{f,0}(t) = \prod_{\underset{t \in T}{1 \leq j \leq r}} \left(1-t^{m_{j,t}}\right)^{\chi(E_{j,t}^{\circ})},$$ where $\chi$ denotes the topological Euler characteristic.
In [@Ma1], this formula was proven for $f: (M,0) \rightarrow ({\mathbb C},0)$ a non-constant analytic function germ on a quotient space $M = {\mathbb C}^{n+1}/\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$; by exactly the same arguments, this result can be obtained in our setting. Furthermore, for plane curve singularities in ${\mathbb C}^2$, this theorem was proven earlier in [@Vey]. Finally, if $\varphi: \tilde X \rightarrow X$ is an embedded resolution of $f$, then we recover the classical formula of A’Campo.
Monodromy via generic embedding surfaces {#RedCurveSurface}
========================================
In this section, we will elaborate on how we can simplify the problem of computing the Verdier monodromy eigenvalues associated with a space monomial curve $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ with $g \geq 2$ by considering $Y$ as a Cartier divisor on a generic embedding surface.
We start with the construction of a generic embedding surface of $Y$ using its defining equations $f_i = 0$ for $i=1,\ldots, g$. For every set $(\lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_g) $ of $g-1$ non-zero complex numbers, we introduce an affine scheme $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ defined by $$\label{eq:equations-S}
\left\{\begin{array}{c c l l l}
f_1& + & \lambda_2f_2 & = 0 \\
f_2& + & \lambda_3f_3 &= 0 \\
& \vdots & &\\
f_{g-1} & + & \lambda_gf_g & = 0.\\
\end{array}\right.$$ The curve $Y$ is contained in every such $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ and, because all $\lambda_i$ are non-zero, can be defined by only one equation $f_i = 0$ for some $i \in \{1,\ldots, g\}$. In other words, $Y$ is a Cartier divisor in $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$. Since every $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ is given by $g$ equations in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$, the dimension of each of its irreducible components, as well as its own dimension, is at least two. The next proposition shows that for *generic* coefficients $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ (i.e. the point $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ is contained in the non-empty complement of a specific closed subset of $({\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\})^{g-1}$), the dimension of the scheme $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ is exactly two. Even more, it is a surface, and we can call it a *generic (embedding) surface* of $Y$. We also prove some extra properties which are needed later on.
\[prop:S-surface\] For generic $(\lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_g) \in ({\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\})^{g-1}$, the scheme $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ is a normal equidimensional surface which is smooth outside the origin.
We will use the following affine version of *Bertini’s theorem*, which can be found in [@J Corollaire 6.7].
*Let $X$ be a smooth equidimensional variety of dimension $m$ and let $f: X \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^n$ be a dominant morphism of ${\mathbb C}$-schemes. Then, for a generic point $\xi \in {\mathbb C}^n$, the inverse image $f^{-1}(\xi)$ is a smooth equidimensional variety of dimension $m-n$.*
Consider $X := {\mathbb C}^{g+1} \setminus \bigcup_{i=2}^g\{f_i = 0\}$ and the morphism $$f: X \longrightarrow {\mathbb C}^{g-1}: x \mapsto \left(-\frac{f_1(x)}{f_2(x)},-\frac{f_2(x)}{f_3(x)}, \ldots, -\frac{f_{g-1}(x)}{f_g(x)}\right).$$ Clearly, $X$ is a smooth irreducible variety of dimension $g+1$. To check that $f$ is dominant, it is enough to show that its image contains a dense subset of ${\mathbb C}^{g-1}$. Note that for every $\lambda = (\lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_g) \in ({\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\})^{g-1}$, the inverse image $f^{-1}(\lambda)$ is exactly the scheme $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ without the curve $Y$, which is never empty as $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ is at least two-dimensional. Hence, the image $f(X)$ contains $({\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\})^{g-1}$, and we can apply the above version of Bertini’s theorem; for generic $(\lambda_2, \ldots, \lambda_g) \in ({\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\})^{g-1}$, the scheme $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g) \setminus Y$ is a smooth equidimensional variety of dimension two. Because all irreducible components of $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ have at least dimension two, it immediately follows that $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ itself is also equidimensional of dimension two. Furthermore, using the Jacobian criterion, it is easy to check that $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ is smooth at every point $(t^{{\bar{\beta}}_0}, \ldots, t^{{\bar{\beta}}_g}) \in Y \setminus \{0\}.$ These two facts together imply that $S$ is a complete intersection in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ which is regular in codimension one (i.e. its singular locus has codimension at least two). As being regular in codimension one is equivalent to being normal for a complete intersection in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ (see e.g. [@Ha Ch. II, Prop. 8.23]), we can conclude that $S$ is indeed a normal equidimensional surface which is smooth outside the origin.
\[rmk:S-irreducible\] It is possible that a generic $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ is irreducible; we did not find an easy argument or counterexample. This will, nevertheless, not have any influence on the results in this article: as $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ is a normal equidimensional surface and smooth outside the origin, its irreducible components are pairwise disjoint surfaces, all smooth except for one component containing the curve $Y$. Hence, because we are only interested in the behavior of $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ around the curve $Y$, we can, in some sense, only consider the one component containing $Y$ and forget about the other components.
We will now explain the relation between the monodromy eigenvalues of $Y$ considered in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ and the monodromy eigenvalues of $Y$ considered in a generic surface $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$. As the results in the rest of this section are true for a larger class of ideals, we state them in the following generalized setting; this makes them possibly useful to investigate the monodromy eigenvalues associated with other ideals in this class.
Consider a complete intersection curve $Y = V({\mathcal I})$ in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ whose ideal ${\mathcal I}= (f_1, \ldots, f_g)$ is generated by a regular sequence $f_1, \ldots, f_g \in {\mathbb C}[x_0, \ldots, x_g]$, and whose singular set is $\text{Sing}(Y) = \{0\}$. Let $\varphi: \tilde{X} \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ be a principalization of ${\mathcal I}$. We can assume that $\varphi$ consists of two parts:
1. a composition of blow-ups $\varphi_1: \tilde{X}_1 \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ above $0$ to desingularize the strict transform of $Y$, and to make it have normal crossings with one exceptional variety and no intersection with all other components of $\varphi_1^{-1}(0)$, and
2. one last blow-up $\varphi_2: \tilde{X} \rightarrow \tilde{X}_1$ along the strict transform of $Y$ to change it into a locally principal divisor.
The exceptional variety coming from the last blow-up is denoted by $\tilde{E}$ and has numerical data $(1,g)$. The other irreducible components of the total transform $\varphi^{-1}(Y)$ are denoted by $E_j$ for $j \in J$, and their corresponding data by $(N_j,\nu_j)$. Note that $\tilde{E}$ is mapped surjectively onto $Y$ under $\varphi$ and that $\varphi(E_j) = 0$ for every $j \in J$.
Let $\sigma: X' \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ be the blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ with center $Y$, let $E'$ be the corresponding exceptional variety, and let $\psi: \tilde{X} \rightarrow X'$ be the unique morphism such that $\sigma \circ \psi = \varphi$. It immediately follows that $\psi$ is a surjective proper birational morphism inducing an isomorphism $\tilde{X} \setminus \varphi^{-1}(Y) \simeq X' \setminus E'$. Because of the specific construction of the principalization, the morphism $\psi$ even induces an isomorphism $\tilde{X} \setminus \cup_{j \in J} E_j \simeq X' \setminus \sigma^{-1}(0)$; indeed, because $Y \setminus \{0\}$ remains unchanged during the first series of blow-ups, both $\sigma$ and $\varphi$ restricted to $Y \setminus \{0\}$ are just the blow-up along $Y \setminus \{0\}$, and they are thus equal up to an isomorphism. Furthermore, $\tilde{E}$ is sent surjectively onto $E'$ under $\psi$, while every other exceptional variety $E_j$ is mapped onto a closed subset of $\sigma^{-1}(0)$.
With this notation, the zeta function of monodromy associated with $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ at a point $e \in \sigma^{-1}(0) \subset E'$ is given by $$\label{eq:zeta-function-mon-Y}
Z_{Y,e}^{mon} (t)= \prod_{j \in J}(1-t^{N_j})^{\chi(E^{\circ}_j \cap \psi^{-1}(e))},$$ where $E_j^{\circ} = E_j \backslash \cup_{i \neq j}(E_i \cap E_j)$ for all $j \in J$, see Theorem \[thm:ACampo-Princ\]. We will show that this zeta function for a generic point $e \in \sigma^{-1}(0)$ is equal to the zeta function of monodromy at the origin associated with the Cartier divisor $Y$ on a generic surface. In this more general context, a generic embedding surface $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ of the curve $Y = V(f_1,\ldots, f_g)$ is still defined by the equations , where $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g) \in ({\mathbb C}\setminus\{0\})^{g-1}$ are generic such that $S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ satisfies all properties mentioned in Proposition \[prop:S-surface\]. On several places in this section, we will impose extra conditions on $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$, but it will still represent a generic point of $({\mathbb C}\setminus\{0\})^{g-1}$ in the end. To shorten the notation, from now on, we will denote a generic surface by $S$.
We begin with considering the strict transform $S' := \overline{\sigma^{-1}(S \setminus Y)}$ of $S$ under $\sigma$. By the behavior of a subvariety under a blow-up, the restriction of $\sigma$ to this strict transform is the blow-up of $S$ along the Cartier divisor $Y \subset S$. Consequently, $S'$ is a surface isomorphic to $S$, and $Y' := E' \cap S'$ is a curve on $S'$ isomorphic to $Y$. This can also be deduced from the equations of the blow-up as follows. Because ${\mathcal I}$ is generated by a regular sequence, the blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ with center $Y = V({\mathcal I})$ is given by the projection $$\label{eq:equations-X'}
\sigma: X' = \text{Proj} \frac{{\mathbb C}[x_0, \ldots, x_g][X_1, \ldots, X_g]}{(f_iX_j - f_jX_i: ~i,j = 1, \ldots, g)} \longrightarrow {\mathbb C}^{g+1},$$ see for instance [@EH Section IV.2.1]. In other words, $X'$ is the closed subscheme of $\text{Proj}~ {\mathbb C}[x_0, \ldots, x_g][X_1, \ldots, X_g] \simeq {\mathbb C}^{g+1} \times {\mathbb P}^{g-1}$ defined by the equations $f_iX_j - f_jX_i$ for $i,j = 1, \ldots, g$. The exceptional variety $E'$ is locally on $X_k \neq 0$ given by the principal ideal $(f_k)$ and glues globally to $Y \times {\mathbb P}^{g-1}$. Finally, the strict transform $S'$ is $$\text{Proj}~ \frac{{\mathbb C}[x_0, \ldots, x_g][X_1, \ldots, X_g]}{(f_iX_j - f_jX_i,~ X_k + \lambda_{k+1}X_{k+1} ; ~ i,j = 1, \ldots, g, ~ k = 1, \ldots, g-1)}.$$ Since all $\lambda_i$ are non-zero, the system of equations $X_k + \lambda_{k+1}X_{k+1} = 0$ for $ k = 1, \ldots, g-1$ has a unique homogeneous solution, say $P = [p_1: \ldots : p_g] \in {\mathbb P}^{g-1}$. Note that all $p_i \neq 0$ and that $\frac{p_i}{p_{i+1}} = -\lambda_{i+1}$ for $i = 1,\ldots, g-1$. Hence, $S'$ can be rewritten as $$\text{Spec}~ \frac{{\mathbb C}[x_0,\ldots, x_g]}{(f_ip_j - f_jp_i; ~ i, j = 1,\ldots, g)} \times \{P\} \subseteq {\mathbb C}^{g+1} \times {\mathbb P}^{g-1}.$$ Using the relations between the numbers $p_i$, it is easy to see that this is the same as $S \times \{P\}$, so that $S'$ is indeed isomorphic to $S$ under $\sigma$. From this argument, it also follows that $Y' = Y \times \{P\}$ is isomorphic to $Y$.
The point $P \in {\mathbb P}^{g-1}$ is completely determined by the generic coefficients $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ and corresponds to a unique point $p := (0,P) = S' \cap \sigma^{-1}(0)$ on $S'$. We will call $p$ the *generic point* associated with the generic surface $S$. As $\text{Sing}(S) = \text{Sing}(Y) = \{0\}$, we have $\text{Sing}(S') = \text{Sing}(Y') = \{p\}$, and we can use the classical formula of A’Campo for the monodromy zeta function $Z^{mon}_{Y',p}(t)$ at $p$ of the Cartier divisor $Y'$ on the surface $S'$. We claim that this zeta function is equal to the monodromy zeta function $Z_{Y,p}^{mon} (t)$ given in at the generic point $p \in \sigma^{-1}(0) \subset E'$. As a direct consequence, the latter zeta function of monodromy is equal to the zeta function of monodromy $Z^{mon}_{Y,0}(t)$ at the origin associated with $Y \subset S$.
To compute the monodromy zeta function $Z^{mon}_{Y',p}(t)$ with A’Campo’s formula, we need an embedded resolution of $Y'$ on $S'$. To construct such a resolution, we consider the strict transform $\tilde{S} := \overline{\varphi^{-1}(S \setminus Y)}$ of $S$ under the principalization $\varphi$, and we put $\tilde{Y} := \tilde E \cap \tilde S$.
\[lemma:tildeS-surface\] For generic $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g) \in ({\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\})^{g-1}$, the strict transform $\tilde S$ of $S$ under $\varphi$ is a smooth equidimensional surface.
We first determine the local defining equations of $\tilde{S}$. After the principalization, the ideal ${\mathcal I}= (f_1, \ldots, f_g)$ is transformed into the locally principal ideal $\varphi^{\ast}{\mathcal I}= (f^*_1, \ldots, f^*_g)$ with $f_i^{\ast} = f_i \circ \varphi$ for $i =1,\ldots, g$. This means that in every point $x \in \tilde{X}$, we have local coordinates $y = (y_0,\ldots, y_g)$ such that $(f^*_1(y), \ldots, f^*_g(y)) = (h(y))$ for some generator $h(y)$. Then, on the one hand, there exist regular functions $\tilde f_1(y), \ldots, \tilde f_g(y)$ such that $f_i^*(y) = \tilde f_i(y)h(y)$ for all $i = 1, \ldots g$, and, on the other hand, there exist regular functions $h_1(y), \ldots, h_g(y)$ such that $h(y) = \sum_{i=1}^g h_i(y)f^*_i(y)$. We can deduce that $1 = \sum_{i=1}^gh_i(y)\tilde f_i(y)$, and, in particular, that $\tilde f_1(y), \ldots, \tilde f_g(y)$ do not have common zeros. In addition, it follows that $\tilde S$ is locally given by equations of the form $\tilde f_1(y) + \lambda_2\tilde f_2(y) = \cdots = \tilde f_{g-1}(y) +\lambda_g \tilde f_g(y) = 0$, where the $\tilde{f}_i(y)$ have no common zeros. Now, locally around each point $x \in \tilde S$ in the smooth irreducible ${(g+1)}$-dimensional variety $\tilde X$, we can repeat the proof of Proposition \[prop:S-surface\] to conclude that $\tilde S \setminus \{\tilde f_1(y) = \tilde f_2(y)\}\cup \cdots \cup \{\tilde f_{g-1}(y) = \tilde f_g(y)\}$ for generic $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g) \in ({\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\})^{g-1}$ is a smooth equidimensional variety of dimension two. Because the set $\{\tilde f_1(y) = \tilde f_2(y)\}\cup \cdots \cup \{\tilde f_{g-1}(y) = \tilde f_g(y)\}$ on $\tilde S$ is equal to the empty set of common zeros $\{\tilde f_1(y) = \tilde f_2(y) = \cdots = \tilde f_g(y) = 0\}$, we indeed found that $\tilde S$ is a smooth equidimensional surface for generic coefficients $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$.
\[rmk:tildeS-irreducible\] It is again not important whether $\tilde S$ for generic $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ is irreducible, cf. Remark \[rmk:S-irreducible\]. Even more, the surface $\tilde S$ is irreducible if and only if $S$ is: the irreducible components of $\tilde S$ are pairwise disjoint surfaces, and each of them is the strict transform of one of the components of $S$. In particular, there is only one component of $\tilde S$ which intersects $\psi^{-1}(Y')$.
Throughout the rest of this section, we assume that the coefficients $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ are generic in $({\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\})^{g-1}$ such that $S$ and $\tilde S$ satisfy the properties of Proposition \[prop:S-surface\] and Lemma \[lemma:tildeS-surface\], respectively. To recapitulate, we visualize all morphisms and varieties in the following diagram:
{width="\textwidth"}
We will show that, under some extra conditions on $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$, the restriction $\rho: \tilde S \rightarrow S'$ of $\psi$ to $\tilde S$ is an embedded resolution of $Y'$ on $S'$. Recall that every $E_j$ for $j \in J$ is mapped onto a closed subset of $\sigma^{-1}(0)$ under $\psi$. Let $T \subset J$ be the set of indices $j \in J$ such that $E_j$ is mapped surjectively onto $\sigma^{-1}(0)$. Note that $T \neq \emptyset$: the second last exceptional variety $E_k$ of $\varphi$, which is the only one intersecting $\tilde E$, will always be mapped surjectively onto $\sigma^{-1}(0)$ since $\tilde E$ is mapped surjectively onto $E'$ and $\tilde E \setminus (\tilde E \cap E_k) \simeq E' \setminus \sigma^{-1}(0)$. Then, every $E_j$ for $j \in J \setminus T$ is mapped onto a proper closed subset $\psi(E_j)$ of $\sigma^{-1}(0) \simeq {\mathbb P}^{g-1}$, and the set $\sigma^{-1}(0)\setminus \cup_{j \in J \setminus T} \psi(E_j)$ is non-empty. The next result tells us, among others, that for a generic surface $S$ corresponding to a generic point $p$ in the latter set, the surface $\tilde S$ is equal to $\psi^{-1}(S')$. This implies that the map $\rho: \tilde S \rightarrow S'$ is a well-defined proper surjective morphism from a smooth surface $\tilde S$ to $S'$, or thus, that $\rho$ is a good candidate for an embedded resolution of $Y'$ on $S'$.
\[lemma:generic-p\] For a generic point $p \in \sigma^{-1}(0)\setminus \cup_{j \in J \setminus T} \psi(E_j)$, we have that
1. for all $j \in T$, the inverse image $\psi_j^{-1}(p)$ of $p$ under $\psi_j: E_j \rightarrow \sigma^{-1}(0)$ is smooth and equidimensional of dimension one; and
2. the total inverse image $\psi^{-1}(p)$ of $p$ under $\psi: \tilde X \rightarrow X'$ is connected and equidimensional of dimension one.
Furthermore, for each surface $S$ corresponding to such a generic point $p$, the strict transform $\tilde S$ of $S$ under $\varphi$ is equal to $\psi^{-1}(S')$.
To prove items (1) and (2), we will again apply a kind of Bertini’s theorem; this time, we use the following projective version obtained from [@J Corollaire 6.11].
*Let $X$ be a complex scheme of finite type which is equidimensional of dimension $m$, and let $f: X \rightarrow {\mathbb P}^n$ be a dominant morphism of ${\mathbb C}$-schemes. Then, for a generic point $\xi \in {\mathbb P}^n$, the inverse image $f^{-1}(\xi)$ is equidimensional of dimension $m-n$. If $X$ is in addition smooth, then the inverse image $f^{-1}(\xi)$ for a generic point $\xi$ is also smooth.*
The statement in (1) for each $j \in T$ follows immediately from this theorem applied to the surjective morphism $\psi_j: E_j \rightarrow \sigma^{-1}(0) \simeq {\mathbb P}^{g-1}$, where $E_j$ is a smooth irreducible hypersurface in $\tilde X$ of dimension $g$. For (2), we consider the surjective morphism $\psi: \varphi^{-1}(0) \rightarrow \sigma^{-1}(0)$. As the irreducible components of $\varphi^{-1}(0)$ are the $g$-dimensional exceptional varieties $E_j$ for $j \in J$, this version of Bertini tells us that $\psi^{-1}(p)$ for a generic point $p$ is equidimensional of dimension one. To show the connectedness, we make use of *Zariski’s main theorem* stating that a proper birational morphism $f: X \rightarrow X'$ between irreducible varieties with $X'$ normal has connected fibers. From the equations of $X'$, it is easy to see that $X'$ is locally a complete intersection in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}\times {\mathbb P}^{g-1}$. In fact, the blow-up of an affine space ${\mathbb C}^n$ along any subscheme defined by a regular sequence is a local complete intersection. Because $Y \setminus \{0\}$ is smooth, we know that $X' \setminus \sigma^{-1}(0)$ is smooth. Therefore, $X'$ is a local complete intersection in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1} \times {\mathbb P}^{g-1}$ which is regular in codimension one, and we can conclude that $X'$ is normal (see e.g. [@Ha Ch. II, Prop. 8.23]). Hence, Zariski’s main theorem for the proper birational morphism $\psi: \tilde X \rightarrow X'$ assures that every fiber is connected. In particular, the fiber of a generic point $p \in \sigma^{-1}(0)\setminus \cup_{j \in J \setminus T} \psi(E_j)$ is connected, which ends the proof of (2).
Let $S$ be a generic surface corresponding to such a generic point $p$. To show that $\tilde S = \psi^{-1}(S')$, we first rewrite $\tilde S = \overline{\varphi^{-1}(S \setminus Y)}$ as follows: $$\tilde S = \overline{\psi^{-1}(S' \setminus Y')} = \overline{\psi^{-1}(S' \setminus \{p\})}.$$ The first equality immediately comes from the fact that $S'\setminus Y' = \sigma^{-1}(S \setminus Y)$ by the properties of the blow-up, together with the commutativity of the above diagram. The second equality can be seen from the next small argument. It is trivial that $\overline{\psi^{-1}(S'\setminus Y')}\subset \overline{\psi^{-1}(S' \setminus \{p\})}$. For the other inclusion, we remark that the closure of $S'\setminus Y'$ in $X' \setminus \sigma^{-1}(0)$ is equal to $S'\setminus \{p\}$. Since $\psi$ induces an isomorphism $\tilde{X} \setminus \cup_{j\in J} E_j \simeq X' \setminus \sigma^{-1}(0)$, this implies that the closure of $\psi^{-1}(S' \setminus Y')$ in $\tilde X \setminus \cup_{j\in J} E_j$ must be equal to $\psi^{-1}(S'\setminus\{p\})$, which in turn implies the reverse inclusion $\overline{\psi^{-1}(S' \setminus \{p\})} \subset \overline{\psi^{-1}(S' \setminus Y')}$. The inclusion $\tilde S \subset \psi^{-1}(S')$ follows now easily from the continuity of $\psi$: $$\tilde S = \overline{\psi^{-1}(S' \setminus Y')} \subseteq \psi^{-1}(\overline{S' \setminus Y'}) = \psi^{-1}(S').$$ Using the third description of $\tilde S$ and the fact that $\psi$ is an isomorphism above $X' \setminus \sigma^{-1}(0)$, one can see that $\tilde S \setminus \psi^{-1}(p) = \psi^{-1}(S' \setminus \{p\})$. Hence, it remains to show that $\psi^{-1}(p) \subset \tilde S$. We do this in three steps.
First, we show that $\psi^{-1}(p) \cap \tilde S \neq \emptyset$. To this end, it is enough to show that $\overline{\psi^{-1}(Y'\setminus \{p\})}$ is not equal to $\psi^{-1}(Y'\setminus \{p\})$; indeed, both sets are contained in $\tilde S$, and the complement $\overline{\psi^{-1}(Y'\setminus \{p\})} \setminus \psi^{-1}(Y'\setminus \{p\})$ is contained in $\psi^{-1}(p)$ since $\psi$ is an isomorphism outside $\varphi^{-1}(0)$ and $\sigma^{-1}(0)$. Suppose that $\overline{\psi^{-1}(Y'\setminus \{p\})} = \psi^{-1}(Y'\setminus \{p\})$, or in other words, that $\psi^{-1}(Y'\setminus \{p\})$ is closed in $\tilde X$. Then, the restriction $\psi\vert_{\psi^{-1}(Y'\setminus \{p\})}: \psi^{-1}(Y'\setminus \{p\})\rightarrow Y'$ of $\psi$ is proper so that $Y'\setminus \{p\} = \psi(\psi^{-1}(Y'\setminus \{p\}))$ is closed in $Y'$. This is a contradiction. Second, let $A$ be an irreducible component of $\psi^{-1}(p)$ such that $A \cap \tilde S \neq \emptyset$. We prove that $A$ is contained in $\tilde S$. Because $A \subset \psi^{-1}(p) \subset \cup_{j\in T} E_j$ is irreducible, there exists a component $E_j$ with $j \in T$ such that $A \subset E_j$. Then, the intersection $E_j \cap \tilde S$ is non-empty, and there exists an irreducible component $B$ of $E_j \cap \tilde S$ such that $A\cap B \neq \emptyset$. Note that both $A$ and $B$ are contained in $E_j \cap \psi^{-1}(p)= \psi_j^{-1}(p)$. We claim that they are also both irreducible components of $\psi_j^{-1}(p)$. Because $\psi_j^{-1}(p)$ is equidimensional of dimension one by (1), it is enough to show that $A$ and $B$ are one-dimensional. For $A$, this is trivial as it is an irreducible component of $\psi^{-1}(p)$. For $B$, this follows from the general intersection theory in the smooth $(g+1)$-dimensional variety $\tilde X$: the single component of $\tilde S$ that intersects $E_j$ (see Remark \[rmk:tildeS-irreducible\]) is two-dimensional and not contained in $E_j$. Hence, every irreducible component of the intersection of the surface $\tilde S$ and the hypersurface $E_j$ is one-dimensional. We thus found that $A$ and $B$ are irreducible components of $\psi_j^{-1}(p)$ that are intersecting. Because $\psi_j^{-1}(p)$ is smooth, this is only possible if $A = B$ is contained in $\tilde S$. Finally, as $\psi^{-1}(p)$ is connected, the whole of $\psi^{-1}(p)$ must be contained in $\tilde S$.
As a generic condition on the point $p \in \sigma^{-1}(0)$ translates into a generic condition on $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g) \in ({\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\})^{g-1}$, we can rephrase Lemma \[lemma:generic-p\] in terms of generic $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ and consider $S$ and its strict transforms $S'$ and $\tilde S$ corresponding to such coefficients. In the next proposition, we show that $\rho: \tilde S \rightarrow S'$ is indeed an embedded resolution of $Y'$ on $S'$. We also determine the exceptional varieties and the part of their numerical data appearing in the formula of A’Campo.
\[prop:emb-res\] For generic $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g) \in ({\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\})^{g-1}$, the restriction $\rho: \tilde S \rightarrow S'$ of $\psi$ to $\tilde S$ is an embedded resolution of $Y'$ on $S'$. The strict transform of $Y'$ is $\tilde Y$, and the exceptional varieties are the irreducible components of $E_j \cap \tilde S$ for $j \in T$. Furthermore, the pull-back of $Y'$ seen as a Cartier divisor on $S'$ is given by $$\rho^{\ast}Y' = \tilde Y + \sum_{j\in T}N_j (E_j\cap \tilde S),$$ which yields (the needed) part of the numerical data associated with this resolution.
The previous lemma already implies that $\rho: \tilde S \rightarrow S'$ is a well-defined surjective proper birational morphism from the smooth surface $\tilde S$ to $S'$. Additionally, $\rho$ induces an isomorphism $\tilde S \setminus \rho^{-1}(Y) \simeq S' \setminus Y'$: even more, because $\psi$ is an isomorphism above $X' \setminus \sigma^{-1}(0)$, its restriction $\rho$ gives an isomorphism $\tilde S \setminus \psi^{-1}(p) = \psi^{-1}(S'\setminus \{p\}) \simeq S'\setminus \{p\}$. The first equality follows from the third description of $\tilde S$ in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:generic-p\]. From that same lemma, we know that $E_j \cap \rho^{-1}(p) = E_j \cap \tilde S$ for every $j \in T$, and that $E_j \cap \rho^{-1}(p)= \emptyset$ for $j \in J \setminus T$. In other words, we have that $\rho^{-1}(p) = \cup_{j\in T}(E_j \cap \tilde S)$, or thus, the irreducible components of $E_j \cap \tilde S$ for $j \in T$ are indeed the exceptional varieties of $\rho$. To show that $\tilde Y = \tilde E \cap \tilde S$ is the strict transform $\overline{\rho^{-1}(Y' \setminus \{p\}}$ of $Y'$ under $\rho$, we first remark that $Y' \setminus \{p\} \simeq \tilde Y \setminus \rho^{-1}(p) = (\tilde E \cap \tilde S) \setminus (\tilde E \cap E_k \cap \tilde S)$, where $E_k$ denotes the second last exceptional variety of $\varphi$, which is the only one intersecting $\tilde E$. Similarly as in Lemma \[lemma:generic-p\], one can see that every irreducible component of $\tilde E \cap \tilde S$ is one-dimensional. Therefore, it suffices to show that $\tilde E \cap E_k \cap \tilde S$ only consists of a finite number of points. To this end, we recall the specific construction of the principalization $\varphi$ and let $\check{E}_k$ be the last exceptional variety of the first part $\varphi_1$, of which $E_k$ is the strict transform under the last blow-up $\varphi_2$. By the properties of the blow-up, we know that the restriction $\varphi_2\vert_{E_k}: E_k \rightarrow \check{E}_k$ is the blow-up of $\check{E}_k$ along its intersection with the strict transform of $Y$ under $\varphi_1$. As the latter intersection consists of a single point, the exceptional divisor of this blow-up is given by $\tilde E \cap E_k \simeq {\mathbb P}^{g-1}$. It follows that each fiber of the surjective morphism $\psi\vert_{\tilde E \cap E_k}: \tilde E \cap E_k \simeq {\mathbb P}^{g-1} \rightarrow \sigma^{-1}(0) \simeq {\mathbb P}^{g-1}$ is finite. In particular, we find that $\tilde E \cap E_k \cap \psi^{-1}(p) = \tilde E \cap E_k \cap \tilde S$ consists of a finite number of points. Finally, for the last claim, we consider the commutative diagram
& X’\
& S’ .
\
From the properties of the pull-back, we know that $\rho^{\ast}Y' = \rho^{\ast}(E'\vert_{S'}) = (\psi^{\ast}E')\vert_{\tilde{S}}$. Because the inverse images $\psi^{-1}(E')$ and $\varphi^{-1}(Y)$ are equal, the pull-back of the Cartier divisor $E'$ is $$\psi^{\ast}E' = \tilde{E} + \sum_{j\in J}N_jE_j.$$ Then, indeed, $$\rho^{\ast}Y' = \tilde E\vert_{\tilde S} + \sum_{j\in J}N_jE_j\vert_{\tilde S} = \tilde Y + \sum_{j\in T} N_j(E_j \cap \tilde S),$$ where we used that $E_j \cap \tilde S = E_j \cap \rho^{-1}(p) = \emptyset$ for $j \notin T$.
We are now ready to apply A’Campo’s formula for the monodromy zeta function $Z^{mon}_{Y',p}(t)$ of $Y' \subset S'$, and to show the main result of this section.
\[thm:red-to-on-curve-surface\] Consider a complete intersection curve $Y = V({\mathcal I}) \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ whose ideal ${\mathcal I}= (f_1, \ldots, f_g)$ is generated by a regular sequence $f_1, \ldots, f_g \in {\mathbb C}[x_0, \ldots, x_g]$, and whose singular set is $\text{Sing}(Y) = \{0\}$. Let $S = S(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g)$ be a generic embedding surface of $Y$ defined by the equations , where the coefficients $(\lambda_2,\ldots, \lambda_g) \in ({\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\})^{g-1}$ are generic such that all previous results hold. Denote by $\sigma: X' \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ the blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ with center $Y$ and by $S'$ the strict transform of $S$ under $\sigma$. Then, the monodromy zeta function $Z^{mon}_{Y,p}(t)$ of $Y$ considered in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ at the generic point $p = S' \cap \sigma^{-1}(0)$ is equal to the monodromy zeta function $Z^{mon}_{Y,0}(t)$ of $Y$ considered as a Cartier divisor on $S$ at the origin.
Let $E_k$ be the second last exceptional variety of the principalization $\varphi$, or thus, the only one intersecting $\tilde E$. Then, the formula of A’Campo with the embedded resolution $\rho: \tilde S \rightarrow S'$ of $Y'\subset S'$ from Proposition \[prop:emb-res\] gives $$Z^{mon}_{Y',p}(t) = \prod_{j\in T}(1-t^{N_j})^{\chi((E_j \cap \tilde S)^{\circ} \cap \rho^{-1}(p))} = \prod_{j\in T}(1-t^{N_j})^{\chi((E_j \cap \tilde S)^{\circ})},$$ where $$(E_j \cap \tilde S)^{\circ}
= \left\{\begin{array}{ll} (E_j \cap \tilde S) \setminus \cup_{i\neq j} (E_i\cap E_j \cap \tilde S)
& \text{for } j \neq k \\(E_k \cap \tilde S) \setminus (\cup_{i\neq k} (E_i\cap E_k \cap \tilde S) \cup (\tilde E \cap E_k \cap \tilde S)) & \text{for } j = k.
\end{array}\right.$$ By the choice of the generic point $p \in \sigma^{-1}(0) \setminus \cup_{j\in J \setminus T}\psi(E_j)$ satisfying $E_j \cap \psi^{-1}(p) = E_j \cap \tilde S$ for $j \in T$, it is easy to see that this is the same as the monodromy zeta function $Z^{mon}_{Y,p}(t)$ given in . Because $0 \in Y \subset S$ is isomorphic to $p \in Y' \subset S'$ under $\sigma$, the theorem follows.
In the next two sections, we will compute the monodromy zeta function $Z^{mon}_{Y,0}(t)$ of $Y$ considered as a Cartier divisor on $S$ at the origin. By Theorem \[thm:red-to-on-curve-surface\], this will lead to the monodromy zeta function $Z^{mon}_{Y,p}(t)$ of $Y$ in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ at the generic point $p$. From now on, we will call both zeta functions *the monodromy zeta function of $Y$*.
Embedded Q-resolution of a space monomial curve {#Resolution}
===============================================
The purpose of this section is to construct an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution of a space monomial curve $Y$ considered as a Cartier divisor on a generic surface $S \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ with $g\geq 2$ satisfying all results in Section \[RedCurveSurface\]. We will also describe the combinatorics of the exceptional divisor that are needed to compute the monodromy zeta function of $Y$ in Section \[ZetaFunction\].
Our method requires $g$ weighted blow-ups in higher dimension. Roughly speaking, in every step, we are able to eliminate one equation in $Y$ and $S$ and to lower the dimension of the ambient space by one. Therefore, the last step coincides with the resolution of a cusp in a Hirzebruch-Jung singularity of type $\frac{1}{d}(1,q)$. This process can be compared to the resolution of an irreducible plane curve of $g$ Puiseux pairs with toric modifications; the number of Puiseux pairs is dropped by one after each weighted blow-up so that in the last step, one simply gets an irreducible plane curve with one Puiseux pair. However, in our case, the strict transform of $Y$ after the first blow-up passes in general through the singular locus of the ambient space. This gives rise to interesting arithmetic challenges when computing the numerical data associated with the resolution, namely the multiplicity of the exceptional divisor in each step and the number of its irreducible components. We will see that the resolution graph obtained in this process is a tree, and that the exceptional varieties do not have zero genus in general, which implies that the link of the surface singularity $S$ is not a rational homology sphere.
Technical results
-----------------
We extract some results from the main construction that are interesting in their own right and discuss them in this section separately.
A first challenge in the resolution will be to investigate the irreducible components of the exceptional divisor in each weighted blow-up. We will see that in each step, the exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}$ can be described by a similar system of equations in the quotient of a weighted projective space ${\mathbb P}^r_{\omega}/\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$ that arises as the exceptional divisor of the ambient space. Except from the number of irreducible components, we are also interested in the singular points of ${\mathcal E}$, which lie on the coordinate hyperplanes $\{x_i = 0\}$ of ${\mathbb P}^r_{\omega}/\mu_{{\mathbf d}}$. Since our exceptional divisors will always have one common intersection point $A$ with the coordinate hyperplanes for $i = 2,\ldots, r$, we restrict in the following proposition to that case. In fact, the single intersection point $A = {\mathcal E}\cap \{x_i = 0\}$ for $i = 2,\ldots, r$ will be the center of the blow-up in the next step.
\[prop:number-of-comp\] Consider the quotient ${\mathbb P}^r_{(p_0, \ldots, p_r)}(d;a_0, \ldots, a_r) = {\mathbb P}^r_{(p_0, \ldots, p_r)}/\mu_{d}$ of some weighted projective space ${\mathbb P}^r_{(p_0, \ldots, p_r)}$ under an action of type $(d;a_0, \ldots, a_r)$ with $r\geq 2$. Let ${\mathcal E}$ be defined in this space by a system of equations $$\left \{ \begin{array}{clccccl}
x_0^{m_0} & + & x_1^{m_1} &+& x_2^{m_2} &=& 0 \\
& & x_2^{m_2} &+& x_3^{m_3} &=& 0 \\
& & & \vdots & & & \\
& & x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} &+& x_r^{m_r} &=& 0
\end{array}\right.$$ for positive integers $m_i$ such that $d \mid a_im_i$ for $i = 0 ,\ldots, r$ and such that each equation is weighted homogeneous with respect to the weights $(p_0, \ldots, p_r)$. Assume that the intersection of ${\mathcal E}$ with $\{x_i = 0\}$ for $i = 2,\ldots, r$ only consists of one fixed point $A$, and that $a_ip_j - a_jp_i = 0$ for all $i,j \in \{2, \ldots, r\}$. Put $P := \prod_{i=2}^r p_i$, and $Q := a_i\prod_{j=2,j\neq i}^rp_j$ for $i = 2,\ldots, r$. Then,
1. \[item:1-irred-comp\] the number of irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}$ is equal to $$\frac{m_2\cdots m_r}{\operatorname{lcm}(m_2,\ldots, m_r)};$$
2. all irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}$ have the point $A$ in common and are pairwise disjoint outside $A$; and
3. each irreducible component has$$\frac{m_1\cdot \gcd\big(dP\cdot(p_1,p_2,\ldots, p_r),(a_1P - p_1Q)\cdot(p_2,\ldots, p_r)\big)}{dP\cdot \gcd(p_2,\ldots, p_r)}$$ intersections with $\{x_0 = 0\}$, and $$\frac{m_0\cdot \gcd\big(dP\cdot(p_0,p_2,\ldots, p_r),(a_0P-p_0Q)\cdot(p_2,\ldots, p_r)\big)}{dP\cdot \gcd(p_2,\ldots, p_r)}$$ intersections with $\{x_1 = 0\}$.
Computing the numbers in (1) and (3) relies on counting the number of solutions of a system of polynomial equations in a cyclic quotient space such as in the next result.
\[lemma:number-of-solutions\] Let $X$ be a cyclic quotient space $X(d;a_0, \ldots, a_r)$ with $r \geq 0$ and let $k_i$ for $i = 0, \ldots r$ be positive integers such that $d \mid a_ik_i$ for every $i = 0, \ldots, r$. Consider the system of equations $$\left\{\begin{array}{ccl}
x_0^{k_0} & =& c_0 \\
x_1^{k_1} & =& c_1 \\
& \vdots & \\
x_r^{k_r} & =& c_r,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $c_i \in {\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\}$. If $r \geq 1$, then the number of solutions in $X$ of the form $[(x_0,b_1,\ldots, b_r)]$ with $[(b_1,\ldots, b_r)] \in X(d;a_1,\ldots, a_r)$ fixed is equal to $$\frac{k_0\cdot \gcd(d,a_0, \ldots, a_r)}{\gcd(d,a_1,\ldots, a_r)}.$$ The total number of solutions for $r \geq 0$ is equal to $$\frac{k_0\cdots k_r\cdot\gcd(d,a_0, \ldots, a_r)}{d}.$$
For $r \geq 1$, the solutions with $[(b_1, \ldots, b_r)] \in X(d;a_1,\ldots, a_r)$ fixed can be written as $[(\xi b_0,b_1,\ldots, b_r)]$ for some fixed $k_0$th root $b_0$ of $c_0$ and varying $\xi \in \mu_{k_0}$. Two elements $\xi$ and $\xi'$ in $\mu_{k_0}$ yield the same solution if and only if there exists a $d$th root $\eta \in \mu_d$ such that $\xi b_0 = \eta^{a_0}\xi'b_0$ and $b_i = \eta^{a_i} b_i$ for $i = 1,\ldots, r$, or thus, if and only if there exists an element $\eta \in \mu_d \cap \mu_{a_1} \cap \cdots \cap \mu_{a_r} = \mu_{\gcd(d,a_1,\ldots, a_r)}$ such that $\xi \xi'^{-1}= \eta^{a_0}$. It follows that the solutions of the above form are in bijection with $\mu_{k_0}/\text{Im}\varphi$ where $\varphi$ is the well-defined group homomorphism $\varphi: \mu_{\gcd(d,a_1,\ldots, a_r)} \rightarrow \mu_{k_0}: \ \eta \mapsto \eta^{a_0}.$ As $\text{Im}\,\varphi$ is isomorphic to $\mu_{\gcd(d,a_1,\ldots, a_r)}/\text{Ker}\varphi$ and $\text{Ker}\,\varphi = \mu_{\gcd(d,a_0,\ldots, a_r)}$, we obtain the right number of solutions. The total number of solutions for $r \geq 0$ can be shown by an induction argument, using the first part of the lemma in the induction step.
We start with the case where $r \geq 3$ and we determine the irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}$ by first identifying the irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}\setminus \{A\}$. To find the components of ${\mathcal E}\setminus \{A\}$, we consider the chart of ${\mathbb P}^r_{(p_0, \ldots, p_r)}(d;a_0, \ldots, a_r)$ where $x_2 \neq 0$: $$\left \{ \begin{array}{clccccl}
x_0^{m_0} & + & x_1^{m_1} &+& 1 &=& 0 \\
& & 1 &+& x_3^{m_3} &=& 0 \\
& & & \vdots & & & \\
& & x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} &+& x_r^{m_r} &=& 0
\end{array}\right. \subset X
\left( \begin{array}{c|cccccc} p_2 & p_0 & p_1 & p_3 & \cdots & p_r \\
dp_2 & A_0 & A_1 & 0 & \cdots & 0
\end{array} \right),$$ with $A_0 = a_0p_2 - a_2p_0$ and $A_1 = a_1p_2 - a_2p_1$, see . For a fixed solution $b = [(b_3,\ldots, b_r)]$ in $X(p_2;p_3,\ldots, p_r)$ of the last $r-2$ equations, we denote by ${\mathcal E}_b$ the set $\{[(x_0,x_1,b_3,\ldots, b_r) ] \mid x_0^{m_0} + x_1^{m_1} + 1 = 0\}$. By the second part of Lemma \[lemma:number-of-solutions\], the number of such solutions $b \in X(p_2;p_3,\ldots, p_r)$ is given by $$\label{eq:number-of-comp}
\frac{m_3\cdots m_r\cdot \gcd(p_2, \ldots, p_r)}{p_2}.$$ It is not hard to see that every ${\mathcal E}_b$ is irreducible and that all these sets are pairwise disjoint. In other words, the irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}\setminus \{A\}$ are the ${\mathcal E}_b$ for $b \in X(p_2;p_3,\ldots, p_r)$ a fixed solution of $1 + x_3^{m_3} = \cdots = x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} + x_r^{m_r} = 0$. One can also show that $A$ is contained in each closure $\overline{{\mathcal E}}_b$ in ${\mathbb P}^r_{(p_0, \ldots, p_r)}(d;a_0, \ldots, a_r)$, or thus, that all $\overline{{\mathcal E}}_b = {\mathcal E}_b \cup \{A\}$ are the irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}$. Hence, the number of components of ${\mathcal E}$ is given by , which can be rewritten as the expression in the proposition by using the relation . Furthermore, all $\overline{{\mathcal E}}_b$ contain the point $A$ and are pairwise disjoint outside $A$, proving (2). To show the last part of the proposition, we still work on the chart where $x_2 \neq 0$: the point $A$ is not contained in the intersection ${\mathcal E}\cap \{x_i = 0\}$ for $i = 0,1$. We thus need to compute the number of intersections of each component ${\mathcal E}_b = \{[(x_0,x_1,b_3,\ldots, b_r) ] \mid x_0^{m_0} + x_1^{m_1} + 1 = 0\}$ with $\{x_0 = 0\}$ and $\{x_1 = 0\}$. For the first intersection, this reduces to counting the number of points in $X \left(\begin{smallmatrix} p_2 \\ dp_2\end{smallmatrix} \middle| \begin{smallmatrix} p_1 & p_3 & \cdots & p_r \\ A_1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ of the form $[(x_1,b_3,\ldots, b_r)]$ with $x_1^{m_1} + 1= 0$ and $[(b_3,\ldots, b_r)]$ a fixed solution of $1 + x_3^{m_3} = \cdots = x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} + x_r^{m_r} = 0$ in $X(p_2;p_3,\ldots, p_r)$. This can be further simplified with the isomorphism, see Example \[ex:quotient-space\], $$\label{eq:isom-to-one-line}
X\left(\begin{array}{c|cccc}
p_2 & p_1 & p_3 & \ldots & p_r \\
dp_2 & A_1 & 0 & \ldots & 0
\end{array} \right)
\simeq X \left(p_2; \frac{dp_1p_2}{\gcd(dp_2,A_1)}, p_3, \ldots, p_r\right)$$ defined by $[(x_1,x_3,\ldots, x_r)] \mapsto [(x_1^{\frac{dp_2}{\gcd(dp_2,A_1)}},x_3,\ldots, x_r)]$ to counting the number of points in $X\big(p_2; \frac{dp_1p_2}{\gcd(dp_2,A_1)}, p_3, \ldots, p_r\big)$ of the form $[(x_1,b_3,\ldots, b_r)]$ with $x_1^{\frac{m_1\gcd(dp_2,A_1)}{dp_2}} + 1 = 0$ and $[(b_3,\ldots, b_r)]$ a fixed solution of $1 + x_3^{m_3} = \cdots = x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} + x_r^{m_r} = 0$ in $X(p_2;p_3,\ldots, p_r)$. By the first part of Lemma \[lemma:number-of-solutions\], this number is given by $$\label{eq:intersections-x0}
\frac{m_1\cdot \gcd\big(dp_2\cdot(p_1,p_2,\ldots, p_r),(a_1p_2 - a_2p_1)\cdot(p_2,\ldots, p_r)\big)}{dp_2\cdot \gcd(p_2,\ldots, p_r)},$$ which is equal to the expression in the proposition. Analogously, one can show that the number of intersections of each component with $\{x_1 = 0\}$ is given by $$\label{eq:intersections-x1}
\frac{m_0\cdot \gcd\big(dp_2\cdot(p_0,p_2,\ldots, p_r),(a_0p_2 - a_2p_0)\cdot(p_2,\ldots, p_r)\big)} {dp_2\cdot \gcd(p_2,\ldots, p_r)}.$$ If $r = 2$, then ${\mathcal E}\subset {\mathbb P}^r_{(p_0,p_1,p_2)}(d;a_0,a_1,a_2)$ given by the single equation $x_0^{m_0} + x_1^{m_1} + x_2^{m_2} = 0$ is irreducible, showing items (1) and (2). The number of intersections with $\{x_0 = 0\}$ and $\{x_1 = 0\}$ can be shown similarly as in the case where $r \geq 3$.
\[rmk:symm-formula\] The expressions in Proposition \[prop:number-of-comp\] are computed by looking locally on the chart where $x_2 \neq 0$, but they could also be obtained by looking on one of the other charts $x_i \neq 0$ for $i = 3,\ldots, g$. This is the reason why we rewrote the formulas , and of the proof into the formulas of the statement; this way, it is clear that they are independent of the choice of chart. In practice, however, we will often use the local expressions of the proof as they are slightly easier to work with.
Another challenge will be to understand the combinatorics of each exceptional divisor with the other exceptional divisors. When blowing up at the intersection point $A = {\mathcal E}_{k-1} \cap \{x_i = 0\}$ for $i \geq 2$ in the $k$th step, the components of ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$ will be separated, and the intersections with the new exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_k$ will be *equally distributed* as explained in the next proposition, in which $\mathcal D$ plays the role of the strict transform of ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$. Furthermore, the new center of the blow-up will not be contained in any of the components of ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$, which implies that every exceptional divisor only intersects the divisor of the previous and the next blow-up, and that the combinatorics of these intersections stay unchanged throughout the rest of the resolution. In particular, this shows that the dual graph of the resolution is a tree. It is also worth mentioning that the first part of the next proposition is a generalization of the resolution of a cusp $x^p+y^q$ in ${\mathbb C}^2$ with $\gcd(p,q)$ not necessarily equal to $1$; such a cusp consists of $\gcd(p,q)$ irreducible components going through the origin and pairwise disjoint elsewhere, and after the $(q,p)$-weighted blow-up at the origin, all the components are separated, see for instance [@Ma1 Example 3.3].
\[prop:intersection-with-previous-divisor\] We work in the same situation as Proposition \[prop:number-of-comp\] with the stronger condition that $a_ip_j - a_jp_i = 0$ for all $i,j \in \{1,\ldots, r\}$. Consider ${\mathbb P}^r_{(p_0, \ldots, p_r)}(d;a_0, \ldots, a_r)$ as the exceptional divisor of the weighted blow-up $\pi: \hat{X}(d;a_0,\ldots, a_r)_{\omega} \rightarrow X(d;a_0,\ldots, a_r)$ of $X(d;a_0,\ldots, a_r)$ at the origin with weights $\omega = (p_0,\ldots, p_r)$ and let $\mathcal D$ be the strict transform under this blow-up of $D$ in $X(d;a_0,\ldots, a_r)$ defined by $$\label{eq:equations-D}
\left \{ \begin{array}{ccccl}
& & x_0^{m_0} &=& 0 \\
x_1^{m_1} &+& x_2^{m_2} &=& 0 \\
& \vdots & & & \\
x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} &+& x_r^{m_r} &=& 0.
\end{array}\right.$$ Then,
1. the total number of irreducible components of $\mathcal D$ is $$\frac{m_1\cdots m_r}{\operatorname{lcm}(m_1,\ldots, m_r)},$$ and they are all pairwise disjoint,
2. each component of $\mathcal D$ is intersected by precisely one component of ${\mathcal E}$ and this intersection consists of a single point, and
3. each component of ${\mathcal E}$ intersects the same number, $$\frac{m_1\operatorname{lcm}(m_2,\ldots, m_r)}{\operatorname{lcm}(m_1,\ldots, m_r)},$$ of components of $\mathcal D$, which is precisely the number of components of $\mathcal D$ divided by the number of components of ${\mathcal E}$.
We will say that the intersections of $\mathcal D$ and ${\mathcal E}$ are equally distributed.
\[rmk:intersections-with-previous-divisor\] In item (3), one can rewrite $$\frac{m_1\operatorname{lcm}(m_2,\ldots, m_r)}{\operatorname{lcm}(m_1,\ldots, m_r)} = \frac{m_1\gcd(p_1,\ldots, p_r)}{\gcd(p_2,\ldots, p_r)}.$$ This is consistent with Proposition \[prop:number-of-comp\], item (3), with $a_1P - p_1Q = 0$ as $a_1p_i - a_ip_1 = 0$ for all $i \in \{1,\ldots, r\}$: the intersection of ${\mathcal E}$ with $\mathcal D$ corresponds to the intersection of ${\mathcal E}$ with $\{x_0 = 0\}$.
We start with considering for a moment the subspace of ${\mathbb C}^{r+1}$ defined by the equations and we prove that the number of irreducible components of this subspace is $$\frac{m_1\cdots m_r}{\operatorname{lcm}(m_1,\ldots, m_r)}.$$ This provides an upper bound on the number of irreducible components of $D$, and hence, of $\mathcal D$. First of all, we can reduce to the subspace of ${\mathbb C}^r$ given by the last $r-1$ equations and we work by induction on $r \geq 2$. For $r = 2$, we have to consider $\{x_1^{m_1} + x_2^{m_2} = 0\}$ in ${\mathbb C}^2$. Let $q = \gcd(m_1,m_2)$ and denote by $\xi_i$ for $i = 1,\ldots,q$ the $q$th roots of $-1$. We can rewrite $$x_1^{m_1} + x_2^{m_2} = \prod_{i=1}^q\big(x_2^{\frac{m_2}{q}} - \xi_ix_1^{\frac{m_1}{q}}\big),$$ where each factor $x_2^{\frac{m_2}{q}} - \xi_ix_1^{\frac{m_1}{q}}$ is an irreducible polynomial in ${\mathbb C}[x_1,x_2]$. In other words, the irreducible components are given by $\{x_2^{\frac{m_2}{q}} - \xi_ix_1^{\frac{m_1}{q}} = 0\}$, and there are $$q = \gcd(m_1,m_2) = \frac{m_1m_2}{\operatorname{lcm}(m_1,m_2)}$$ components in total. In the induction step, assuming that the statement holds for $r-1$, one can again decompose the first equation as above and reduce the problem to showing that each of the subspaces given by one factor of the first equation together with the last $r-2$ equations from has $$\frac{m_1\ldots m_r}{q\operatorname{lcm}(m_1,\ldots, m_r)}$$ irreducible components. In each of these problems, the first equation can be parametrized with a parameter $t \in {\mathbb C}$ to further reduce the problem to investigating the components of $$\left \{ \begin{array}{ccccl}
t^{\frac{m_1m_2}{q}}&+&x_3^{m_3}&=&0\\
x_3^{m_3} &+& x_4^{m_4} &=& 0 \\
& \vdots & & & \\
x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} &+& x_r^{m_r} &=& 0
\end{array}\right.$$ in ${\mathbb C}^{r-1}$. By the induction hypothesis, we can conclude. To show that the upper bound is attained for $\mathcal D$, we take a look at the third chart of $\hat{X}(d;a_0,\ldots, a_r)_{\omega} $ where the exceptional divisor is given by $\{x_2 = 0\}$; one could also obtain this by looking at one of the other charts, except for the first one, where the strict transform of $\mathcal D$ is not visible. The third chart is given by $$X\left( \begin{array}{c|ccccccc}
p_2 & p_0 & p_1 & -1 & p_3 & \cdots & p_r \\
dp_2 & A_0 & 0 & a_2 & 0 & \cdots & 0
\end{array}\right),$$ with $A_0 = a_0p_2 - a_2p_0$, via $$(x_0,\ldots, x_r) \longmapsto [((x_0x_2^{p_0},x_1x_2^{p_1},x_2^{p_2},x_2^{p_3}x_3,\ldots, x_2^{p_r}x_r),[x_0:x_1:1:x_3:\ldots:x_r]_{\omega})],$$ see . By pulling back the equations of $D$ along this map, we find the following equations of $\mathcal D$ in this chart: $$\left \{ \begin{array}{ccccl}
& & x_0^{m_0} &=& 0 \\
x_1^{m_1} &+& 1 &=& 0 \\
& \vdots & & & \\
x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} &+& x_r^{m_r} &=& 0.
\end{array}\right.$$ From these equations, it is not hard to see that the irreducible components of $\mathcal D$ in this chart are all pairwise disjoint and given by $\mathcal D_{b'} = \{[(0,b'_1,x_2,b'_3,\ldots,b'_r)] \mid x_2 \in {\mathbb C}\}$ for $b' = [(b'_1,b'_3,\ldots,b'_r)] \in X(p_2;p_1,p_3,\ldots, p_r)$ a fixed solution of $x_1^{m_1} + 1 = \cdots = x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} + x_r^{m_r} = 0$. By the second part of Lemma \[lemma:number-of-solutions\], their total number is $$\frac{m_1m_3\cdots m_r\gcd(p_1,\ldots, p_r)}{p_2} = \frac{m_1\cdots m_r}{\operatorname{lcm}(m_1,\ldots, m_r)}.$$ It follows that the total number of irreducible components of $\mathcal D$ is given by the same number and that all irreducible components of $\mathcal D$ are visible in this chart. Furthermore, by symmetry between the charts, we can conclude that all components are pairwise disjoint. This shows (1). To prove the other two statements, we first suppose that $r \geq 3$ and we keep on working in the third chart; the irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}$ are obtained from those of ${\mathcal E}\setminus \{A\}$ by adding the point $A$. As we saw in the proof of Proposition \[prop:number-of-comp\], all irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}\setminus \{A\}$ are given by ${\mathcal E}_b = \{[(x_0,x_1,0,b_3,\ldots, b_r))] \mid x_0^{m_0} + x_1^{m_1} + 1 = 0\}$ for $b = [(b_3,\ldots, b_r)]$ a fixed solution in $X(p_2;p_3,\ldots, p_r)$ of $1+x_3^{m_3} = \cdots = x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} + x_r^{m_r} = 0$, they are pairwise disjoint, and their total number is $$\frac{m_2\ldots m_r}{\operatorname{lcm}(m_2,\ldots, m_r)}.$$ Assume now that a component $\mathcal D_{b'}$ of $\mathcal D$ in this chart intersects a component ${\mathcal E}_b$ of ${\mathcal E}\setminus \{A\}$. Then, there exist $b_0,b_1,b_2' \in {\mathbb C}$ with $b_0^{m_0} + b_1^{m_1} + 1 = 0$ such that $[(0,b_1',\ldots, b_r')] = [(b_0,b_1,0,b_3,\ldots, b_r)]$ is a point in the intersection. This immediately implies that $b_0 = b_2' = 0$ and that $[(b_1',b'_3,\ldots, b'_r)] = [(b_1,b_3,\ldots, b_r)]$ in $X(p_2;p_1,p_3,\ldots, p_r)$. Hence, the component $\mathcal D_{b'}$ only intersects the component of ${\mathcal E}\setminus \{A\}$ corresponding to $[(b'_3,\ldots, b'_r)]$, and the intersection consists of the single point $[(0,b'_1,0,b'_3,\ldots, b'_r)]$. It remains to show that each component of ${\mathcal E}$ has non-empty intersection with precisely $$\frac{m_1\operatorname{lcm}(m_2,\ldots, m_r)}{\operatorname{lcm}(m_1,\ldots, m_r)}$$ components of $\mathcal D$. Along the same lines, we see that a component ${\mathcal E}_b$ of ${\mathcal E}\setminus \{A\}$ intersects every component $\mathcal D_{b'}$ of $\mathcal D$ in the third chart with $[(b_3',\ldots, b_r')] = [(b_3,\ldots, b_r)]$ in $X(p_2;p_3,\ldots, p_r)$. Hence, we need to count the number of solutions in $X(p_2;p_1,p_3,\ldots, p_r)$ of $$\left \{\begin{array}{ccccl}
x_1^{m_1} &+& 1 &=& 0 \\
& \vdots & & & \\
x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} &+& x_r^{m_r} &=& 0
\end{array}\right.$$ with $[(b_3',\ldots, b_r')]$ fixed. The first part of Lemma \[lemma:number-of-solutions\] gives the right number, see also Remark \[rmk:intersections-with-previous-divisor\]. If $r = 2$, then ${\mathcal E}$ is irreducible and intersects every component of $\mathcal D$ in a single point; this can again be shown by considering the third chart.
One last result that we discuss before going into the construction of the resolution is needed to control the power of some variables when pulling back the equations of the curve $Y$. Let $n := n_0 \cdots n_g$ and define the numbers $b_{i}^{(k)}$ for $i,k \in \{ 0,\ldots,g\}$ with $i>k$ recursively as follows: $$\label{eq:def-b_i^{(k)}}
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle b_i^{(0)} := b_{i0} \frac{n}{n_0} & \quad \text{for } i>0, \\
\displaystyle b_i^{(k)} := b_i^{(k-1)} + \Big( \frac{b_{ik}}{n_k} + \cdots + \frac{b_{i(i-1)}}{n_{i-1}} - 1 \Big) b_k^{(k-1)} & \quad \text{for }i > k \geq 1.
\end{cases}$$ Note that $b_1^{(0)} = n$. For each $k \in \{1,\ldots, g\}$, the number $b_{i}^{(k)}$ for $i>k$ will be related to the $i$th variable $x_i$ in the $k$th step of the resolution. The following result expresses these numbers in terms of the generators $(\bar{\beta}_0,\ldots, {\bar{\beta}}_g)$ of the semigroup introduced in Section \[SpaceMonomial\]. As a consequence, we show that they are all greater than $1$.
\[lemma:pos-powers\] Let $i,k \in \{1, \ldots, g\}$ with $i > k$. Then, $$b_{i}^{(k)} = (n_i{\bar{\beta}}_i - n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) - \frac{b_{i(i-1)}}{n_{i-1}}(n_{i-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{i-1} - n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) - \cdots - \frac{b_{i(k+1)}}{n_{k+1}}(n_{k+1}{\bar{\beta}}_{k+1} - n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k),$$ and, in particular, $b_{k+1}^{(k)} = n_{k+1} \bar{\beta}_{k+1} - n_k \bar{\beta}_k$. Furthermore, $b_i^{(k)} > 1$, or equivalently, $$\label{eq:inequality-b}
b_k^{(k-1)} + 1 < b_i^{(k-1)} + b_{ik} \frac{b_k^{(k-1)}}{n_k} + \cdots + b_{i(i-1)} \frac{b_k^{(k-1)}}{n_{i-1}}.$$
Let us first consider $k=1$. Note that $\bar{\beta}_0 = \frac{n}{n_0}$ and $\bar{\beta}_1 = \frac{n}{n_1}$. Using equation , the term $b_i^{(1)}$ for $i > 1$ can indeed be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
b_{i}^{(1)} & = b_{i0} {\bar{\beta}}_0 + b_{i1} {\bar{\beta}}_1 + \Big(\frac{b_{i2}}{n_2} + \cdots + \frac{b_{i(i-1)}}{n_{i-1}} - 1\Big)n \\
& = n_i{\bar{\beta}}_i - b_{i2}{\bar{\beta}}_2 - \cdots - b_{i(i-1)}{\bar{\beta}}_{i-1} + \Big(\frac{b_{i2}}{n_2} + \cdots + \frac{b_{i(i-1)}}{n_{i-1}} - 1\Big)n_1{\bar{\beta}}_1 \\
& = (n_i{\bar{\beta}}_i - n_1{\bar{\beta}}_1) - \frac{b_{i(i-1)}}{n_{i-1}}(n_{i-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{i-1} - n_1{\bar{\beta}}_1) - \cdots - \frac{b_{i2}}{n_2}(n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2 - n_1{\bar{\beta}}_1).
\end{aligned}$$ We now assume that the formula of the statement is true for $k-1$ and we will prove it for $k$. By induction, we know that $b_k^{(k-1)} = n_k \bar{\beta}_k - n_{k-1} \bar{\beta}_{k-1} $ and that $b_i^{(k-1)}$ for $i > k - 1$ can be written as $$b_i^{(k-1)} = n_i \bar{\beta}_i - b_{ik} \bar{\beta}_k - \cdots - b_{i(i-1)} \bar{\beta}_{i-1} + \Big( \frac{b_{ik}}{n_k} + \cdots + \frac{b_{i(i-1)}}{n_{i-1}} - 1 \Big) n_{k-1} \bar{\beta}_{k-1}.$$ Hence, by definition, we have for $i > k$ that $$\begin{aligned}
b_i^{(k)} &= b_i^{(k-1)} + \Big( \frac{b_{ik}}{n_k} + \cdots + \frac{b_{i(i-1)}}{n_{i-1}} - 1 \Big) b_k^{(k-1)} \\
&= n_i \bar{\beta}_i - b_{ik} \bar{\beta}_k - \cdots - b_{i(i-1)} \bar{\beta}_{i-1} + \Big( \frac{b_{ik}}{n_k} + \cdots + \frac{b_{i(i-1)}}{n_{i-1}} - 1 \Big) n_k \bar{\beta}_k.
\end{aligned}$$ After regrouping, we obtain the required formula. For the second part of the lemma, as $b_{ij} < n_j$ whenever $i>j\neq 0$, see Section \[SpaceMonomial\], it is enough to show that $$(n_i{\bar{\beta}}_i- n_k {\bar{\beta}}_k) - (n_{i-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{i-1}-n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) - \cdots - (n_{k+1}{\bar{\beta}}_{k+1}-n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) > 1.$$ Let us proceed by induction on $i > k$. For $i = k+1$, one indeed has $n_{k+1} \bar{\beta}_{k+1} - n_k \bar{\beta}_k > 1,$ since ${\bar{\beta}}_{k+1} > n_{k}{\bar{\beta}}_{k}$ and $n_{k+1} \geq 2$. Suppose now that it is true for $i-1$ with $i>k+1$. The conditions $\bar{\beta}_i > n_{i-1} \bar{\beta}_{i-1}$ and $n_i \geq 2$ imply that $n_i{\bar{\beta}}_i - n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k > n_i(n_{i-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{i-1} - n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k).$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&(n_i{\bar{\beta}}_i- n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) - (n_{i-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{i-1}-n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) - \cdots - (n_{k+1}{\bar{\beta}}_{k+1}-n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) \\
&>(n_i-1)(n_{i-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{i-1} - n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) - (n_{i-2}{\bar{\beta}}_{i-2} - n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) - \cdots - (n_{k+1}{\bar{\beta}}_{k+1}-n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) \\
&\geq (n_{i-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{i-1} - n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) - (n_{i-2}{\bar{\beta}}_{i-2} - n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k) - \cdots - (n_{k+1}{\bar{\beta}}_{k+1}-n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k)\\
&> 1,
\end{aligned}$$ where the second inequality again follows from $n_i \geq 2$ and the last one from the induction hypothesis.
We are now ready to start with the first step in the resolution of $Y \subset S$, focusing on the information needed to compute the zeta function of monodromy. The idea is to consider the blow-up $\pi_1$ at the origin of ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ with some weights and study its restriction to $S$ that we call $\varphi_1 := \pi_1|_{\hat{S}}: \hat{S} \to S$, with $\hat{S}$ the strict transform of $S$. After this blow-up, we will be able to eliminate one variable so that we attain the same situation as in the beginning, but in one dimension less and where the ambient space contains quotient singularities. In the second step, we will again consider a weighted blow-up of the ambient space and its restriction $\varphi_2$ to $\hat{S}$. As mentioned in the beginning of this section, we will need $g$ such steps. Denote by ${\mathcal E}_k$ for $k=1,\ldots,g$ the exceptional divisor of $\varphi_k$ appearing at the $k$th step; we will also denote their strict transforms throughout the process by ${\mathcal E}_k$. To keep track of the necessary combinatorics of these divisors, we introduce $H_i$ for $i = 0,\ldots, g$ as the divisor in $S$ defined by $\{ x_i = 0 \} \cap S$. We will see in the process of resolving the singularity that (the strict transform of) $H_k$ is separated from the strict transform $\hat{Y}$ of $Y$ precisely at the $k$th step and that it intersects the $k$th exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_k$ transversely. Therefore, it is interesting to study how the $H_i$’s behave in the process of resolving $Y \subset S$, although they are not part of our curve. We again keep on denoting them by $H_i$.
Step 1: weighted blow-up pi1 at 0inCg+1 with weights 1
------------------------------------------------------
Let $\pi_1: \hat{{\mathbb C}}^{g+1}_{\omega_1} \to {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ be the weighted blow-up at the origin with respect to $\omega_1 := \big(\frac{n}{n_0}, \ldots, \frac{n}{n_g}\big)$, where $n = n_0n_1\cdots n_g$. For a better exposition, we split the section into several parts.
. Let us first discuss the global picture. Recall that the equations of $Y$ and $S$ are given by and , respectively, and that the exceptional divisor $E_1$ of $\pi_1$ is identified with ${\mathbb P}^g_{\omega_1}$. The exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_1 = E_1 \cap \hat{S}$ of $\varphi_1 = \pi_1|_{\hat{S}}:\hat{S} \rightarrow S$ is in the coordinates of ${\mathbb P}^g_{\omega_1}$ given by the $\omega_1$-homogeneous part of $S$. By the inequality in Lemma \[lemma:pos-powers\] for $k=1$ and $i = 2, \ldots, g$, we have $$n < n + 1 < b_{i0}\frac{n}{n_0} + b_{i1} \frac{n}{n_1} + \cdots + b_{i(i-1)}\frac{n}{n_{i-1}}, \qquad i = 2, \ldots, g,$$ so that ${\mathcal E}_1 \subset {\mathbb P}^g_{\omega_1}$ is defined by $$\label{eq:E1-homog}
\left \{ \begin{array}{clccccl}
x_1^{n_1} & - & x_0^{n_0} &+& \lambda_2x_2^{n_2} &=& 0 \\
& & x_2^{n_2} &+& \lambda_3x_3^{n_3} &=& 0 \\
& & & \vdots & & & \\
& & x_{g-1}^{n_{g-1}} &+& \lambda_g x_g^{n_g} &=& 0.
\end{array}\right.$$
After a change of variables, we can assume that all coefficients in these equations are equal to $1$ so that they satisfy the conditions of Proposition \[prop:number-of-comp\] with $d = 1$ and $a_i = 0$ for $i = 0,\ldots, g$; for instance, the intersection ${\mathcal E}_1 \cap \{x_i = 0\} = {\mathcal E}_1 \cap H_i$ for $i = 2,\ldots, g$ is the point $P_1 := [1:1:0:\ldots:0]$. According to this proposition, the number of irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}_1$ is $$\label{eq:irred-e1}
\frac{n_2\cdots n_g}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_2, \ldots n_g)} = \frac{e_1}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_2, \ldots n_g)}.$$ If $g=2$, then this number is equal to $1$ and ${\mathcal E}_1$ is irreducible. All the irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}_1$ have the point $P_1$ in common and are pairwise disjoint outside $P_1$. Combining and from Proposition \[prop:number-of-comp\], the intersection ${\mathcal E}_1 \cap H_0$, which is ${\mathcal E}_1 \cap \{ x_0=0 \}$ in these coordinates, contains $$\label{eq:points-E1-H0}
\frac{n_1n_3\cdots n_g\gcd(\frac{n}{n_1},\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g})}{\frac{n}{n_2}}
= \gcd\Big(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_0}{n_1},\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_0}{n_2},\ldots, \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_0}{n_g}\Big)
= \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_0}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_1,n_2, \ldots, n_g)}$$ points, where $n = n_0{\bar{\beta}}_0$ and the relation was used in the first and second equality, respectively. Analogously, from and , the intersection ${\mathcal E}_1 \cap H_1$ is formed by $$\label{eq:points-E1-H1}
\frac{n_0n_3\cdots n_g\gcd(\frac{n}{n_0},\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g})}{\frac{n}{n_2}}
= \gcd\Big(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_1}{n_0},\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_1}{n_2},\ldots, \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_1}{n_g}\Big)
= \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_1}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_0,n_2, \ldots, n_g)}$$ points. The fact that each irreducible component of ${\mathcal E}_1$ has the same number of intersections with $H_0$ (resp. $H_1$) is compatible with the fact that the integer in divides the one in (resp. ). The intersection ${\mathcal E}_1 \cap \hat{Y}$ of ${\mathcal E}_1$ with the strict transform of $Y$ is defined by the $\omega_1$-homogeneous part of $Y$: $x_1^{n_1} - x_0^{n_0} = x_2 = \ldots = x_g = 0$. This is simply the point $P_1$. The global situation in the strict transform $\hat{S}$ for $g \geq 3$ is illustrated in Figure \[fig:first-step\]. For simplicity, the components of ${\mathcal E}_1$ are represented by lines, but there are in general neither smooth nor rational curves. If $g = 2$, we can make the same picture with ${\mathcal E}_1$ irreducible.
![The first step in the resolution of $Y \subset S$ for $g \geq 3$.[]{data-label="fig:first-step"}](./first-step)
In order to study the singular locus of $\hat{S}$, we use local coordinates. Note that the surface $\hat{S}$ is smooth outside ${\mathcal E}_1$: the complement $\hat{S} \setminus {\mathcal E}_1$ is isomorphic to $S \setminus \{0\}$ and $(S,0)$ is an isolated singularity. To study the situation on ${\mathcal E}_1$, we just need to have a look at the first two charts $U_0$ and $U_1$ of $\hat{{\mathbb C}}^{g+1}_{\omega_1}$ because ${\mathcal E}_1 \cap H_0 \cap H_1 = \emptyset$. In fact, the local study of $\hat{S}$ around points of ${\mathcal E}_1$ can be understood using the first chart, except for the finite number of points in the intersection ${\mathcal E}_1 \cap H_0$. For the latter points, the second chart is employed.
. Let us compute the equations of $\hat{S}$ and $\hat{Y}$ in the first chart $U_0$ of $\hat{{\mathbb C}}^{g+1}_{\omega_1}$. They are obtained via $$(x_0, \ldots, x_g) \ \longmapsto \ (x_0^{\frac{n}{n_0}}, x_0^{\frac{n}{n_1}} x_1, \ldots, x_0^{\frac{n}{n_g}} x_g),$$ and the new ambient space is $U_0 = X(\frac{n}{n_0};-1,\frac{n}{n_1}, \ldots, \frac{n}{n_g})$, see Section \[MonodromyWeighted\]. The total transform $\varphi_1^{-1}(Y)$ is defined by $x_0^n \hat{f}_1 = \dots = x_0^n \hat{f}_g = 0$, where $$\left\{ \begin{array}{l c l l}
\hat{f}_1 & := & x_1^{n_1} - 1 \\
\hat{f}_2 & := & x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_{2}^{(1)}} x_1^{b_{21}}\\
& \vdots & & \\
\hat{f}_g & := & x_g^{n_g} - x_0^{b_{g}^{(1)}} x_1^{b_{g1}} \cdots x_{g-1}^{b_{g(g-1)}}
\end{array}\right.$$ define the strict transform $\hat{Y}$ and $x_0^n: \hat{S} \to {\mathbb C}$ is the exceptional part. Here, $b_i^{(1)} = b_{i0}\frac{n}{n_0} + (\frac{b_{i1}}{n_1} + \cdots +\frac{b_{i(i-1)}}{n_{i-1}} - 1)n > 1$ for $i=2,\ldots,g$, see Lemma \[lemma:pos-powers\]. The strict transform $\hat{S}$ is given by $\hat{f}_1 + \lambda_2 \hat{f}_2 = \cdots = \hat{f}_{g-1} +\lambda_g \hat{f}_g = 0$, and $H_i$ for $i = 1,\ldots, g$ by $\{x_i = 0\} \cap \hat{S}$. Note that $H_0$ is not visible in this chart. On ${\mathcal E}_1 \setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^g H_i$, the ambient space $U_0$ is smooth and one can use the standard Jacobian criterion to show that $\hat{S}$ is also smooth on this set: the Jacobian matrix of $\hat{S}$ is a $(g-1)\times(g+1)$-matrix containing a lower triangular $(g-1)\times(g-1)$-matrix with diagonal $(\lambda_2 n_2 x_2^{n_2-1},\ldots,\lambda_g n_g x_g^{n_g-1})$ and thus, with a non-zero determinant in points of ${\mathcal E}_1 \setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^g H_i$. To compute the multiplicity of the exceptional divisor, we take a look at the equations around a generic point $Q = [(0,a_1,\ldots,a_g)] \in {\mathcal E}_1 \setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^g H_i$, where $a_i \in {\mathbb C}^{*}$. The order of the stabilizer subgroup of $Q$ is $\gcd(\frac{n}{n_0},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g})$, and hence, as germs, $$\bigg(X\Big(\frac{n}{n_0};-1,\frac{n}{n_1},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g}\Big),Q\bigg) \simeq \bigg(X\Big(\gcd\Big(\frac{n}{n_0},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g}\Big);-1,0,\ldots, 0\Big),Q\bigg) \simeq ({\mathbb C}^{g+1},0),$$ see Section \[MonodromyWeighted\]. The function $x_0^n: U_0 \to {\mathbb C}$ is converted under the previous isomorphism into $x_0^{N_1}: {\mathbb C}^{g+1} \to {\mathbb C}$, where $$N_1 = \frac{n}{\gcd(\frac{n}{n_0},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g})} = \operatorname{lcm}(n_0, \ldots, n_g)$$ is the multiplicity defined in of ${\mathcal E}_1$. Here, we used once again the relation .
. Let $Q_1 = [(0,0,a_2,\ldots,a_g)]$ be a point in ${\mathcal E}_1 \cap H_1$ considered on the first chart, where $a_i \in {\mathbb C}^{\ast}$ are chosen such that $-1 + \lambda_2 a_2^{n_2} = a_2^{n_2} + \lambda_3 a_3^{n_3} = \ldots = a_{g-1}^{n_{g-1}} + \lambda_g a_g^{n_g} = 0$. The order of the stabilizer subgroup of $Q_1$ is $\gcd(\frac{n}{n_0},\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots,\frac{n}{n_g})$, and $U_0$ around $Q_1$ becomes $X(\gcd(\frac{n}{n_0},\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots,\frac{n}{n_g}); -1,\frac{n}{n_1},0,\ldots,0)$. To have a chart centered at the origin, we can change the coordinates $x_i \mapsto x_i + a_i$ for $i=2,\ldots,g$. In these new coordinates, $\hat{S}$ is described in $X(\gcd(\frac{n}{n_0},\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots,\frac{n}{n_g}); -1,\frac{n}{n_1},0,\ldots,0)$ by equations of the form $$\left\{\begin{array}{l c l c}
y_2 &:= & u_2(x_2) x_2 - h_2(x_0,x_1) &= 0 \\
y_3 &:= & u_3(x_3) x_3 - h_3(x_0,x_1,x_2) &= 0 \\
& \vdots & & \\
y_g &:= & u_g(x_g) x_g - h_g(x_0,\ldots,x_g) &= 0,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $u_i(x_i) \in {\mathbb C}\{ x_i \}$ are units, and $h_i$ are polynomials in the indicated variables. By making the change of coordinates $y_0=x_0$, $y_1=x_1$, $y_i = u_i x_i - h_i$ for $i=2,\ldots,g$, we finally obtain the following situation in $[(x_0,x_1)]$ : $$\label{eq:points-Q1}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
& \hat{S} = X \bigg( \gcd\Big(\frac{n}{n_0},\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots,\frac{n}{n_g}\Big);-1,\frac{n}{n_1} \bigg) \\
& {\mathcal E}_1: \ x_0^n = 0, \qquad H_1: \ x_1 = 0.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ In particular, the total transform $\varphi_1^{-1} (Y)$ has ${\mathbb Q}$-normal crossings on $\hat{S}$ at each of these points, and we no longer need to blow them up.
. As mentioned before, to study these points, we need to consider the second chart $U_1 = X(\frac{n}{n_1};\frac{n}{n_0}, -1, \frac{n}{n_2}, \ldots, \frac{n}{n_g})$ via $$(x_0, \ldots, x_g) \longmapsto (x_0x_1^{\frac{n}{n_0}}, x_1^{\frac{n}{n_1}}, x_1^{\frac{n}{n_2}}x_2, \ldots, x_1^{\frac{n}{n_g}} x_g).$$ Choose a point $Q_0 \in {\mathcal E}_1 \cap H_0$, which is the form $[(0,0,a_2,\ldots,a_g)]$ for $a_i \in {\mathbb C}^{\ast}$ satisfying a set of equations similar as $Q_1 \in {\mathcal E}_1 \cap H_1$. Since its stabilizer subgroup has order $\gcd(\frac{n}{n_1},\ldots,\frac{n}{n_g})$, one obtains by repeating the same arguments as in the following local situation around $Q_0$ in $[(x_0,x_1)]$: $$\label{eq:points-Q0}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
& \hat{S} = X \bigg( \gcd\Big(\frac{n}{n_1},\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots,\frac{n}{n_g}\Big);\frac{n}{n_0},-1 \bigg) \\
& {\mathcal E}_1: \ x_1^n = 0, \qquad H_0: \ x_0 = 0.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ The total transform of $Y$ is again a ${\mathbb Q}$-normal crossings divisor around such points.
. In the first chart, $P_1 = [(0,1,0, \ldots, 0)]$ and the order of its stabilizer subgroup is $\gcd(\frac{n}{n_0},\frac{n}{n_1}) = e_1$. Hence, as germs, $$\bigg(X\Big(\frac{n}{n_0};-1,\frac{n}{n_1},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g}\Big),P_1\bigg) \simeq \bigg(X\Big(e_1; -1,0,\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g}\Big),P_1 \bigg).$$ We use the change of variables $x_1 \mapsto x_1 + 1$ and $x_i \mapsto x_i$ for $i=0, 2, \ldots, g$ to get a chart centered at the origin in which $\hat{S}$ is given by $$\label{eq:Shat-at-P1}
\hat{f}_i(x_0,x_1+1, x_2, \ldots, x_i) + \lambda_{i+1} \hat{f}_{i+1}(x_0,x_1+1, x_2, \ldots, x_{i+1}) = 0,
\quad i = 1, \ldots, g-1.$$ Consider the first equation as a function $F: {\mathbb C}^2 \times {\mathbb C}\rightarrow {\mathbb C}:((x_0,x_2),x_1) \mapsto (x_1 + 1)^{n_1} - 1 + \lambda_2(x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_2^{(1)}}(x_1+1)^{b_{21}})$. Since $\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_1}(0) = n_1 \neq 0$, the Implicit Function Theorem tells us that there exists some $h \in {\mathbb C}\{x_0,x_2\}$ such that the set of zeros of $F$ in ${\mathbb C}^3$ can be described as $\{(x_0,x_1,x_2)\in {\mathbb C}^3 \mid x_1 = h(x_0,x_2)\}$. In particular, $$(h(x_0,x_2) + 1)^{n_1} - 1 + \lambda_2(x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_2^{(1)}}(h(x_0,x_2) + 1)^{b_{21}}) = 0.$$ Because the action on $x_1$ is trivial and $x_1=h(x_0,x_2)$ provides a set of zeros in the quotient space, we know that $h(x_0,x_2)$ is invariant under the group action of type $(e_1; -1,\frac{n}{n_2})$. The above equation can be rewritten as $$\label{eq:hx0x2}
h(x_0,x_2)= u(x_0,x_2)(x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_2^{(1)}})$$ with $u(x_0,x_2)\in {\mathbb C}\{x_0,x_2\}$ a unit. For a better understanding of the whole process, we distinguish two cases: $g=2$ and $g \geq 3$.
If $g = 2$, then $\hat{S}$ is locally around $P_1 = [(0,\ldots,0)]$ defined by $x_1 = h(x_0,x_2)$. The projection $pr:\big(X(n_2; -1,0,\frac{n}{n_2}),0\big) \rightarrow \big(X(n_2; -1,\frac{n}{n_2}),0\big)=[(x_0,x_1,x_2))] \mapsto [(x_0,x_2)]$ induces locally an isomorphism of $\hat{S}$ onto $X(n_2; -1,\frac{n}{n_2})$. The total transform $\varphi_1^{-1}(Y)$ is given by $$\label{eq:step1-g2}
x_0^n(x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_2^{(1)}}) = 0,$$ where $x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_2^{(1)}} = 0$ defines the strict transform $\hat{Y}$ and $x_0^n = 0$ the exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_1$. This shows in particular that ${\mathcal E}_1$ is irreducible as was already stated in . The divisor $H_2$ is still $\{x_2 = 0\}$ in $\hat{S}$.
If $g \geq 3$, then one can rewrite the equations using so that $\hat{S}$ is locally around $P_1 = [(0,\ldots,0)]$ defined by the equations $x_1 = h(x_0,x_2)$ and $$\hat{f}_i(x_0,1, x_2, \ldots, x_i) + \lambda_{i+1} \hat{f}_{i+1}(x_0,1, x_2, \ldots, x_{i+1}) + (x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_2^{(1)}})R_i^{(1)}(x_0,x_2,\ldots, x_i) = 0,$$ for $i = 2, \ldots, g-1$, where every $R_i^{(1)}(x_0,x_2,\ldots, x_i) \in {\mathbb C}\{x_0,x_2,\ldots, x_i\}$ is compatible with the action (i.e., it defines a zero set in the quotient) and satisfies $R_i^{(1)}(0,x_2,\ldots, x_i) = 0$. The projection $$\begin{aligned}
pr: \bigg(X\Big(e_1; -1,0,\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g}\Big),0\bigg)
& \longrightarrow \bigg(X\Big(e_1; -1,\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots,\frac{n}{n_g}\Big),0\bigg): \\
[(x_0,x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_g)] & \ \mapsto \ [(x_0,x_2, \ldots, x_g)].
\end{aligned}$$ induces an isomorphism of $\hat{S}$ onto the subvariety of $X(e_1; -1,\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots \frac{n}{n_g})$ defined by $$\label{eq:Shat-ggeq3}
\left\{\begin{array}{lcl}
x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_2^{(1)}} + \lambda_3 (x_3^{n_3} - x_0^{b_3^{(1)}} x_2^{b_{32}}) + (x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_2^{(1)}})R^{(1)}_2(x_0,x_2) &=& 0 \\
x_3^{n_3} - x_0^{b_3^{(1)}} x_2^{b_{32}} + \lambda_4 ( x_4^{n_4} - x_0^{b_4^{(1)}} x_2^{b_{42}} x_3^{b_{43}} ) + (x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_2^{(1)}}) R^{(1)}_3(x_0,x_2,x_3) &=& 0 \\
& \vdots & \\
x_{g-1}^{n_{g-1}} - x_0^{b_{g-1}^{(1)}} x_2^{b_{(g-1)2}} \cdots x_{g-2}^{b_{(g-1)(g-2)}} + \lambda_g(x_g^{n_g} - x_0^{b_g^{(1)}} x_2^{b_{g2}} \cdots x_{g-1}^{b_{g(g-1)}}) \\
\hspace{170pt} + (x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_2^{(1)}}) R^{(1)}_{g-1}(x_0,x_2,\ldots, x_{g-1}) &=& 0.
\end{array}\right.$$ The total transform of $Y$ is given by $$\label{eq:Yhat-ggeq3}
\left\{\begin{array}{lcl}
x_0^n(x_2^{n_2} - x_0^{b_2^{(1)}}) & = & 0 \\
x_0^n(x_3^{n_3} - x_0^{b_3^{(1)}}x_2^{b_{32}}) & = & 0 \\
& \vdots & \\
x_0^n(x_g^{n_g} - x_0^{b_g^{(1)}}x_2^{b_{g2}} \cdots x_{g-1}^{b_{g(g-1)}}) & = & 0,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $x_0^n = 0$ corresponds to the exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_1$, and $H_i = \{x_i = 0\} \cap \hat{S}$ for $i = 2,\ldots, g$.
In both cases, we can conclude that $\varphi_1$ is an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution of $Y \subset S$ except at the point $P_1$. In the second step, we will blow up at this point. If $g=2$, the curve $\hat{Y}$ is a cusp inside a cyclic quotient singularity, and we will finish right after this blow-up. If $g \geq 3$, we see in and that we were able to remove $x_1$, and that we obtained a situation very similar to the one we have started with, but with one equation in $\hat{S}$ and $\hat{Y}$ less, see and . However, the second step is essentially different and more challenging than the first one because the ambient space of $\hat{S}$ contains singularities.
Step 2: weighted blow-up pi2 at P1 with weights w2
--------------------------------------------------
We keep the distinction between $g = 2$ and $g \geq 3$.
If $g = 2$, then we consider the weighted blow-up $\pi_2 = \varphi_2$ of $\hat{S} = X(n_2;-1,\frac{n}{n_2})$, on which $\varphi_1^{-1}(Y)$ is given by , at $P_1 = [(0,0)]$ with respect to the weights $\omega_2 := (1,\frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_2})$. Note that $b_2^{(1)} = n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2-n_1{\bar{\beta}}_1$ is divisible by $n_2 = e_1$. This produces an irreducible exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_2 = {\mathbb P}^{1}_{\omega_2}(n_2; -1, \frac{n}{n_2}) \simeq {\mathbb P}^1$ with multiplicity $N_2 = n + b_2^{(1)} = n_2 \bar\beta_2$. The new strict transform $\hat{Y}$ is smooth and intersects ${\mathcal E}_2$ transversely at a smooth point of $\hat{S}$. The intersection ${\mathcal E}_2 \cap H_2$ is just one point and the equation of the total transform of $Y$ around this point is $x_0^{n_2 \bar\beta_2} : X(n_2;-1,\bar\beta_2) \to {\mathbb C}$. Finally, ${\mathcal E}_2$ intersects ${\mathcal E}_1$ at a single point, and around this point we have the function $$x_0^n x_2^{n_2 \bar\beta_2} : X \left(\begin{array}{c|cc}
\frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2 - n_1{\bar{\beta}}_1}{n_2} & 1 & -1 \\
n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2 - n_1{\bar{\beta}}_1 & -{\bar{\beta}}_2 & \frac{n}{n_2}
\end{array} \right) \longrightarrow {\mathbb C}.$$ The composition $\varphi := \varphi_1 \circ \varphi_2: \hat{S} \to S$ defines an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution of $Y$. The final situation is illustrated in Figure \[fig:second-step-g2\]; the numbers in brackets are the orders of the underlying small groups at the intersection points ${\mathcal E}_1 \cap H_i$ for $i = 0,1$ and ${\mathcal E}_2 \cap H_2$, see Remark \[rmk:order-small-groups-g=2\].
![Embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution of $Y \subset S$ for $g=2$.[]{data-label="fig:second-step-g2"}](./second-step-g2)
Assume $g \geq 3$ from now on. Consider the equations and of $\hat{S}$ and $\hat{Y}$, respectively, around $P_1 = [(0,\ldots,0)]$ in $X(e_1; -1,\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g})$. Let $\pi_2$ be the blow-up of $X(e_1; -1,\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g})$ at $P_1$ with respect to the weight vector $\omega_2 := ( 1, \frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_2} \ldots, \frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_g}).$ Note that $b_2^{(1)} = n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2 - n_1{\bar{\beta}}_1$ is divisible by $e_1 = n_2e_2 = n_2 \cdots n_g$, see Section \[SpaceMonomial\]. Denote by $E_2 \simeq {\mathbb P}^{g-1}_{\omega_2}\big(e_1; -1, \frac{n}{n_2}, \ldots, \frac{n}{n_g}\big)$ the exceptional divisor of $\pi_2$ and let $\varphi_2 := \pi_2|_{\hat{S}}: \hat{S} \to \hat{S}$ be the restriction map with exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_2 = E_2 \cap \hat{S}$. Here, we denote the strict transform of $\hat{S}$ again by $\hat{S}$. As in the first step, we start with the global situation.
. Because $R_i^{(1)}(x_0,x_2,\ldots, x_i)$ for $i = 2,\ldots, g-1$ is not a unit and $$b_2^{(1)} < b_2^{(1)} + 1 < b_i^{(1)} + b_{i2} \frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_2} + \cdots + b_{i(i-1)} \frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_{i-1}}, \qquad i=3,\ldots,g,$$ by from Lemma \[lemma:pos-powers\], the exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_2$ is in ${\mathbb P}^{g-1}_{\omega_2}\big(e_1; -1, \frac{n}{n_2}, \ldots, \frac{n}{n_g}\big)$ given by $$\left \{ \begin{array}{clccccl}
x_2^{n_2} & - & x_0^{b_2^{(1)}} &+& \lambda_3x_3^{n_3} &=& 0 \\
& & x_3^{n_3} &+& \lambda_4x_4^{n_4} &=& 0 \\
& & & \vdots & & & \\
& & x_{g-1}^{n_{g-1}} &+& \lambda_g x_g^{n_g} &=& 0.
\end{array}\right.$$ As these equations satisfy, modulo the coefficients, the conditions of Proposition \[prop:number-of-comp\], we know that ${\mathcal E}_2$ has $$\frac{n_3\cdots n_g}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_3, \ldots n_g)} = \frac{e_2}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_3, \ldots n_g)}$$ irreducible components. Note that if $g=3$, then ${\mathcal E}_2$ is irreducible. The intersection ${\mathcal E}_2 \cap H_i$ for $i = 3,\ldots, g$ consists of the single point $P_2 := [1:1:0:\ldots:0]$, which is contained in all components of ${\mathcal E}_2$, while they are pairwise disjoint outside $P_2$. By equations and with $a_1p_2 - a_2p_1 = 0$, the intersection ${\mathcal E}_2 \cap {\mathcal E}_1$, which corresponds to ${\mathcal E}_2 \cap \{ x_0=0 \}$, consists of $$\frac{n_2 n_4 \cdots n_g \gcd\big(\frac{b^{(1)}_2}{n_2}, \ldots, \frac{b^{(1)}_2}{n_g}\big)}{\frac{b^{(1)}_2}{n_3}} = \gcd\Big(\frac{e_1}{n_2},\ldots, \frac{e_1}{n_g} \Big) = \frac{e_1}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_2, \ldots n_g)}.$$ points. Note that this is precisely the number of irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}_1$, see . Using and , one can compute that there are $$\begin{aligned}
& \frac{b^{(1)}_2 n_4 \cdots n_g \gcd \Big( e_1 \frac{b^{(1)}_2}{n_3},\frac{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2}{n_3} \gcd\big(\frac{b^{(1)}_2}{n_3},\ldots,\frac{b^{(1)}_2}{n_g}\big)\Big)}{e_1 \frac{b^{(1)}_2}{n_3} \frac{b^{(1)}_2}{n_3}} \\
& = \gcd \Big( e_2,\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_3}, \ldots, \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_g} \Big) = \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_2}{\operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_2}{e_2},n_3,\ldots, n_g)}
\end{aligned}$$ points in the intersection ${\mathcal E}_2 \cap H_2$. The first equality is a consequence of the fact that $\frac{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2}{n_3} \gcd\big(\frac{b^{(1)}_2}{n_3},\ldots,\frac{b^{(1)}_2}{n_g}\big) = \frac{n_2b^{(1)}_2}{n_3} \gcd\big(\frac{\bar{\beta}_2}{n_3},\ldots,\frac{\bar{\beta}_2}{n_g}\big)$ as $n_3,\ldots, n_g$ divide ${\bar{\beta}}_2$. To understand the combinatorics of ${\mathcal E}_2$ with ${\mathcal E}_1$, we can make use of Proposition \[prop:intersection-with-previous-divisor\]; the components of ${\mathcal E}_1$ are separated, each of them is intersected by precisely one component of ${\mathcal E}_2$, each intersection consists of only one point, and each component of ${\mathcal E}_2$ intersects $$\frac{n_2\operatorname{lcm}(n_3,\ldots, n_g)}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_2,\ldots, n_g)}$$ components of ${\mathcal E}_1$, which is precisely the quotient of the number of components of ${\mathcal E}_1$ and ${\mathcal E}_2$. Finally, the strict transform $\hat{Y}$ of $Y$ intersects ${\mathcal E}_2$ only in the point $P_2$. Figure \[fig:second-step\] shows the global situation in $\hat{S}$ so far (for $g \geq 4$). The divisors are again visualized in a simplified way, and the intersection ${\mathcal E}_1 \cap {\mathcal E}_2$ is represented by white circles to emphasize the difference with the other points.
![The second step in the resolution of $Y \subset S$ for $g \geq 4$.[]{data-label="fig:second-step"}](./second-step)
As in the first step, we make use of local coordinates to investigate the behavior around the singular points of $\hat{S}$. Note that $\hat{S}$ is smooth outside ${\mathcal E}_1 \cup {\mathcal E}_2$, and that it is again enough to consider the first two charts of the blow-up to understand the whole situation in ${\mathcal E}_2$.
. The first chart is $$U_0 = X\left(\!
\begin{array}{c|cccc}
1 & -1 & \frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_2} & \ldots & \frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_g} \\
e_1 & -1 & \frac{n + b_2^{(1)}}{n_2} & \ldots & \frac{n + b_2^{(1)}}{n_g}
\end{array}\!\right)
= X \Big(e_1; -1, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_2}, \ldots, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_g} \Big),$$ and we can compute the local equations of $\hat{S}$ and $\hat{Y}$ by pulling back and via $$(x_0, x_2,\ldots, x_g) \longmapsto (x_0, x_0^{\frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_2}} x_2, \ldots, x_0^{\frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_g}} x_g).$$ The total transform $\varphi_2^{-1} (\varphi_1^{-1} (Y))$ is given by $x_0^{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2} \hat{f}_2 = \cdots = x_0^{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2} \hat{f}_g = 0$, where $$\left\{\begin{array}{l c l l}
\hat{f}_2 & := & x_2^{n_2} - 1 \\
\hat{f}_3 & := & x_3^{n_3} - x_0^{b_{3}^{(2)}} x_2^{b_{32}}\\
& \vdots & & \\
\hat{f}_g & := & x_g^{n_g} - x_0^{b_{g}^{(2)}} x_2^{b_{g2}} \cdots x_{g-1}^{b_{g(g-1)}}
\end{array}\right.$$ correspond to the strict transform $\hat{Y}$ and $x_0^{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2}: \hat{S} \to {\mathbb C}$ to the exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_2$, see and Lemma \[lemma:pos-powers\] for the definition and behavior of $b_i^{(2)} > 1$ for $i = 3, \ldots, g$. Here, we use again $\hat{f}_i$ to avoid complicating the notation. The strict transform $\hat{S}$ is defined by $$\hat{f}_i + \lambda_{i+1} \hat{f}_{i+1} + \hat{f}_2 R^{(1)}_i (x_0,x_0^{\frac{b^{(1)}_2}{n_2}}x_2,\ldots,x_0^{\frac{b^{(1)}_i}{n_i}}x_i) = 0,\qquad i = 2,\ldots, g-1,$$ and $H_i$ for $i = 2,\ldots, g$ is still given by $\{x_i = 0\} \cap \hat{S}$. Observe that the divisor ${\mathcal E}_1$ is not visible in this chart. Similarly as in the first step, the ambient space at points of ${\mathcal E}_2 \setminus \bigcup_{i=2}^g H_i$ is smooth and the standard Jacobian criterion can be applied to see that $\hat{S}$ is also smooth at these points. To compute the multiplicity of ${\mathcal E}_2$, we consider a generic point $Q = [(0,a_2,\ldots,a_g)]$ in ${{\mathcal E}_2 \setminus \bigcup_{i=2}^g H_i}$ with $a_i \in {\mathbb C}^{\ast}$. The order of its stabilizer subgroup is $\gcd(e_1, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_2}, \ldots, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_g})$, and as germs, $(U_0,Q) = \big(X (e_1; -1, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_2}, \ldots,\frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_g}),Q\big)$ equals $$\label{eq:generic-E2}
\bigg(X\Big(\gcd\Big(e_1, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_2}, \ldots, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_g}\Big);-1,0,\ldots, 0\Big),Q\bigg)\simeq ({\mathbb C}^g,0).$$ Under this isomorphism, the function $x_0^{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2}:U_0 \to {\mathbb C}$ becomes $x_0^{N_2}: {\mathbb C}^g \to {\mathbb C}$ with $$N_2 = \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{\gcd \Big( e_1, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_2}, \ldots, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_g} \Big)} = \operatorname{lcm}\Big(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_2}{e_2}, n_2, \ldots, n_g \Big)$$ the required multiplicity.
. The order of the stabilizer subgroup of a point $Q_2 = [(0,0,a_3,\ldots,a_g)] \in {\mathcal E}_2 \cap H_2$ is $\gcd(e_1, \frac{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2}{n_3}, \ldots, \frac{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2}{n_g})$. Changing the variables as in , one gets the following situation in $[(x_0,x_2)]$: $$\label{eq:points-Q2}
\left\{\begin{aligned}
& \hat{S} = X \bigg( \gcd\Big(e_1, \frac{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2}{n_3}, \ldots, \frac{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2}{n_g}\Big);-1,\frac{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2}{n_2} \bigg) \\
& {\mathcal E}_2: \ x_0^{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2} = 0, \qquad H_2: \ x_2 = 0,
\end{aligned}\right.$$ and the total transform of $Y$ defines a ${\mathbb Q}$-normal crossings divisor around these points.
. These points cannot be seen in the first chart. Therefore, we consider the second chart $U_1$ where the exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_2$ corresponds to $x_2=0$; it is given by $$\left(\!\begin{array}{c|ccccc}
\frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_2} & 1 & -1 & \frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_3} & \cdots & \frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_g} \\
\frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_2} e_1 & - \bar{\beta}_2 & \frac{n}{n_2} & 0 & \cdots & 0
\end{array}\!\right)$$ via $$(x_0, x_2,\ldots, x_g) \longmapsto (x_0 x_2, x_2^{\frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_2}}, x_2^{\frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_3}} x_3, \ldots, x_2^{\frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_g}} x_g).$$ A point $Q_{12} \in {\mathcal E}_2 \cap {\mathcal E}_1$ is in this chart of the form $[(0,0,a_3,\ldots,a_g)]$ for some $a_i \in {\mathbb C}^{\ast}$. The stabilizer subgroup of $Q_{12}$ is the product of two cyclic groups of orders $\gcd(\frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_2},\ldots,\frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_g}) = \frac{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2 - n_1 \bar{\beta}_1}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_2,\ldots,n_g)}$ and $\frac{b_2^{(1)}}{n_2} e_1 = ( n_2 \bar{\beta}_2 - n_1 \bar{\beta}_1 ) e_2$, and one obtains the following local situation around $Q_{12}$ in the variables $x_0$ and $x_2$: $$\left\{\begin{aligned}\label{eq:Q12}
& \hat{S} = X \left(\!\!\! \begin{array}{c|cc}
\frac{n_2 \bar{\beta}_2 - n_1 \bar{\beta}_1}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_2,\ldots,n_g)} & 1 & -1 \\[0.2cm]
(n_2 \bar{\beta}_2 - n_1 \bar{\beta}_1) e_2 & - \bar{\beta}_2 & \frac{n}{n_2}
\end{array} \!\!\right) \\[0.1cm]
& {\mathcal E}_1: \ x_0^n = 0, \qquad {\mathcal E}_2: \ x_2^{n_2\bar{\beta}_2} = 0.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ Hence, the total transform $\varphi_2^{-1}( \varphi_1^{-1} (Y))$ has ${\mathbb Q}$-normal crossings at each of the points in the intersection ${\mathcal E}_2 \cap {\mathcal E}_1$. Note that these data are compatible with the case $g=2$.
. This point considered in the first chart $U_0 = X(e_1; -1, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_2}, \ldots, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_g})$ is given by $P_2 = [(0,1,0,\ldots,0)]$, and its stabilizer subgroup has order $\gcd ( e_1, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_2}) = e_2$. Hence, as germs, $$\bigg( X \Big( e_1; -1, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_2}, \ldots, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_g} \Big), P_2 \bigg) = \bigg( X \Big( e_2; -1,0, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_3}, \ldots, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_g} \Big), P_2 \bigg).$$ The idea is to follow the same procedure as the one we used for the point $P_1$ in the first step. We use the change of variables $x_2 \mapsto x_2 + 1$ and $x_i \mapsto x_i$ for $i=0,3,\ldots,g$ to get a chart centered around the origin and we discuss two cases separately.
If $g = 3$, then ${\mathcal E}_2$ is irreducible, and using the Implicit Function Theorem, one easily sees that $\hat S \simeq X \big( n_3; -1,\frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_3} \big)$ with variables $[(x_0,x_3)]$ on which $H_3 = \{x_3 = 0\}$ and the total transform of $Y$ is given by $x_0^{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2} ( x_3^{n_3} - x_0^{b_3^{(2)}} ) = 0.$ The first factor represents the exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_2$ and the other the strict transform of $Y$.
If $g \geq 4$, then the germ $(\hat{S},P_2 = [(0,\ldots,0)] )$ can be described inside the ambient space $X\left(e_2; -1,\frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_3}, \ldots, \frac{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}{n_g}\right)$ in the variables $x_0,x_3,\ldots,x_g$ by equations of the form $$\label{eq:Shat-ggeq4}
\left\{\begin{array}{lcl}
x_3^{n_3} - x_0^{b_3^{(2)}} + \lambda_4(x_4^{n_4} - x_0^{b_4^{(2)}}x_3^{b_{43}}) + (x_3^{n_3} - x_0^{b_3^{(2)}}) R^{(2)}_3(x_0,x_3) & = & 0 \\[5pt]
x_4^{n_4} - x_0^{b_4^{(2)}}x_3^{b_{43}} + \lambda_5(x_5^{n_5} - x_0^{b_5^{(2)}}x_3^{b_{53}}x_4^{b_{54}})+ ( x_3^{n_3} - x_0^{b_3^{(2)}} ) R^{(2)}_4(x_0,x_3,x_4) & = & 0 \\
& \vdots & \\
x_{g-1}^{n_{g-1}} - x_0^{b_{g-1}^{(2)}} x_3^{b_{(g-1)3}} \cdots x_{g-2}^{b_{(g-1)(g-2)}} + \lambda_g(x_g^{n_g} - x_0^{b_g^{(2)}}x_3^{b_{g3}} \cdots x_{g-1}^{b_{g(g-1)}}) \\
\hspace{170pt} + ( x_3^{n_3} - x_0^{b_3^{(2)}} ) R^{(2)}_{g-1}(x_0,x_3,\ldots, x_{g-1}) & = & 0,
\end{array}\right.$$ where every $R^{(2)}_i(x_0,x_3,\ldots, x_i) \in \mathbb{C} \{ x_0, x_3,\ldots, x_i \}$ with $R_i^{(2)}(0,x_3,\ldots,x_i)=0$, and the total transform of $Y$ is given by $$\label{eq:Yhat-ggeq4}
\left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
x_0^{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}(x_3^{n_3} - x_0^{b_3^{(2)}}) &=& 0 \\
x_0^{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}(x_4^{n_4} - x_0^{b_4^{(2)}}x_3^{b_{43}}) &=& 0 \\
& \vdots & \\
x_0^{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2}(x_g^{n_g} - x_0^{b_g^{(2)}}x_3^{b_{g3}} \cdots x_{g-1}^{b_{g(g-1)}}) &=& 0.
\end{array}\right.$$ Here, $x_0^{n_2{\bar{\beta}}_2} = 0$ corresponds to the exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_2$, and $x_i = 0$ to $H_i$ for $i = 3,\ldots, g$.
The composition $\varphi_1 \circ \varphi_2$ is an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution of $Y \subset S$ except at the point $P_2$. Hence, in the third step, we will blow up at this point. If $g=3$, this third step will finish the resolution. If $g \geq 3$, one sees in and that $x_2$ is eliminated and that the situation is the same as in the beginning of the second step but in one variable less, see and . The idea is to repeat this procedure until we obtain a cusp in the $(g-1)$th step in a cyclic quotient singularity with variables $x_0$ and $x_g$. Then, one additional blow-up resolves the singularity. Because the next steps will be essentially the same as the second step, we consider all of them simultaneously in the $k$th step for $k \geq 2$.
The kth weighted blow-up pik at Pk-1 with weights wk
----------------------------------------------------
Let $k \in \{ 2,\ldots,g\}$ and assume that the first $k-1$ blow-ups have already been performed. Recall that we denote by ${\mathcal E}_1, \ldots, {\mathcal E}_{k-1}$ the exceptional divisors of the corresponding weighted blow-ups $\varphi_1,\ldots,\varphi_{k-1}$ with respect to the weights $\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_{k-1}$, respectively. We again consider two cases.
If $k = g$, then at the end of the $(g-1)$th step, the total transform $(\varphi_1 \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{g-1})^{-1}(Y)$ is given by $x_0^{n_{g-1} \bar{\beta}_{g-1}} (x_g^{n_g} - x_0^{b_g^{(g-1)}})$ in $\hat{S} = X(n_g;-1, \frac{n_{g-1} \bar{\beta}_{g-1}}{n_g})$ around $P_{g-1} = [(0,0)]$. The blow-up $\pi_g = \varphi_g$ at $P_{g-1}$ with respect to $\omega_g = (1,\frac{b_g^{(g-1)}}{n_g})$ yields an irreducible exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_g = {\mathbb P}^{1}_{\omega_g}(n_g; -1, \frac{n_{g-1}\bar\beta_{g-1}}{n_g})\simeq {\mathbb P}^1$ with multiplicity $N_g = n_{g-1} \bar{\beta}_{g-1} + b_g^{(g-1)} = n_g \bar\beta_g$. The intersection ${\mathcal E}_g \cap H_g$ consists of a single point and the equation of the total transform of $Y$ at this point is $x_0^{n_g \bar\beta_g}: X(n_g;-1,\bar\beta_g) \to {\mathbb C}$. The intersection ${\mathcal E}_g \cap {\mathcal E}_{g-1}$ is also one point around which we have the function $$x_0^{n_{g-1} \bar{\beta}_{g-1}} x_g^{n_g \bar\beta_{g}}:
X\left(\begin{array}{c|cc}
\frac{n_g{\bar{\beta}}_g - n_{g-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{g-1}}{n_g} & 1 & -1 \\
n_g{\bar{\beta}}_g - n_{g-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{g-1} & -{\bar{\beta}}_g & \frac{n_{g-1}\bar\beta_{g-1}}{n_g}
\end{array} \right) \longrightarrow {\mathbb C}.$$ Finally, the strict transform $\hat{Y}$ is smooth and intersects ${\mathcal E}_g$ in a transversal way at a smooth point of $\hat{S}$. Hence, the morphism $\varphi := \varphi_1 \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_g: \hat{S} \to S$ defines an embedded $\mathbb{Q}$-resolution of $Y \subset S$, cf. Figure \[fig:second-step-g2\].
Assume now that $2 \leq k \leq g-1$. In the first chart of $\varphi_{k-1}$ centered at $P_{k-1}$, one has $$P_{k-1} = [(0,\ldots,0)] \in X \left( e_{k-1}; -1, \frac{n_{k-1} \bar{\beta}_{k-1}}{n_k},\ldots, \frac{n_{k-1} \bar{\beta}_{k-1}}{n_g} \right)$$ in the variables $(x_0,x_k,\ldots,x_g)$, and the strict transforms $\hat{S}$ and $\hat{Y}$ are given by equations as in and , respectively. The strict transform ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$ is given by $x_0^{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}=0$, and $H_i = \{x_i = 0\} \cap \hat{S}$ for $i = k,\ldots,g$. Let $\pi_k$ be the weighted blow-up at $P_{k-1}$ with respect to $\omega_k = ( 1, \frac{b_k^{(k-1)}}{n_k}, \ldots, \frac{b_k^{(k-1)}}{n_g}),$ where $b_k^{(k-1)} = n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k - n_{k-1} {\bar{\beta}}_{k-1}$ is divisible by $e_{k-1} = n_ke_k = n_k\cdots n_g$. Let $E_k \simeq {\mathbb P}^{g-k+1}_{\omega_k} \big( e_{k-1}; -1, \frac{n_{k-1} \bar{\beta}_{k-1}}{n_k}, \ldots, \frac{n_{k-1} \bar{\beta}_{k-1}}{n_g} \big)$ be the exceptional divisor of $\pi_k$ and let $\varphi_k := \pi_k|_{\hat{S}}:\hat{S}\to \hat{S}$ be the restriction map with exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_k = E_k \cap \hat{S}$. Once more, we split the exposition in different parts.
. The new exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_k$ is given in homogeneous coordinates $[x_0:x_k:\ldots:x_g] \in {\mathbb P}^{g-k+1}_{\omega_k} \big( e_{k-1}; -1, \frac{n_{k-1} \bar{\beta}_{k-1}}{n_k}, \ldots, \frac{n_{k-1} \bar{\beta}_{k-1}}{n_g} \big)$ by the equations $$\label{eq:Ek-homog}
\left \{ \begin{array}{clccccl}
x_k^{n_k} & - & x_0^{b_k^{(k-1)}} & + & \lambda_{k+1}x_{k+1}^{n_{k+1}} & = & 0 \\[5pt]
& & x_{k+1}^{n_{k+1}} & + & \lambda_{k+2}x_{k+2}^{n_{k+2}} & = & 0 \\
& & & \vdots & & \\
& & x_{g-1}^{n_{g-1}} & + & \lambda_g x_g^{n_g} & = & 0,
\end{array}\right.$$ and has $$\frac{n_{k+1} \cdots \, n_g}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_{k+1},\ldots, n_g)} = \frac{e_k}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_{k+1},\ldots, n_g)}$$ irreducible components that contain the point $P_k = [1:1:0:\ldots:0]$ and are pairwise disjoint outside $P_k$ by Proposition \[prop:number-of-comp\]. Note that ${\mathcal E}_k$ is irreducible if $k=g-1$, and that $P_k = {\mathcal E}_k \cap H_i$ for $i = k+1, \ldots, g$. Using Proposition \[prop:number-of-comp\], one can also compute that ${\mathcal E}_k$ has $$\frac{e_{k-1}}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_k,\ldots, n_g)}$$ intersections with ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$ and $$\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{\operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},n_{k+1},\ldots, n_g)}$$ with $H_k$, where the cardinality of ${\mathcal E}_k \cap {\mathcal E}_{k-1}$ is precisely the number of components of ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$. Furthermore, Proposition \[prop:intersection-with-previous-divisor\] tells us that the components of ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$ are disjoint, and that the intersections of ${\mathcal E}_k$ and ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$ are equally distributed. Lastly, the strict transform $\hat{Y}$ of $Y$ and ${\mathcal E}_k$ intersect in the single point $P_k$. In the next step, we will blow up this point.
. Outside the coordinate axes of ${\mathcal E}_k$, the Jacobian criterion can be used to check that $\hat{S}$ is smooth. Studying the stabilizer subgroup of a generic point in ${\mathcal E}_k \setminus ({\mathcal E}_{k-1} \cup \bigcup_{i=k}^g H_i)$ using local equations in the first chart as in , one can compute the multiplicity $N_k$ of ${\mathcal E}_k$, which is equal to $\operatorname{lcm}( \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k}, n_k, \ldots, n_g )$.
. The local situation around these points can be studied from the local charts as in and becomes in $[(x_0,x_k)]$ the following: $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
& \hat{S} = X \bigg( \gcd \Big( e_{k-1}, \frac{n_k \bar{\beta}_k}{n_{k+1}}, \ldots,\frac{n_k \bar{\beta}_k}{n_g} \Big);-1,\frac{n_k \bar{\beta}_k}{n_k} \bigg) \\
& {\mathcal E}_k: \ x_0^{n_k \bar{\beta}_k} = 0, \qquad H_k: \ x_k = 0.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ Clearly, the total transform of $Y$ under $\varphi_1 \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_k$ is a ${\mathbb Q}$-normal crossings divisor around these points and we do not need to blow them up anymore.
. Using the second chart on which ${\mathcal E}_k$ corresponds to $x_k = 0$, the local equations at these points are given by $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
& \hat{S} = X \left(\!\!\! \begin{array}{c|cc}
\frac{n_k \bar{\beta}_k - n_{k-1} \bar{\beta}_{k-1}}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_k,\ldots,n_g)} & 1 & -1 \\[0.2cm]
(n_k \bar{\beta}_k - n_{k-1} \bar{\beta}_{k-1}) e_k & - \bar{\beta}_k & \frac{n_{k-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{k-1}}{n_k}
\end{array} \!\!\right) \\[5pt]
& {\mathcal E}_{k-1}: \ x_0^{n_{k-1} \bar{\beta}_{k-1}} = 0, \qquad {\mathcal E}_k: \ x_k^{n_k \bar{\beta}_k} = 0,
\end{aligned}\right.$$ cf. , and the total transform of $Y$ has again ${\mathbb Q}$-normal crossings at each of these points.
. After centering the first chart around $P_k$, we distinguish for the last time two different cases.
If $k = g-1$, then $\hat S \simeq X \big( n_g; -1,\frac{n_{g-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{g-1}}{n_g} \big)$ in the variables $x_0$ and $x_g$. The total transform $(\varphi_1 \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_{g-1})^{-1}(Y)$ of $Y$ is defined by the equation $x_0^{n_{g-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{g-1}} (x_g^{n_g} - x_0^{b_g^{(g-1)}})= 0,$ where the exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_g$ is given by $x_0^{n_{g-1}\bar\beta_{g-1}} = 0$, the strict transform $\hat{Y}$ by $x_g^{n_g} - x_0^{b_g^{(g-1)}}= 0$, and $H_g$ by $x_g = 0$.
If $2 \leq k \leq g-2$, then $\hat{S}$ is locally around $P_k = [(0,\ldots,0)]$ in $X\left(e_k; -1,\frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{n_{k+1}}, \ldots, \frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{n_g}\right)$ with the variables $x_0,x_{k+1},\ldots,x_g$ given by equations of the form $$\left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
x_{k+1}^{n_{k+1}} - x_0^{b_{k+1}^{(k)}} + \lambda_{k+2} ( x_{k+2}^{n_{k+2}} - x_0^{b^{(k)}_{k+2}}x_{k+1}^{b_{(k+2)(k+1)}} ) + ( x_{k+1}^{n_{k+1}} - x_0^{b^{(k)}_{k+1}} ) R^{(k)}_{k+1}(x_0,x_{k+1}) & = & 0 \\[5pt]
x_{k+2}^{n_{k+2}} - x_0^{b^{(k)}_{k+2}} x_{k+1}^{b_{(k+2)(k+1)}} + \lambda_{k+3} ( x_{k+3}^{n_{k+3}} - x_0^{b^{(k)}_{k+3}} x_{k+1}^{b_{(k+3)(k+1)}} x_{k+2}^{b_{(k+3)(k+2)}} ) \\
\hfill + ( x_{k+1}^{n_{k+1}} - x_0^{b^{(k)}_{k+1}} ) R^{(k)}_{k+2}(x_0,x_{k+1},x_{k+2}) & = & 0 \\
& \vdots &\\
x_{g-1}^{n_{g-1}} - x_0^{b^{(k)}_{g-1}} x_{k+1}^{b_{(g-1)(k+1)}} \cdots x_{g-2}^{b_{(g-1)(g-2)}} + \lambda_g ( x_g^{n_g} - x_0^{b^{(k)}_g} x_{k+1}^{b_{g(k+1)}} \cdots x_{g-1}^{b_{g(g-1)}} ) \\
\hspace{185pt} + ( x_{k+1}^{n_{k+1}} - x_0^{b^{(k)}_{k+1}} ) R^{(k)}_{g-1}(x_0,x_{k+1},\ldots,x_{g-1}) & = & 0,
\end{array}\right.$$ for some $R_i^{(k)}(x_0,x_{k+1},\ldots, x_i) \in \mathbb{C}\{x_0,x_{k+1},\ldots,x_i\}$ satisfying $R_i^{(k)}(0,x_{k+1},\ldots, x_i) = 0$. The total transform of $Y$ is defined by $$\left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
x_0^{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k} ( x_{k+1}^{n_{k+1}} - x_0^{b^{(k)}_{k+1}} ) & = & 0 \\
x_0^{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k} ( x_{k+2}^{n_{k+2}} - x_0^{b^{(k)}_{k+2}}x_{k+1}^{b_{(k+2)(k+1)}} ) & = & 0 \\
& \vdots & \\
x_0^{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k} ( x_g^{n_g} - x_0^{b^{(k)}_g}x_{k+1}^{b_{g(k+1)}} \cdots x_{g-1}^{b_{g(g-1)}} ) & = & 0,
\end{array}\right.$$ where ${\mathcal E}_k = \{ x_0^{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k} = 0 \}$ and $H_i = \{ x_i = 0 \}$ for $i=k+1,\ldots,g$.
To conclude, we have exactly the same situation as the one we had at the beginning of the $k$th step but in one variable less. Further blowing up at the point $P_k$ and repeating this procedure will lead after $g$ steps to an embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution of $Y \subset S$ as illustrated in Figure \[fig:final-resolution\].
![Resolution of $Y \subset S$.[]{data-label="fig:final-resolution"}](./final-resolution)
We summarize the previous construction in the following result.
\[thm:resolutionY\] Let $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ be a space monomial curve defined by the equations with $g \geq 2$ and consider $Y$ as a Cartier divisor on a generic surface $S = S(\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_g) \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ given by , where $(\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_g)$ are chosen such that Section \[RedCurveSurface\] applies. There exists an embedded $\mathbb{Q}$-resolution $\varphi = \varphi_1 \circ \cdots \circ \varphi_g : \hat{S} \to S$ of $Y \subset S$ which is a composition of $g$ weighted blow-ups $\varphi_k$ with exceptional divisor ${\mathcal E}_k$ such that the pull-back of $Y$ is given by $$\varphi^{\ast}Y = \hat{Y} + \sum_{\smallmatrix 1 \leq k \leq g \\ 1 \leq j \leq r_k \endsmallmatrix} N_k {\mathcal E}_{kj},$$ where ${\mathcal E}_k = {\mathcal E}_{k1} + \cdots + {\mathcal E}_{kr_k}$ is the decomposition of ${\mathcal E}_k$ into $r_k = \frac{e_k}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_{k+1},\ldots,n_g)}$ if $i=1,\ldots,g-2$ and $r_{g-1} = r_g=1$ irreducible components, and $N_k = \operatorname{lcm}( \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k}, n_k, \ldots, n_g )$ is the multiplicity of ${\mathcal E}_k$. Furthermore, each divisor ${\mathcal E}_k$ for $k = 2,\ldots, g-1$ only intersects ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$ and ${\mathcal E}_{k+1}$, and ${\mathcal E}_g$ only intersects ${\mathcal E}_{g-1}$. Finally, for every $k = 2,\ldots, g$, the intersections of ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$ and ${\mathcal E}_k$ are equally distributed; each of the components ${\mathcal E}_{kj}$ of ${\mathcal E}_k$ intersects precisely $\frac{r_{k-1}}{r_k}$ components of ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$, each component ${\mathcal E}_{(k-1)j}$ of ${\mathcal E}_{k-1}$ is intersected by only one of the components of ${\mathcal E}_k$, and each intersection between two components ${\mathcal E}_{kj}$ and ${\mathcal E}_{(k-1)j'}$ consists of a single point. In particular, the dual graph of the resolution is a tree as in Figure \[fig:dual-graph\].
![Dual graph of the resolution of $Y \subset S$.[]{data-label="fig:dual-graph"}](./dual-graph)
In the next section, we will use Theorem 5.7 to compute the monodromy zeta function associated with $Y \subset S$. It is worth mentioning that this resolution could also be used to compute other invariants associated with the curve singularity $Y \subset S$, such as the mixed Hodge structure on the cohomology of the Milnor fiber.
The monodromy zeta function of a space monomial curve {#ZetaFunction}
=====================================================
Using the embedded ${\mathbb Q}$-resolution $\varphi: \hat{S} \rightarrow S$ of a space monomial curve $Y$ as a Cartier divisor on a generic surface $S$ constructed in the previous section, we will now compute the monodromy zeta function of $Y$. More precisely, we will compute the zeta function of monodromy $Z_{Y,0}^{mon}(t)$ of $Y \subset S$ at the origin with the A’Campo formula from Theorem \[thm:ACampo-QEmb\] in terms of $\varphi$. To this end, we still need to stratify the exceptional divisor such that the multiplicity defined in is constant along each stratum, and compute the Euler characteristic of these strata.
With Figure \[fig:final-resolution\], we define a stratification of the exceptional divisor as follows. The first set of strata are the points of the intersection ${\mathcal E}_1 \cap H_0$, which we will all denote by $Q_0$; there are $$\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_0}{\operatorname{lcm}(n_1,n_2, \ldots, n_g)}$$ such points, see . From , we know that the local equation of ${\mathcal E}_0$ at each $Q_0$ is given by $x_1^n:X (\gcd(\frac{n}{n_1},\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots,\frac{n}{n_g});\frac{n}{n_0},-1) \rightarrow {\mathbb C}$. Hence, the multiplicity $m({\mathcal E}_0,Q_0)$ is equal to $$m({\mathcal E}_0,Q_0) = \frac{n}{\gcd(\frac{n}{n_1},\frac{n}{n_2},\ldots,\frac{n}{n_g})} = \operatorname{lcm}(n_1,\ldots, n_g).$$ Analogously, each point in an intersection ${\mathcal E}_k \cap H_k$ for $k = 1,\ldots, g$ will be a stratum denoted by $Q_k$, the total number of such $Q_k$ is $$\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{\operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},n_{k+1}, \ldots, n_g)},$$ and the multiplicity at each such point is $m({\mathcal E}_k,Q_k)= \operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},n_{k+1},\ldots,n_g).$
\[rmk:order-small-groups-g=2\] For $g = 2$, the resolution was already illustrated in Figure \[fig:second-step-g2\], together with the order of the underlying small group at the points $Q_0$, $Q_1$ and $Q_2$. This provides another way of computing the multiplicity at these points. For example, at $Q_0$, we know that ${\mathcal E}_0$ is given by $x_1^n:X (\gcd(\frac{n}{n_1},\frac{n}{n_2});\frac{n}{n_0},-1) \rightarrow {\mathbb C}$. Using the morphism $[(x_0,x_1)] \mapsto [(x_0,x_1^{n_{02}n_{12}})]$, the space $X (\gcd(\frac{n}{n_1},\frac{n}{n_2});\frac{n}{n_0},-1)$ can be normalized into $X (\frac{n_0}{n_{02}};\frac{n_1n_2}{n_{02}n_{12}},-1)$ on which ${\mathcal E}_0$ is locally given by the function $x_1^{\frac{n}{n_{02}n_{12}}}$. This yields the same multiplicity, $\operatorname{lcm}(n_1,n_2).$ In general, one could also first normalize the space around the points to compute the multiplicity.
Another set of strata are the intersection points ${\mathcal E}_k\cap {\mathcal E}_{k+1}$ for $k = 1,\ldots, g-1$, denoted by $Q_{k(k+1)}$. For every $k = 1,\ldots,g-1$, the number of points $Q_{k(k+1)}$ is equal to the number of irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}_k$, see Theorem \[thm:resolutionY\], and the multiplicity at these points can be computed from the results in the previous section: for example, if $g \geq 3$ and $k = 1$, it can be computed from with the more general definition of multiplicity introduced in [@Ma2]. As these strata will not contribute to the zeta function of monodromy, see Theorem \[thm:ACampo-QEmb\], we will not go into more detail. Similarly, the intersection point ${\mathcal E}_g \cap \hat{Y}$ is a stratum that we do not have to consider. The last set of strata are the parts of the irreducible components ${\mathcal E}_{kj}$ for $j=1,\ldots, r_k$ of ${\mathcal E}_k$ for each $k = 1,\ldots, g$ that are not yet contained in the previous strata. Because all ${\mathcal E}_{kj}$ for fixed $k$ have the same behavior, we will consider them at once; we introduce $$\hat{{\mathcal E}}_k := \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
{\mathcal E}_1 \setminus (({\mathcal E}_1 \cap H_0) \cup ({\mathcal E}_1\cap H_1) \cup ({\mathcal E}_1\cap {\mathcal E}_2)) & \text{for } k = 1 \\
{\mathcal E}_k \setminus (({\mathcal E}_k \cap H_k) \cup ({\mathcal E}_k\cap {\mathcal E}_{k-1}) \cup ({\mathcal E}_k \cap {\mathcal E}_{k+1})) & \text{for } k = 2,\ldots, g-1 \\
{\mathcal E}_g \setminus (({\mathcal E}_g \cap H_g) \cup ({\mathcal E}_g\cap {\mathcal E}_{g-1}) \cup ({\mathcal E}_g \cap \hat{Y})) & \text{for } k = g. \\
\end{array}\right.$$ The multiplicity along each of these ‘strata’ $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_k$ is equal to the multiplicity of ${\mathcal E}_k$ given by $N_k = \operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},n_k,\ldots, n_g)$. It remains to compute their Euler characteristics.
The Euler characteristic of $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_g$ is easy to compute: as ${\mathcal E}_g \simeq {\mathbb P}^1$, we find $\chi(\hat{{\mathcal E}}_g) = -1$. The other Euler characteristics can be computed from the following proposition, in which we work in the same situation as Proposition \[prop:intersection-with-previous-divisor\]. Because of the symmetry in the variables $x_2,\ldots, x_g$, the result is written in such a way that it is independent of the choice of chart in the proof, cf. Proposition \[prop:number-of-comp\] and in particular, Remark \[rmk:symm-formula\].
\[prop:euler-char\] Consider the quotient ${\mathbb P}^r_{(p_0, \ldots, p_r)}(d;a_0, \ldots, a_r)$ of some weighted projective space ${\mathbb P}^r_{(p_0, \ldots, p_r)}$ under an action of type $(d;a_0, \ldots, a_r)$ with $r\geq 2$. Let ${\mathcal E}$ be defined in this space by a system of equations $$\left \{ \begin{array}{clccccl}
x_0^{m_0} & + & x_1^{m_1} &+& x_2^{m_2} &=& 0 \\
& & x_2^{m_2} &+& x_3^{m_3} &=& 0 \\
& & & \vdots & & & \\
& & x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} &+& x_r^{m_r} &=& 0
\end{array}\right.$$ for positive integers $m_i$ such that $d \mid a_im_i$ for $i = 0 ,\ldots, r$ and such that each equation is weighted homogeneous with respect to the weights $(p_0, \ldots, p_r)$. Assume that the intersection of ${\mathcal E}$ with $\{x_i = 0\}$ for $i = 2,\ldots, r$ only consists of one fixed point $A$, and that $a_ip_j - a_jp_i = 0$ for all $i,j \in \{1, \ldots, r\}$. Then, $\chi\Big({\mathcal E}\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^r\{x_i = 0\}\Big)$ is given by $$-\frac{m_1\cdots m_r \cdot \gcd\big(dP\cdot(p_0,\ldots, p_r),(p_0Q - a_0P)\cdot(p_1,\ldots, p_r)\big)}{dp_0P},$$ where $P := \prod_{i=1}^rp_i$ and $Q := a_i \prod_{j=1,j\neq i}^rp_j$ for $i = 1,\ldots, r$.
To prove this result, we will reduce the problem of computing this Euler characteristic to computing the less complicated Euler characteristic considered in the next lemma.
\[lemma:euler-char-plane-curve\] Let $C$ in ${\mathbb P}^2_{(p_0,p_1,p_2)}(d;a_0,a_1,a_2)$ be defined by a single equation of the form $x_0^{m_0} + x_1^{m_1} + x_2^{m_2} = 0$ which is weighted homogeneous with respect to the weights $(p_0,p_1,p_2)$. Put $K = p_0m_0 = p_1m_1 = p_2m_2$, and let $M_i$ for $i = 0,1,2$ be the $2\times 2$-minor of $$\left(\begin{matrix}
p_0 & p_1 & p_2 \\
a_0 & a_1 & a_2 \\
\end{matrix}\right)$$ where the column of $p_i$ is removed. Then, we have $$\chi\Big(C \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^2\{x_i = 0\}\Big) = - \frac{K^2\cdot\gcd\big(d\cdot(p_0,p_1,p_2),M_0,M_1,M_2\big)}{dp_0p_1p_2}.$$
We will once more simplify the problem of computing this Euler characteristic by looking at an easier Euler characteristic. More precisely, we consider the curve $\tilde C$ in ${\mathbb P}^2$ defined by $x_0^K + x_1^K + x_2^K = 0$. As this is a smooth curve of degree $K$, we know its genus $$g(\tilde C) = \frac{(K-1)(K-2)}{2},$$ and hence, its Euler characteristic $\chi(\tilde C) = 2 - 2g(\tilde C) = -K^2 + 3K$. Because each intersection $\tilde C \cap \{x_i = 0\}$ for $i=0,1,2$ consists of $K$ points, we find that ${\chi(\tilde C \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^2\{x_i = 0\})} = -K^2.$ From this result, we can deduce $\chi(C \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^2\{x_i = 0\})$ by considering the well-defined surjective morphism $$\varphi: {\mathbb P}^2 \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^2\{x_i=0\} \longrightarrow {\mathbb P}^2_{(p_0,p_1,p_2)}(d;a_0,a_1,a_2) \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^2\{x_i=0\} : [x_0:x_1:x_2] \mapsto [x_0^{p_0}:x_1^{p_1}:x_2^{p_2}],$$ under which $\varphi^{-1}\big(C \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^2\{x_i = 0\}\big) = \tilde C \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^2\{x_i = 0\}$. We claim that $\varphi$ is a covering map of degree $$D = \frac{dp_0p_1p_2}{\gcd(d\cdot \gcd(p_0,p_1,p_2),M_0,M_1,M_2)}.$$ Then, indeed, $$\chi\Big(C \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^2\{x_i = 0\}\Big) = \frac{\chi\big(\tilde C \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^2\{x_i = 0\}\big)}{D} = - \frac{K^2\cdot\gcd\big(d\cdot\gcd(p_0,p_1,p_2),M_0,M_1,M_2\big)}{dp_0p_1p_2}.$$ First, to show that $\varphi$ is a covering map, one can see that it is enough to show that $\varphi$ is a local homeomorphism. To prove the latter, we can work locally around a point $x \in {\mathbb P}^2 \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^2\{x_i=0\}$ by considering the chart where $x_0 \neq 0$: $$\varphi_0: {\mathbb C}^2 \setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^2\{x_i = 0\} \longrightarrow X \left(\begin{array}{c|cc} p_0 & p_1 & p_2 \\ dp_0 & M_2 & M_1\end{array} \right) \setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^2\{x_i = 0\}: (x_1,x_2) \mapsto [(x_1^{p_1},x_2^{p_2})].$$ Because $X \left(\begin{smallmatrix} p_0 \\ dp_0\end{smallmatrix} \middle| \begin{smallmatrix} p_1 & p_2 \\ M_2 & M_1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)\setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^2\{x_i = 0\}$ is smooth at $\varphi_0(x)$, we can further reduce to showing that $$\Big({\mathbb C}^2\setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^2\{x_i = 0\}, x\Big) \rightarrow \Big({\mathbb C}^2 \setminus \bigcup_{i=1}^2\{x_i = 0\}, \varphi_0(x)\Big): (x_1,x_2) \mapsto (x_1^{p_1},x_2^{p_2})$$ is a local homeomorphism, which is clearly true. Second, to find the degree of $\varphi$, we can still work with $\varphi_0$ on the chart where $x_0 \neq 0$. Because the morphism $\varphi_0$ can be decomposed into the morphism $\sigma: {\mathbb C}^2 \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^2: (x_1,x_2) \mapsto (x_1^{p_1},x_2^{p_2})$ and the projection $\text{pr}: {\mathbb C}^2 \rightarrow X \left(\begin{smallmatrix} p_0 \\ dp_0\end{smallmatrix} \middle| \begin{smallmatrix} p_1 & p_2 \\ M_2 & M_1 \end{smallmatrix} \right),$ its degree is equal the product of the degrees of $\sigma$ and $\text{pr}$. Clearly, the morphism $\sigma$ has degree $p_1p_2$. For the degree of $\text{pr}$, the result in [@AMO2 Lemma 5.1] tells us that this is equal to $$\frac{dp_0}{\gcd(d\cdot \gcd(p_0,p_1,p_2),M_0,M_1,M_2)}.$$ Together, these degrees yield the correct expression for the degree $D$.
In the proof of Proposition \[prop:euler-char\], we will work similarly as in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:euler-char-plane-curve\]: we will construct a covering from which the Euler characteristic of ${\mathcal E}\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^r \{x_i = 0\}$ can be easily computed. To find the degree of this covering, we will use the following lemma.
\[lemma:degree\] Consider a cyclic quotient space $X$ of the form $X(\frac{K}{k};\frac{K}{k_0},\ldots, \frac{K}{k_r})$ where $r \geq 2$ and $k, k_0,\ldots, k_r \mid K$. Let ${\mathcal E}$ in $X$ be defined by $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcc}
x_0^{k_0} + x_1^{k_1} & = & c_1 \\
x_2^{k_2} & = & c_2 \\
& \vdots & \\
x_r^{k_r} & = &c_r
\end{array}\right.$$ for some constants $c_i \in {\mathbb C}\setminus \{0\}$, and denote by $N$ its number of irreducible components. Consider also the cyclic quotient space $X' = X(\frac{K}{k};\frac{K}{k_0},\frac{K}{k_1})$ and $\tilde {\mathcal E}$ in $X'$ defined by the single equations $x_0^{k_0} + x_1^{k_1} = c_1$. The degree of the projection $\text{pr}: {\mathcal E}\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^r\{x_i = 0\} \rightarrow \tilde {\mathcal E}\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^1\{x_i = 0\}: [(x_0,\ldots,x_r)]\mapsto [(x_0,x_1)]$ is given by $$\frac{KN\cdot\gcd(\frac{K}{k},\frac{K}{k_0},\ldots, \frac{K}{k_r})}{k\cdot \gcd(\frac{K}{k},\frac{K}{k_0},\frac{K}{k_1}) \cdot \gcd(\frac{K}{k},\frac{K}{k_2},\ldots,\frac{K}{k_r})}.$$
First of all, the projection $pr$ is a covering map: as in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:euler-char-plane-curve\], it suffices to see that $pr$ is a local homeomorphism around every point $x \in {\mathcal E}\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^r\{x_i = 0\}$. In this case, because $X$ and $X'$ are smooth around $x$ and $pr(x)$, respectively, the problem is equivalent to showing that the projection $$\begin{aligned}
\Big({\mathcal E}\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^r\{x_i = 0\}, x\Big) \subset & ~\Big({\mathbb C}^{r+1} \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^r\{x_i = 0\}, x\Big) \\
\longrightarrow & ~\Big(\tilde {\mathcal E}\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^1\{x_i = 0\}, pr(x)\Big) \subset \Big({\mathbb C}^2 \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^1\{x_i = 0\}, pr(x)\Big)\end{aligned}$$ is a local homeomorphism, which is again easy to see. To compute the degree of $pr$, we count the number of elements in the preimage $\text{pr}^{-1}([(a_0,a_1)])$ of a point $[(a_0,a_1)] \in \tilde {\mathcal E}\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^1\{x_i = 0\}$. These elements are of the form $[(\xi^{\frac{K}{k_0}} a_0, \xi^{\frac{K}{k_1}} a_1, b_2,\ldots,b_r)]$ for some $\xi \in \mu_{\frac{K}{k}}$ and $b_i \in {\mathbb C}$ for $i = 2,\ldots, r$ satisfying $b_i^{k_i} = c_i$. Note that the irreducible components of ${\mathcal E}$ are pairwise disjoint and given by $\{[(x_0,x_1,b_2,\ldots, b_r)]\mid x_0^{k_0} + x_1^{k_1} = c_1\} $ for some fixed solution $[(b_2, \ldots, b_r)]$ of $x_2^{k_2} - c_2 = \cdots = x_r^{k_r} - c_r = 0$ in $X(\frac{K}{k};\frac{K}{k_2},\ldots, \frac{K}{k_r})$. It follows that the degree is equal to the product of the number $N$ of irreducible components and the number of points $[(\xi^{\frac{K}{k_0}} a_0, \xi^{\frac{K}{k_1}} a_1, b_2,\ldots,b_r)]$ for some $\xi \in \mu_{\frac{K}{k}}$ and fixed $[(b_2,\ldots, b_r)] \in X(\frac{K}{k};\frac{K}{k_2},\ldots, \frac{K}{k_r})$. Working analogously as in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:number-of-solutions\], the latter number is equal to $$\frac{\Big\vert \Big\{\big(\xi^{\frac{K}{k_0}},\xi^{\frac{K}{k_1}}\big) ~\big\vert~ \xi \in \mu_{\frac{K}{k}}\Big\} \Big\vert}{\vert \text{Im}~ \varphi \vert},$$ where $\varphi$ is the group homomorphism $$\varphi: \mu_{\gcd(\frac{K}{k},\frac{K}{k_2}, \ldots, \frac{K}{k_r})} \longrightarrow \big\{(\xi^{\frac{K}{k_0}},\xi^{\frac{K}{k_1}}) \mid \xi \in \mu_{\frac{K}{k}}\big\}: {\eta \mapsto (\eta^{\frac{K}{k_0}},\eta^{\frac{K}{k_1}})}$$ with kernel $\mu_{\gcd(\frac{K}{k},\frac{K}{k_0}, \ldots, \frac{K}{k_r})}$. Finally, an easy computation gives that $$\big\vert \big\{(\xi^{\frac{K}{k_0}},\xi^{\frac{K}{k_1}}) \mid \xi \in \mu_{\frac{K}{k}}\big\}\big\vert = \frac{K}{k\cdot \gcd(\frac{K}{k},\frac{K}{k_0}, \frac{K}{k_1})},$$ and we find the degree stated in the lemma.
With these two preliminary results, we are now ready to prove Proposition \[prop:euler-char\].
For $r = 2$, the result follows from Lemma \[lemma:euler-char-plane-curve\] in which $M_0 = a_1p_2 - a_2p_1 = 0$. For $r \geq 3$, we work similarly as in the proof of Lemma \[lemma:euler-char-plane-curve\]: we will show that the well-defined surjective morphism $$\varphi: {\mathcal E}\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^r\{x_i = 0\} \longrightarrow C \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^2\{x_i = 0\}: [x_0:\ldots:x_r] \mapsto [x_0:x_1:x_2],$$ where $C := \{x_0^{m_0} + x_1^{m_1} + x_2^{m_2} = 0\} \subset {\mathbb P}^2_{(p_0,p_1,p_2)}(d;a_0,a_1,a_2)$, is a $D$-sheeted covering with $$D = \frac{m_3\cdots m_r\cdot \gcd\big(dp_2\cdot(p_0,\ldots, p_r),(a_2p_0 - a_0p_2)\cdot(p_1,\ldots, p_r)\big)}{p_2\cdot\gcd\big(d\cdot(p_0,p_1,p_2),a_2p_0 - a_0p_2,a_1p_0 - a_0p_1\big)}.$$ Together with Lemma \[lemma:euler-char-plane-curve\] applied to $C$ with $M_0 = 0$, we find that $\chi({\mathcal E}\setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^r\{x_i = 0\})$ is given by $$\label{eq:euler-char}
- \frac{m_1\cdots m_r \cdot \gcd\big(dp_2\cdot(p_0,\ldots, p_r), (a_2p_0 - a_0p_2)\cdot(p_1,\ldots, p_r)\big)}{dp_0p_2}.$$ This can be rewritten as the formula in the statement. To show that $\varphi$ is a covering map, it is once more enough to show that $\varphi$ is a local homeomorphism. This time, we consider the chart where $x_2\neq 0$: this gives $$\varphi_2: {\mathcal E}' \setminus \bigcup_{i=0,i\neq 2}^r\{x_i = 0\} \longrightarrow C' \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^1\{x_i = 0\}:[(x_0,x_1,x_3,\ldots, x_r)] \mapsto [(x_0,x_1)],$$ where ${\mathcal E}'$ is given by $$\left \{ \begin{array}{clccccl}
x_0^{m_0} & + & x_1^{m_1} &+& 1 &=& 0 \\
& & 1 &+& x_3^{m_3} &=& 0 \\
& & & \vdots & & & \\
& & x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} &+& x_r^{m_r} &=& 0
\end{array}\right. \subset X\left(\begin{array}{c|ccccc}
p_2 & p_0 & p_1 & p_3 & \ldots & p_r \\
dp_2 & -M_1 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0
\end{array} \right),$$ with $M_1 = a_2p_0 - a_0p_2$, and $C'$ by $$\{x_0^{m_0} + x_1^{m_1} + 1 = 0 \} \subset X\left(\begin{array}{c|cc}
p_2 & p_0 & p_1 \\
dp_2 & -M_1 & 0
\end{array} \right).$$ Because the embeddings spaces of ${\mathcal E}$ and ${\mathcal E}'$ are smooth outside their coordinate hyperplanes, one can conclude by working similarly as in Lemma \[lemma:degree\]. To prove the correct formula for the degree of $\varphi$, we again consider the chart where $x_2\neq 0$. The morphism $\varphi_2$ can be further simplified with an isomorphism $$X\left(\begin{array}{c|ccccc}
p_2 & p_0 & p_1 & p_3 & \ldots & p_r \\
dp_2 & -M_1 & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0
\end{array} \right) \simeq X\left(p_2; \frac{dp_0p_2}{\gcd(dp_2,M_1)}, p_1, p_3, \ldots, p_r\right)$$ as in under which ${\mathcal E}'$ is transformed into $$\left \{\begin{array}{clccccl}
x_0^{\frac{m_0\gcd(dp_2,M_1)}{dp_2}} & + & x_1^{m_1} &+& 1 &=& 0 \\
& & 1 &+& x_3^{m_3} &=& 0 \\
& & & \vdots & & & \\
& & x_{r-1}^{m_{r-1}} &+& x_r^{m_r} &=& 0.
\end{array}\right.$$ Using the corresponding isomorphism on the embedding space of $C'$ under which $C'$ is transformed in the same way as ${\mathcal E}'$, we arrive at the situation of Lemma \[lemma:degree\] with $K = m_ip_i$ for $i = 0,\ldots, r$ and $N = \frac{m_3\cdots m_r\gcd(p_2,\ldots, p_r)}{p_2}$ (see ), which leads to the degree $D$.
For $k = 1, \ldots, g$, the Euler characteristic of $\check{{\mathcal E}}_k$ is given by $$\chi(\check{{\mathcal E}}_k) = - \frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{\operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k}, n_k,\ldots, n_g)}.$$
For $k = g$, we already know that $\chi(\hat{{\mathcal E}}_g) = -1$. Because $\gcd({\bar{\beta}}_g,n_g) = \gcd({\bar{\beta}}_g,e_{g-1}) = e_g = 1$, this is the same as the expression in the statement. For $k = 1$, by construction of the resolution, $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_1$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal E}_1 \setminus \bigcup_{i=0}^g \{x_i = 0\}$ in ${\mathbb P}^g_{w_1}$ after the first blow-up. From in the proof of Proposition \[prop:euler-char\] applied to the equations , we indeed find that $$\chi(\hat{{\mathcal E}_1}) = -\frac{n_1\cdots n_g\gcd(\frac{n}{n_0},\ldots, \frac{n}{n_g})}{\frac{n}{n_0}} = - \frac{n_1{\bar{\beta}}_1}{\operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_1}{e_1}, n_1,\ldots, n_g)},$$ where we used that $n = n_1{\bar{\beta}}_1$ and the relation . If $g \geq 3$ and $k \in {\{2,\ldots, g-1\}}$, the Euler characteristic of $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_k$ can be computed from in the same way.
We are finally ready to compute the zeta function of monodromy associated with a space monomial curve $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$.
\[thm:zeta-function-mon-Y\] Let $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ be a space monomial curve defined by the equations with $g\geq 2$. Consider a generic embedding surface $S = S(\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_g) \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ given by , where $(\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_g)$ are chosen such that Section \[RedCurveSurface\] applies. Denote by $\sigma: X' \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ the blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ with center $Y$ and by $S'$ the strict transform of $S$ under $\sigma$. Then, the monodromy zeta function of $Y$ considered in ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ at the generic point $p = S' \cap \sigma^{-1}(0)$ is given by $$Z^{mon}_{Y,p}(t) = \frac{\prod\limits_{k = 0}^g(1-t^{M_k})^{\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{M_k}}}{\prod\limits_{k = 1}^g(1-t^{N_k})^{\frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{N_k}}},$$ where $M_k := \operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},n_{k+1},\ldots, n_g)$ for $k = 0,\ldots, g$, and $N_k := \operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},n_k,\ldots, n_g)$ for $k = 1,\ldots, g$.
This immediately follows from all the results in this section: the strata $Q_k$ for $k = 0,\ldots, g$ yield the factors in the numerator, and the ‘strata’ $\hat{{\mathcal E}}_k$ for $k = 1,\ldots, g$ yield the factors in the denominator.
We illustrate this theorem with two examples, in which we already see that every pole of the motivic Igusa zeta function induces an eigenvalue of monodromy. In the next section, we will prove this in general.
\[ex:zeta-function-mon\]
1. The irreducible plane curve given by $(x_1^2-x_0^3)^2-x_0^5x_1 = 0$ has $(4,6,13)$ as minimal generating set of its semigroup, and leads to the space monomial curve $Y_1 \subseteq {\mathbb C}^3$ defined in three variables $(g=2$) by $$\left\{\begin{array}{r c l l}
x_1^2 & - & x_0^3 & = 0 \\
x_2^2 &- & x_0^5x_1 &= 0. \\
\end{array}\right.$$ The expression for the monodromy zeta function in Theorem \[thm:zeta-function-mon-Y\] gives $$Z^{mon}_{Y_1,p_1}(t) = \frac{(1-t^2)^2(1-t^6)(1-t^{13})}{(1-t^6)^2(1-t^{26})} = \frac{(1-t^2)^2(1-t^{13})}{(1-t^6)(1-t^{26})}.$$ In [@MVV Example 4.1], it was shown that the motivic Igusa zeta function of $Y_1$ has three poles: ${\mathbb L}^2,{\mathbb L}^{\frac{8}{6}}$ and ${\mathbb L}^{\frac{37}{26}}$. Every pole ${\mathbb L}^{-s_0}$ of these three induces a monodromy eigenvalue $e^{2\pi i s_0}$: $e^{-4\pi i}$ is a zero of $Z^{mon}_{Y_1,p_1}(t)$, while $e^{\frac{-8 \pi i}{3}}$ and $e^{\frac{-37\pi i}{13}}$ are poles of $Z^{mon}_{Y_1,p_1}(t)$.
2. As a second example, we consider the space monomial curve $Y_2\subseteq {\mathbb C}^4$ associated with the plane curve defined by $((x_1^2-x_0^3)^2 - x_0^5x_1)^2 - x_0^{10}(x_1^2-x_0^3) = 0$, whose semigroup is minimally generated by $(8,12,26,53)$. Its equations are given by $$\left\{ \begin{array}{r c l l}
x_1^2 & - & x_0^3 & = 0 \\
x_2^2 &- & x_0^5x_1 &= 0 \\
x_3^2 & - &x_0^{10}x_2 &=0.
\end{array}\right.$$ Using Theorem \[thm:zeta-function-mon-Y\], we find $$Z^{mon}_{Y_2,p_2}(T) = \frac{(1-t^2)^4(1-t^6)^2(1-t^{26})(1-t^{53})}{(1-t^6)^4(1-t^{26})^2(1-t^{106})} = \frac{(1-t^2)^4(1-t^{53})}{(1-t^6)^2(1-t^{26})(1-t^{106})}.$$ The poles of the motivic zeta function of $Y_2$ were also computed in [@MVV Example 4.1]: they are given by ${\mathbb L}^{3}, {\mathbb L}^{\frac{11}{6}}, {\mathbb L}^{\frac{50}{26}},$ and ${\mathbb L}^{\frac{235}{106}}$. Similarly as in the previous example, it is easy to see that they all induce eigenvalues of monodromy associated with $Y_2$.
The monodromy conjecture for a space monomial curve {#MonConj}
===================================================
This last section consists of a proof of the main result in this article, namely the monodromy conjecture for a space monomial curve $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ with $g \geq 2$. In other words, we will show that every pole ${\mathbb L}^{-s_0}$ of the motivic Igusa zeta function associated with $Y$ yields a monodromy eigenvalue $e^{2\pi is_0}$ of $Y$.
In [@MVV], it was shown that a complete list of poles of both the local and global motivic Igusa zeta function of a space monomial curve $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ is given by $${\mathbb L}^g, \qquad {\mathbb L}^{\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}}, \qquad k = 1,\ldots, g,$$ where $$\label{eq:poles-motivic}
\frac{\nu_k}{N_k} = \frac{1}{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}\bigg(\sum_{l=0}^k {\bar{\beta}}_l - \sum_{l=1}^{k-1}n_l{\bar{\beta}}_l\bigg) + (k-1) + \sum_{l=k+1}^g\frac{1}{n_l}, \qquad k= 1,\ldots, g,$$ and $N_k = \operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},n_k,\ldots, n_g)$ for every $k = 1,\ldots, g$. The first pole, ${\mathbb L}^g$, trivially induces the eigenvalue of monodromy $e^{-2\pi ig} = 1$: with the notation from Section \[RedCurveSurface\], the zeta function of monodromy at a point in $E' \setminus \sigma^{-1}(0)$ is given by $1-t$, which has $1$ as zero. Likewise, if $\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}$ is an integer for some $k \in \{1,\ldots, g\}$, then the pole ${\mathbb L}^{\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}}$ yields the eigenvalue $e^{-2\pi i\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}} = 1$. We claim that for every $k= 1,\ldots,g$ with $\frac{\nu_k}{N_k} \notin {\mathbb N}$, the candidate monodromy eigenvalue $e^{-2\pi i\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}}$ is a pole of the monodromy zeta function of $Y$ computed in the previous section.
It is possible that $\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}$ is an integer for some $k \in \{1,\ldots, g\}$; for example, the space monomial curve $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^3$ defined by $$\left\{\begin{array}{r c l l}
x_1^2 & - & x_0^3 & = 0 \\
x_2^6 &- & x_0^{17}x_1 &= 0 \\
\end{array}\right.$$ corresponds to the generators $(12,18,37)$ with $\frac{\nu_1}{N_1} = 1$.
To prove this claim, we will not work directly with the monodromy zeta function $Z^{mon}_{Y,p}(t)$ of $Y$ at the point $p = S' \cap \sigma^{-1}(0)$, but we will again consider $Y$ as a Cartier divisor on a generic surface $S$ and work with the *characteristic polynomial* related to $Z^{mon}_{Y,0}(t)$. For $k = 0,1$, we can define the *$k$th Alexander polynomial* of $Y = \{f_1 = 0\}$ on $S$ as the characteristic polynomial $\Delta_k(t) := \det(t\text{Id} - M_0^k)$ of the corresponding $k$th monodromy transformation $M_0^k: H^k(F_0,{\mathbb C}) \rightarrow H^k(F_0,{\mathbb C})$ of $f_1$ at $0$. In the setting of a (normal) surface singularity, the $0$th Alexander polynomial is given by $\Delta_0(t) = 1-t^d$, where $d$ is the number of irreducible components of the Milnor fiber $F_0$. Because $Y$ defines an isolated singularity on the normal surface $S$, this number $d$ of components is equal to $1$, see [@N Proposition 2.20]. Therefore, all interesting information is contained in the first Alexander polynomial, also called the *characteristic polynomial* $\Delta(t) : =\Delta_1(t)$, and it is easy to see that $$\Delta(t) = t^{\mu}\Big(\frac{t}{t-1}Z^{mon}_{Y,0}\big(\frac{1}{t}\big)\Big)^{-1},$$ where $\mu = \text{dim}~ H^1(F_0,{\mathbb C}) = \deg(\Delta(t))$ is the *Milnor number*. From Theorem \[thm:zeta-function-mon-Y\], it follows that the characteristic polynomial of $Y$ on $S$ is the polynomial $$\Delta(t) = \frac{(t-1)\prod\limits_{k = 1}^g(t^{N_k}-1)^{\frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{N_k}}}{\prod\limits_{k = 0}^g(t^{M_k}-1)^{\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{M_k}}}$$ of degree $\mu = 1 + \sum_{k=1}^g(n_k-1){\bar{\beta}}_k - {\bar{\beta}}_0 > 0$. Hence, if we show that the candidate monodromy eigenvalue $e^{-2\pi i\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}} \neq 1$ is a zero of $\Delta(t)$, then it will be an eigenvalue of monodromy associated with $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ at the generic point $p = S' \cap \sigma^{-1}(0)$.
\[thm:mon-conj\] Let $Y \subset {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ be a space monomial curve defined by the equations with $g \geq 2$ and denote by $\sigma: X' \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ the blow-up of ${\mathbb C}^{g+1}$ with center $Y$. Every pole ${\mathbb L}^{-s_0}$ of the local or global motivic Igusa zeta function associated with $Y$ induces a monodromy eigenvalue $e^{2\pi i s_0}$ of $Y$ at a point in $\sigma^{-1}(B \cap Y)$ for $B$ a small ball around $0$.
It remains to show that every $\lambda_k := e^{-2\pi i\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}}$ for $k = 1,\ldots, g$ with $\frac{\nu_k}{N_k} \notin {\mathbb N}$ is a zero of the characteristic polynomial. To this end, we will write $\Delta(t)$ as the product of $g$ polynomials of which each has one of the elements $\lambda_k$ as a zero. More precisely, we will write $\Delta(t)$ as a product of polynomials of the form $$\frac{(t^a-1)^p\cdot(t^{\gcd(b,c)} - 1)^{\gcd(q,r)}}{(t^b-1)^q \cdot (t^c-1)^r},$$ where $a,b,c,p,q$ and $r$ are positive integers with $b,c \mid a$ and $q,r \mid p$ . These are indeed polynomials as all linear factors of the denominator are canceled with the numerator; for example, a common linear factor of $t^b-1$ and $t^c-1$ is also a factor of both $t^a-1$ and $t^{\gcd(b,c)}-1$, and it is canceled as $p + \gcd(q,r) \geq q + r$ for $q,r \mid p$. For this purpose, let $L_k := \operatorname{lcm}(n_k,\ldots, n_g)$ for $k = 1,\ldots, g$ and let $L_{g+1} := 1$. With the definitions $N_k = \operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},n_k,\ldots, n_g)$ and $M_k = \operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},n_{k+1},\ldots, n_g)$, it is easy to see that $M_k, L_k \mid N_k$ and that $\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{M_k}, \frac{e_{k-1}}{L_k} \mid \frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{N_k}$ for all $k = 1,\ldots, g$. Furthermore, we have for all $k = 1,\ldots, g$ that $$\gcd(M_k,L_k) =\operatorname{lcm}\Big(L_{k+1},\gcd\big(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},n_k\big)\Big) = L_{k+1},$$ where we used in the first equality the general property $\gcd(\operatorname{lcm}(\alpha,\gamma),\operatorname{lcm}(\alpha,\delta)) = \operatorname{lcm}(\alpha,\gcd(\gamma,\delta))$, and in the second equality the fact that $\gcd(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},n_k)= 1$, see Section \[SpaceMonomial\]. Finally, using the relation and $\gcd({\bar{\beta}}_k,e_{k-1}) = e_k$, we see for $k = 1,\ldots, g$ that $$\gcd\Big(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{M_k},\frac{e_{k-1}}{L_k}\Big) = \gcd\Big(e_k,\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{n_{k+1}},\ldots, \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{n_g},\frac{e_{k-1}}{n_k},\ldots, \frac{e_{k-1}}{n_g}\Big) = \gcd\Big(\frac{e_k}{n_{k+1}},\ldots, \frac{e_k}{n_g}\Big) = \frac{e_k}{L_{k+1}}.$$ All this together implies for each $k = 1,\ldots, g$ that $$P_k(t) := \frac{(t^{N_k} - 1)^{\frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{N_k}} \cdot (t^{L_{k+1}} - 1)^{\frac{e_k}{L_{k+1}}}}{(t^{M_k} - 1)^{\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{M_k}} \cdot (t^{L_k} - 1)^{\frac{e_{k-1}}{L_k}}}$$ is a polynomial of the above form. It is also easy to see that $\Delta(t) = \prod_{k=1}^g P_k(t)$.
Fix now some $k \in \{1,\ldots, g\}$. We prove that $\lambda_k = e^{-2\pi i\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}}$ is a zero of $P_k(t)$. Clearly, it is a zero of $t^{N_k} - 1$, but we still need to show that this candidate zero does not get canceled with the denominator. To show this, we distinguish the following four cases.
1. The candidate zero $\lambda_k$ is not a zero of $t^{M_k}-1 = 0$, nor of $t^{L_k} - 1 = 0$: trivially, the candidate zero $\lambda_k$ is not canceled in $P_k(t)$.
2. The candidate zero $\lambda_k$ is a zero of $t^{M_k}-1 = 0$, but not of $t^{L_k} - 1 = 0$: in this case, it is sufficient to prove that $\frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{N_k} > \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{M_k}$ in order to conclude that $\lambda_k$ is a zero of $P_k(t)$. Because $\lambda_k = e^{-2\pi i\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}}$ is a zero of $t^{M_k}-1 = 0$, we know that $\frac{\nu_kM_k}{N_k}$ is an integer. Using the expression for $\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}$, one can see that this implies that $n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k \mid (\sum_{l=0}^k {\bar{\beta}}_l - \sum_{l=1}^{k-1}n_l{\bar{\beta}}_l)M_k$, which in turn implies, using $n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k = e_{k-1}\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k} \mid {\bar{\beta}}_lM_k$ for $l = 0,\ldots, k-1$, that $n_k \mid M_k$. We can conclude that $N_k = M_k$, and hence, we indeed have that $\frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{N_k} > \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{M_k}$ as $n_k > 1$.
3. The candidate zero $\lambda_k$ is a zero of $t^{L_k} - 1 = 0$, but not of $t^{M_k}-1 = 0$: as in the previous case, it is enough to show that $\frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{N_k} > \frac{e_{k-1}}{L_k}$. From $\lambda_k$ being a zero of $t^{L_k} - 1 = 0$, one can now deduce that $\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k} \mid (\sum_{l=0}^{k-1} {\bar{\beta}}_l - \sum_{l=1}^{k-1}n_l{\bar{\beta}}_l)\frac{L_k}{e_{k-1}}$. Because $e_{k-1} \mid {\bar{\beta}}_l$ for $l = 0,\ldots, k-1$, it follows that $N_k = \operatorname{lcm}(\frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{e_k},L_k) \mid (\sum_{l=0}^{k-1} {\bar{\beta}}_l - \sum_{l=1}^{k-1}n_l{\bar{\beta}}_l)\frac{L_k}{e_{k-1}}$, and thus that $$\frac{1}{N_k} \geq \frac{1}{\left\vert \sum_{l=0}^{k-1} {\bar{\beta}}_l - \sum_{l=1}^{k-1}n_l{\bar{\beta}}_l \right\vert} \frac{e_{k-1}}{L_k} = \left \{\begin{array}{cl}
\frac{1}{L_1} & \text{for } k=1 \\
\frac{1}{-{\bar{\beta}}_0 + \sum_{l=1}^{k-1}(n_l-1){\bar{\beta}}_l}\frac{e_{k-1}}{L_k} & \text{for } k = 2,\ldots, g.
\end{array}\right.$$ The equality comes from the fact that $-{\bar{\beta}}_0 + (n_1 - 1){\bar{\beta}}_1 = n_1{\bar{\beta}}_1(1 - \frac{1}{n_0} - \frac{1}{n_1}) > 0$ since $n_0, n_1 \geq 2$ are coprime. Finally, we can finish this case by using that ${\bar{\beta}}_1 > {\bar{\beta}}_0=e_0$ and ${\bar{\beta}}_k > -{\bar{\beta}}_0 + \sum_{l=1}^{k-1}(n_l-1){\bar{\beta}}_l$ for $k = 2,\ldots, g$, which follows from ${\bar{\beta}}_i > n_{i-1}{\bar{\beta}}_{i-1}$ for $i = 2,\ldots, k$.
4. The candidate zero $\lambda_k$ is a zero of both $t^{L_k} - 1 = 0$ and $t^{M_k}-1 = 0$: in this last case, the candidate zero $\lambda_k$ is also a zero of $t^{L_{k+1}} - 1 = 0$ and we need to show that $\frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{N_k} + \frac{e_k}{L_{k+1}} - \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{M_k} - \frac{e_{k-1}}{L_k} > 0$. Combining case (2) and (3), we know that $$\frac{n_k{\bar{\beta}}_k}{N_k} + \frac{e_k}{L_{k+1}} - \frac{{\bar{\beta}}_k}{M_k} - \frac{e_{k-1}}{L_k} \geq \frac{(n_k-1){\bar{\beta}}_k}{\left\vert \sum_{l=0}^{k-1} {\bar{\beta}}_l - \sum_{l=1}^{k-1}n_l{\bar{\beta}}_l \right\vert}\frac{e_{k-1}}{L_k} + \frac{e_k}{L_{k+1}} - \frac{e_{k-1}}{L_k},$$ which is positive as one can, similarly as in case (3), see that $(n_k-1){\bar{\beta}}_k \geq {\bar{\beta}}_k > \left\vert \sum_{l=0}^{k-1} {\bar{\beta}}_l - \sum_{l=1}^{k-1}n_l{\bar{\beta}}_l \right\vert$ for $k = 1,\ldots,g$.
Hence, every $\lambda_k$ is a zero of $P_k(t)$, and consequently, an eigenvalue of monodromy.
In the proof of Theorem \[thm:mon-conj\], the pole $\lambda_g = e^{-2\pi i\frac{\nu_g}{N_g}}$ could have been treated way easier. More precisely, the candidate zero $\lambda_g$ is never a zero of the denominator of $P_g(t)$ and we are always in case (1). Indeed, in case (2), we would have that $n_g \mid M_g = {\bar{\beta}}_g$, which is impossible. Likewise, in case (3), we would have the impossible property ${\bar{\beta}}_g \mid \sum_{l=0}^{g-1} {\bar{\beta}}_l - \sum_{l=1}^{g-1}n_l{\bar{\beta}}_l$ because ${\bar{\beta}}_g > \vert\sum_{l=0}^{g-1} {\bar{\beta}}_l - \sum_{l=1}^{g-1}n_l{\bar{\beta}}_l\vert = -{\bar{\beta}}_0 + \sum_{l=1}^{g-1}(n_l-1){\bar{\beta}}_l$. For smaller $k$, however, it is possible that $\lambda_k$ is a zero of the denominator. For instance, we can consider the curve $Y_1$ from Example \[ex:zeta-function-mon\] whose characteristic polynomial $\Delta(t)$ is written as the product $P_1(t) \cdot P_2(t)$ where $$P_1(t) = \frac{(t^6-1)^2(t^2-1)}{(t^6-1)(t^2-1)^2}, \qquad P_2(t) = \frac{(t^{26}-1)(t-1)}{(t^{13}-1)(t^2-1)}.$$ For $\lambda_1 = e^{\frac{-8\pi i}{3}}$, we are in case (2): it is a zero of the first term of the denominator of $P_1(t)$, but not of the second. One can also find examples in which some candidate zero $\lambda_k$ for $k < g$ is in case (3) or (4).
One can also investigate the monodromy conjecture for the related *topological and $p$-adic Igusa zeta function*. The topological Igusa zeta function for a single polynomial $f \in {\mathbb C}[x_0,\ldots,x_n]$ was introduced by Denef and Loeser [@DL1] in terms of an embedded resolution of $f$. For an ideal ${\mathcal I}\subset {\mathbb C}[x_0,\ldots, x_n]$, this definition can be generalized using a principalization $\varphi: \tilde X \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ of ${\mathcal I}$ as introduced in Section \[MonodromyGeneral\]: the *local topological Igusa zeta function* of ${\mathcal I}$ is given by $$Z^{top}_{{\mathcal I}}(s) = \sum_{I\subset J} \chi( E^{\circ}_I\cap\varphi^{-1}(0))\prod_{i \in I} \frac1{\nu_i + s N_i},$$ where we use the same notation $E^{\circ}_I$ as before and $\chi$ is the topological Euler characteristic. Roughly speaking, this function can be obtained from the motivic one by substituting $T = {\mathbb L}^{-s}$ and applying the topological Euler characteristic; for a formal argument, we refer to [@DL2 (2.3)]. Again, one can define a global topological zeta function with $\chi( E^{\circ}_I)$ instead of $\chi( E^{\circ}_I\cap\varphi^{-1}(0))$, which is a specialization of the global motivic zeta function. In particular, every pole of the local (resp. global) topological zeta function induces a pole of the local (resp. global) motivic zeta function. Hence, the monodromy conjecture for the motivic zeta function implies the conjecture for the topological zeta function. For our monomial curves, we could also apply the above proof to the poles $-g$ and $-\frac{\nu_k}{N_k}$ for $k = 1,\ldots, g$ obtained in [@MVV].
The $p$-adic Igusa zeta function for a prime $p$ and a polynomial $f \in \mathbb Z[x_0,\ldots, x_n]$ with $f \mod p \not\equiv 0$ was introduced by Weil [@W] as a certain $p$-adic integral, but Denef [@Den1] showed a formula in terms of an embedded resolution of $f$ similar to those of the motivic and topological zeta function and which can again be generalized to any ideal ${\mathcal I}= (f_1,\ldots, f_r) \subset \mathbb Z[x_0,\ldots, x_n]$ with $f_i \mod p \not \equiv 0$. More precisely, let $\varphi: \tilde X \rightarrow {\mathbb C}^{n+1}$ be a principalization of ${\mathcal I}$ with *good reduction modulo $p$*. This roughly means that $\varphi$ has some desirable properties modulo $p$, see [@Den1] for more details. The *local $p$-adic zeta function* of ${\mathcal I}$ can be written as $$Z^{p}_{{\mathcal I}}(s) = p^{-(n+1)}\sum_{I\subset J} \vert \overline{E^{\circ}_I \cap \varphi^{-1}(0)}\vert \prod_{i\in I} \frac{(p-1)p^{-\nu_i-N_is}}{1-p^{-\nu_i-N_is}},$$ where $\vert \overline{E^{\circ}_I \cap \varphi^{-1}(0)}\vert $ denotes the number of elements in the reduction $\overline{E^{\circ}_I \cap \varphi^{-1}(0)}$ modulo $p$ of $E^{\circ}_I \cap \varphi^{-1}(0)$. Once more, the global version consists of replacing $\vert \overline{E^{\circ}_I \cap \varphi^{-1}(0)}\vert$ by $\vert \bar{E}^{\circ}_I \vert$. As the local and global $p$-adic zeta function for almost all $p$ are specializations of the global and local motivic zeta function, respectively, the monodromy conjecture for the motivic zeta function also implies the conjecture for the $p$-adic zeta function, for almost all $p$.
[99]{}
, ‘La fonction zêta d’une monodromie’, [*Comment. Math. Helv.*]{} 50 (1975), 233–248. , ‘Torical modification of [N]{}ewton non-degenerate ideals’, [*Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat. Ser. A Mat. RACSAM*]{} 107 no. 1 (2013), 221–239. , ‘Newton-[P]{}uiseux expansion and generalized [T]{}schirnhausen transformation [I]{}, [II]{}’, [*J. Reine Angew. Math.*]{} 260 (1973), 47–83; [*ibid.*]{} 261 (1973), 29–54. , ‘Cartier and [W]{}eil divisors on varieties with quotient singularities’, [*Internat. J. Math.*]{} 25 no. 11 (2014), 1450100. , ‘Intersection theory on abelian-quotient [$V$]{}-surfaces and [${\mathbb Q}$]{}-resolutions’, [*J. Singul.*]{} 8 (2014), 11–30. , [*On the [J]{}acobian ideal of a plane curve*]{} (PhD thesis, Purdue University, 1967). , ‘Igusa’s [$p$]{}-adic local zeta function and the monodromy conjecture for non-degenerate surface singularities’, [*Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} 242 no. 1145 (2016). , ‘Le formalisme des cycles évanescents, [C]{}omparaison avec la théorie transcendante’, in [*SGA7, Groupes de monodromie en géométrie algébrique. [II]{}*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 340 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1973), 82–115, 116–164. , ’On the degree of [I]{}gusa’s local zeta function’, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} 109 no. 6 (1987), 991–1008. , ‘Degree of local zeta functions and monodromy’, [*Compositio Math.*]{} 89 no. 2 (1993), 207–216. , [*Sheaves in topology*]{}, Universitext (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004). , ‘Caractéristiques d’[E]{}uler-[P]{}oincaré, fonctions zêta locales et modifications analytiques’, [*J. Amer. Math. Soc.* ]{}5 no. 4 (1992), 705–720. , ‘Motivic [I]{}gusa zeta functions’, [*J. Algebraic Geom.*]{} 7 no. 3 (1998), 505–537. , ‘Weighted projective varieties’, in [*Group actions and vector fields ([V]{}ancouver, [B]{}.[C]{}., 1981)*]{}, Lecture Notes in Math. 956 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982), 34–71. , [*The geometry of schemes*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 197 (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000). , [*Algebraic geometry*]{}, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 52 (Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1977). , ‘Resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety over a field of characteristic zero. [I]{}, [II]{}’, [*Ann. of Math.*]{} 2 no. 79 (1964), 109–203, 205–326. , ‘On [I]{}gusa zeta functions of monomial ideals’, [*Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} 135 no. 11 (2007), 3425–3433. , [*Théorèmes de [B]{}ertini et applications*]{}, Progress in Mathematics 42 (Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 1983). , ‘Fonctions d’[I]{}gusa [$p$]{}-adiques et polynômes de [B]{}ernstein’, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} 110 no. 1 (1988), 1–21. , ‘Monodromy zeta function formula for embedded [${\mathbb Q}$]{}-resolutions’, [*Rev. Mat. Iberoam.*]{} 29 no. 3 (2013), 939–967. , ‘Semistable reduction of a normal crossing [${\mathbb Q}$]{}-divisor’, [*Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.*]{} 195 no. 5 (2016), 1749–1769.
, [*Singular points of complex hypersurfaces*]{}, Annals of Mathematics Studies 61 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1968). , ‘Bernstein-[S]{}ato polynomials for general ideals vs. principal ideals’ (preprint, arXiv:1906.03086, 2019). , ‘The motivic [I]{}gusa zeta function of a space monomial curve with a plane semigroup’ (preprint, arXiv:1903.02354, 2019). , ‘Resolution graphs of some surface singularities. [I]{}. [C]{}yclic coverings’, in [*Singularities in algebraic and analytic geometry ([S]{}an [A]{}ntonio, [TX]{}, 1999)*]{}, Contemp. Math. 266 (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000), 89–128. , ‘On a generalization of the notion of manifold’, [*Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.*]{} 42 (1956), 359–363. , ‘Valuations in function fields of surfaces’, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} 112 no. 1 (1990), 107–156. , ‘Mixed [H]{}odge structure on the vanishing cohomology’, in [*Real and complex singularities*]{}, [P]{}roc. [N]{}inth [N]{}ordic [S]{}ummer [S]{}chool/[NAVF]{} [S]{}ympos. [M]{}ath. [O]{}slo 1976 (Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1977), 525–563. , Appendix to [O.]{} [Z]{}ariski’s course [*The moduli problem for plane branches*]{}, University Lecture Series 39 (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006). , ‘Overweight deformations of affine toric varieties and local uniformization’, in [*Valuation theory in interaction*]{}, EMS Ser. Congr. Rep. (Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2014), 474–565. , ‘Compactifications of subvarieties of tori’, [*Amer. J. Math.*]{} 129 no. 4 (2007), 1087–1104. , ‘On a question of [B]{}. [T]{}eissier’, [*Collect. Math.*]{} 65 no. 1 (2014), 61–66. , ‘Spécialisation de faisceaux et monodromie modérée’, in [*Analysis and topology on singular spaces, [II]{}, [III]{} ([L]{}uminy, 1981)*]{}, Astérisque 101 (Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1983), 332–364. , ‘Zeta functions for curves and log canonical models’, [*Proc. London Math. Soc.*]{} 74 no. 2 (1997), 360–378. , ‘The monodromy conjecture for zeta functions associated to ideals in dimension two’, [*Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble)* ]{}60 no. 4 (2010), 1347–1362. , ‘Sur la formule de [S]{}iegel dans la théorie des groupes classiques’, [*Acta Math.* ]{}113 (1965), 1–87. , [*The moduli problem for plane branches*]{}, University Lecture Series 39 (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Real-world applications such as magnetic resonance imaging with multiple coils, multi-user communication, and diffuse optical tomography often assume a linear model where several sparse signals sharing common sparse supports are acquired by several measurement matrices and then contaminated by noise. Multi-measurement vector (MMV) problems consider the estimation or reconstruction of such signals. In different applications, the estimation error that we want to minimize could be the mean squared error or other metrics such as the mean absolute error and the support set error. Seeing that minimizing different error metrics is useful in MMV problems, we study information-theoretic performance limits for MMV signal estimation with arbitrary additive error metrics. We also propose a message passing algorithmic framework that achieves the optimal performance, and rigorously prove the optimality of our algorithm for a special case. We further conjecture the optimality of our algorithm for some general cases, and back it up through numerical examples. As an application of our MMV algorithm, we propose a novel setup for active user detection in multi-user communication and demonstrate the promise of our proposed setup.'
author:
- 'Junan Zhu, and Dror Baron, [^1] [^2]'
title: 'Performance Limits with Additive Error Metrics in Noisy Multi-Measurement Vector Problems'
---
[*Keywords*]{}:Active user detection, error metric, message passing, multi-measurement vector problem.
Introduction
============
Many systems in science and engineering can be approximated by a linear model, where a signal $\x \in \mathbb{R}^N$ is recorded via a measurement matrix $\A\in\mathbb{R}^{M \times N}$, and then contaminated by a measurement channel, $$\label{eq:SMV}
\w = \A \x,\ y_m = \mathcal{Z}(w_m), \forall m\in \{1,\ldots,M\},$$ where $y_m,m\in\{1,\ldots,M\}$, are the entries of the measurements $\y\in\mathbb{R}^M$, and the measurement channel $\mathcal{Z}(\cdot)$ is characterized by a probability density function (pdf), $f(y_m|w_m)$. The goal is to estimate $\x$ from the measurements $\y$ given knowledge of $\A$ and a model for the measurement channel $f(y_m|w_m),\forall m$. We call such a system the [*single measurement vector (SMV)*]{} problem.
In many applications, the signal acquisition systems are distributed, where $J$ measurement matrices measure $J$ different signals individually. The key difference between such a system and $J$ individual SMV’s, is that these $J$ signals are somewhat dependent. An example of a model containing such dependencies is the multi-measurement vector (MMV) problem [@chen2006trs; @cotter2005ssl; @Mishali08rembo; @Berg09jrmm; @LeeKimBreslerYe2011; @LeeBreslerJunge2012; @YeKimBresler2015]. The MMV problem considers the estimation of a set of dependent signals, and has applications such as magnetic resonance imaging with multiple coils [@JuYeKi07; @JuSuNaKiYe09], active user detection in multi-user communication [@FletcherRanganGoyal2009; @Boljanovic2017], and diffuse optical tomography using multiple illumination patterns [@LeeKimBreslerYe2011]. In MMV, thanks to the dependencies among different signals, the number of sparse coefficients that can be successfully estimated increases with the number of measurements. This property was evaluated rigorously for noiseless measurements using $l_0$ minimization [@DuarteWakinBaronSarvothamBaraniuk2013], if the underlying signals share the same sparse supports. A non-rigorous replica analysis of MMV with measurement noise also shows the benefit of having more signal vectors [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE; @ZhuDissertation2017].
[**Related work:**]{} There are many estimation approaches for MMV problems. These include greedy algorithms such as SOMP [@tropp2006ass; @chen2006trs], $l_1$ convex relaxation [@malioutov2005ssr; @tropp2006ass2], and M-FOCUSS [@cotter2005ssl]. REduce MMV and BOost (ReMBo) has been shown to outperform conventional methods [@Mishali08rembo], and subspace methods have also been used to solve MMV problems [@LeeBreslerJunge2012; @YeKimBresler2015]. However, these algorithms cannot handle the case of $J$ [*different*]{} measurement matrices. Statistical approaches [@ZinielSchniter2011] often achieve the oracle minimum mean squared error (MMSE). However, when running estimation algorithms for MMV problems, one might be interested in minimizing some other error. For example, if estimating the underlying signal is important, one could use the mean squared error (MSE) metric; when there might be outliers in the estimated signal, using the mean absolute error (MAE) metric might be more appropriate. Seeing that there is no prior work discussing the optimal performance with user-defined error metrics, we study the optimal performance with user-defined additive error metrics in MMV problems where the signals share common sparse supports, and each entry of the measurements is contaminated by parallel measurement channels (i.e., the channel in satisfies $f(\y|\w)=\prod_{m=1}^M f(y_m|w_m)$). Note that a specific error metric, the MSE, has been studied in Zhu et al. [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE], which focuses on the MSE performance limits (i.e., the MMSE) of MMV signal estimation. In contrast, this work explores performance limits and designs an algorithm that can minimize [*arbitrary additive error metrics*]{} beyond MSE.
[**Contributions:**]{} This paper combines insights from Zhu et al. [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE] and Tan and coauthors [@Tan2012SSP; @Tan2014], thus yielding a stronger understanding of the MMV problem, which could be extended in future work to other distributed signal acquisition settings, beyond MMV. To be more specific, we make several contributions in this paper. First, by extending Tan and coauthors [@Tan2012SSP; @Tan2014] we provide an algorithm based on a message passing (MP) framework [@RanganGAMP2011ISIT; @Krzakala2012probabilistic] that can be adapted to minimize the expected error for arbitrary additive error metrics. Our algorithm first runs MP until it converges or reaches some stopping criteria, and we then denoise MP’s output using a denoiser that minimizes the given additive error metric. Second, we prove rigorously that our algorithm is optimal in a specific SMV case,[^3] and further conjecture the optimality of our algorithm in MMV. Third, as an example, we derive performance limits for MAE and mean weighted support set error (MWSE) by designing the corresponding optimal denoisers, based on the scalar channel noise variance (Section \[sec:MPA\]) derived from replica analysis (Appendix \[app:inverMMSE\]) [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE]. Simulation results show the superiority and optimality of our algorithm. We note in passing that having more signal vectors in MMV helps reduce the estimation error. Finally, as an application of MMV and our algorithm, we propose a novel setup for active user detection in multi-user communications (details in Section \[sec:app\]) and demonstrate the promise of our proposed setup through simulation.
[**Organization:**]{} The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We introduce our problem setting and MP algorithms in Section \[sec:background\]. Our algorithmic framework, which can minimize arbitrary additive error metrics, is proposed in Section \[sec:achievable\]; we rigorously prove the optimality of our algorithm for an SMV case and conjecture the optimality of our algorithm for MMV cases in Section \[sec:converse\]. For some example error metrics, we derive the corresponding optimal algorithms, together with the theoretical limits for these errors, in Section \[sec:example\]. Synthetic simulation results are discussed in Section \[sec:numeric\_synth\], followed by an application of our metric-optimal algorithm to a real-world problem in Section \[sec:app\]. We conclude in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
[**Notations:**]{} In this paper, bold capital letters represent matrices, bold lower case letters represent vectors, and normal font letters represent scalars. The $m$-th entry (scalar) of a vector $\z$ is denoted by $z_m$.
Problem Setting and Background {#sec:background}
==============================
Problem setting
---------------
[**Signal model**]{}: We consider an ensemble of $J$ signal vectors, $\x^{(j)}\in\mathbb{R}^N,\ j\in\{1,\ldots,J\}$, where $j$ is the index of the signal. Consider a [*super-symbol*]{} $\x_n=[x_n^{(1)},\ldots,x_n^{(J)}],\ n\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$; all super-symbols in this paper are row vectors. The super symbol $\x_n$ follows a $J$-dimensional distribution, $$\label{eq:jsm}
f(\x_n)=\rho \phi(\x_n)+(1-\rho)\delta(\x_n),$$ where $\rho\in (0,1)$ determines the percentage of non-zeros in the signal and is called the sparsity rate, $\phi(\x_n)$ is a $J$-dimensional pdf, and $\delta(\x_n)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \x_n = \textbf{0},\\
0, & \text{else}.
\end{array}
\right.\\
$
\[def:jointly\_sparse\] [*Ensembles of signals are called jointly sparse signals with common sparse supports when they obey .*]{}
Note that there are other types of joint sparsity [@BaronDCStech] that fit into the MMV framework. For example, an MMV model with signal vectors that have slowly changing supports is discussed in Ziniel and Schniter [@ZinielSchniter2013MMV]. Since this paper only focuses on the MMV problem with signals sharing common sparse supports , we refer to joint sparsity with common sparse supports as joint sparsity for brevity.
[**Measurement models**]{}: Each signal $\x^{(j)}$ is measured by a measurement matrix $\A^{(j)}\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times N}$ before being corrupted by a random measurement channel, $$\label{eq:linearMixing}
\begin{split}
\w^{(j)}&=\A^{(j)}\x^{(j)},\ y_m^{(j)}=\mathcal{Z}(w_m^{(j)}),\\
&\quad m\in\{1,\ldots,M\},\ j\in\{1,\ldots,J\},
\end{split}$$ where $y_m^{(j)}, m\in \{1,\ldots,M\}$ are the entries of the measurements $\y^{(j)}$, and the measurement channel $\mathcal{Z}(\cdot)$ is characterized by the pdf $f(y_m^{(j)}|w_m^{(j)})$. In this paper, we only focus on independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) parallel measurement channels, i.e., the pdf’s $f(y_m^{(j)}|w_m^{(j)}), \forall m,j$, are identical and there is no cross-talk among different channels; our proposed algorithm is readily extended to parallel channels with different $f(y_m^{(j)}|w_m^{(j)}), \forall m,j$. When the number of signal vectors $J=1$, we call this MMV model an SMV problem .
\[def:largeSystemLimit\] [*The signal length $N$ scales to infinity, and the number of measurements $M=M(N)$ depends on $N$ and also scales to infinity, where the ratio approaches a positive constant $R$,*]{} $$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \frac{M(N)}{N} = R>0.$$
We call $R$ the measurement rate.
For MMV problems, we are given the matrices $\A^{(j)}$ and measurements $\y^{(j)},\ \forall j$, as well as knowledge of the measurement channel . Our task is to estimate the underlying signal vectors $\x^{(j)},\ \forall j$. Suppose that the estimate is $\widehat{\x}^{(j)}$. Define $\X=[\x^{(1)},\cdots,\x^{(J)}]$ and $\widehat{\X}=[\widehat{\x}^{(1)},\cdots,\widehat{\x}^{(J)}]$. Therefore, $\X=[\x_1^T,\cdots,\x_N^T]^T$, where $\{\cdot\}^T$ denotes transpose. The estimation quality is quantified by a user-defined error metric $D_{\text{UD}}(\X,\widehat{\X})$, where the subscript UD denotes “user-defined." We define this [*additive error metric $D_{\text{UD}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ as*]{} $$D_{\text{UD}}(\X, \widehat{\X})={\sum_{n=1}^{N}}d_{\text{UD}}(\x_n,\widehat{\x}_n),$$ where $d_{\text{UD}}(\cdot,\cdot): \mathbb{R}^J\times \mathbb{R}^J \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is an arbitrary user-defined error metric on each super-symbol. The smaller the $D_{\text{UD}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is, the better the estimation is.
Message passing algorithms {#sec:MPA}
--------------------------
Message passing (MP) algorithms consider a factor graph [@RanganGAMP2011ISIT; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @BarbierKrzakala2017IT], which expresses the relation between the signals $\x$ and measurements $\y$. We begin by discussing the factor graph for SMV, followed by that of MMV.
![Factor graph for SMV (left) and MMV (right).[]{data-label="fig:factorGraph"}](factorGraph.png){width="8cm"}
[**Factor graph for SMV:**]{} The left panel of Fig. \[fig:factorGraph\] illustrates the factor graph concept for an SMV problem with i.i.d. entries in the signal $\x$. The round circles are the variable nodes (representing the distribution of the signal), and the squares denote the factor nodes (representing the measurement channel). The variables $x_n,\ \forall n$, are driven by each factor node $f(x_n)$ individually, because the signal has i.i.d. entries $x_n$. There are two types of messages passed in the factor graph shown on the left panel of Fig. \[fig:factorGraph\]: the message passed by the variable node $x_n$ to the factor node $y_m$, $\mathcal{M}_{n\rightarrow m}(x_n)$, and the message passed by the factor node $y_m$ to the variable node $x_n$, $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{m\rightarrow n}(x_n)$. According to the literature on MP algorithms [@RanganGAMP2011ISIT; @Krzakala2012probabilistic; @BarbierKrzakala2017IT], we have the following relation: $$\begin{split}
\mathcal{M}_{n\rightarrow m}(x_n) &=\frac{1}{Z_{n\rightarrow m}}f(x_n) \prod_{\widehat{m} \neq m} \widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{\widehat{m}\rightarrow n}(x_n), \\
\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{m\rightarrow n}(x_n) &=\frac{1}{Z_{m\rightarrow n}} \int f(y_m | \x) \prod_{\widehat{n}\neq n} \mathcal{M}_{\widehat{n}\rightarrow m}(x_{\widehat{n}})\prod_{\widehat{n}\neq n}dx_{\widehat{n}},
\end{split}$$ where we use a single integral sign to denote a multi-dimensional integration for brevity, and $Z_{n\rightarrow m}$ and $Z_{m\rightarrow n}$ are normalization factors. The aim of this paper is not the detailed derivation of MP algorithms. Instead, the key property of MP utilized in this paper is that MP converts into the following equivalent scalar channel, $$\q=\x+\v,$$ where $\q$ is the noisy [*pseudo data*]{}, and $\v$ is the equivalent scalar channel additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) whose variance $\Delta_v$ can be approximated. After obtaining $\q$ and $\Delta_v$, each variable node $x_n$ updates the estimate $\widehat{x}_n$ by denoising $q_n$. If the signal entries are i.i.d. and the matrix is either i.i.d. or sparse and locally tree-like, then MP algorithms yield a density function $f(x_n|q_n)$ that is statistically equivalent to $f(x_n|\y)$ [@RanganGAMP2011ISIT].
[**Factor graph for MMV:**]{} An MMV problem with jointly sparse signals can be expressed as the factor graph shown in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:factorGraph\]. We can see that the MP in each channel is similar to an SMV problem. The only difference is that the $J$ variable nodes $x_n^{(j)},\ j\in\{1,\ldots,J\}$, for fixed $n$ are driven by one factor node $f(\x_n)$. By grouping the entries from different signal vectors together into super-symbols as in , we have i.i.d. super-symbols. The noisy super-symbol pseudo data $\q_n=[q_n^{(1)},\ldots,q_n^{(J)}]$ is denoised, in order to update the estimate for $\x_n=[x_n^{(1)},\ldots,x_n^{(J)}]$.
Main Results {#sec:main}
============
We first present our metric-optimal algorithm in Section \[sec:achievable\] and then in Section \[sec:converse\] we rigorously prove that our metric-optimal algorithm is optimal in the SMV case under certain conditions.[^4] Based on our proof for the SMV case, we conjecture that the proposed algorithm is optimal for arbitrary additive error metrics in the MMV case.
Achievable part: Metric-optimal estimation algorithm {#sec:achievable}
----------------------------------------------------
The metric-optimal algorithm consists of two parts, as illustrated in Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\]. We first run an MP algorithm (Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\] provides an implementation of an MP algorithm) to get the noisy pseudo data $\q^{(j)}, \forall j$, and the noise variance $\Delta_v$ (details below). Next, we denoise $\q^{(j)}, \forall j$, using an optimal denoiser tailored to minimize the given error metric. The following discusses both parts in detail.
\
[**Inputs:**]{} Measurements $\y^{(j)}$ and matrices $\A^{(j)}, \forall j$\
[**Part 1 (Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\]):**]{} Obtain pseudo data $\q^{(j)},\ \forall j$, and scalar channel noise variance $\Delta_v$ from MP($\y^{(j)}, \A^{(j)}, \forall j$)\
[**Part 2 (examples in Section \[sec:example\]):**]{} Obtain optimal estimate $\widetilde{\x}^{(j)}$ from denoiser using $\q^{(j)},\Delta_v, \forall j$\
[**Outputs:**]{} $\widetilde{\x}^{(j)},\ \forall n$
\
[**Inputs:**]{} Maximum number of iterations $t_{\text{max}}$, threshold $\epsilon$, sparsity rate $\rho$, noise variance $\Delta_z$, measurements $\y^{(j)}$, and measurement matrices $\A^{(j)}, \forall j$\
[**Initialize:**]{} $t=1,\delta=\infty,\k^{(j)}=\y^{(j)},\Theta_m^{(j)}=0,s^{(j)}_n=\rho\Delta_z,\widehat{x}_n^{(j)}=0, h_m^{(j)}=0, \forall m,n,j$ \[line:beginForLoop\]\
$\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(j)}=(\A^{(j)})^2 \s^{(j)}$\[line:Theta\]\
$\k^{(j)}=\A^{(j)} \widehat{\x}^{(j)}-\text{diag}(\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(j)}) \h^{(j)}$\
$h_m^{(j)}=g_{\text{out}}\l(k_m^{(j)},y_m^{(j)},\Theta_m^{(j)}\r)$\[line:g\_out\]\
$r_m^{(j)} = -\frac{\partial}{\partial k_m^{(j)}} g_{\text{out}}\l(k_m^{(j)},y_m^{(j)},\Theta_m^{(j)}\r)$\[line:deriv\_g\_out\]\
// Scalar channel noise variance\
$\Delta_v^{(j)}=\l\{\frac{1}{N} \mathbf{1}^T \l[(\A^{(j)})^T\r]^2 \mathbf{r}^{(j)}\r\}^{-1}$ \[line:scalarNoiseVar\]\
$\q^{(j)}=\widehat{\x}^{(j)}+\Delta_v^{(j)} (\A^{(j)})^T \h^{(j)}$ // Pseudo data\
$\widehat{\a}^{(j)}=\widehat{\x}^{(j)}$ // Save current estimate \[line:endForLoop\]\
$\Delta_v=\sum_{j=1}^J \Delta_v^{(j)}$\[line:mean\_delta\]\
$\widehat{\x}_n=f_{a_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)$ // Estimate\[line:mean\]\
$\s_n=[s_n^{(1)},\ldots,s_n^{(J)}]=f_{v_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)$ // Variance\[line:var\]\
$t=t+1$ // Increment iteration index\
$\delta=\frac{1}{NJ}\sum_{n=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^J\l(\widehat{x}^{(j)}_n-\widehat{a}^{(j)}_n\r)^2$ // Change\
[**Outputs:**]{} Estimate $\widehat{\x}^{(j)}$, pseudo data $\q^{(j)},\ \forall j$, and scalar channel noise variance $\Delta_v$
[**MP algorithm:**]{} For the first part, we modify the generalized approximate message passing (GAMP) algorithm [@RanganGAMP2011ISIT], which is an implementation of MP, and list the pseudo code in Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\]. The notation diag$(\boldsymbol{\Theta}^{(j)})$ denotes a diagonal matrix whose entries along the diagonal are $\boldsymbol{\Theta^{(j)}}$, and the power-of-two in Lines \[line:Theta\] and \[line:scalarNoiseVar\] is applied element-wise. The function $g_{\text{out}}$ in Lines \[line:g\_out\] and \[line:deriv\_g\_out\] is given by $$\label{eq:g_out}
g_{\text{out}}\l(k,y,\Theta\r)=\frac{1}{\Theta}(\mathbb{E}[w|k,y,\Theta]-k),$$ where we omit the subscripts and super-scripts for brevity, and the expectation is taken over the pdf, $$\label{eq:prob_w}
f(w|k,y,\Theta)\propto f(y|w)\text{exp}\l[-\frac{(w-k)^2}{2\Theta}\r].$$
For the special case of AWGN channels, $$\label{eq:AWGN}
y=w+z,$$ where $z\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\Delta_z)$, we obtain $g_{\text{out}}(k,y,\Theta)=\frac{y-k}{\Delta_z+\Theta}$ [@RanganGAMP2011ISIT]. In Appendix \[app:logit\], we also briefly present the derivation for an i.i.d. parallel logistic channel, $$\label{eq:logit}
f(y|w)=\delta(y-1)\frac{1}{1+\text{exp}(-aw)}+\delta(y)\frac{\text{exp}(-aw)}{1+\text{exp}(-aw)},$$ where $a$ is a scaling factor.[^5]
For the special case of i.i.d. [*joint Bernoulli-Gaussian signals*]{} where $\phi(\x_n)\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\mathbb{I})$ in and $\mathbb{I}$ is an identity matrix, $f_{a_n}$ and $f_{v_n}$ in Lines \[line:mean\] and \[line:var\] are given below, $$\label{eq:denoiser}
f_{a_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)=\frac{\rho}{C(\Delta_v+1)}\q_n,
$$ $$f_{v_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)\!=\!-[f_{a_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)]^2+\frac{\rho}{C(\Delta_v+1)}\!\l[\frac{\q_n^2}{\Delta_v+1}\!+\!\Delta_v\r],$$ where $\q_n^2=\l[\l(q_n^{(1)}\r)^2,\ldots,\l(q_n^{(J)}\r)^2\r]$ and $$C=\rho+(1-\rho)\l(1+\frac{1}{\Delta_v}\r)^{\frac{J}{2}}\exp\l[-\frac{\q_n\q_n^T}{2\Delta_v(\Delta_v+1)}\r].$$ Notice that in Line \[line:scalarNoiseVar\] we take the mean of a vector to obtain a scalar $\Delta_v^{(j)}$, which is the average of the variances for the estimates of signal entries $x_n^{(j)}$. This is because the super-symbols $\x_n, \forall n$, of the signals are i.i.d and the $J$ measurement channels are i.i.d. For the same reason, $\Delta_v^{(j)},\ j\in\{1,\ldots,J\}$, should be close to each other; hence, Line \[line:mean\_delta\]. Note that Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\] assumes that the entries of $\A^{(j)}$ scale with $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$, and is a more generic form of an algorithm from our prior work with Krzakala [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE].
[**Metric-optimal denoiser:**]{} The second part of our metric-optimal algorithm takes as inputs the noisy pseudo data $\q_n=\x_n+\v_n$ and the estimated variance of $\v_n,\ \Delta_v$, from the MP algorithm. Using Bayes’ rule, we can derive the posterior $f(\x_n|\q_n)$ and use $f(\x_n|\q_n)$ to formulate the optimal estimator in the sense of the user-defined error metric. The optimal estimate is $$\label{eq:estimator}
\widetilde{\x}_n=\arg\min_{\widehat{\x}_n} \int d_{\text{UD}}(\x_n,\widehat{\x}_n) f(\x_n|\q_n) d\x_n.
$$
Converse part: The optimal estimate {#sec:converse}
-----------------------------------
The reason why is optimal is based on the insight from Rangan [@RanganGAMP2011ISIT] that in SMV the density function $f(x_n|q_n)$ converges to the posterior $f(x_n|\y)$. A rigorous proof for a certain SMV case is provided below, followed by our conjecture that is optimal in the MMV case.
\[lemma:optSMV\] Consider an SMV in the large system limit (Definition \[def:largeSystemLimit\]) with an AWGN measurement channel, $f(y_m|w_m)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma_Z^2}}\exp\l[\frac{(y_m-w_m)^2}{2\sigma_Z^2}\r], \forall m$. The estimate $\widetilde{\x}_n$ is optimal in the sense that $$\label{eq:optSMV}
\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N d_{\text{UD}}(\widetilde{x}_n,x_n) = \text{MUDE},$$ where MUDE denotes the minimum user-defined error, if all the conditions below hold.
1. The entries of the measurement matrix are i.i.d. Gaussian, $A_{mn}\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\frac{1}{N})$,
2. the signal entries are i.i.d. with bounded fourth moment $\mathbb{E}[X^4]<B$, where $B$ is some constant,
3. the free energy given by replica analysis has one fixed point [@ZhuBaronCISS2013; @ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE; @Krzakala2012probabilistic],[^6]
4. the user-defined error metric $d_{\text{UD}}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is pseudo-Lipschitz [@Bayati2011],[^7]
5. the optimal estimator as a function of $q_n,\ \widetilde{x}_n(q_n): \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ , is Lipschitz continuous, and
6. Part 1 converges before entering Part 2 in Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\].
According to Theorem 1 in Bayati and Montanari [@Bayati2011], we know that $\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=1}^N d_{\text{UD}}(\widetilde{x}_n(q_n),x_n) = \mathbb{E}\l[d_{\text{UD}}(\widetilde{x}_{n}(X+\Delta_v Z),X)\r]$, where $X$ is a random variable following the same distribution as the signal entries, $Z\sim \mathcal{N}(0,1)$, and $\Delta_v$ is given in Line \[line:mean\_delta\] of Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\]. The question boils down to showing that $\text{MUDE} = \mathbb{E}\l[d_{\text{UD}}(\widetilde{x}_{n}(X+\Delta_v Z),X)\r]$. In fact, when Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\] converges, $\Delta_v$ corresponds to the scalar channel noise variance associated with the MMSE given by replica analysis [@Bayati2011; @RushVenkataramanan2016]. In addition, the MMSE provided by replica analysis is proved to be exact under the conditions asserted in Lemma \[lemma:optSMV\] [@ReevesPfister2016]. Therefore, $\mathbb{E}\l[d_{\text{UD}}(\widetilde{x}_{n}(X+\Delta_v Z),X)\r]$ is indeed the MUDE. Hence, we proved , and the estimator is optimal.
**Remark 1:** The optimality of the metric-optimal estimator $\widetilde{\x}_n$ is stated in the sense that the ensemble mean user-defined error converges almost surely to the MUDE. It is possible that there exist other estimators that achieve the MUDE.
**Remark 2:** The proof is made possible by linking three rigorous proofs [@ReevesPfister2016; @Bayati2011; @RushVenkataramanan2016] from the prior art. That said, numerical examples in Section \[sec:numeric\_synth\] demonstrate that Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\] yields promising results even if the conditions required by Lemma \[lemma:optSMV\] are not met.
After proving the optimality of our metric-optimal algorithm in the SMV scenario with certain conditions, we state the following conjecture.
\[conj:2\] In the large system limit, for the MMV model with the signal in and the user-defined additive error metric $d_{\text{UD}}(\x_n,\widehat{\x}_n)$, the optimal estimate of the signal vectors is $$\widetilde{\x}_n=\arg\min_{\widehat{\x}_n} \mathbb{E}[d_{\text{UD}}(\x_n,\widehat{\x}_n)|\q_n].$$
As the reader can see from the proof of Lemma \[lemma:optSMV\], in order to rigorously prove Conjecture \[conj:2\], we need to show ([*i*]{}) the MMSE given by the replica analysis for the MMV case [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE] is exact, ([*ii*]{}) the scalar channel noise variance $\Delta_v$ in Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\] corresponds to the MMSE given by replica analysis, and ([*iii*]{}) a result similar to Theorem 1 in Bayati and Montanari [@Bayati2011] holds. None of these three results exists in the prior art, so we do not foresee what exact conditions are needed for Conjecture \[conj:2\]. Proving these three results (and hence Conjecture \[conj:2\]) is beyond the scope of this work. Instead, we provide some intuition that explains why we believe Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\] is optimal in the MMV scenario.
In the SMV case, $f(x_n|q_n)$ converges to the posterior $f(x_n|\y)$ in relaxed BP [@RanganGAMP2011ISIT]. As an extension to the MMV case, we intuitively think that $f(\x_n|\q_n)$ would converge to the posterior $f(\x_n|\{\y^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^J)$, based on two observations: ([*i*]{}) the measurement channels are i.i.d., so that it suffices to update the estimate of the channel by passing the messages $\mathcal{M}_{n\rightarrow m}(x_n^{(j)})$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_{m\rightarrow n}(x_n^{(j)})$ for different $j$ individually, and ([*ii*]{}) the super-symbols $\x_n$ are i.i.d., so that denoising each super-symbol individually accounts for all the information needed to update the estimate.
The optimal estimate of each super-symbol $\x_n$ in the signal vectors is $$\label{eq:estimatorTrue}
\widetilde{\x}_{\text{true},n}=\arg\min_{\widehat{\x}_n} \int d_{\text{UD}}(\x_n,\widehat{\x}_n) f(\x_n|\{\y^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^J) d\x_n.$$ Comparing and , provided that $f(\x_n|\q_n)$ converges to the posterior $f(\x_n|\{\y^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^J)$, we have $$\widetilde{\x}_n=\arg\min_{\widehat{\x}_n} \mathbb{E}[d_{\text{UD}}(\x_n,\widehat{\x}_n)|\q_n]\approx \widetilde{\x}_{\text{true},n},$$ which results in Conjecture \[conj:2\].
Example Metric-optimal Estimators and Performance Limits {#sec:example}
========================================================
In order to derive metric-optimal estimators, we need to know the scalar channel noise variance, $\Delta_v$. Below we obtain the optimal estimator, which is then used as part of Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\] and to evaluate the performance limits of our metric-optimal algorithm.
For i.i.d. matrices and AWGN channels , replica analysis in our previous work with Krzakala [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE] yields the information-theoretic scalar channel noise variance $\Delta_v$ for message passing algorithms, which characterizes the posterior $f(\x_n|\q_n)$.[^8] Hence, we can obtain the information-theoretic optimal performance with arbitrary additive error metrics. For other types of matrices, our replica analysis [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE] does not hold. Nevertheless, MP algorithms still yield a posterior $f(\x_n|\q_n)$, which we conjecture converges to the true posterior $f(\x_n|\{\y^{(j)}\}_{j=1}^J)$ (Conjecture \[conj:2\]). Hence, we can still assume that the scalar channel noise variance $\Delta_v$ is known. Based on the known variance $\Delta_v$, we build metric-optimal estimators for two examples, mean weighted support set error (Section \[sec:weightedSupportSet\]) and mean absolute error (Section \[sec:MAE\]).
Mean weighted support set error (MWSE) {#sec:weightedSupportSet}
--------------------------------------
[**MWSE-optimal estimator:**]{} In support set estimation, the goal is to estimate the support of the signal, which is 1 if the corresponding entry in the signal is non-zero and 0 if it is zero. There are two types of errors in support set estimation: false alarms (support is 0, but estimated to be 1) and misses (support is 1, but estimated to be 0). In some applications such as medical imaging and radar detection, a miss may mean that the doctor misses an illness of the patient, or the radar misses an incoming missile. Hence, the cost paid for a miss could be tremendous compared to a false alarm. There are other applications where a false alarm is more costly than a miss. For example, in court, if an innocent person is mistakenly judged guilty, he/she will likely suffer a great deal. Therefore, we should weight these two errors differently in different applications. Let $b_n$ and $\widehat{b}_n$ be the true support and the estimated support of the $n$-th entry of the signal, respectively, and $\beta\in[0,1]$ is an application-dependent weight, which reflects the trade-off between the false alarms and misses. Hence, the MWSE given the pseudo data $\q_n$ is $$\label{eq:MWSE}
\begin{split}
&\text{MWSE}|\q_n=\mathbb{E}[d_{\text{WSE}}(b_n,\widehat{b}_n)|\q_n]=\\
&\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(1-\beta)\Pr(b_n=1|\q_n),&\ \widehat{b}_n=0\ \text{and}\ b_n=1,\\
\beta\Pr(b_n=0|\q_n),&\ \widehat{b}_n=1\ \text{and}\ b_n=0,\\
0,\quad\quad\quad&\ \widehat{b}_n=b_n,
\end{array}
\right.\\
\end{split}$$ where $\Pr(\cdot)$ denotes probability. The optimal estimate $\widetilde{b}_n$ minimizes $\mathbb{E}[d_{\text{WSE}}(b_n,\widehat{b}_n)|\q_n]$ , which implies $$\label{eq:weighted_optB}
\widetilde{b}_n\!=\!\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\!0,&\! (1-\beta)\Pr(b_n=1|\q_n)\!\leq\! \beta\Pr(b_n=0|\q_n),\\
\!1,&\! (1-\beta)\Pr(b_n=1|\q_n)\!>\! \beta \Pr(b_n=0|\q_n).
\end{array}
\right.\\$$
Since $f(\q_n|b_n=0)=(2\pi\Delta_v)^{-\frac{J}{2}}\exp\l(-\frac{\q_n\q_n^T}{2\Delta_v}\r)$ and $f(\q_n|b_n=1)=[2\pi(\Delta_v+1)]^{-\frac{J}{2}}\exp\l[-\frac{\q_n\q_n^T}{2(\Delta_v+1)}\r]$, we have $$\Pr(b_n=1|\q_n)=\frac{\frac{\rho}{[2\pi (1+\Delta_v)]^{\frac{J}{2}}}\e^{-\frac{\q_n\q_n^T}{2(1+\Delta_v)}}}{\frac{\rho}{[2\pi (1+\Delta_v)]^{\frac{J}{2}}}\e^{-\frac{\q_n\q_n^T}{2(1+\Delta_v)}}+\frac{(1-\rho)}{(2\pi \Delta_v)^{\frac{J}{2}}}\e^{-\frac{\q_n\q_n^T}{2\Delta_v}}},$$ and $\Pr(b_n=0|\q_n)=1-\Pr(b_n=1|\q_n)$. Plugging $\Pr(b_n=1|\q_n)$ and $\Pr(b_n=0|\q_n)$ into , we have $$\label{eq:b_opt}
\widetilde{b}_n=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
0,&\quad \q_n\q_n^T\leq\tau,\\
1,&\quad \q_n\q_n^T>\tau,
\end{array}
\right.\\$$ where $\tau=2\Delta_v(1+\Delta_v)\ln\l[\frac{\beta(1-\rho)}{(1-\beta)\rho}\l(\frac{1+\Delta_v}{\Delta_v}\r)^{\frac{J}{2}}\r]$, and we remind the reader that $\rho$ is the sparsity rate.
[**Performance limits:**]{} Utilizing and taking expectation over the pseudo data $\q_n$ for $\mathbb{E}[d_{\text{WSE}}(b_n,\widehat{b}_n)|\q_n]$ , we obtain the minimum MWSE (MMWSE), $$\label{eq:MMWSE_1}
\begin{split}
&\text{MMWSE}=\mathbb{E}[d_{\text{WSE}}(b_n,\widetilde{b}_n)]\\
&\quad =\int_{\q_n\q_n^T>\tau} \beta\Pr(b_n=0|\q_n)f(\q_n)d\q_n +\\
&\quad \quad \int_{\q_n\q_n^T\leq\tau} (1-\beta)\Pr(b_n=1|\q_n)f(\q_n)d\q_n.
\end{split}$$ We have two integrals to simplify in , where we show the first below, and the second can be obtained similarly. To derive the first integral, note that $$\label{eq:oneIntegral}
\small \int_{\q_n\q_n^T>\tau} \Pr(b_n\!=\!0|\q_n)f(\q_n)d\q_n\!=\!\Pr(\q_n\q_n^T\!>\!\tau, b_n\!=\!0).$$ Next, we calculate the pdf of the random variable (RV) $g_n=\frac{\q_n\q_n^T}{\Delta_v}$ given $b_n=0$. Because the entries of $\q_n$ are i.i.d. $\mathcal{N}(0,\Delta_v)$ given $b_n=0$, $g_n$ follows the Chi-square distribution, $f_G(g_n)=\frac{g_n^{\frac{J}{2}-1}\exp(-\frac{g_n}{2})}{2^{\frac{J}{2}}\Gamma(\frac{J}{2})}$, where $\Gamma(\cdot)$ is the Gamma function. Let $r_n=\Delta_v g_n=\q_n\q_n^T$, then we obtain $$f(r_n)=\frac{1}{\Delta_v}f_G(\frac{r_n}{\Delta_v})=\frac{r_n^{\frac{J}{2}-1}\exp\l[-\frac{r_n}{2\Delta_v}\r]}{(2\Delta_v)^{J/2}\Gamma(J/2)},$$ which helps to simplify . Therefore, can be simplified, $$\label{eq:MMWSE_final}
\begin{split}
& \text{MMWSE}=\beta(1-\rho)\underbrace{\int_{r_n=\tau}^{\infty}\frac{r_n^{\frac{J}{2}-1}\exp\l[-\frac{r_n}{2\Delta_v}\r]}{(2\Delta_v)^{J/2}\Gamma(J/2)}dr_n}_{\Pr(\text{false alarm})}\\
& \quad +(1-\beta)\rho\underbrace{\int_{r_n=0}^{\tau}\frac{r_n^{\frac{J}{2}-1}\exp\l[-\frac{r_n}{2(1+\Delta_v)}\r]}{[2(1+\Delta_v)]^{J/2}\Gamma(J/2)}dr_n}_{\Pr(\text{miss})}.
\end{split}$$
[**Hamming distance**]{}: In digital wireless communication systems, the signal only takes discrete values. A useful error metric is the (per-entry) Hamming distance [@Cover06], which equals 1 if the estimate of an entry of the signal differs from the true value. (Section \[sec:app\] will present an example in wireless communication that minimizes the Hamming distance.) The reader can verify that Hamming distance can be interpreted as a special case of weighted support set error, where $\beta=0.5$ provides equal weight to both errors . That said, we provide more insights about this particular case, which is ubiquitous in communication systems.
For the jointly sparse model in , we define the Hamming distance as $$\label{eq:Hamming}
d_{\text{HD}}(\x_n,\widehat{\x}_n)=\mathbbm{1}_{\x_n\neq \widehat{\x}_n},$$ where $\mathbbm{1}_{\mathcal{A}}$ is the indicator function. If ([*i*]{}) the pdf $\phi(\x_n)$ in is a $J$-dimensional Dirac-delta function $\delta(\x_n-\mathbf{1})$, where $\mathbf{1}$ is an all-one row vector, and ([*ii*]{}) the estimate satisfies $\widehat{x}_n^{\{1\}}=\cdots =\widehat{x}_n^{\{J\}}, \forall n\in \{1,\ldots,N\}$, then the weighted support set error with weight $\beta=0.5$ is equal to half of the Hamming distance for super symbols. In –, we briefly derive the Hamming distance-optimal estimator when $\x_n\in \{\mathbf{1},\mathbf{0}\}$, where $\mathbf{0}$ is an all-zero row vector. The mean Hamming distance (MHD) given the pseudo data $\q_n$ is $$\label{eq:MHD}
\begin{split}
&\text{MHD}|\q_n=\mathbb{E}[d_{\text{MHD}}(\x_n,\widehat{\x}_n)|\q_n]=\\
&\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\Pr(\x_n=\mathbf{1}|\q_n),&\ \widehat{\x}_n=\mathbf{0}\ \text{and}\ \x_n=\mathbf{1},\\
\Pr(\x_n=\mathbf{0}|\q_n),&\ \widehat{\x}_n=\mathbf{1}\ \text{and}\ \x_n=\mathbf{0},\\
0,\quad\quad\quad&\ \widehat{\x}_n= \x_n.
\end{array}
\right.\\
\end{split}$$ Following the steps in –, the minimum MHD (MMHD) estimator is $$\label{eq:MHD_optTh}
\widetilde{\x}_n=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathbf{1},& \sum_{j=1}^J q_n^{(j)} \geq\frac{J}{2}+\Delta_v \ln\l[\frac{1-\rho}{\rho}\r],\\
\mathbf{0},& \sum_{j=1}^J q_n^{(j)} <\frac{J}{2}+\Delta_v \ln\l[\frac{1-\rho}{\rho}\r].
\end{array}
\right.\\$$
Mean absolute error (MAE) {#sec:MAE}
-------------------------
[**MAE-optimal estimator:**]{} The element-wise absolute error (AE) is $$\label{eq:AE}
d_{\text{AE}}(x_n^{(j)},\widehat{x}_n^{(j)})=|x_n^{(j)}-\widehat{x}_n^{(j)}|.$$ In order to find the minimum mean absolute error (MMAE) estimate, $\widetilde{\x}_n$, we need to find the stationary point of , $$\label{eq:optimalCondition}
\frac{d\mathbb{E}[|x_n^{(j)}-\widehat{x}_n^{(j)}|\ | \q_n]}{d\widehat{x}_n^{(j)}}\bigg|_{\widehat{x}_n^{(j)}=\widetilde{x}_n^{(j)}}=0,$$ $\forall j\in\{1,\ldots,J\},n\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$. It can be proved that $\mathbb{E}[X]=\int_{0}^{\infty} \Pr(X>x)dx$, if $X\geq 0$. Therefore, $$\label{eq:expectation}
\begin{split}
&\mathbb{E}[|x_n^{(j)}-\widehat{x}_n^{(j)}|\ | \q_n]=\int_{0}^{\infty} \Pr(|x_n^{(j)}-\widehat{x}_n^{(j)}|>t| \q_n)dt\\
&=\int_{-\infty}^{\widehat{x}_n^{(j)}} \Pr(x_n^{(j)}<t| \q_n)dt+\int_{\widehat{x}_n^{(j)}}^{\infty} \Pr(x_n^{(j)}>t| \q_n)dt.
\end{split}$$ Using and , we obtain $$\Pr(x_n^{(j)}<\widetilde{x}_n^{(j)} | \q_n)=\Pr(x_n^{(j)}>\widetilde{x}_n^{(j)}| \q_n).$$ That is, $$\label{eq:optimalEst}
\int_{-\infty}^{\widetilde{x}_n^{(j)}} f(x_n^{(j)} | \q_n)dx_n^{(j)}=\int_{\widetilde{x}_n^{(j)}}^{\infty} f(x_n^{(j)} | \q_n)dx_n^{(j)}=\frac{1}{2},$$ through which we solve for the optimal estimator $\widetilde{x}_n^{(j)}$ numerically.
[**Performance limits:**]{} We calculate the MMAE as follows, $$\label{eq:MMAE}
\begin{split}
\text{MMAE}\!&=\!\mathbb{E}[|\widetilde{x}_n^{(j)}-x_n^{(j)}|]\!=\!\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\! \mathbb{E}[|\widetilde{x}_n^{(j)}-x_n^{(j)}|\ | \q_n] f(\q_n)d \q_n\\
&=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\Bigg[\int_{-\infty}^{\widetilde{x}_n^{(j)}} -x_n^{(j)} f(x_n^{(j)}| \q_n)d x_n^{(j)}+\\
&\quad\quad\quad\quad \int_{\widetilde{x}_n^{(j)}}^{\infty} x_n^{(j)}f(x_n^{(j)}| \q_n)d x_n^{(j)}\Bigg] f(\q_n)d \q_n,
\end{split}$$ which has to be numerically approximated.
![Comparison of simulation results to theoretic MMWSE for weighted support set estimation under different number of channels $J$ and measurement rates $R$ ($\beta=0.2$, noise variances $\Delta_z=0.01$).[]{data-label="fig:SimWSE"}](WeightSuppEstSimVsTheory.pdf){width="8cm"}
Synthetic Simulations {#sec:numeric_synth}
=====================
After deriving the minimum mean weighted support set error (MMWSE) and minimum mean absolute error (MMAE) estimators, this section provides numerical results for Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\]. In the case of i.i.d. random matrices and AWGN channels , replica analysis yields the MMSE of the MMV problem [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE]. By inverting the MMSE (details in Appendix \[app:inverMMSE\]), we obtain the scalar channel noise variance $\Delta_v$,[^9] which characterizes the posterior $f(\x_n|\q_n)$. Given $\Delta_v$, we characterize the MMWSE and MMAE theoretically. In the following simulations, we use i.i.d. Gaussian matrices with unit-norm rows, i.i.d. $J$-dimensional Bernoulli-Gaussian signals with $J=1,3$, and 5, and sparsity rate $\rho=0.1$. The signal length is $N=10000$, and the measurement rate $R=\frac{M}{N}$ varies from $0.3$ to $0.7$. For each setting, the simulation results are averaged over 50 realizations of the problem.
**Mean weighted support set error in AWGN channels:** We simulate AWGN channels in this case with the noise variance being $\Delta_z\in \{0.01,0.001\}$. Fig. \[fig:SimWSE\] shows the weighted support set estimation results using our metric-optimal algorithm compared to the MMWSE . The red dashed curve, the blue dashed-dotted curve, and the black solid curve correspond to the MMWSE of $J=1,\ 3$, and 5, respectively. The red circles, blue crosses, and black triangles represent the simulation results. We can see that our simulation results match the theoretically optimal performance.
**Remark:** The optimal weighted support set estimator is not Lipschitz continuous. Hence, for $J=1$, is not guaranteed to yield the MMWSE, according to Lemma \[lemma:optSMV\]. Nevertheless, numerical results for $J=1$ show that the MWSE given by is close to the MMWSE.
For weighted support set estimation, we further study the information-theoretic optimal receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, which are plotted in Fig. \[fig:ROC\] for different $J$’s. The red curves and black curves are plotted for noise variances $\Delta_z=0.001$ and $0.01$, respectively. The solid curves, the dashed curves, and the dotted curves represent $J=1,\ 3$, and 5, respectively. The true positive rate (TPR) and false positive rate (FPR) in both axes are defined as TPR$=\frac{\text{\# accurately predicted positives}}{\text{\# all positives in truth}}$ and FPR$=\frac{\text{\# wrongly predicted negatives}}{\text{\# all negatives in truth}}$. We can see that having more signal vectors $J$ leads to a larger area under the ROC curve, which indicates better trade-offs between true positives and false positives.
![Receiver operating characteristic curves for weighted support set estimation under different channel noise variances $\Delta_z$ and number of channels $J$ ($\beta=0.2$, measurement rate $R=0.3$).[]{data-label="fig:ROC"}](ROCweightSuppEst.pdf){width="8cm"}
**Mean absolute error in logistic channels:** We simulate i.i.d. logistic channels with parameters $a=10$ and $30$; the smaller $a$ is, the noisier the channel becomes. Fig. \[fig:MAEvsMMAE\] plots the simulated MAE (crosses) and the theoretic MMAE (curves) for various settings.[^10] Different colors and line shapes refer to different $a$’s and $J$’s, respectively. We can see that our simulation results match the theoretically optimal performance.
![Comparison of simulation results to theoretic MMAE under different logistic channels , number of channels $J$, and measurement rates $R$.[]{data-label="fig:MAEvsMMAE"}](logitMAE.pdf){width="8cm"}
**Remark:** Both simulations yield better performance for larger $J$. This is intuitive, because more signal vectors that share the same support should make the estimation process easier due to more information being available.
![Simulation results of OMP and Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\] for active user detection in multi-user communication (SMV).[]{data-label="fig:OMP"}](OMP_vs_metric_opt.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Application {#sec:app}
===========
In this section, we discuss active user detection (AUD) in a multi-user communication setting that can be viewed as compressed sensing [@DonohoCS; @CandesRUP; @BaraniukCS2007] (CS, which is closely related to SMV) in some scenarios. Next, we simulate AUD using our metric-optimal algorithm. Finally, we discuss how to solve the AUD problem using an MMV setting.
[**CS based active user detection:**]{} One application of MMV is AUD in a massive random access (MRA) scenario for multi-user communication [@FletcherRanganGoyal2009; @Boljanovic2017]. In the MRA scenario, multiple end users (EUs) are requesting access to the network simultaneously by sending their unique identification codewords, $\a_n\in \{-1,+1\}^{M\times 1},\ n\in \{1,\ldots,N\}$, to the base station, where $n$ denotes the user id, and each user’s codeword is known by the base station. The base station needs to determine which EUs are requesting access to the network (active) and which are not (inactive), so that it can allocate resources to the active EUs. Fletcher et al. [@FletcherRanganGoyal2009] proposed a CS based AUD scheme for MRA, which was recently revisited by Boljanovi[ć]{} et al. [@Boljanovic2017]. In their setup [@FletcherRanganGoyal2009; @Boljanovic2017], all EUs are synchronized, i.e., all active EUs send each entry of their codewords to the base station simultaneously in one time slot. Denote the status of the $n$-th EU by $x_n\in \{0,1\}$, where $x_n=1$ means active and $x_n=0$ is inactive. Denote the received signal vector at the base station by $\y\in \mathbb{R}^{M\times 1}$. Since all EUs are synchronized, we can express the received signal $\y$ by $$\label{eq:MRA_SMV}
\y=\A\x+\z,$$ where $\A=[\a_1,\ldots,\a_N]\in \{0,1\}^{M\times N}$, and $\z$ is AWGN. The base station estimates $\x$ to determine which EUs are active.
In the following, we first apply a mean Hamming distance (MHD) optimal algorithm to estimate $\x$ from , and compare to the algorithm of Boljanovi[ć]{} et al. [@Boljanovic2017], which is orthogonal match pursuit (OMP) [@Pati1993]. Next, we propose an MMV based scheme for AUD in MRA.
[**Simulation with MHD-optimal algorithm:**]{} As the reader can see, the CS based active user detection [@FletcherRanganGoyal2009; @Boljanovic2017] is an SMV problem , which is MMV for $J=1$ . Later in this section we will extend the scheme by Boljanovi[ć]{} et al. to an MMV setting, and so we keep using MMV notations. Note that the entries of the measurement matrix in this AUD problem take values of $\pm 1$. Because the derivation of Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\] assumes that entries of $\A^{(j)}$ scale with $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$,[^11] we scale $\A^{(j)}$ down by $\sqrt{N}$ using a modified $\widetilde{\y}^{(j)}=\frac{\y^{(j)}}{\sqrt{N}}$ .
Following the discussion above, we simulate the settings of measurement rate $R\in \{0.2,0.25,\ldots,0.6\}$ and noise variance $\Delta_z\in \{10^{-1},10^{-1.5},10^{-2}\}$. For each setting, we randomly generate 50 realizations of the Bernoulli signal $\x^{(1)}\in \{0,1\}^{N\times 1}$ with sparsity rate $\rho=0.1$, and measurement matrix $\A^{(1)}\in \l\{-\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}},+\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\r\}^{M\times N}$, where $N=10000$. We run Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\] with $J=1$ to estimate the underlying signal $\x^{(1)}$. Note that $f_{a_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)$ and $f_{v_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)$ in Lines \[line:mean\]–\[line:var\] of Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\], which consists of Part 2 of Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\], are given by the following, $$\begin{split}
f_{a_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)&=\frac{\rho}{\rho+(1-\rho)\exp\l[-\frac{\sum_{j=1}^J q_n^{(j)} -\frac{J}{2}}{\Delta_v}\r]}\mathbf{1},\\
f_{v_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)&=f_{a_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)-f_{a_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)^2,
\end{split}$$ where the power-of-two in the last term of $f_{v_n}(\cdot,\cdot)$ is applied element-wise.
Our results are compared to OMP in Fig. \[fig:OMP\]. The solid, dashed, and dash-dotted curves represent noise variance $\Delta_z=10^{-1},\ 10^{-1.5},\ 10^{-2}$, respectively. The black curves are the OMP results and the red curves with circle markers are the results of Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\] when optimizing for MHD. We can see that our algorithm consistently outperforms OMP.[^12]
[**MMV scheme for active user detection:**]{} Reminiscing on Section \[sec:numeric\_synth\] and our previous work with Krzakala on MMV [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE], more measurement vectors (larger $J$) lead to better estimation quality. We propose to convert the SMV style of the AUD problem into an MMV style by having each EU send $J$ different identification codewords, $\a_n^{(j)}\in \{-1,+1\}^{M\times 1}, \forall j\in \{1,\ldots,J\}$, to the base station. However, since the underlying signal $\x$ is Bernoulli and does not change during the AUD period, the resulting MMV is equivalent to an SMV with $J$ times more measurements; the column $\a_n$ of the measurement matrix in the equivalent SMV scheme is $\a_n = \l[\l(\a_n^{(1)}\r)^T,\cdots, \l(\a_n^{(J)}\r)^T\r]^T$. Hence, Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\] should yield the same detection accuracy for the MMV scheme with $J$ channels and the SMV scheme with $J$ times larger measurement rate. Nevertheless, there is one advantage in adopting the MMV scheme: Lines \[line:beginForLoop\]–\[line:endForLoop\] of Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\][^13] can be parallelized with $J$ processing units (for example using a general purpose graphics processing unit or multicore computing system). After parallelizing Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\], the base station can perform the detection procedure with less runtime.
$$\label{eq:Ez}
\mathbb{E}[w|k,y,\Theta]=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widetilde{Z}}\int \frac{w}{1+\operatorname{e}^{-aw}} \frac{\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{1}{2\Theta}(w-k)^2}}{\sqrt{2\pi\Theta}} dz=\frac{\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u T_1(u)}{\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u T_0(u)}=k+\frac{\Theta\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \frac{\alpha_u \phi(\eta_u)}{\sqrt{\l(\frac{\sigma_u}{a}\r)^2+\Theta}}}{\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u \Phi(\eta_u)},\ &y=1,\\
\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widetilde{Z}}\int \frac{w\operatorname{e}^{-aw}}{1+\operatorname{e}^{-aw}} \frac{\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{1}{2\Theta}(w-k)^2}}{\sqrt{2\pi\Theta}} dz=\frac{k-\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u T_1(u)}{1-\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u T_0(u)}=k-\frac{\Theta\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \frac{\alpha_u \phi(\eta_u)}{\sqrt{\l(\frac{\sigma_u}{a}\r)^2+\Theta}}}{1-\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u \Phi(\eta_u)},\ &y=0.
\end{array}
\right.\\$$
$$\label{eq:mmse_p1}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E}[(\mathbb{E}[\x_n|\q_n])^2]&=\int_{\q_n} f(\q_n) (\mathbb{E}[\x_n|\q_n])^2 d\q_n\\
&=\frac{\l(\frac{\rho}{1+\Delta_v}\r)^2}{\l[2\pi (1+\Delta_v)\r]^{J/2}}\int_{\q_n} \frac{\q_n \q_n^T}{\rho \exp\l[\frac{\q_n\q_n^T}{2(1+\Delta_v)}\r]+(1-\rho)\l(1+\frac{1}{\Delta_v}\r)^{J/2} \exp\l[\frac{\q_n\q_n^T (\Delta_v-1)}{2\Delta_v(1+\Delta_v)}\r]} d\q_n.
\end{split}$$
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we studied the MMV signal estimation problem with user-defined additive error metrics on the estimate. We proposed an algorithmic framework that is optimal under arbitrary additive error metrics. We showed the optimality of our algorithm under certain conditions for SMV and conjectured its optimality for MMV. As examples, we derived algorithms that yield the optimal estimates in the sense of mean weighted support set error and mean absolute error, respectively. Numerical results not only verified the theoretic performance but also verified the intuition that having more signal vectors in MMV problems is beneficial to the estimation algorithm. We further provided simulation results for active user detection problem in multi-user communication systems, which is a real-world application of MMV models with the goal of minimizing the Hamming distance. Simulation results demonstrated the promise of our algorithm.
Derivation of $g_{\text{out}}$ for logistic channels {#app:logit}
-----------------------------------------------------
Byrne and Schniter [@ByrneSchniter2015ArXiv] provide a method to derive $g_{\text{out}}$ for logistic channels , but the actual formula for $g_{\text{out}}$ is not given in their paper. To make our paper self-contained, we outline the derivation of $g_{\text{out}}$ for logistic channels. In order to calculate $g_{out}(k,y,\Theta)$ , we need to find $f(w|k,y,\Theta)$ and calculate $\mathbb{E}[w|k,y,\Theta]$. For logistic channels , $$\label{eq:logit_cond}
\begin{split}
& f(w|k,y,\Theta)=\\
&\frac{1}{\widetilde{Z}}\times \l[\frac{\delta(y-1)}{1+\operatorname{e}^{-w}}+\delta(y)\frac{\operatorname{e}^{-w}}{1+\operatorname{e}^{-w}}\r]\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\Theta}} \operatorname{e}^{-\frac{1}{2\Theta}(w-k)^2},
\end{split}$$ where $\widetilde{Z}$ is a normalization factor. Therefore, it is difficult to calculate $\mathbb{E}[w|k,y,\Theta]$. Instead of calculating $\mathbb{E}[w|k,y,\Theta]$ by brute force, Byrne and Schniter [@ByrneSchniter2015ArXiv] use a mixture of Guassian cumulative distribution functions (CDF’s) to approximate the sigmoid function $\frac{1}{1+\text{exp}(-aw)} \approx\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u \Phi(\frac{w}{\sigma_u/a})$ [@Stefanski1991], where $u_{\text{max}}$ is the maximum number of Gaussian CDF’s one wants to use, $\Phi(\frac{w}{\sigma_u/a})$ denotes the Gaussian CDF whose standard deviation is $\frac{\sigma_u}{a}$, and $\alpha_u$ is the weight.
Following Byrne and Schniter [@ByrneSchniter2015ArXiv], we define the $i$-th moment $$\int w^i \mathcal{N}(w;k,\Theta) \Phi\l(\frac{w}{\sigma_u/a}\r)dz=T_i(u),$$ where $\mathcal{N}(w;k,\Theta)$ is the pdf of an RV $w$ with mean $k$ and variance $\Theta$, and $\Phi(\cdot)$ is the CDF of a standard Gaussian RV. Defining $\eta_u=\frac{k}{\sqrt{\l(\frac{\sigma_u}{a}\r)^2+\Theta}}$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
T_0(u)&=&\Phi(\eta_u),\nonumber\\
T_1(u)&= &k\Phi(\eta_u)+\frac{\Theta\phi(\eta_u)}{\sqrt{\l(\frac{\sigma_u}{a}\r)^2+\Theta}},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
T_2(u)=\frac{(T_1(u))^2}{\Phi(\eta_u)}+\Theta \Phi(\eta_u)-\frac{\Theta^2\phi(\eta_u)}{\l(\frac{\sigma_u}{a}\r)^2+\Theta}\l(\eta_u+\frac{\phi(\eta_u)}{\Phi(\eta_u)}\r),\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\phi(\eta_u)$ is the pdf of a standard Gaussian RV at $\eta_u$. Hence, the normalization factor $\widetilde{Z}$ in can be derived, $$\begin{split}
\widetilde{Z}=& \int \l[\frac{\delta(y-1)}{1+\operatorname{e}^{-aw}}+\delta(y)\frac{\operatorname{e}^{-aw}}{1+\operatorname{e}^{-aw}}\r]\frac{\operatorname{e}^{-\frac{1}{2\Theta}(w-k)^2}}{\sqrt{2\pi\Theta}} dz\\
= &\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u \Phi(\eta_u),\ &y=1,\\
1-\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u \Phi(\eta_u),\ &y=0.
\end{array}
\right.\\
\end{split}$$ We can further obtain the expression for $\mathbb{E}[w|k,y,\Theta]$ in . Hence, we can calculate $g_{\text{out}}$ .
Apart from $g_{\text{out}}$, we also need to find the partial derivative of $g_{\text{out}}$ , which according to Rangan [@RanganGAMP2011ISIT] satisfies $$\label{eq:deri_g_out}
-\frac{\partial}{\partial k}g_{\text{out}}(k,y,\Theta)=\frac{1}{\Theta}\l(1-\frac{\text{var}(w|k,y,\Theta)}{\Theta}\r),$$ where $\text{var}(w|k,y,\Theta)=\mathbb{E}[w^2|k,y,\Theta]-[\mathbb{E}[w|k,y,\Theta]]^2$. Note that $\mathbb{E}[w^2|k,y,\Theta]$ can be derived in the same way as and the result is given below, $$\mathbb{E}[w^2|k,y,\Theta]=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle k^2+\Theta+\frac{ \displaystyle\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u \xi_u}{\displaystyle\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u \Phi(\eta_u)},\ &y=1,\\
\displaystyle k^2+\Theta-\frac{\displaystyle\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u \xi_u}{\displaystyle 1-\sum_{u=1}^{u_{\text{max}}} \alpha_u \Phi(\eta_u)},\ &y=0,
\end{array}
\right.\\$$ where $$\xi_u=\frac{2k\Theta\phi(\eta_u)}{\sqrt{\l(\frac{\sigma_u}{a}\r)^2+\Theta}}-\frac{\Theta^2 \eta_u\phi(\eta_u)}{\l(\frac{\sigma_u}{a}\r)^2+\Theta}.$$
Inverting the MMSE {#app:inverMMSE}
------------------
For the MMV problem with i.i.d. matrices and joint Bernoulli-Gaussian signals, Zhu et al. provide an information-theoretic characterization of the MMSE by using replica analysis [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE]. Suppose that we have already obtained the MMSE for an MMV problem. This appendix briefly shows how to invert the MMSE expression in order to obtain the equivalent scalar channel noise variance $\Delta_v$.
The optimal denoiser for the pseudo data is $\widetilde{\x}_n=\mathbb{E}[\x_n|\q_n]=f_{a_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)$, where $f_{a_n}(\Delta_v,\q_n)$ is given in . We then express MMSE expression using $\mathbb{E}[\x_n|\q_n]$ as follows, $$\text{MMSE}=\mathbb{E}[(\widetilde{\x}_n-\x_n)^2]=J\rho-\mathbb{E}[(\mathbb{E}[\x_n|\q_n])^2].\label{eq:mmse1}$$ We calculate $\mathbb{E}[(\mathbb{E}[\x_n|\q_n])^2]$ in , where the $J$-dimensional integral can be simplified by a change of coordinates. Then, we plug into , and express the MMSE as a function of $\Delta_v$. Finally, we numerically solve $\Delta_v$ for any given MMSE.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Jin Tan for providing valuable insights into achieving metric-optimal performance in signal estimation. Jong Chul Ye, Yavuz Yapici, and Ismail Guvenc helped us identify some real-world applications for minimizing error metrics that are different from the MSE. Finally, we are very grateful to the reviewers and Associate Editor Prof. Lops. In addition to their excellent suggestions, they were unusually flexible with us during the review process.
[10]{}
J. Chen and X. Huo, “Theoretical results on sparse representations of multiple measurement vectors,” , vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 4634–4643, Dec. 2006.
S. F. Cotter, B. D. Rao, K. Engan, and K. Kreutz-Delgado, “Sparse solutions to linear inverse problems with multiple measurement vectors,” , vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 2477–2488, July 2005.
M. Mishali and Y. C. Eldar, “Reduce and boost: [R]{}ecovering arbitrary sets of jointly sparse vectors,” , vol. 56, no. 10, pp. 4692–4702, Oct. 2009.
E. Berg and M. P. Friedlander, “Joint-sparse recovery from multiple measurements,” , Apr. 2009.
O. Lee, J. M. Kim, Y. Bresler, and J. C. Ye, “Compressive diffuse optical tomography: [N]{}oniterative exact reconstruction using joint sparsity,” , vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 1129–1142, May 2011.
K. Lee, Y. Bresler, and M. Junge, “Subspace methods for joint sparse recovery,” , vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 3613–3641, June 2012.
J. C. Ye, J. M. Kim, and Y. Bresler, “Improving [M-SBL]{} for joint sparse recovery using a subspace penalty,” , vol. 63, no. 24, pp. 6595–6605, Dec. 2015.
H. Jung, J. C. Ye, and E. Y. Kim, “[Improved k-t [BLAST]{} and k-t [SENSE]{} using [FOCUSS]{}]{},” , vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 3201–3226, May 2007.
H. Jung, K. Sung, K. S. Nayak, E. Y. Kim, and J. C. Ye, “[k-t [FOCUSS]{}: [A]{} general compressed sensing framework for high resolution dynamic [MRI]{}]{},” , vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 103–116, Jan. 2009.
A. K. Fletcher, S. Rangan, and V. K. Goyal, “On-off random access channels: [A]{} compressed sensing framework,” , Mar. 2009.
V. Boljanovi[ć]{}, D. Vukobratovi[ć]{}, P. Popovski, and C. Stefanovi[ć]{}, “User activity detection in massive random access: Compressed sensing vs. coded slotted [ALOHA]{},” , June 2017.
M. F. Duarte, M. B. Wakin, D. Baron, S. Sarvotham, and R. G. Baraniuk, “Measurement bounds for sparse signal ensembles via graphical models,” , vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 4280–4289, July 2013.
J. Zhu, D. Baron, and F. Krzakala, “Performance limits for noisy multimeasurement vector problems,” , vol. 65, no. 9, pp. 2444–2454, May 2017.
J. Zhu, , Ph.D. thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, Jan. 2017.
J. A. Tropp, A. C. Gilbert, and M. J. Strauss, “Algorithms for simultaneous sparse approximation. [P]{}art [I]{}: Greedy pursuit.,” , vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 572–588, Mar. 2006.
D. Malioutov, M. Cetin, and A. S. Willsky, “A sparse signal reconstruction perspective for source localization with sensor arrays,” , vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 3010–3022, Aug. 2005.
J. A. Tropp, “Algorithms for simultaneous sparse approximation. [P]{}art [II]{}: Convex relaxation,” , vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 589–602, Mar. 2006.
J. Ziniel and P. Schniter, “Efficient message passing-based inference in the multiple measurement vector problem,” in [*Proc. IEEE Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., and Comput.*]{}, Nov. 2011, pp. 1447–1451.
J. Tan, D. Carmon, and D. Baron, “Optimal estimation with arbitrary error metric in compressed sensing,” in [*Proc. IEEE Stat. Signal Process. Workshop (SSP)*]{}, Aug. 2012, pp. 588–591.
J. Tan, D. Carmon, and D. Baron, “Signal estimation with additive error metrics in compressed sensing,” , vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 150–158, Jan. 2014.
S. Rangan, “Generalized approximate message passing for estimation with random linear mixing,” in [*Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT)*]{}, St. Petersburg, Russia, July 2011, pp. 2168–2172.
F. Krzakala, M. M[é]{}zard, F. Sausset, Y. Sun, and L. Zdeborov[á]{}, “Probabilistic reconstruction in compressed sensing: [A]{}lgorithms, phase diagrams, and threshold achieving matrices,” , vol. 2012, no. 08, pp. P08009, Aug. 2012.
S. Rangan, “Estimation with random linear mixing, belief propagation and compressed sensing,” in [*Proc. IEEE Conf. Inf. Sci. Syst. (CISS)*]{}, Princeton, NJ, Mar. 2010.
D. Baron, M. B. Wakin, M. F. Duarte, S. Sarvotham, and R. G. Baraniuk, “Distributed compressed sensing,” Tech. [R]{}ep. ECE-0612, Rice University, Dec. 2006.
J. Ziniel and P. Schniter, “Efficient high-dimensional inference in the multiple measurement vector problem,” , vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 340–354, Jan. 2013.
D. Guo and C. C. Wang, “Multiuser detection of sparsely spread [CDMA]{},” , vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 421–431, Apr. 2008.
J. Barbier and F. Krzakala, “Approximate message-passing decoder and capacity-achieving sparse superposition codes,” , vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 4894–4927, Aug. 2017.
D. L. Donoho, A. Maleki, and A. Montanari, “[Message passing algorithms for compressed sensing]{},” , vol. 106, no. 45, pp. 18914–18919, Nov. 2009.
E. Byrne and P. Schniter, “Sparse multinomial logistic regression via approximate message passing,” , Sept. 2015.
J. Zhu and D. Baron, “Performance regions in compressed sensing from noisy measurements,” in [*Proc. IEEE Conf. Inf. Sci. Syst. (CISS)*]{}, Baltimore, MD, Mar. 2013.
M. Bayati and A. Montanari, “The dynamics of message passing on dense graphs, with applications to compressed sensing,” , vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 764–785, Feb. 2011.
C. Rush and R. Venkataramanan, “Finite sample analysis of approximate message passing algorithms,” , June 2016.
G. Reeves and H. D. Pfister, “The replica-symmetric prediction for compressed sensing with [G]{}aussian matrices is exact,” , July 2016.
G. Hannak, A. Perelli, N. Goertz, G. Matz, and M. E. Davies, “Performance analysis of approximate message passing for distributed compressed sensing,” , Dec. 2017.
T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, , New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Interscience, 2006.
D. Donoho, “Compressed sensing,” , vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1289–1306, Apr. 2006.
E. Candès, J. Romberg, and T. Tao, “Robust uncertainty principles: [E]{}xact signal reconstruction from highly incomplete frequency information,” , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 489–509, Feb. 2006.
R. G. Baraniuk, “A lecture on compressive sensing,” , vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 118–121, July 2007.
Y. C. Pati, R. Rezaiifar, and P. S. Krishnaprasad, “[Orthogonal matching pursuit: [R]{}ecursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition]{},” , pp. 40–44, Nov. 1993.
L. Stefanski, “A normal scale mixture representation of the logistic distribution,” , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 67–70, 1991.
[^1]: The work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under the Grants CCF-1217749 and ECCS-1611112.
[^2]: Junan Zhu is with Bloomberg L.P., New York, NY 10017, and Dror Baron is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, NC State University, Raleigh, NC 27695. E-mail: {jzhu9, barondror}@ncsu.edu.
[^3]: In SMV, our algorithm closely resembles the one proposed by Tan and coauthors [@Tan2012SSP; @Tan2014], with the difference being Tan and coauthors rely on relaxed belief propagation (relaxed BP, an MP algorithm) [@Rangan2010CISS] and do not provide rigorous proofs for the optimality of their algorithm.
[^4]: Our proof is based on the approximate message passing algorithm [@DMM2009], while Tan and coauthors [@Tan2012SSP; @Tan2014] rely on relaxed BP and do not provide rigorous proofs.
[^5]: Byrne and Schniter [@ByrneSchniter2015ArXiv] describe without detail how to derive $g_{\text{out}}(\cdot)$ for i.i.d. parallel logistic channels ; we present a detailed derivation for completeness in Appendix \[app:logit\], and do not claim it as a contribution.
[^6]: Free energy is a term brought from statistical physics and is used to describe the interaction between the signals and the measurement matrices in linear models [@ZhuBaronCISS2013; @ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE; @Krzakala2012probabilistic]. When the free energy has two fixed points, (G)AMP is not optimal with i.i.d. Gaussian matrices, and neither is Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\]. We refer interested readers to the literature for detailed discussions [@ZhuBaronCISS2013; @ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE; @Krzakala2012probabilistic].
[^7]: Pseudo-Lipschitz is a concept discussed in Bayati and Montanari [@Bayati2011]: For $k\geq 1$, we say a function $\phi: \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is [*pseudo-Lipschitz*]{} of order $k$ if there exists a constant $L>0$ such that for all $\x,\y\in \mathbb{R}^m$: $|\phi(\x)-\phi(\y)| \leq L(1+\|\x\|^{k-1}+\|\y\|^{k-1})\|\x-\y\|$.
[^8]: Our work with Krzakala [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE] focuses on a diagonal covariance matrix for $\x_n$ in . A recent work by Hannak et al. [@Hannak2017] extends our work [@ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE] to non-diagonal covariance matrices for $\x_n$. Following Hannak et al. [@Hannak2017], we can extend the performance limits analysis in this paper to non-diagonal covariance matrices for $\x_n$.
[^9]: Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\] also applies to problems with other types of matrices, as long as the entries in the measurement matrices scale with $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}$. However, when the matrices are not i.i.d., there is no easy way to [*theoretically*]{} characterize the MMSE, the equivalent scalar channel noise variance $\Delta_v$, and the metric-optimal error. Such a theoretic characterization is sometimes necessary, because the MMSE behaves differently under different noise variances $\Delta_z$ and measurement rates $R$ [@ZhuBaronCISS2013; @ZhuBaronKrzakala2017IEEE].
[^10]: We do not have a replica analysis for logistic channels. In order to compute the theoretic MMAE, we use the average $\Delta_v$ from all the 50 simulations for each setting and calculate the MMAE with .
[^11]: Details can be found in Krzakala et al. [@Krzakala2012probabilistic] and Barbier and Krzakala [@BarbierKrzakala2017IT].
[^12]: Note that the entries of the signal estimated by OMP are not exactly 0’s and 1’s. Hence, in order to provide meaningful results, we threshold the OMP estimates before calculating the Hamming distance.
[^13]: Recall that Algorithm \[algo:metric\_opt\_MMV\] runs Algorithm \[algo:AMP\_MMV\] as a subroutine.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
, Shinya Gongyo, Takumi Iritani\
Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kitashirakawaoiwake, Sakyo, Kyoto 606-8502, Japan\
E-mail:
title: 'Lattice QCD study of confinement and chiral symmetry breaking with Dirac-mode expansion'
---
Introduction: relation between confinement and chiral symmetry breaking
=======================================================================
Color confinement and chiral symmetry breaking [@NJL61] are striking nonperturbative phenomena of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). To clarify their correspondence is an important subject [@SST95; @M95W95; @G06BGH07], however, their relation is not yet clarified directly from QCD. The strong correlation between them has been suggested by the simultaneous phase transitions of deconfinement and chiral restoration in lattice QCD both at finite temperature [@R12] and in a small-volume box [@R12].
The close relation between confinement and chiral symmetry breaking has been also suggested in terms of the monopole degrees of freedom [@SST95; @M95W95], which topologically appears in QCD by taking the maximally Abelian (MA) gauge [@N74tH81; @KSW87; @SNW94]. Actually, by removing the monopoles, confinement and chiral symmetry breaking are simultaneously lost in lattice QCD [@M95W95], as schematically shown in Fig.1. This indicates an important role of the monopole to both confinement and chiral symmetry breaking, and these two nonperturbative QCD phenomena seem to be related via the monopole.
![ The role of monopoles to nonperturbative QCD. In the MA gauge, QCD becomes Abelian-like due to the large off-diagonal gluon mass of about 1GeV [@AS99], and monopole current topologically appears [@KSW87; @SNW94]. By the Hodge decomposition, the QCD system can be divided into the monopole part and the photon part. The monopole part has confinement [@SNW94], chiral symmetry breaking [@M95W95] and instantons [@STSM95], while the photon part does not have all of them. Thus, lattice QCD studies indicate the essential contribution of monopoles to both confinement and chiral symmetry breaking. However, the direct relation between them is unclear. ](Fig1a.ps "fig:") ![ The role of monopoles to nonperturbative QCD. In the MA gauge, QCD becomes Abelian-like due to the large off-diagonal gluon mass of about 1GeV [@AS99], and monopole current topologically appears [@KSW87; @SNW94]. By the Hodge decomposition, the QCD system can be divided into the monopole part and the photon part. The monopole part has confinement [@SNW94], chiral symmetry breaking [@M95W95] and instantons [@STSM95], while the photon part does not have all of them. Thus, lattice QCD studies indicate the essential contribution of monopoles to both confinement and chiral symmetry breaking. However, the direct relation between them is unclear. ](Fig1b.ps "fig:")
As a possibility, however, to remove the monopoles may be “too fatal” for nonperturbative properties. If this is the case, nonperturbative phenomena are simultaneously lost by their removal.
In fact, [*if only the relevant ingredient of chiral symmetry breaking is carefully removed, how will be quark confinement?*]{} To obtain the answer, we perform a direct investigation between confinement and chiral symmetry breaking, using the Dirac-mode expansion and projection [@GIS12].
Gauge-invariant formalism of Dirac-mode expansion and projection
================================================================
In this paper, using the eigen-mode of the QCD Dirac operator ${{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}}=\gamma^\mu D^\mu$, we propose a manifestly gauge-covariant expansion/projection of QCD operators such as the Wilson loop and the Polyakov loop, and study the relation between confinement and chiral symmetry breaking [@GIS12].
Eigen-mode of Dirac operator in lattice QCD
-------------------------------------------
In lattice QCD with spacing $a$, the Dirac operator ${{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}} = \gamma_\mu D_\mu$ is expressed with $U_\mu(x)$ as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}}_{x,y}
\equiv \frac{1}{2a} \sum_{\mu=1}^4 \gamma_\mu
\left[ U_\mu(x) \delta_{x+\hat{\mu},y}
- U_{-\mu}(x) \delta_{x-\hat{\mu},y} \right],\end{aligned}$$ with $U_{-\mu}(x)\equiv U^\dagger_\mu(x-\hat \mu)$. Adopting hermitian $\gamma$-matrices $\gamma_\mu^\dagger=\gamma_\mu$, ${{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}}$ is anti-hermitian and satisfies ${{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}}_{y,x}^\dagger=-{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}}_{x,y}$. The normalized eigen-state $|n \rangle$ of the Dirac operator ${{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}}$ is introduced as $$\begin{aligned}
{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}} |n\rangle =i\lambda_n |n \rangle\end{aligned}$$ with $\lambda_n \in {\bf R}$. Because of $\{\gamma_5,{{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}}\}=0$, the state $\gamma_5 |n\rangle$ is also an eigen-state of ${{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}}$ with the eigenvalue $-i\lambda_n$. The Dirac eigenfunction $\psi_n(x)\equiv\langle x|n \rangle$ obeys ${{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}} \psi_n(x)=i\lambda_n \psi_n(x)$, and its explicit form of the eigenvalue equation in lattice QCD is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2a} \sum_{\mu=1}^4 \gamma_\mu
[U_\mu(x)\psi_n(x+\hat \mu)-U_{-\mu}(x)\psi_n(x-\hat \mu)]
=i\lambda_n \psi_n(x).\end{aligned}$$ The Dirac eigenfunction $\psi_n(x)$ can be numerically obtained in lattice QCD, besides a phase factor.
According to $U_\mu(x) \rightarrow V(x) U_\mu(x) V^\dagger (x+\hat\mu)$, the gauge transformation of $\psi_n(x)$ is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_n(x)\rightarrow V(x) \psi_n(x),
\label{eq:GTprop}\end{aligned}$$ which is the same as that of the quark field. To be strict, for the Dirac eigenfunction, there can appear an irrelevant $n$-dependent global phase factor as $e^{i\varphi_n[V]}$, according to the arbitrariness of the definition of $\psi_n(x)$.
From the Banks-Casher relation [@BC80], the quark condensate $\langle\bar qq \rangle$, the order parameter of chiral symmetry breaking, is given by the zero-eigenvalue density $\rho(0)$ of the Dirac operator ${{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \bar qq \rangle=-\lim_{m \to 0} \lim_{V \to \infty}
\pi\rho(0),\end{aligned}$$ where the spectral density $\rho(\lambda)$ is given by $\rho(\lambda)\equiv
\frac1V\sum_{n}\langle \delta(\lambda-\lambda_n)\rangle$ with space-time volume $V$. Thus, the low-lying Dirac modes can be regarded as the essential modes responsible to spontaneous chiral-symmetry breaking in QCD.
Operator formalism in lattice QCD
---------------------------------
The recent analysis of QCD with the Fourier expansion of the gluon field quantitatively reveals that quark confinement originates from low-momentum gluons below about 1GeV in both Landau and Coulomb gauges [@YS0809]. This method seems powerful but accompanies some gauge dependence. To keep the gauge symmetry manifestly, we take the “operator formalism” in lattice QCD [@GIS12].
We define the link-variable operator $\hat U_\mu$ by the matrix element of $$\begin{aligned}
\langle x |\hat U_\mu|y\rangle =U_\mu(x)\delta_{x+\hat \mu,y}.\end{aligned}$$ The Wilson-loop operator $\hat W$ is defined as the product of $\hat U_\mu$ along a rectangular loop, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat W \equiv \prod_{k=1}^N \hat U_{\mu_k}
=\hat U_{\mu_1}\hat U_{\mu_2} \cdots \hat U_{\mu_N}.\end{aligned}$$ For arbitrary loops, one finds $\sum_{k=1}^N \hat \mu_k=0$. We note that the functional trace of the Wilson-loop operator $\hat W$ is proportional to the ordinary vacuum expectation value $\langle W \rangle$ of the Wilson loop: $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Tr} \ \hat W&=&{\rm tr}\sum_x \langle x |\hat W|x \rangle
={\rm tr}\sum_x \langle x| \hat U_{\mu_1}\hat U_{\mu_2}
\cdots \hat U_{\mu_N}|x\rangle \nonumber\\
&=& {\rm tr} \sum_{x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_N }
\langle x_1| \hat U_{\mu_1}|x_2 \rangle
\langle x_2| \hat U_{\mu_2}|x_3 \rangle
\langle x_3| \hat U_{\mu_3}|x_4 \rangle
\cdots \langle x_N|\hat U_{\mu_N}|x_1\rangle \nonumber\\
&=&{\rm tr} \sum_x
\langle x| \hat U_{\mu_1}|x+\hat \mu_1 \rangle
\langle x+\hat \mu_1| \hat U_{\mu_2}|x+\sum_{k=1}^2\hat \mu_k \rangle
\cdots \langle x+\sum_{k=1}^{N-1}\hat \mu_k|\hat U_{\mu_N}|x\rangle \nonumber\\
&=&\sum_x {\rm tr}\{ U_{\mu_1}(x) U_{\mu_2}(x+\hat \mu_1)
U_{\mu_3}(x+\sum_{k=1}^2 \hat \mu_k)
\cdots U_{\mu_N}(x+\sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \hat \mu_k)\}
=\langle W \rangle \cdot {\rm Tr}\ 1.
\label{eq:TrWLO}\end{aligned}$$ Here, “Tr” denotes the functional trace, and “tr” the trace over SU(3) color index.
The Dirac-mode matrix element of the link-variable operator $\hat U_{\mu}$ can be expressed with $\psi_n(x)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle m|\hat U|n \rangle=\sum_x\langle m|x \rangle
\langle x|\hat U_{\mu}|x+\hat \mu \rangle \langle x+\hat \mu|n\rangle
=\sum_x \psi_m^\dagger(x) U_\mu(x)\psi_n(x+\hat \mu).\end{aligned}$$ Although the total number of the matrix element is very huge, the matrix element is calculable and gauge invariant, apart from an irrelevant phase factor. Using the gauge transformation (\[eq:GTprop\]), we find the gauge transformation of the matrix element as [@GIS12] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle m|\hat U_\mu|n \rangle
&=&\sum_x \psi^\dagger_m(x)U_\mu(x)\psi_n(x+\hat\mu) \nonumber\\
&\rightarrow&
\sum_x\psi^\dagger_m(x)V^\dagger(x)\cdot V(x)U_\mu(x)V^\dagger(x+\hat \mu)
\cdot V(x+\hat \mu)\psi_n(x+\hat \mu) \nonumber\\
&=&\sum_x\psi_m^\dagger(x)U_\mu(x)\psi_n(x+\hat \mu)
=\langle m|\hat U_\mu|n\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ To be strict, there appears an $n$-dependent global phase factor, corresponding to the arbitrariness of the phase in the basis $|n \rangle$. However, this phase factor cancels as $e^{-i\varphi_n} e^{i\varphi_n}=1$ between $|n \rangle$ and $\langle n |$, and does not appear for QCD physical quantities including the Wilson loop.
Dirac-mode expansion and projection
-----------------------------------
From the completeness of the Dirac-mode basis, $\sum_n|n\rangle \langle n|=1$, arbitrary operator $\hat O$ can be expanded in terms of the Dirac-mode basis $|n \rangle$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\hat O=\sum_n \sum_m |n \rangle \langle n|\hat O|m \rangle \langle m|,
\label{eq:dirac-mode-expansion}\end{aligned}$$ which is the theoretical basis of the Dirac-mode expansion [@GIS12]. [*Note that this procedure is just the insertion of unity, and is of course mathematically correct.*]{}
Based on this relation, the Dirac-mode expansion and projection can be defined. We define the projection operator $\hat P$ which restricts the Dirac-mode space, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat P\equiv \sum_{n \in A}|n\rangle \langle n|,\end{aligned}$$ where $A$ denotes arbitrary set of Dirac modes. In $\hat P$, the arbitrary phase cancels between $|n\rangle$ and $\langle n|$. One finds $\hat P^2=\hat P$ and $\hat P^\dagger =\hat P$. The typical projections are IR-cut and UV-cut of the Dirac modes: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat P_{\rm \ IR} \equiv
\sum_{|\lambda_n| \ge \Lambda_{\rm IR}}|n \rangle \langle n|,
\qquad
\hat P_{\rm \ UV} \equiv
\sum_{|\lambda_n| \le \Lambda_{\rm UV}}|n \rangle \langle n|.\end{aligned}$$
Using the projection operator $\hat P$, we define the Dirac-mode projected link-variable operator, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat U^P_\mu \equiv \hat P \hat U_\mu \hat P
=\sum_{m \in A}\sum_{n \in A}
|m\rangle \langle m|\hat U_\mu|n\rangle \langle n|.\end{aligned}$$ During this projection, there appears some nonlocality in general, but it would not be important for the argument of large-distance properties such as confinement. From the Wilson-loop operator $\hat W \equiv \prod_{k=1}^N\hat U_{\mu_k}$, we define the Dirac-mode projected Wilson-loop operator $\hat W^P \equiv \prod_{k=1}^N \hat U^P_{\mu_k}$, and rewrite its functional trace in terms of the Dirac basis as [@GIS12] $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Tr} \ \hat W^P &=& {\rm Tr} \ \prod_{k=1}^N \hat U^P_{\mu_k}
={\rm Tr} \ \hat U^P_{\mu_1}\hat U^P_{\mu_2}\cdots \hat U^P_{\mu_N}
={\rm Tr} \ \hat P \hat U_{\mu_1} \hat P \hat U_{\mu_2} \hat P
\cdots \hat P \hat U_{\mu_N} \hat P \nonumber\\
&=&{\rm tr} \sum_{n_1, n_2, \cdots, n_N \in A}
\langle n_1| \hat U_{\mu_1} |n_2 \rangle
\langle n_2| \hat U_{\mu_2} |n_3 \rangle \cdots
\langle n_N| \hat U_{\mu_N}|n_{1} \rangle,\end{aligned}$$ which is manifestly gauge invariant. Here, the arbitrary phase factor cancels between $|n_k \rangle$ and $\langle n_k|$. Its gauge invariance is also numerically checked in the lattice QCD Monte Carlo calculation.
From ${\rm Tr} \ \hat W^P(R,T)$ on the $R \times T$ rectangular loop, we define Dirac-mode projected potential, $$\begin{aligned}
V^P(R)\equiv -\lim_{T \to \infty} \frac{1}{T}
{\rm ln} \{{\rm Tr} \ \hat W^P(R,T)\}.\end{aligned}$$
On a periodic lattice of $V =L^3 \times N_t$, we define the Dirac-mode projected Polyakov loop [@GIS12]: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle L_{P}^{\rm proj.} \rangle\equiv
\frac{1}{3V} {\rm Tr} \ \prod_{i=1}^{N_t} \hat{U}_4^P=\frac{1}{3V}
{\rm Tr} \ (\hat{U}_4^P)^{N_t}=\frac{1}{3V}{\rm tr}
\sum_{n_1,.., n_{N_t} \in A}
\langle n_1 | \hat{U}_4 | n_2 \rangle \langle n_2 | \hat{U}_4 | n_3 \rangle
\cdots \langle n_{N_t} | \hat{U}_4 | n_1 \rangle,~~~~~~~
\end{aligned}$$ which is also manifestly gauge-invariant.
Analysis of confinement in terms of Dirac modes in QCD
======================================================
In this paper, we mainly consider the removal of low-lying Dirac modes, i.e., the IR-cut case. Using the Dirac-mode expansion and projection method, we calculate the IR-Dirac-mode-cut Wilson loop ${\rm Tr}~W^P(R,T)$, the IR-cut inter-quark potential $V^P(R)$, and the IR-Dirac-mode-cut Polyakov loop $\langle L_P \rangle_{\rm IR}$ in a gauge-invariant manner [@GIS12]. Here, we can directly investigate the relation between chiral symmetry breaking and confinement as the area-law behavior of the Wilson loop, since the low-lying Dirac modes are responsible to chiral symmetry breaking.
As a technical difficulty, we have to deal with huge dimensional matrices and their products. Actually, the total matrix dimension of $\langle m|\hat U_\mu|n\rangle$ is (Dirac-mode number)$^2$. On the $L^4$ lattice, the Dirac-mode number is $L^4 \times N_c \times$ 4, which can be reduced to be $L^4 \times N_c$, using the Kogut-Susskind technique [@R12]. Even for the projected operator, where the Dirac-mode space is restricted, the matrix is generally still huge. At present, we use a small-size lattice in the actual lattice QCD calculation.
We use SU(3) lattice QCD with the standard plaquette action at $\beta=5.6$ (i.e., $a\simeq 0.25{\rm fm}$) on $6^4$ at the quenched level. The periodic boundary condition is imposed for the gauge field. We show in Fig.2(a) the spectral density $\rho(\lambda)$ of the QCD Dirac operator ${{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}}$. The chiral property of ${{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$D$}}}$ leads to $\rho(-\lambda)=\rho(\lambda)$. Figure 2(b) is the IR-cut Dirac spectral density $\rho_{\rm IR}(\lambda)\equiv
\rho(\lambda)\theta(|\lambda|-\Lambda_{\rm IR})$ with the IR-cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm IR}=0.5a^{-1}\simeq 0.4{\rm GeV}$ for the Dirac eigen-mode. Note that, using the eigenvalue $\lambda_n$, the quark condensate $\langle \bar qq\rangle_{\rm IR}$ with the IR-cut $\Lambda_{\Lambda_{\rm IR}}$ is expressed as [@GIS12] $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \bar qq\rangle_{\Lambda_{\rm IR}}
=-\frac{1}{V}\sum_{\lambda_n \ge \Lambda_{\rm IR}} \frac{2m}{\lambda_n^2+m^2}.\end{aligned}$$ The chiral condensate is largely reduced as $\langle \bar qq\rangle_{\Lambda_{\rm IR}}/
\langle \bar qq\rangle \simeq 0.02$ by removing the low-lying Dirac modes in the physical case of $m_q \simeq 5{\rm MeV}$, as shown in Fig.2(c).
  
Figure 3 shows the IR-Dirac-mode-cut Wilson loop $\langle W^P(R,T) \rangle \equiv {\rm Tr} \hat W^P(R,T)$, the IR-cut inter-quark potential $V^P(R)$, and the IR-Dirac-mode-cut Polyakov loop $\langle L_P \rangle_{\rm IR}$, after the removal of the low-lying Dirac modes. These Dirac-mode projected quantities are obtained in lattice QCD with the IR-cut of $\rho_{\rm IR}(\lambda)\equiv
\rho(\lambda)\theta(|\lambda|-\Lambda_{\rm IR})$ with the IR-cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm IR}=0.5a^{-1}\simeq 0.4{\rm GeV}$.
![ The attice QCD results after the removal of low-lying Dirac modes [@GIS12], which gives $\rho_{\rm IR}(\lambda)\equiv
\rho(\lambda)\theta(|\lambda|-\Lambda_{\rm IR})$ with the IR-cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm IR}=0.5a^{-1} \simeq 0.4{\rm GeV}$. (a) The IR-cut Wilson loop ${\rm Tr}~W^P(R,T)$ (circle) after removing the IR Dirac modes, plotted against $R \times T$. The slope parameter $\sigma^P$ is almost the same as that of the original Wilson loop (square). (b) The IR-cut inter-quark potential (circle), which is almost unchanged from the original one (square), apart from an irrelevant constant. (c) The scatter plot of the IR-Dirac-mode-cut Polyakov loop $\langle L_P \rangle_{\rm IR}$: its zero-value indicates $Z_3$-unbroken confinement phase. ](Fig3a.eps "fig:") ![ The attice QCD results after the removal of low-lying Dirac modes [@GIS12], which gives $\rho_{\rm IR}(\lambda)\equiv
\rho(\lambda)\theta(|\lambda|-\Lambda_{\rm IR})$ with the IR-cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm IR}=0.5a^{-1} \simeq 0.4{\rm GeV}$. (a) The IR-cut Wilson loop ${\rm Tr}~W^P(R,T)$ (circle) after removing the IR Dirac modes, plotted against $R \times T$. The slope parameter $\sigma^P$ is almost the same as that of the original Wilson loop (square). (b) The IR-cut inter-quark potential (circle), which is almost unchanged from the original one (square), apart from an irrelevant constant. (c) The scatter plot of the IR-Dirac-mode-cut Polyakov loop $\langle L_P \rangle_{\rm IR}$: its zero-value indicates $Z_3$-unbroken confinement phase. ](Fig3b.eps "fig:") ![ The attice QCD results after the removal of low-lying Dirac modes [@GIS12], which gives $\rho_{\rm IR}(\lambda)\equiv
\rho(\lambda)\theta(|\lambda|-\Lambda_{\rm IR})$ with the IR-cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm IR}=0.5a^{-1} \simeq 0.4{\rm GeV}$. (a) The IR-cut Wilson loop ${\rm Tr}~W^P(R,T)$ (circle) after removing the IR Dirac modes, plotted against $R \times T$. The slope parameter $\sigma^P$ is almost the same as that of the original Wilson loop (square). (b) The IR-cut inter-quark potential (circle), which is almost unchanged from the original one (square), apart from an irrelevant constant. (c) The scatter plot of the IR-Dirac-mode-cut Polyakov loop $\langle L_P \rangle_{\rm IR}$: its zero-value indicates $Z_3$-unbroken confinement phase. ](Fig3c.eps "fig:")
Remarkably, even after removing the coupling to the low-lying Dirac modes, which are responsible to chiral symmetry breaking, the IR-Dirac-mode-cut Wilson loop obeys the area law as $\langle W^P(R,T)\rangle \propto e^{-\sigma^P RT}$, and the slope $\sigma^P$, i.e., the string tension, is almost unchanged as $\sigma^P \simeq \sigma$. As shown in Fig.3(b), the IR-cut inter-quark potential $V^P(R)$ is almost unchanged from the original one, apart from an irrelevant constant. Also from Fig.3(c), we find that the IR-Dirac-mode-cut Polyakov loop is almost zero, $\langle L_P \rangle_{\rm IR} \simeq 0$, which means $Z_3$-unbroken confinement phase. In fact, confinement is kept in the absence of low-lying Dirac modes or the essence of chiral symmetry breaking [@GIS12]. This result seems consistent with Gattringer’s formula [@G06BGH07] and Lang’s result [@LS11].
We also investigate the UV-cut of Dirac modes in lattice QCD, and find that the confining force is almost unchanged by the UV-cut [@GIS12], as shown in Fig.4. This result seems consistent with the lattice result of Synatschke-Wipf-Langfeld [@SWL08]. Furthermore, we examine “intermediate(IM)-cut” of Dirac modes, and obtain almost the same confining force [@GIS12], as shown in Fig.5.
  
  \
  \
  
From these lattice QCD results, there is no specific region of the Dirac modes responsible to confinement. In other words, we conjecture that the “seed” of confinement is distributed not only in low-lying Dirac modes but also in a wider region of the Dirac-mode space.
Our lattice QCD results suggest some independence between chiral symmetry breaking and color confinement, which may lead to richer phase structure in QCD. For example, the phase transition point can be different between deconfinement and chiral restoration in the presence of strong electro-magnetic fields, because of their nontrivial effect on chiral symmetry [@ST9193].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The lattice QCD calculation has been done on NEC-SX8R and NEC-SX9 at Osaka University. H.S. is supported by the Grant for Scientific Research \[(C) No. 23540306, Priority Areas “New Hadrons” (E01:21105006)\], and S.G. and T.I. are supported by a Grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows \[No.23-752, 24-1458\] from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Technology (MEXT) of Japan. This work is also supported by the Global COE Program at Kyoto University, “The Next Generation of Physics, Spun from Universality and Emergence” from MEXT of Japan.
[99]{}
Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**122**]{} (1961) 345; [*ibid.*]{} [**124**]{} (1961) 246.
H. Suganuma, S. Sasaki and H. Toki, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B435**]{} (1995) 207; [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**94**]{} (1995) 373.
O. Miyamura, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B353**]{} (1995) 91; R.M. Woloshyn, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D51**]{} (1995) 6411.
C. Gattringer, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**97**]{} (2006) 032003; F. Bruckmann et al., [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B647**]{} (2007) 56. H.-J. Rothe, [*Lattice Gauge Theories*]{}, 4th edition, World Scientific, 2012.
Y. Nambu, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D10**]{} (1974) 4262; G. ’t Hooft, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B190**]{} (1981) 455.
A.S. Kronfeld, G. Schierholz and U.-J. Wiese, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B293**]{} (1987) 461.
J.D. Stack, S.D. Neiman and R.J. Wensley, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D50**]{} (1994) 3399 \[hep-lat/9404014\]. K. Amemiya and H. Suganuma, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D60**]{} (1999) 114509 \[hep-lat/9811035\];\
S. Gongyo, T. Iritani and H. Suganuma, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D86**]{} (2012) 094018 \[arXiv:1207.4377 \[hep-lat\]\]. H. Suganuma, A. Tanaka, S. Sasaki and O. Miyamura, [*Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.*]{} [**47**]{} (1996) 302. S. Gongyo, T. Iritani and H. Suganuma, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D86**]{} (2012) 034510 \[arXiv:1202.4130 \[hep-lat\]\];\
H. Suganuma, S. Gongyo, T. Iritani and A. Yamamoto, [*PoS*]{} ([**QCD-TNT-II**]{}) (2011) 044;\
H. Suganuma, S. Gongyo and T. Iritani, [*PoS*]{} ([**Lattice 2012**]{}) (2012) 217 \[arXiv:1210.7873 \[hep-lat\]\]. T. Banks and A. Casher, [*Nucl. Phys.*]{} [**B169**]{} (1980) 103.
A. Yamamoto and H. Suganuma, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**101**]{} (2008) 241601; [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D79**]{} (2009) 054504. C.B. Lang and M. Schrock, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D84**]{} (2011) 087704 \[arXiv:1107.5195 \[hep-lat\]\];\
L.Ya Glozman, C.B. Lang and M. Schrock, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D86**]{} (2012) 014507.
F. Synatschke, A. Wipf and K. Langfeld, [*Phys. Rev.*]{} [**D77**]{} (2008) 114018 \[arXiv:0803.0271 \[hep-lat\]\]. H. Suganuma and T. Tatsumi, [*Ann. Phys.*]{} [**208**]{} (1991) 470; [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**90**]{} (1993) 379.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Coupling and decoupling of chemical reactions are explored through a modified heat balance equation. Reaction enthalpies are found to play crucial role; the sign of their product for a pair of consecutive chemical reactions determine whether they couple or not. The possibility of a coupling-uncoupling transition for such reactions is thus introduced for the first time. The present work resolves a paradox concerning negative efficiency of coupled consecutive chemical reactions. Enthalpy is also shown to be a “constant of motion” along the reaction coordinate as long as the mass action ratio varies little with temperature. The present analysis puts the observed difference between calorimetric and van’t Hoff enthalpies on a quantitative basis. A case study is presented with a third order reaction where the enthalpic criterion is useful in selecting the more probable of the alternative mechanisms.'
author:
- |
Asoke P. Chattopadhyay$^1$ and Anjan K. Dasgupta$^2$\
$^1$ Department of Chemistry, University of Kalyani\
Kalyani 741235, India\
$^2$ Department of Biochemistry, University of Calcutta\
35 Ballygunje Circular Road, Calcutta 700019, India
title: Global selection rule in chemical coupling
---
22.0cm 14.0cm 0.6cm
0.8cm
1.0cm PACS No. 82.60.-s 65.40.G
Introduction
============
The present work extends an earlier attempt[@Anjan] to generalize the conventional phenomenology[@Onsager1; @Onsager2; @Prigogine] for describing thermodynamics of chemical reactions. The conventional approach, though based on the limiting assumption of near equilibrium, was applied to complex processes[@Rotten] successfully. Coupling of chemical reactions, however was treated[@Prigogine] using a rather special example of a cyclic reaction system. For non-cyclic e.g. consecutive reaction schemes, the Onsager matrix is shown to be diagonal, ruling out phenomenological coupling. Conventional chemical wisdom, on the other hand, assumes a set of reactions to be coupled provided they have common intermediate(s). More importantly, the efficiency of coupling can be shown to be always negative for coupling schemes treated in the traditional way, whether in linear or n nonlinear domain. This renders the description of coupling itself as invalid in the established format. We show, on the contrary, how minor modifications in the balance equations lead to alteration in the definition of macroscopic fluxes and forces in chemical reaction systems[@Shear; @Katchal] permitting coupling. The reactions may now be coupled if enthalpy change in each is non-vanishing. Also, enthalpy remains a “constant of motion” along reaction coordinate provided the mass action ratio has a small variation with temperature. The recent debate on difference between van’t Hoff and calorimetric enthalpies[@Grin] are put on a more quantitative basis with our approach. A case study with a third order reaction having two possible mechanisms shows that our approach correctly identifies the more probable pathway.
The Balance Equation Revisited
==============================
Let us briefly recall the phenomenological equations for chemical coupling widely used in chemical literature.[@Prigogine; @Katchal] For a set of reactions $\rho (=1,....r)$ in a fixed volume, the rates of change of entropy, concentration etc. are given by\
$$\begin{aligned}
\partial{s_v}/\partial{t} = -\nabla.J_s + \sigma \\
\partial{c_i}/\partial{t}=-\nabla.J_i+\sum_{\rho} \nu_{i{\rho}}v_{\rho} \\
\partial{q_v}/\partial{t}=-\nabla.J_q+\sum_{\rho}v_{\rho}\Delta H_{\rho} \\
Tds_v = dq_v - \sum_i{\mu_i}dc_i \end{aligned}$$\
Here, $s_v$, $J_s$ are the density and flux terms for entropy, $c_i$, $J_i$ those for the ith chemical species and $q_v$, $J_q$ those for heat. $\nu_{i{\rho}}$ is the stoichiometric coefficient of the $i^{th}$ species in the $\rho^{th}$ chemical reaction for which the velocity is $v_{\rho}$. $\sigma$ is the entropy production term. While $\Delta H_{\rho}$ is the enthalpy change of the $\rho^{th}$ chemical reaction, the corresponding Gibbs free energy change, $\Delta G_{\rho}$, is given by the law of mass action as\
$$\Delta G_{\rho} = -RT ln (v_{\rho}^{+}/v_{\rho}^{-})$$\
where $v_{\rho}^{+}$ and $v_{\rho}^{-}$ are the forward and reverse reaction velocities of the $\rho^{th}$ recation, and $v_\rho = v_{\rho}^{+}-v_{\rho}^{-}$. From eqs. (1) - (4), equating non-gradient parts,\
$$\sigma=J_q.\nabla(1/T)-\sum_i J_i.\nabla(\mu_i/T)+\sum_{\rho}v_{\rho}(\Delta
H_{\rho}-\sum_i \mu_i \nu_{i{\rho}})/T$$
For an isothermal chemical reaction system in a well-stirred (or homogeneous) medium we get,\
$$\sigma = \sum_{\rho} v_{\rho} \Delta S_{\rho}$$\
from $\Delta G_{\rho}=\Delta H_{\rho} - T\Delta S_{\rho}$ and the second law. Note that the rate of entropy production is obtained as a stoichiometric sum of entropy changes of reaction steps, [*without invoking any assumption of linearity of processes*]{}.
Our eq. (7) can be compared with the standard one for $\sigma$ found in chemical literature,[@Prigogine; @Katchal] [*viz.*]{}\
$$T\sigma = -\sum_{\rho}v_{\rho}\Delta G_{\rho}$$\
Following standard phenomenological notations,\
$$v_{\rho} = -\sum_{\rho^{'}}L_{\rho\rho^{'}}\Delta G_{\rho^{'}}$$\
Linearising eq. (5), and using $v_{\rho}= v_{\rho}^{+}-v_{\rho}^{-}$ with eq. (9), we obtain\
$$L_{\rho\rho^{'}} = \delta_{\rho\rho^{'}} v_{\rho (eq)}^{-}/RT$$\
where $\delta_{\rho\rho^{'}}$ is the Kronecker delta. Such a diagonal nature of L makes coupling between two different reactions impossible. Please note that coupling between cyclic reactions can still emerge in this treatment, Onsager’s example[@Prigogine] being the most famous one.
This impossibility does not occur in our treatment since unlike eq. (8), eq. (7) leads to a different phenomenological equation for the reaction velocity\
$$v_\rho = -\sum_{\rho^{'}}L_{\rho\rho^{'}}\Delta S_{\rho^{'}}$$
Phenomenological vs. Chemical Coupling
======================================
Coupling of chemical reactions, while gaining in popularity over the past few decades, have received little attention from theoreticians. The major contributors have been Prigogine and his coworkers[@Prigogine; @Prigogine1]. Perhaps, the importance of coupled reactions is felt nowhere more than in treatments of biochemical cycles[@Lehninger]. Glycolytic or the basic bioenergetic cycle (oxidative phosphorylation) are examples of intricate coupling of consecutive and cyclic reactions[@Rotten]. Yet, quantitative expression of reaction coupling is absent in existing literature in these fields.
According to Prigogine[@Prigogine], a pair of reactions with affinities $A_i$ and $A_j$ and velocities $v_i$ and $v_j$ can couple if signs of $A_{i}v_{j}$ and $A_{j}v_{j}$ are different. This means that one reaction must drive another for the two reactions to couple. Based on this idea, Rottenberg[@Rotten] defined efficiency of coupling as\
$$\eta = -A_{1}v_{1}/A_{2}v_{2}$$\
where the subscripts 1 and 2 denote the driven and the driving reactions respectively. However, Hill[@Hill] pointed out that\
$$A \times v \geq 0$$\
for individual reactions. Thus efficiency of coupling is negative and coupling of consecutive reactions at least is ruled out. This poses a far stronger challenge to the conventional theory describing coupling, as an objection to the problem posed by diagonal nature of the Onsager matrix, as shown in eq. (10), could be that the treatment there is strictly linear. Although Hill’s derivation is consistent with eq. (5), his conjecture that coupling of chemical reactions is only possible via common intermediates and has no phenomenological meaning otherwise, is hardly acceptable. In fact, Hill never sought to explain why a consecutive reaction pair always has a negative efficiency. The lacuna was in not appreciating a more fundamental problem, [*viz.*]{} the nature of the driving force behind reaction coupling. This impasse has been resolved by the present work, where the key steps in this regard were modification of eq. (8) to (7), and of eq. (9) to (11). From eq. (11) it is clear that in our theory the efficiency of coupling need not be always negative. Also, the Onsager matrix $L_{\rho\rho^{'}}$ is not necessarily diagonal. It can thus be used as a proper measure of the coupling strength between two reactions. The general approach is not only useful in resolving the paradox stated earlier, it also provides a simple thermodynamic criterion for coupling in simple reaction systems. For example, if the enthalpy of any reaction step $\rho$ is zero, that reaction can not couple with any other reaction step $\rho^{'}$ as $L_{\rho\rho^{'}}$ again becomes diagonal.
Gibbs Relation along Reaction Trajectory: $\Delta H_{cal}$ vs $\Delta H_{vH}$
=============================================================================
This is an interface between kinetics and thermodynamics of reaction processes[@Prigogine]. For a reaction system the free energy change of the $\rho^{th}$ reaction away from equilibrium can be expressed by\
$$\Delta G_\rho = \Delta G_\rho^0 + RT ln K_\rho$$\
where the mass action ratio $K_\rho$ is given by\
$$K_\rho = \prod_jc_j^{\nu_{i\rho}}$$\
Writing the entropy change along the $\rho^{th}$ reaction as a stoichiometric sum of molal entropies, $S_i$\
$$\Delta S_{\rho} = \sum_i \nu_{i\rho}S_i$$\
From the relation $\Delta S_{\rho} = -\partial{\Delta G_{\rho}}/\partial{T}$, eq. (12) and $\Delta G_{\rho} = \Delta H_{\rho} -T\Delta S_{\rho}$,\
$$\Delta S_{\rho} = \Delta S_{\rho}^0 -RlnK_{\rho} - R(\partial{lnK_{\rho}}/\partial{lnT})$$\
A simple consequence of eq. (15) is,\
$$\Delta H_{\rho}=\Delta H_{\rho}^0-RT(\partial{lnK_{\rho}}/\partial{lnT})$$\
Let us identify the two $\Delta H$ terms appearing in eq. (16) clearly. At equilibrium, eq. (16) becomes\
$$\Delta H_{\rho}^{eq}=\Delta H_{\rho}^0-RT[\partial{lnK_{\rho}}/\partial{lnT}]_{eq}$$\
If the second term on RHS becomes very small, we are left with\
$$\Delta H_\rho \simeq \Delta H_\rho^0$$\
Eq. (18) may be stated as follows: [*the enthalpy remains approximately a constant of motion along the reaction co-ordinate for any reaction*]{} (the van’t Hoff approximation). Note that where it is not so, i.e. where $\Delta H_\rho$ depends on the reaction coordinate and may even change its sign from $\Delta H_\rho^0$, a pair of coupled reactions may become decoupled or [*vice versa*]{}, as the coupling depends on sign of the product of the enthalpies of the respective reactions. [*A coupling-uncoupling transition is therefore possible for such a set of chemical reactions*]{}. Much further work is needed in this area.
$\Delta H_{\rho}^{eq}$ is clearly the experimentally measured enthalpy change in a reaction [*viz.*]{} $\Delta H_{cal}$, which is conventionally measured at equilibrium (or near equilibrium) conditions. But the first term on RHS of eq. (16) or (17) can be identified with the van’t Hoff enthalpy of the reaction [*viz.*]{} $\Delta H_{vH}$, defined as\
$$\Delta H_{vH} = \Delta H_{\rho}^0 = RT(\partial{lnK_{eq}}/\partial{lnT})$$\
Based on this discussion and the last two equations, we can write\
$$\Delta H_{cal}=\Delta H_{vH}-RT[\partial{lnK_{\rho}}/\partial{lnT}]_{eq}$$\
There is a large and growing body of evidence[@Grin; @Holtzer; @Sturt1; @Lumry; @Ragone; @Weber1; @Weber2; @Sturt2; @Priv] (including some unpublished work[@Stepanov]) of discrepancy between $\Delta H_{cal}$ and $\Delta H_{vH}$. There is also an awareness of the importance of the ratio of these two values, especially in interpreting biocalorimetric data[@Babur]. While for simple chemical reactions the ratio is close to unity, for reactions involving macromolecules e.g. in protein folding, there is clear departure of the ratio from unity. In biochemical literature,[@Priv; @Babur] the numerical value of the ratio (which may vary from 0.5 to more than 4[@Sturt1], say) is taken to provide a measure of cooperativity of the biochemical reaction (e.g. folding). Our analysis gives a clear insight into the difference between the two enthalpy values. The origin of this difference stems from the difference in temperature dependence of equilibrium and non-equilibrium mass action ratios. Let us also recall that such difference between equilibrium and non-equilibrium values are accepted naturally for Gibbs free energy, for example, and the difference considered in terms of a mass action ratio.
We realize that further simplification of eq. (20) may be difficult. Instead, we use certain experimental data to show that the mass action ratio, $K_{\rho}$, may have a scaling dependence on the experimental temperature. Holtzer[@Holtzer] estimates that the difference between the calorimetric and van’t Hoff enthalpies may be of the order of 45 calories per stoichiometric unit for simple chemical reactions. From eq. (20), this leads to\
$$\partial{lnK_\rho}/\partial{lnT} \simeq -45/(300 \times 1.98) = -0.075$$\
at room temperature ($300^0$ K). We immediately obtain\
$$K_\rho \simeq const \times T^{-\alpha}$$ where $\alpha \simeq 0.075$ for simple chemical reactions.
Coupling Coefficients in Two Step Reaction - Kinetic Approximation
==================================================================
Using the dissipation eq. (7), we may express the phenomenological relation of a pair of reactions by\
$$\Delta S_2 = R_{21}v_1 + R_{22}v_2$$\
where $v_1$ and $v_2$ are velocities of the two reactions and $R_{ij}$ are the coupling terms. The pre-equilibrium condition[@Gallene] is given by\
$$\Delta G_1 \longrightarrow 0 {\hskip 0.5cm} and {\hskip 0.5cm} v_1 \longrightarrow 0$$\
If we use the approximate linear relation in such cases\
$$\Delta S_1 = R_{11}v_1+ R_{12}v_2 \simeq R_{12}v_2$$\
$\Delta G_1 \simeq 0$ implies $\Delta H_1 \simeq T\Delta S_1$. Using the arguments of eq. (24), the entropy change in the first reaction is given as\
$$\Delta S_1 \simeq \Delta H_1^0/T$$\
Using eq. (24), eq. (25) assumes the form\
$$\Delta H_1^0 = R^{'}_{12}v_2$$\
where $R^{'}_{12} = TR_{12}$. The approximate form of the dissipation equation can be expressed as\
$$\sigma = \Delta S_1 v_1 + \Delta S_2 v_2 \simeq \Delta S_2 v_2 \geq 0$$\
As $v_2$, velocity of the rate-determining step, is positive both for positive and negative coupling, the pre-equilibrium approximation should satisfy\
$$\Delta S_2 \geq 0$$\
Eqs. (25) - (28) express the nature of thermodynamic coupling that may exist for kinetic schemes satisfying the pre-equilibrium condition. Eq. (26) implies that velocity of the rate determining step will be proportional to the enthalpy change in the pre-equilibrium step. It may be interesting to note that for positive coupling, the pre-equilibrium step must be endothermic and vice versa. If on the other hand the coupling is negative the relation $\Delta H_1^0 \leq 0$ must be satisfied. The negative coupling implies that one of the reactions among the pair has a negative dissipative component and is therefore driven by the other.
A case study with in a simple reaction
======================================
Let us consider a typical chemical reaction\
$$2NO + O_{2} \rightarrow 2NO_{2}$$\
Using reported molar enthalpy values[@Bent] the overall $\Delta H_0$ of this reaction is approximately 27.02 Kcal/mole. The standard mechanism (henceforth referred to as mechanism I) cited[@Benson] is the following one:\
$$\begin{aligned}
2NO = N_2O_2 \nonumber \\
N_{2}O_2 + O_2 \rightarrow 2NO_2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$\
This mechanism is able to explain the accepted rate law for the overall reaction [*viz.*]{}\
$$Rate = k[NO]^{2}[O_2]$$\
as also the negative sign of the activation energy of the overall reaction.[@Atkins] Recently,[@Plamb] an alternative mechanism (referred to as mechanism II), has been proposed, namely\
$$\begin{aligned}
NO + O_2 = OONO \nonumber \\
OONO + NO \rightarrow 2NO_2 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$\
which agrees with the rate law given above. According to Plambeck,[@Plamb] spectroscopic evidence admits of simultaneous existence of both these mechanisms in the overall reaction, although concentration of OONO may be larger than $N_2O_2$. Both the intermediates are short lived species, and although there is speculation about the structure of $N_2O_2$,[@Greenw] nothing is known about OONO.
We performed [*ab-initio*]{} calculations on $N_2O_2$ and OONO. The GAMESS software package[@Gam] was used with the ccpVTZ basis set,[@Dunn] augmented by a d and diffuse s, p type polarization functions. We present only thermochemical data in Kcal/mol (for $\Delta H^0$ or $\Delta G^0$) or cal/mol-K (for $\Delta S^0$). Subscripts 1 and 2 represent the two steps in the overall reaction. Along with standard data[@Bent; @Benson; @Atkins; @Plamb; @Greenw] our results are (with an estimated error limit of $\pm 10$ percent)\
For mechanism I:\
\
$\Delta S_1^0$ = -40.68 cal/mol-K [1.8cm]{} $\Delta S_2^0$ = 5.93 cal/mol-K\
$\Delta H_1^0$ = -30.2 Kcal/mol [2.0cm]{} $\Delta H_2^0$ = 3.18 Kcal/mol\
$\Delta G_1^0$ = -17.9 Kcal/mol [2.05cm]{} $\Delta G_2^0$ = 1.4 Kcal/mol\
\
Corresponding values for Mechanism II are\
\
$\Delta S_1^0$ = -34.34 cal/mol-K [1.8cm]{} $\Delta S_2^0$ = -0.39 cal/mol-k\
$\Delta H_1^0$ = -11.60 Kcal/mol [1.8cm]{} $\Delta H_2^0$ = -15 Kcal/mol\
$\Delta G_1^0$ = -1.29 Kcal/mol [2.1cm]{} $\Delta G_2^0$ = -15.29 Kcal/mol\
It is clear that in both the mechanisms the enthalpy change in the pre-equilibrium step has a negative sign. Eq. (26) implies that one reaction must drive the other. From eq. (28) it follows that for both the mechanisms, $\Delta S_2 = \Delta S_2^0 - RlnK_2 > 0$, where $K_2$ is the mass action ratio for the second step of the reaction. Therefore,\
for Mechanism I\
$$\Delta S_2^0 \geq Rln{[NO_2]^2/([N_2O_2][O_2])}$$\
and for Mechanism II\
$$\Delta S_2^0 \geq Rln{[NO_2]^2/([NO]^2[OONO])}$$\
If the intermediate concentration is small, $\Delta S_2^0$ must be greater than a positive quantity. This need not be the case if the intermediate has a higher concentration, since then the right hand side of inequality (30) shifts towards more negative value. Incidentally, the first mechanism has a positive $\Delta S_2^0$. In the second mechanism $\Delta S_2^0$ has a value approaching zero. In this case, (30) can hold good provided the intermediate concentration has a higher value. As pointed out by Plambeck,[@Plamb] both the mechanisms are known to exist, but higher concentration is seen for OONO. The observation is thus in accordance with the thermodynamic arguments presented above.
Concluding Remarks
==================
The present paper shows that coupling of chemical reactions should not be described in vague qualitative terms e.g. existence of common chemical intermediates. A pair of reactions remain decoupled as long as the product of their reaction enthalpies is non-negative. Coupling can only occur if they have enthalpies of opposite signs. An interesting corollary is that the same pair of reactions can undergo a transition from coupled to decoupled state (or [*vice versa*]{}), provided the mass action ratio of one or both the reactions change appreciably with progress of the reaction(s). An important modification brought forward by the present work is that the rate of internal entropy change near equilibrium is a weighted sum of the entropies (and not free energies or chemical affinities, as the form in which it is usually expressed) of the participating reactions. The observed deviation of calorimetric (measured) enthalpy from the van’t Hoff value for a reaction has also been explained, the origin of which is shown to be in the difference in the temperature dependence of equilibrium and non-equilibrium mass action ratios. For a class of simple chemical reactions, where the deviation is small, the enthalpy remains a constant of motion along the reaction coordinate. Finally, our treatment is shown to identify the more probable of alternate pathways for a typical third order chemical reaction.\
[99]{} A.K. Dasgupta, in [*Water and Ions in Biomolecular Systems*]{}, D. Vasilescu, J. Jaz, L. Packer and B. Pullman (Eds.), (Birkhauser, Berlin, 1990), p 201. L. Onsager, [*Phys. Rev.* ]{} [37]{}, 405 (1931). L. Onsager, [*Phys. Rev.* ]{} [38]{}, 2265 (1931). I. Prigogine, [*Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes*]{} (Wiley Interscience, New York, 1967). H. Rottenberg, [*Methods Enzymol.* ]{}, [55]{} 547 (1979); [*Biochim. Biophys. Acta* ]{} [549]{}, 225 (1979). D.B. Shear, [*J. Chem. Phys.* ]{} [48]{}, 4144 (1968). A. Katchalsky and P. F. Curran, [*Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics in Biophysics*]{} (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1967). V.Ya. Grinberg, V.B. Tatiana, H. Thomas and B.T. Vladimir, [*J. Biotech.*]{} [79]{}, 269 (2000). G. Nicolis and I. Prigogine, [*Self-Organisation in Nonequilibrium Systems*]{} (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1977). A.L. Lehninger, D.L. Delson and M.M. Cox, [*Principles of Biochemistry*]{} (CBS Publishers, New Delhi, 1982). T.L. Hill, [*J. Theor. Biol.* ]{} [10]{}, 442 (1966). A. Holtzer, [*Biopolymer* ]{} [42]{}, 499 (1997). H. Naghibi, A. Tamura and J.M. Sturtevant, [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA)* ]{} [92]{}, 5597 (1995). R. Lumry, [*Methods Enzymol.* ]{} [259]{}, 628 (1995). R. Ragone and G. Colonna, [*J. Phys. Chem.* ]{} [99]{}, 13050 (1995). G. Weber, [*J. Phys. Chem.* ]{} [99]{}, 1052 (1995). G. Weber, [*Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA)*]{} [93]{}, 7452 (1996). Y. Liu and J.M. Sturtevant, [*Biophys. Chem.*]{} [64]{}, 121 (1997). P.L. Privalov, in [*Protein Folding*]{}, T.E. Creighton (Ed.), (Freeman, New York, 1992), p 83. I.A. Stepanov, preprint http://xxx.lanl.gov/physics/0101055 and references therein. S.A. Leharne and B.Z. Chowdhury, in [*Biocalorimetry*]{}, edited by J.E. Ladbury and B.Z. Chowdhury (John Wiley, New York, 1998), pp 157. G.L. Gallene, [*J. Chem. Educ.*]{} [72]{}, 196 (1995). H.A. Bent, [*The Second Law*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1965), pp 400. S.W. Benson, [*Foundations of Chemical Kinetics*]{} (McGraw Hill, New York, 1960), p 308. P.W. Atkins, [*Physical Chemistry*]{} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986). http://www.chem.ualberta.ca/courses/plambeck/p102/p0216/ N.N. Greenwood and A. Earnshaw, [*Chemistry of the Elements*]{} (Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1998), p 446. M.W. Schmidt, K.K. Baldridge, J.A. Boatz, S.T. Elbert, M.S. Gordon, J.J. Jensen, S. Koseki, N. Matsunaga, K.A. Nguyen, S. Su, T.L. Windus, M. Dupuis and J.A. Montgomery, [*J. Comput. Chem*]{} [14]{}, 1347 (1993). D.E. Woon and T.H. Dunning, Jr., [*J. Chem. Phys.*]{} [99]{}, 3730 (1993).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Topology of exponential and scale-free trees and simple graphs is investigated numerically. The numbers of the nearest neighbors, the next-nearest neighbors, the next-next-nearest neighbors, the 4-th and the 5-th neighbors are calculated. The functional dependence of the node-to-node distance $d_{ij}$ on the product of connectivities $k_ik_j$ has been also checked. The results of simulations for exponential networks agree with the existing analytical predictions.'
author:
- Krzysztof Malarz
title: 'Numbers of $n$-th neighbors and node-to-node distances in growing networks[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
Complex networks have been attracting great attention for decades. They may describe many real-world systems in the social sciences, biology, computer science, telecommunication and others [@newman-rev; @d-m-rev]. Mathematical description of networks is provided by the graph theory [@graph]. Graph is a set of vertexes (nodes) connected by edges (links). The main local characteristic of a graph is the node degree, i.e. the number of links incoming to or outgoing from a node. For almost fifty years, the paradigm of “typical node” has been present in the science of networks. Networks of typical nodes were described by Erdős and Rényi [@crg] ([*classical random graphs*]{} — CRG). In their model, $N$ nodes are connected randomly with $L$ links: each inter-node link is realized with the probability $p=2L/[N(N-1)]$. In this model, the node degree distribution is given by a Poisson law, i.e. $P_k(k)=\exp(-\{ k \})\{ k \}^k/k!$, where $\{\cdots\}$ denotes the mean over all $N$ nodes, and the node degrees observed on a CRG fluctuate around $\{ k \}$.
As pointed out by Albert and Barabási in their seminal paper [@ab-org], networks in real world more often exhibit a power-like degree distribution, i.e. $P_k(k)\propto k^{-\gamma}$. In the Albert–Barabási (A-B) model, the node degrees assume all integer values in the thermodynamic limit and there is no characteristic value of the degree. Thus, with this observation the Hungarian mathematicians’ world of networks with typical nodes became a world of scale-free networks.
CRG and A-B networks are two examples belonging to two different families of networks [@waclaw]. The first one belongs to the so-called [*homogeneous*]{} networks, which may be described via a statistical ensemble. The A-B networks have temporal structure, as they come into being via growth process. The A-B network is an example of [*causal*]{} network.
For networks, the act of growing means subsequent attachments of new nodes, each with $M$ links, to previously existing nodes. The procedure of selection of those “old” nodes influences the network topology and the degree distribution. When old nodes are selected randomly — i.e. the probability of attachment is the same for all nodes — [*exponential*]{} networks are created and the nodes degree distribution is an exponential one [@d-m-rev]. On the other hand, when the attachment is preferential — i.e. the probability of choosing a node is proportional to its degree — the degree distribution is power-like and network can be termed as [*scale-free*]{} [@newman-rev].
The number of edges $M$ also influences the network topology:
- when $M=1$, the path between any pair of nodes is unique; the growing structure is called [*a tree*]{},
- when $M>1$, cyclic paths are possible and [*graph*]{} looses its tree-like properties,
- when $M>1$ and chosen old nodes all are different, multiple edges in the network are absent and the structure is [*a simple graph*]{}.
Such attaching procedure prevents possibility of [*loops*]{}, i.e. self-links.
Several characteristic of real or simulated networks may be practically useful. For example many papers discuss the networks resistance to possible damage [@damage], their tolerance on random and/or intentional attack [@attack] or transport properties in terms either of the percolation theory [@percol] or of the shortest path finding [@epjb; @short]. Newman [*et al.*]{} applied the generating function formalism [@genfun] to evaluate the number of nodes $$\label{eq-zm}
z_m= {z_1}^{2-m} {z_2}^{m-1}$$ in subsequent ($m$-th) layer from a randomly chosen origin [@newman]. In Eq. $z_1$ and $z_2$ are typical values of the number of nodes nearest neighbors and the number of nodes next-nearest neighbors, respectively. The first one ($z_1$) is obviously equal to average node degree $z_1=\{ k_1\}$. The latter ($z_2$) was evaluated lately by Shargel [*et al.*]{} [@shargel] as $$\label{eq-z2}
z_2=\{k^2\}-\{k\}.$$ Basing on the same technique, Motter [*et al.*]{} [@motter] derived the average node-to-node distance $d_{ij}$ dependence on the product $k_ik_j$ of the node degrees for random networks: $$\label{eq-holyst}
\langle d_{ij} \rangle = A-B\ln(k_ik_j),$$ where $\langle\cdots\rangle$ denotes the average over all node pairs, the product of the pair degrees being equal to $k_ik_j$. Recently, Ho[ł]{}yst [*et al.*]{} [@holyst] have confirmed this dependence numerically and presented some examples of real-world networks which obey Motter [*et al.*]{} theoretical predictions.
In this paper we check if Motter [*et al.*]{}, Ho[ł]{}yst [*et al.*]{} and Shargel [*et al.*]{} predictions apply to the growing exponential networks. Namely, we evaluate number of neighbors in subsequent layers. The node-to-node distance vs. product of their degrees is also simulated. For completeness, the calculations and discussion include the growing scale-free A-B networks.
In the next section we explain our numerical approach. In section \[sec-res\] we present results of Monte Carlo simulations of the average number of subsequent neighbors (\[sec-zm\]) and the inter-nodes distance dependence on the product of their degrees (\[sec-dis\]). The last section summarizes the results.
Numerical approach
==================
Numerical approach is based on an “on-line” construction of the distance matrix $\mathbf{D}$ during the network growth [@ijmpc; @task; @physicaa; @app]. An element $d_{ij}$ of the distance matrix gives the length of the shortest path between nodes $i$ and $j$, i.e. the minimal number of edges which connect these vertexes. The numbers $d_{ij}$ in $i$-th row/column inform how far is the node $i$ from another node $j$. Then, the number $z_m(i)$ representing the number of occurrences of the $m$ value in the $i$-th matrix row/column gives the information how many neighbors of the node $i$ are at the distance $m$ [@app]. The average number of the matrix elements of a given value in all rows/columns — i.e. in the whole matrix — gives a typical number $z_m$ of subsequent neighbors, for example, the nearest neighbors for $m=1$, the next-nearest neighbors for $m=2$, the next-next-nearest neighbors for $m=3$, etc. Additionally, the number of unities (“1”) in the $i$-th row/column gives degree of the $i$-th node: $k(i)=z_1(i)$.
Results of simulations {#sec-res}
======================
We construct the distance matrix $\mathbf{D}$ for $N=10^3$ nodes. The results are averaged over $N_{\text{run}}=10^4$ independent simulations.
Number of nodes in subsequent layers {#sec-zm}
------------------------------------
Fig. \[fig-z\] shows how the deviation $\delta_m\equiv z_1^{2-m}z_2^{m-1}-z_m$ between $z_m$ calculated from Eq. and from the direct simulation behaves as the function of the system size $N$ for $m=3,4,5$. As one can see, starting with $N\approx 100$ this difference decreases with $N$ for the exponential networks. For the scale-free networks either the number of nodes $(N=10^3)$ is still too small to observe a good agreement between $z_m$ and $z_1^{2-m}z_2^{m-1}$ or Eq. does not hold for the A-B graphs.
 \
 
By construction, the average number of the nearest neighbors $z_1$ is 2 and 4 for trees and simple graphs, respectively. The number of next-nearest neighbors $z_2$ depends on the applied rules of growth: when the growth is governed by the preferential attachment rule, we have $z_2\approx 14$ and $z_2\approx 38$ for $M=1$ and $M=2$, respectively. For the exponential networks, these numbers are $z_2\approx 4$ ($M=1$) and $z_2\approx 17$ ($M=2$). As the average number of the nearest neighbors $z_1$ is exactly equal to the average nodes degree $\{k\}$, it may be evaluated from the degree distribution $P_k(k)$ as $\{k\}=\sum_{k=M}^\infty kP_k(k)$, as well. For the exponential network this distribution [@d-m-rev; @app] is given by $$P_k(k\ge M)=
\begin{cases}
2^{-k} & \text{for } M=1,\\
3/4 \cdot (3/2)^{-k} & \text{for } M=2,
\end{cases}$$ while for the scale-free networks [@krapivsky00; @pk-sfn] it is $$P_k(k\ge M)=\dfrac{2M(M+1)}{(k+2)(k+1)k}.$$ The mean number of the next-nearest neighbors ($z_2$) may be evaluated basing on Eq. which diverges for scale-free networks with $N\to\infty$. For finite but large network this sum $$\sigma\equiv \sum_{k=M}^{N-1} k(k-1)P_k(k) = 2M(M+1)\sum_{k=M}^{N-1} \dfrac{k-1}{(k+2)(k+1)}
\label{eq-sigma}$$ grows logarithmically with $N$, $\sigma=3.99\ln N-7.55$ ($M=1$) and $\sigma=11.96\ln N-22.6$ ($M=2$) as presented in Fig. \[fig-k2-k\].
![\[fig-k2-k\] Dependence $\sigma(N)$ for growing scale-free networks.](k2-k)
The results are collected in Tab. \[tab\].
------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ------- -------
$M$ 1 2 1 2
$\sum_{k=M}^\infty kP_k$ 2 4 2 4
$z_1=\{k\}$ 1.998 3.994 1.998 3.994
$\sum_{k=M}^\infty k(k-1)P_k$ $\infty$ $\infty$ 4 18
$\sum_{k=M}^{N-1} k(k-1)P_k$ 19.95 59.86
$\{k^2\}-\{k\}$ 13.68 39.66 3.966 17.81
$z_2$ 13.68 38.11 3.966 17.37
$z_2^2/z_1$ 93.6 363.6 7.88 75.6
$z_3$ 44.8 201.5 7.72 71.5
$A$ 7.68 5.09 12.8 6.77
$B$ 0.783 0.438 1.73 0.746
$A^{\text{th}}$ 4.93 4.68 12.0 6.64
$B^{\text{th}}$ 0.519 0.443 1.46 0.679
------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ------- -------
: \[tab\] Average number of the nearest neighbors $z_1$ and the next-nearest neighbors $z_2$ for different evolving scale-free and exponential networks with $N=10^3$ nodes. The results are averaged over $N_{\text{run}}=10^4$ samples. Theoretical predictions of the average nodes degrees $\{k\} (=z_1)$ and $\{k^2\}-\{k\} (=z_2)$ are also included. Four last lines show the least-square fit coefficients $A$ and $B$ in the dependence $\langle d_{ij} \rangle = A-B\ln(k_ik_j)$ and their predictions $A^{\text{th}}$ and $B^{\text{th}}$ given by Eq. .
Node-to-node distances and node degrees {#sec-dis}
---------------------------------------
Using the generating function formalism [@genfun; @newman] Motter [*et al.*]{} [@motter] derived an expression for the length of the shortest path between the nodes for a given value of the product of connectivities $k_ik_j$: $$\label{eq-motter}
\begin{split}
\langle d_{ij} \rangle
=\left[1+\dfrac{\ln(Nz_1)}{\ln(z_2/z_1)}\right]
-\left[\dfrac{1}{\ln(z_2/z_1)}\right]\ln(k_ik_j)\equiv\\
A^{\text{th}}-B^{\text{th}}\ln(k_ik_j).
\end{split}$$ Lately, such a kind of dependence $\langle d_{ij} \rangle$ vs $(k_ik_j)$ has been shown to be valid in few real-world networks, including biological and scientific papers citation networks, public-transportation systems of several Polish towns, and simulated CRG and A-B networks [@holyst].
   
Here we show that this logarithmic dependence holds for exponential networks with $M=1,2$. The results are presented in Fig. \[fig-dijvskikj\] and in Tab. \[tab\]. The least-square fit was confined to the two first decades of $k_ik_j$ values for the scale-free networks and to the one-and-half decade of $k_ik_j$ values for the exponential ones.
Discussion and conclusions
==========================
Generating function mechanism [@newman; @motter; @shargel; @ambjorn86; @ambjorn90] has a mean-field nature and should work only for homogeneous trees. This mechanism is founded upon the assumption that there are [*no*]{} correlations between nodes degrees. But this assumption does not hold for growing (causal) trees, where the oldest nodes — probably well connected — are geometrically close [@burda-priva].
However, the Motter [*et al.*]{} formula works surprisingly nice also for growing networks, where triangles and other cyclic paths are possible. The Motter [*et al.*]{} predictions agree with simulation particularly well for exponential networks, where also $z_m$ were reproduced quite fairly. For scale-free networks this agreement is only qualitative. It seems, that theoretical predictions given by Eqs. and (and obviously given by Eq. ) agree with results of the simulations for the networks for which degree distribution gives finite $\{k^2\}$.
Average number of vertexes in all generation $z_m$ is well known for homogeneous [@ambjorn86] and causal [@krapivsky01] trees. The number $z_m$ of $m$-th neighbors derived in [@newman; @motter] agree very well for small $m=3,4,5$ with the results of computer simulation for exponential networks where the old nodes, to which the new nodes are being attached, are chosen randomly.
Again, this should be valid for trees, but it works also nicely for $M=2$ when random attachment is used. On the other hand the sum $\sum_{k=M}^\infty k(k-1)P_k(k)$ diverges for power-like distributions $P_k(k)$. For finite but large lattices this sum ($\sigma$, Eq. ) increases logarithmically with the system size $N$. In all four investigated cases simulated number $z_2$ (given by number of “2” in distance matrix) agrees with $\{k^2\}-\{k\}$ (averaged over all graph nodes).
For larger $m$ formula fails when applied to real networks, i.e. with finite $N$. Usually, the second layer contains more nodes than the first one, from which follows that $z_2>z_1$. Then — accordingly to Eq. — $z_m$ increases with $m\in{\mathbb Z}$, but for finite systems it must start to decrease for large $m$. In particular, any of $N$ nodes which constitute the network has no neighbors in $N$-th layer and does not posses any $N$-th neighbors ($z_m=0$ for $m\ge N$). The distribution of the node-to-node distances for the growing networks discussed here were shown in [@task; @app] and evaluated analytically in case of trees in Ref. [@burda].
Still, the method of evaluation of $z_m$ ($m=3,4,5$) based on Eq. may be quite useful. The main effort should be paid to a theoretical evaluation of the average number of nodes in the second layer, i.e. the number of occurrences of “2” in the distance matrix, basing only on the degree distribution $P_k(k)$. Such an evaluation of $z_2$ would allow, in principle, to reproduce the whole function $z_m$.
Although the node-to-node distance $\langle d_{ij}\rangle$ depends logarithmically on the product of the node $i$ and $j$ degrees (Fig. \[fig-dijvskikj\], Eq. , Ref. [@holyst]), the dependence of the to-node distance on the node degree is not a trivial one [@epjb]. We have demonstrated, that Eq. can be extended to the case of the growing exponential networks. The Motter [*et al.*]{} predictions of values $A$ and $B$ in Eq. given by Eq. agree for these networks quite fairly.
Author thanks Krzysztof Ku[ł]{}akowski, Zdzis[ł]{}aw Burda and Andrzej Lenda for their valuable help and many fruitful discussions. Calculations were carried out in ACK-CYFRONET-AGH. The machine time on SGI 2800 is financed by the Polish Ministry of Science and Information Technology under grant No. KBN/SGI2800/AGH/018/2003.
[00]{} M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Rev. [**45**]{} (2003) 167; S. N. Dorogovtsev, J. F. F. Mendes, A. N. Samukhin, Nucl. Phys. [**B653**]{} (2003) 307; R. Albert, A.-L. Barabási, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**286**]{} (2002) 47.
S. N. Dorogovtsev, J. F. F. Mendes, Adv. Phys. [**51**]{} (2002) 1079.
J. Clark, D. A. Holton, [*A First Look at Graph Theory*]{}, (World Scientific, 1991); R. J. Wilson, *Introduction to Graph Theory*, (Addison-Wesley, 1996).
P. Erdős, A. Rényi, Publ. Math. Inst. Hung. Acad. Sci. [**5**]{} (1960) 17; P. Erdős, A. Rényi, Publications Mathematicae [**6**]{} (1959) 290.
R. Albert, A.-L. Barabási, Science [**286**]{} (1999) 509.
Z. Burda, J. D. Correia, A. Krzywicki, Phys. Rev. [**E64**]{} (2001) 046118; P. Bia[ł]{}as, Z. Burda, B. Wac[ł]{}aw, AIP Conf. Proc. [**776**]{} (2005) 14; L. Bogacz, Z. Burda, W. Janke, B. Wac[ł]{}aw, Comp. Phys. Commun. [**173**]{} (2005) 162.
P. Crucitti, V. Latora, M. Marchiori, A. Rapisarda, Physica [**A320**]{} (2003) 622; W. H. Cunningham, J. Assoc. Comput. Machinery [**32**]{} (1985) 549.
G.-J. Lin, X. Cheng, Q. Ou-Yang, Chinese Phys. Lett. [**20**]{} (2003) 22; L. Zonghua, L. Ying-Cheng, Y. Nong, Phys. Rev. [**E66**]{} (2002) 36112; L. Zonghua, L. Ying-Cheng, Y. Nong, P. Dasgupta, Phys. Lett. [**A303**]{} (2002) 337; S. N. Dorogovtsev, J. F. F. Mendes, R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben-Avraham, S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 219802; S. N. Dorogovtsev, J. F. F. Mendes, R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben-Avraham, S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**87**]{} (2001) 219801; R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben-Avraham, S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{} (2001) 3682; R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben-Avraham, S. Havlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 4626.
M. Molloy, B. Reed, Random Structures and Algorithms [**6**]{} (1995) 161; M. Molloy, B. Reed, Combinatorics Prob. Comput. [**7**]{} (1998) 295; M. E. J. Newman, I. Jensen, R. M. Ziff, Phys. Rev. [**E65**]{} (2002) 021904; D. S. Callaway, M. E. J. Newman, S. H. Strogatz, D. J. Watts, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 5468; C. Moore, M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. [**E61**]{} (2000) 5678; C. Moore, M. E. J. Newman, Phys. Rev. [**E62**]{} (2000) 7059.
B. J. Kim, C. N. Yoo, S. K. Han, H. Jeong, Phys. Rev. [**E65**]{} (2002) 027103.
K. Malarz, K. Ku[ł]{}akowski, Eur. Phys. J. [**B41**]{} (2004) 333.
H. S. Wilf, [*Generatingfunctionology*]{}, (Academic Press, London, 1994).
M. E. J. Newman, S. H. Strogatz, D. J. Watts, Phys. Rev. [**E64**]{} (2001) 026118.
B. Shargel, H. Sayama, I. R. Epstein, Y. Bar-Yam, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{} (2003) 068701.
A. E. Motter, T. Hishikawa, Y.-Ch. Lai, Phys. Rev. [**E66**]{} (2002) 065103(R).
J. A. Ho[ł]{}yst, J. Sienkiewicz, A. Fronczak, P. Fronczak, K. Suchecki, Physica [**A351**]{} (2005) 167; J. Sienkiewicz, J. A. Ho[ł]{}yst, Acta Phys. Pol. [**B36**]{} (2005) 1771.
K. Malarz, J. Czaplicki, B. Kawecka-Magiera, K. Ku[ł]{}akowski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. [**C14**]{} (2003) 1201.
K. Malarz, J. Karpińska, A. Kardas, K. Ku[ł]{}akowski, TASK Quarterly [**8**]{} (2004) 115.
K. Malarz, K. Ku[ł]{}akowski, Physica [**A345**]{} (2005) 326.
K. Malarz, K. Ku[ł]{}akowski, Acta Phys. Pol. [**B36**]{} (2005) 2523.
P. L. Krapivsky, S. Redner, F. Leyvraz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{} (2000) 4629.
S. N. Dorogovtsev, J. F. F. Mendes, A. N. Samukhin, Phys. Rev. [**E64**]{} (2001) 066110.
Z. Burda, J. Erdmann, B. Petersson, M. Wattenberg, Phys. Rev. [**E67**]{} (2003) 026105.
P. L. Krapivsky, S. Redner, Phys. Rev. [**E63**]{} (2001) 066123.
J. Ambj[ø]{}rn, B. Durhuus, J. Fröhlich, P. Orland, Nucl. Phys. [**B270**]{} (1986) 457.
J. Ambj[ø]{}rn, B. Durhuus, T. Jónsson, Phys. Lett. [**B244**]{} (1990) 403.
Z. Burda – priv. commun.
[^1]: Dedicated to Professor Andrzej Z. Maksymowicz on the occasion of his 65th birthday
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'If $G$ is a complex simply connected semisimple algebraic group and if ${\lambda}$ is a dominant weight, we consider the compactification $X_{\lambda}\subset {\mathbb P}\big(\operatorname{End}({V({{\lambda}})})\big)$ obtained as the closure of the $G\times G$-orbit of the identity and we give necessary and sufficient conditions on the support of ${\lambda}$ so that $X_{\lambda}$ is normal; as well, we give necessary and sufficient conditions on the support of ${\lambda}$ so that $X_{\lambda}$ is smooth.'
author:
- 'Paolo Bravi, Jacopo Gandini, Andrea Maffei, Alessandro Ruzzi'
title: 'Normality and non-normality of group compactifications in simple projective spaces'
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Consider a semisimple simply connected algebraic group $G$ over an algebraically closed field ${\Bbbk}$ of characteristic zero. If ${\lambda}$ is a dominant weight (with respect to a fixed maximal torus $T$ and a fixed Borel subgroup $B\supset T$) and if ${V({{\lambda}})}$ is the simple $G$-module of highest weight ${\lambda}$, then $\operatorname{End}\big({V({{\lambda}})}\big)$ is a simple $G\times G$-module. Let $I_{\lambda}\in \operatorname{End}\big({V({{\lambda}})}\big)$ be the identity map and consider the variety $X_{\lambda}\subset {\mathbb P}\big(\operatorname{End}({V({{\lambda}})})\big)$ given by the closure of the $G\times G$-orbit of $[I_{\lambda}]$. In [@Ka], S. Kannan studied for which ${\lambda}$ this variety is projectively normal, and this happens precisely when ${\lambda}$ is minuscule. In [@Ti], D. Timashev studied the more general situation of a sum of irreducible representations, giving necessary and sufficient conditions for the normality and smoothness of these compactifications; however the conditions for normality are not completely explicit. In this paper we give an explicit characterization of the normality of $X_{\lambda}$, which allows to simplify the conditions for the smoothness as well.
To explain our results we need some notation. Let ${\Delta}$ be the set of simple roots (w.r.t. $T\subset B$) and identify ${\Delta}$ with the vertices of the Dynkin diagram. Define the support of ${\lambda}$ as the set $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})=\{{\alpha}\in {\Delta}{\, : \,}\langle {\lambda}, {\alpha}^\vee \rangle \neq 0
\}$.
\[see Theorem \[teo:normalita\]\] The variety $X_{\lambda}$ is normal if and only if ${\lambda}$ satisfies the following property:
- For every non-simply laced connected component $\Delta'$ of $\Delta$, if $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})\cap {\Delta}'$ contains a long root, then it contains also the short root which is adjacent to a long simple root.
In particular, if the Dynkin diagram of $G$ is simply laced then $X_{\lambda}$ is normal, for all ${\lambda}$. In the paper we will prove the theorem in a more general form, for simple (i.e. with a unique closed orbit) linear projective compactifications of an adjoint group (see section \[ssez:XSigma\]). We will make use of the wonderful compactification of $G_\mathrm{ad}$, the adjoint group of $G$, and of the results on projective normality of these compactifications proved by S. Kannan in [@Ka]. These results hold in the more general case of a symmetric variety; however our method does not apply to this more general situation (see section \[ssez:simmetrichenormalita\]).
\[see Theorem \[smooth Xsigma\]\] The variety $X_{\lambda}$ is smooth if and only if $\lambda$ satisfies property $(\star)$ of Theorem A together with the following properties:
- For every connected component $\Delta'$ of $\Delta$, $\operatorname{Supp}(\lambda)\cap \Delta'$ is connected and, in case it contains a unique element, then this element is an extreme of ${\Delta}'$;
- $\operatorname{Supp}(\lambda)$ contains every simple root which is adjacent to three other simple roots and at least two of the latter;
- Every connected component of ${\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}(\lambda)$ is of type ${\mathsf A}$.
Theorem B can be generalized to any simple and normal adjoint symmetric variety. Following a criterion of ${\mathbb Q}$-factoriality for spherical varieties given by M. Brion in [@Br2], properties i) and ii) characterize the $\mathbb{Q}$-factoriality of the normalization of $X_{\lambda}$ (see Proposition \[Q-fattorialita\]), while property iii) arises from a criterion of smoothness given by D. Timashev in [@Ti] in the case of a linear projective compactification of a reductive group.
As a corollary of Theorem B, we get that $X_{\lambda}$ is smooth if and only if its normalization is smooth.
The paper is organized as follows. In the first section we introduce the wonderful compactification of $G_\mathrm{ad}$ and the normalization of the variety $X_{\lambda}$. In the second section we prove Theorem A, and in the third section Theorem B. In the last section we discuss some possible generalizations of our results.
Preliminaries {#sez:preliminari}
=============
Notation {#ssez:notazioni}
--------
Recall that $G$ is semisimple and simply connected. Fix a Borel subgroup $B\subset G$, a maximal torus $T\subset B$ and let $U$ denote the unipotent radical of $B$. Lie algebras of groups denoted by upper-case latin letters ($G,U,L,\ldots$) will be denoted by the corresponding lower-case german letter (${\mathfrak g}, \mathfrak u, \mathfrak l,\ldots$). Let $\Phi$ denote the set of roots of $G$ relatively to $T$ and ${\Delta}\subset \Phi$ the basis associated to the choice of $B$. For all ${\alpha}\in {\Delta}$ let $e_{\alpha}, {\alpha}^{{\vee}},f_{\alpha}$ be an $\mathfrak{sl}(2)$-triple of $T$-weights ${\alpha},0,-{\alpha}$. Let ${\Lambda}$ denote the weight lattice of $T$ and ${\Lambda}^+$ the subset of dominant weights. For all ${\alpha}\in{\Delta}$, denote by $\omega_{\alpha}$ the corresponding fundamental weight.
If ${\lambda}\in {\Lambda}$, recall the definition of its *support*: $$\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) = \{{\alpha}\in {\Delta}{\, : \,}\langle {\lambda}, {\alpha}^\vee \rangle \neq 0 \}.$$
If $I \subset {\Delta}$, define its *border* $\partial{I}$, its *interior* $I^\circ$ and its *closure* ${\overline}{I}$ as follows: $$\partial{I} =
\{ {\alpha}\in {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}I {\, : \,}{\exists\,}{\beta}\in I \mathrm{ \; such \, that \; }
\langle {\beta},{\alpha}^\vee \rangle \neq 0\};$$ $$I^\circ = I {\smallsetminus}\partial{({\Delta}{\smallsetminus}I)};$$ $$\overline{I} = I \cup \partial{I}.$$
For ${\lambda}\in \Lambda$, denote by ${\mathcal L}_{\lambda}$ the line bundle on $G/B$ whose $T$-weight in the point fixed by $B$ is $-{\lambda}$. For ${\lambda}$ dominant, ${V({{\lambda}})} = {\Gamma}(G/B,{\mathcal L}_{\lambda})^*$ is an irreducible $G$-module of highest weight ${\lambda}$; when we deal with different groups we will use the notation ${V_G({{\lambda}})}$.
Denote by ${\Pi({{\lambda}})}$ the set of weights occurring in ${V({{\lambda}})}$ and set ${\Pi^+({{\lambda}})}={\Pi({{\lambda}})}\cap {\Lambda}^+$. Let ${\lambda}\mapsto {\lambda}^*$ be the linear involution of ${\Lambda}$ defined by $({V({{\lambda}})})^*{\simeq}{V({{\lambda}^*})}$, for any dominant weight ${\lambda}$.
The weight lattice ${\Lambda}$ is endowed with the dominance order ${\leqslant}$ defined as follows: $\mu {\leqslant}{\lambda}$ if and only if ${\lambda}- \mu \in
{\mathbb N}{\Delta}$. If ${\beta}= \sum_{{\alpha}\in {\Delta}} n_{\alpha}{\alpha}\in {\mathbb Z}{\Delta}$, define its *support over* ${\Delta}$ (not to be confused with the previous one) as follows: $$\operatorname{Supp}_{\Delta}({\beta}) = \{ {\alpha}\in {\Delta}{\, : \,}n_{\alpha}\neq 0 \}.$$
We introduce also some notations about the multiplication of sections. Notice that, for all ${\lambda},\mu \in\Lambda$, ${\mathcal L}_{\lambda}\otimes {\mathcal L}_\mu ={\mathcal L}_{{\lambda}+\mu}$. Therefore, if ${\lambda},\mu$ are dominant weights and $n\in {\mathbb N}$, the multiplication of sections defines maps as follows: $$m_{{\lambda},\mu}:{V({{\lambda}})}\times {V({\mu})} {\rightarrow}{V({{\lambda}+\mu})} \; \text{ and }
m_{\lambda}^n : {V({{\lambda}})} {\rightarrow}{V({n{\lambda}})}.$$ We will also write $uv$ for $m_{{\lambda},\mu}(u,v)$ and $u^n$ for $m^n_{\lambda}(u)$. Since $G/B$ is irreducible, $m_{{\lambda},\mu}$ and $m^n_{\lambda}$ induce the following maps at the level of projective spaces: $$\psi_{{\lambda},\mu}: {\mathbb P}({V({{\lambda}})}) \times {\mathbb P}({V({\mu})}) {\rightarrow}{\mathbb P}({V({{\lambda}+ \mu})})
\;{\text{ and }}\; \psi^n_{\lambda}: {\mathbb P}({V({{\lambda}})}) {\rightarrow}{\mathbb P}({V({n{\lambda}})}).$$
The following lemma is certainly well known; however we do not know any reference.
\[lem:immersioni\] Let ${\lambda},\mu$ be dominant weights.
1. If $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) \cap \operatorname{Supp}(\mu) = {\varnothing}$, then the map $\psi_{{\lambda},\mu}\colon {\mathbb P}({V({{\lambda}})}) \times {\mathbb P}({V({\mu})}) \to {\mathbb P}({V({{\lambda}+
\mu})})$ is a closed embedding.
2. For any $n>0$, the map $\psi_{\lambda}^n: {\mathbb P}({V({{\lambda}})}) {\rightarrow}{\mathbb P}({V({n{\lambda}})})$ is a closed embedding.
$i)$. Fix highest weight vectors $v_{\lambda}\in {V({{\lambda}})}$, $v_\mu \in {V({\mu})}$ and $v_{{\lambda}+\mu}= v_{\lambda}v_\mu \in {V({{\lambda}+\mu})}$.
If $V$ is irreducible, then ${\mathbb P}(V)$ has a unique closed orbit, namely the orbit of the highest weight vector. Consequently, since ${\mathbb P}(V({\lambda})) \times {\mathbb P}(V(\mu))$ has a unique closed orbit, in order to prove the claim it suffices to prove that $\psi_{{\lambda},\mu}$ is smooth in $x=([v_{\lambda}],[v_\mu])$ and that the inverse image of $[v_{{\lambda}+\mu}]$ is $x$. The second claim is clear for weight reasons.
In order to prove that $\psi_{{\lambda},\mu}$ is smooth in $x$, consider $T$-stable complements $U \subset {V({{\lambda}})}$, $V \subset {V({\mu})}$ and $W\subset
{V({{\lambda}+\mu})}$ of ${\Bbbk}\,v_{\lambda}$, ${\Bbbk}\,v_\mu$ and ${\Bbbk}\,v_{{\lambda}+\mu}$. So in a neighbourhood of $x$ the map $\psi_{{\lambda},\mu}$ can be described as $$\psi:U\times V {\longrightarrow}W \;\text{ where } \psi(u,v)= u v_\mu + v_{\lambda}v + u v.$$ The differential of $\psi_{{\lambda},\mu}$ in $x$ is then given by the differential of $\psi$ in $(0,0)$, thus it is described as follows: $$d\psi_x(u,v)=uv_\mu+v_{\lambda}v.$$ Suppose that $d\psi_x$ is not injective. Since it is $T$-equivariant, consider a maximal weight $\eta \in {\Pi({{\lambda}+\mu})}{\smallsetminus}\{{\lambda}+\mu\}$ such that there exists a couple of non-zero $T$-eigenvectors $(u,v)\in \ker d
\psi_x$ with weights respectively $\eta - \mu$ and $\eta - {\lambda}$. Suppose that $\eta - \mu \in {\Pi({{\lambda}})}{\smallsetminus}\{{\lambda}\}$ is not maximal and take ${\alpha}\in {\Delta}$ such that $\eta - \mu + {\alpha}\in
{\Pi({{\lambda}})}{\smallsetminus}\{{\lambda}\}$ and $e_{\alpha}u\neq 0$: then $$(e_{\alpha}u)v_\mu + v_{\lambda}(e_{\alpha}v) = e_{\alpha}(u v_\mu + v_{\lambda}v) = 0$$ and $\eta + {\alpha}\in {\Pi({{\lambda}+ \mu})}{\smallsetminus}\{{\lambda}+\mu\}$, against the maximality of $\eta$. Thus $\eta - \mu$ is maximal in ${\Pi({{\lambda}})}
{\smallsetminus}\{{\lambda}\}$ and similarly $\eta - {\lambda}$ is maximal in ${\Pi({\mu})}
{\smallsetminus}\{\mu\}$. Therefore, on one hand it must be $$\eta - \mu = {\lambda}- {\alpha}$$ with ${\alpha}\in \operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$, while on the other hand it must be $$\eta - {\lambda}= \mu - {\beta}$$ with ${\beta}\in \operatorname{Supp}(\mu)$. Since $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) \cap \operatorname{Supp}(\mu) =
{\varnothing}$, this is impossible and shows that, if $(u, v) \in \ker d
\psi_x$, then it must be $u = 0$ or $v = 0$. Suppose now that $(u,0)
\in \ker d\psi_x$: then $u v_\mu = 0$ and by the irreducibility of $G/B$ also $u=0$. A similar argument applies if $v=0$.
$ii).$ Suppose that $v,w \in V({\lambda})$ are such that $v^{n} = w^{n}$: then $v=tw$ for some $t\in {\Bbbk}$. Thus $\psi_{\lambda}^n$ is injective. Let us show now that $\psi_{\lambda}^n$ is smooth; it is enough to show it in $x = [v_{\lambda}]$ where $v_{\lambda}\in V({\lambda})$ is a highest weight vector. Let $V \subset V({\lambda})$ be the $T$-stable complement of ${\Bbbk}v_{\lambda}$, identified with the tangent space $T_{x} {\mathbb P}(V({\lambda}))$. If $v
\in V$, the differential $d (\psi_{\lambda}^n)_{x}$ is described as follows $$d (\psi^n_{\lambda})_{x} (v) = n v_{\lambda}^{n-1} v.$$ Thus $d (\psi^n_{\lambda})_{x}$ is injective and $\psi_{\lambda}^n$ is smooth.
The variety $X_{\lambda}$ {#ssez:Xlambda}
-------------------------
If ${\lambda}$ is a dominant weight, denote by ${E({{\lambda}})}$ the $G\times
G$-module $\operatorname{End}({V({{\lambda}})})$ and set $X_{\lambda}$ the closure of the $G\times G$-orbit of $[I_{\lambda}] \in {\mathbb P}({E({{\lambda}})})$. More generally if ${\lambda}_1,\dots,{\lambda}_m$ are dominant weights we define $$X_{{\lambda}_1, \ldots, {\lambda}_m}
= {\overline}{G\times G([I_{{\lambda}_1}], \ldots, [I_{{\lambda}_m}])} \subset
{\mathbb P}({E({{\lambda}_1})}) \times \cdots \times {\mathbb P}({E({{\lambda}_m})}).$$ Since ${E({{\lambda}})}$ is an irreducible $G\times G$-module of highest weight $({\lambda},{\lambda}^*)$, as a consequence of Lemma \[lem:immersioni\] we get that if ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ have non-intersecting supports and if $n\in {\mathbb N}$ then $$X_{{\lambda}+\mu}\simeq X_{{\lambda},\mu} \qquad \mathrm{ and } \qquad X_{n{\lambda}}{\simeq}X_{\lambda}.$$ As a consequence we get the following proposition:
\[prp:supporto\]Let ${\lambda},\mu$ be dominant weights. Then $X_{\lambda}\simeq X_\mu$ as $G\times G$-varieties if and only if ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ have the same support. Moreover, if $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})=\{{\alpha}_1,\dots,{\alpha}_m\}$ then $$X_{\lambda}{\simeq}X_{\omega_{{\alpha}_1},\dots,\omega_{{\alpha}_m}}.$$
By the discussion above we have to prove only that the condition is necessary. This follows by noticing that if $X_{\lambda}$ and $X_\mu$ are $G\times G$-isomorphic then also their closed $G\times G$-orbits are isomorphic, which is equivalent to the fact that ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$ have the same support.
The wonderful compactification of $G_{\mathrm{ad}}$ and the normalization of $X_{\lambda}$ {#ssez:meravigliosa}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ${\lambda}$ is a regular weight (i.e. $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})={\Delta}$) the variety $X_{\lambda}$ is called the wonderful compactification of $G_\mathrm{ad}$ and it has been studied by C. De Concini and C. Procesi in [@CP]. We will denote this variety by $M$: it is smooth and the complement of its open orbit is the union of smooth prime divisors with normal crossings whose intersection is the closed orbit. The closed orbit of $M$ is isomorphic to $G/B \times G/B$ and the restriction of line bundles determines an embedding of $\operatorname{Pic}(M)$ into $\operatorname{Pic}(G/B\times G/B)$, that we identify with ${\Lambda}\times {\Lambda}$ as before; the image of this map is the set of weights of the form $({\lambda},{\lambda}^*)$. Therefore $\operatorname{Pic}(M)$ is identified with ${\Lambda}$ and we denote by ${\mathcal M}_{{\lambda}}$ a line bundle on $M$ whose restriction to $G/B \times G/B$ is isomorphic to ${\mathcal L}_{\lambda}\boxtimes {\mathcal L}_{{\lambda}^*}$. If $D\subset M$ is a $G\times G$-stable prime divisor then the line bundle defined by $D$ is of the form ${\mathcal M}_{{\alpha}_D}$, where ${\alpha}_D$ is a simple root. The map $D\mapsto {\alpha}_D$ defines a bijection between the set of $G\times G$-stable prime divisors and ${\Delta}$, and we denote by $M_{\alpha}$ the prime divisor which corresponds to a simple root ${\alpha}$. We denote by $s_{\alpha}$ a section of ${\mathcal M}_{\alpha}$ whose associated divisor is $M_{\alpha}$; notice that such a section is $G\times G$-invariant. More generally if $\nu = \sum_{{\alpha}\in {\Delta}} n_{{\alpha}}{\alpha}\in {\mathbb N}{\Delta}$, set $s^\nu = \prod_{{\alpha}\in {\Delta}} s_{{\alpha}} ^{n_{{\alpha}}} \in
{\Gamma}(M,{\mathcal M}_\nu)$. Then, given any ${\lambda}\in {\Lambda}$, the multiplication by $s^\nu$ injects ${\Gamma}(M,{\mathcal M}_{{\lambda}- \nu})$ in ${\Gamma}(M,{\mathcal M}_{\lambda})$.
If ${\lambda}$ is a dominant weight, the map $G_\mathrm{ad}{\longrightarrow}{\mathbb P}({E({{\lambda}})})$ extends to a map $q_{\lambda}:M{\longrightarrow}{\mathbb P}({E({{\lambda}})})$ (see [@CP]) whose image is $X_{\lambda}$ and such that ${\mathcal M}_{\lambda}=q_{\lambda}^*({\mathcal O}_{{\mathbb P}({E({{\lambda}})})}(1))$. If we pull back the homogeneous coordinates of ${\mathbb P}({E({{\lambda}})})$ to $M$, we get then a submodule of ${\Gamma}(M,{\mathcal M}_{\lambda})$ which is isomorphic to ${E({{\lambda}})}^*$; by abuse of notation we will denote this submodule by ${E({{\lambda}})}^*$.
If ${\lambda}\in {\Lambda}$, in [@CP Theorem 8.3] the following decomposition of ${\Gamma}(M,{\mathcal M}_{\lambda})$ is given: $${\Gamma}(M,{\mathcal M}_{\lambda}) = \bigoplus_{\mu\in {\Lambda}^+ {\, : \,}\mu {\leqslant}{\lambda}} s^{{\lambda}-\mu}{E({\mu})}^*.$$
Consider the graded algebra $A({\lambda})=\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty A_n({\lambda})$, where $A_n({\lambda})= {\Gamma}(M,{\mathcal M}_{n{\lambda}})$, and set $\widetilde{X}_{\lambda}=
\operatorname{Proj}A({\lambda})$. We have then a commutative diagram as follows: $$\xymatrix{M \ar@{->>}^{p_{\lambda}}[r] \ar@{->>}_{q_{\lambda}}[dr]
& \widetilde{X}_{\lambda}\ar@{->>}^{r_{\lambda}}[d]\\ & X_{\lambda}}$$
In [@Ka], it has been shown that $A({\lambda})$ is generated in degree $1$ and in [@DC] that $r=r_{\lambda}$ is the normalization of $X_{\lambda}$. Notice that the projective coordinate ring of $X_{\lambda}\subset
{\mathbb P}({E({{\lambda}})})$ is given by the graded subalgebra $B({\lambda})=\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty
B_n({\lambda})$ of $A({\lambda})$ generated by ${E({{\lambda}})}^* \subset {\Gamma}(M,{\mathcal M}_{\lambda})$.
The variety $X_\Sigma$ {#ssez:XSigma}
----------------------
We consider now a generalization of the variety $X_{\lambda}$. Let $\Sigma$ be a finite set of dominant weights and denote ${E({\Sigma})} =
\bigoplus_{\mu \in \Sigma} {E({\mu})}$; let $x_\Sigma=[(I_\mu)_{\mu\in\Sigma}]\in {\mathbb P}({E({\Sigma})})$ and define $X_\Sigma$ as the closure of the $G\times G$-orbit of $x_\Sigma$ in ${\mathbb P}({E({\Sigma})})$. If $\Sigma = \{{\lambda}\}$, then we get the variety $X_{\lambda}$, while if ${\Sigma}= {\Pi^+({{\lambda}})}$ we get its normalization $\widetilde X _{\lambda}$. Notice that the diagonal action of $G$ fixes the point $x_\Sigma$ so we have a $G\times G$ equivariant map $G{\longrightarrow}X_\Sigma$ given by $g \longmapsto (g,1)x_\Sigma$. This map induces a map from $G_{\mathrm{ad}}$ to $X_\Sigma$ if and only if the action of the center of $G\times G$ on $E({\lambda})$ is the same for all ${\lambda}\in
\Sigma$ or equivalently if ${\Sigma}$ is contained in a coset of ${\Lambda}$ modulo ${\mathbb Z}{\Delta}$. In this case we say that $X_\Sigma$ is a *semi-compactification* of $G_{ad}$. If $G_{\mathrm{ad}}$ is a simple group and and $\Sigma \neq \{ 0 \}$ then $X_\Sigma$ is a compactification of $G_{\mathrm{ad}}$, while if $G_{\mathrm{ad}}$ is not simple we can only say that is a compactification of a group which is a quotient of $G_{\mathrm{ad}}$.
We say that $\Sigma$ is *simple* if there exists ${\lambda}\in\Sigma$ such that $\Sigma \subset {\Pi^+({{\lambda}})}$ or equivalently if ${\Sigma}$ contains a unique maximal element with respect to the dominance order ${\leqslant}$. Notice also that if ${\lambda}\in \Sigma$ is such that for all $\mu \in \Sigma$ different from ${\lambda}$ the vector $\mu - {\lambda}$ is not in ${\mathbb Q}_{{\geqslant}0}[{\Delta}]$ then is easy to construct a cocharacter $\chi
: {\Bbbk}^*{\longrightarrow}G\times G$ such that $\lim_{t\to 0}\chi(t)x_\Sigma $ is the highest weight line in ${\mathbb P}(E({\lambda}))$. In particular $X_\Sigma$ is a simple $G\times G$ semi-compactification of $G_{\mathrm{ad}}$ if and only if $\Sigma$ is simple.
By the description of the normalization of $X_{\lambda}$ is $\Sigma$ is simple and ${\lambda}\in {\Sigma}$ is the maximal element, then we get $$\xymatrix{\widetilde X_{\lambda}\ar[r]^{r} & X_\Sigma \ar[r] & X_{\lambda}}$$ In particular, it follows that $r=r_\Sigma:\widetilde X_{\lambda}{\longrightarrow}X_\Sigma$ is the normalization of $X_\Sigma$.
If ${\Sigma}$ is simple, denote $B(\Sigma)=\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty
B_n(\Sigma)$ the projective coordinate ring of $X_\Sigma\subset
{\mathbb P}({E({\Sigma})})$: it is the subalgebra of $A({\lambda})$ generated by ${E({\Sigma})}^*\subset {\Gamma}(M,{\mathcal M}_{\lambda})$.
The discussion above and the fact that in ${\mathbb P}(E({\lambda}))$ there is only one point fixed by the diagonal action of $G$ (the line of scalar matrices) proves that any $G\times G$ linear projective compactification of $G_{\mathrm{ad}}$ is of the form $X_\Sigma$. A projective $G\times G$-variety $X$ is said to be *linear* if there exists an equivariant embedding $X\subset {\mathbb P}(V)$ where $V$ is a finite dimensional rational $G\times G$-module. In particular as a consequence of Sumihiro’s Theorem (see for example [@KKLV Corollary 2.6]) all normal projective compactifications are linear. In this paper we study only linear compactifications.
Normality {#sez:normalita}
=========
In this section we determine for which simple $\Sigma$ the variety $X_\Sigma$ is normal, proving in particular Theorem A. In the following, by $\lambda$ we will always denote the maximal element of $\Sigma$.
Let ${\varphi}_{\lambda}\in {E({{\lambda}})}^*$ be a highest weight vector and set $X_\Sigma^\circ \subset X_\Sigma$ the open affine subset defined by the non-vanishing of ${\varphi}_{\lambda}$. In particular, we set ${\widetilde}X_{\lambda}=
X_{{\Pi^+({{\lambda}})}}$ and notice that ${\widetilde}X ^\circ_{\lambda}=
r^{-1}(X_\Sigma^\circ)$. Notice that $X^\circ_\Sigma$ is $B\times B$-stable and, since it intersects the closed orbit, it intersects every orbit: therefore $X_\Sigma$ is normal if and only if $X_\Sigma^\circ$ is normal if and only if the restriction $r{\bigr|}_{{\widetilde}X
^\circ_{\lambda}} : {\widetilde}X^\circ_{\lambda}\to X^\circ_\Sigma$ is an isomorphism. Denote by $\bar B(\Sigma)$ the coordinate ring of $X^\circ_\Sigma$ and by $\bar A({\lambda})$ the coordinate ring of ${\widetilde}X^\circ_{\lambda}$; then we have $$\bar A({\lambda})= \{\frac{{\varphi}}{{\varphi}_{\lambda}^n}{\, : \,}{\varphi}\in A_n({\lambda})\}
\supset \{\frac{{\varphi}}{{\varphi}_{\lambda}^n}{\, : \,}{\varphi}\in B_n(\Sigma)\} = \bar B(\Sigma)$$ and $X_\Sigma$ is normal if and only if $\bar A({\lambda})=\bar B
(\Sigma)$. The rings $\bar A({\lambda})$ and $\bar B(\Sigma)$ are not $G\times G$-modules, however since $X^\circ_\Sigma$ is an open subset of $X_\Sigma$ we still have an action of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak g}\oplus{\mathfrak g}$ on them.
By [@Ka], $\bar A({\lambda})$ is generated by the elements of the form ${\varphi}/{\varphi}_{\lambda}$ with ${\varphi}\in A_1({\lambda})$. In particular we have the following lemma.
\[lem:general-normality\] The variety $X_\Sigma$ is normal if and only if for all $\mu\in{\Lambda}^+$ such that $\mu{\leqslant}{\lambda}$ there exists $n>0$ such that $$s^{{\lambda}-\mu}{E({\mu+(n-1){\lambda}})}^*
\subset B_n(\Sigma).$$
Let ${\varphi}_\mu \in s^{{\lambda}-\mu}{E({\mu})}^*$ be a highest weight vector and suppose that $X_\Sigma$ is normal. Then, by the descriptions of $\bar A({\lambda})$ and $\bar B(\Sigma)$, for every dominant weight $\mu{\leqslant}{\lambda}$ there exist $n>0$ and $\varphi\in B_n(\Sigma)$ such that ${{\varphi}}/{{\varphi}_{\lambda}^n} = {{\varphi}_\mu}/{{\varphi}_{\lambda}}$ or equivalently ${\varphi}={\varphi}_\mu {\varphi}_{\lambda}^{n-1}\in B_n(\Sigma)$. Since ${\varphi}$ is a highest weight vector of the module $s^{{\lambda}-\mu}{E({\mu+(n-1){\lambda}})}^*$ the claim follows.
Conversely assume that for every dominant weight $\mu{\leqslant}{\lambda}$ there exists $n$ such that $$s^{{\lambda}-\mu}{E({\mu+(n-1){\lambda}})}^*\subset B_n(\Sigma);$$ in particular ${\varphi}={\varphi}_\mu {\varphi}_{\lambda}^{n-1}\in
B_n(\Sigma)$. Let’s prove that ${\varphi}/{\varphi}_{\lambda}\in \bar B({\Sigma})$ for every ${\varphi}\in s^{{\lambda}-\mu}{E({\mu})}^*$; this implies the thesis since $\bar A({\lambda})$ is generated in degree one. If ${\varphi}={\varphi}_\mu$ this is clear. Using the action of the Lie algebra ${\mathfrak g}\oplus{\mathfrak g}$ on $\bar
B(\Sigma)$, let’s show that if ${\varphi}/{\varphi}_{\lambda}\in \bar B(\Sigma)$ then $f_{\alpha}({\varphi})/{\varphi}_{\lambda}\in \bar B(\Sigma)$: indeed we have $$\frac{f_{\alpha}({\varphi})}{{\varphi}_{\lambda}} = f_{\alpha}(\frac{{\varphi}}{{\varphi}_{\lambda}}) +
\frac{{\varphi}}{{\varphi}_{\lambda}} \cdot \frac{f_{\alpha}({\varphi}_{\lambda})}{{\varphi}_{\lambda}}$$ and the claim follows since $f_{\alpha}({\varphi}_{\lambda})\in {E({{\lambda}})}^*\subset B_1(\Sigma)$.
We can describe the set $B_n(\Sigma)$ more explicitly. Indeed, as in [@DC] or in [@Ka], it is possible to identify sections of a line bundle on $M$ with functions on $G$ and use the description of the multiplication of matrix coefficients. Recall that as a $G\times G$-module we have ${\Bbbk}[G]=\bigoplus_{{\lambda}\in {\Lambda}^+}{E({{\lambda}})}^* {\simeq}\bigoplus_{{\lambda}\in
{\Lambda}^+}{V({{\lambda}})}^*\otimes {V({{\lambda}})}$. More explicitly if $V$ is a representation of $G$, define $c_V:V^*\otimes V {\longrightarrow}{\Bbbk}[G]$ as usual by $c_V(\psi \otimes v)(g)= \langle \psi, gv\rangle$. If we multiply functions in ${\Bbbk}[G]$ of this type then we get $$c_{V}( \psi \otimes v) \cdot c_{W}(\chi \otimes w) =
c_{V\otimes W} \big((\psi\otimes\chi)\otimes(v\otimes w)\big):$$ in particular we get that the image of the multiplication ${E({{\lambda}})}^*
\otimes {E({\mu})}^* {\longrightarrow}{\Bbbk}[G]$ is the sum of all ${E({\nu})}^*$ with ${V({\nu})}\subset {V({{\lambda}})}\otimes {V({\mu})}$.
As a consequence we obtain the following Lemma:
\[lem:coefficientimatriciali\] Let $\nu, \nu'$ be dominant weights, then the image of ${E({\nu})}^*
\otimes {E({\nu'})}^*$ in ${\Gamma}(M, {\mathcal M}_{\nu+\nu'})$ via the multiplication map is $$\bigoplus_{{V({\mu})}\subset {V({\nu})}\otimes {V({\nu'})}}\!\!\!\!s^{\nu+\nu'-\mu}{E({\mu})}^*.$$
Indeed let $ \pi : G {\rightarrow}M$ be the map induced by the inclusion $G_\mathrm{ad}\subset M$. Then any line bundle on $G$ can be trivialized so that the image of $\pi^*:{E({{\lambda}})}^*\subset{\Gamma}(M,{\mathcal M}_\nu){\longrightarrow}{\Bbbk}[G]$ is the image of $c_{{V({{\lambda}})}}$ and the claim follows from previous remarks.
Together with Lemma \[lem:general-normality\], this gives the following
\[prp:normalita\] The variety $X_\Sigma$ is normal if and only if, for every $\mu \in {\Lambda}^+$ such that $\mu {\leqslant}{\lambda}$, there exist $n>0$ and ${\lambda}_1,\dots,{\lambda}_n\in \Sigma$ such that $${V({\mu + (n-1){\lambda}})} \subset {V({{\lambda}_1})}\otimes \cdots \otimes {V({{\lambda}_n})} .$$
Remarks on tensor products {#ssez:prodottitensore}
--------------------------
By Proposition \[prp:normalita\], in order to establish the normality (or the non-normality) of $X_\Sigma$, we need some results on tensor product decomposition.
\[lem:riduzionelevi\] Let ${\lambda}, \mu, \nu$ be dominant weights and let ${\Delta}'\subset {\Delta}$ be such that $\operatorname{Supp}_{\Delta}({\lambda}+ \mu - \nu) \subset {\Delta}'$; let $L \subset G$ be the standard Levi subgroup associated to ${\Delta}'$. If $\pi \in {\Lambda}^+$, denote by ${V_L({\pi})}$ the simple $L$-module of highest weight $\pi$. Then $${V({\nu})} \subset {V({{\lambda}})} \otimes {V({\mu})} \iff {V_L({\nu})} \subset {V_L({{\lambda}})} \otimes {V_L({\mu})}.$$
If $\mathfrak a$ is any Lie algebra, denote ${\mathfrak U}(\mathfrak a)$ the corresponding universal enveloping algebra.
Suppose that ${V_L({\nu})} \subset {V_L({{\lambda}})} \otimes {V_L({\mu})}$; fix maximal vectors $v_{\lambda}\in {V_L({{\lambda}})}$ and $v_\mu \in {V_L({\mu})}$ for the Borel subgroup $B\cap L \subset L$ and fix $p \in {\mathfrak U}(\mathfrak
l\cap\mathfrak u^-) \otimes {\mathfrak U}(\mathfrak l\cap\mathfrak u^-)$ such that $p\,(v_{\lambda}\otimes v_\mu) \in {V_L({{\lambda}})} \otimes {V_L({\mu})}$ is a maximal vector of weight $\nu$. Since ${V_L({{\lambda}})} \otimes {V_L({\mu})}
\subset {V({{\lambda}})} \otimes {V({\mu})}$, we only need to prove that $p\,(v_{\lambda}\otimes v_\mu)$ is a maximal vector for $B$ too. If ${\alpha}\in {\Delta}'$ then we have $e_{\alpha}p\,(v_{\lambda}\otimes v_\mu) = 0$ by hypothesis. On the other hand, if ${\alpha}\in {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}{\Delta}'$, notice that $e_{\alpha}$ commutes with $p$, since by its definition $p$ is supported only on the $f_{\alpha}$’s with ${\alpha}\in {\Delta}'$. Since $v_{\lambda}\otimes
v_\mu$ is a maximal vector for $B$, then we get $$e_{\alpha}p\,(v_{\lambda}\otimes v_\mu) = p\, e_{\alpha}(v_{\lambda}\otimes v_\mu) = 0;$$ thus $p\,(v_{\lambda}\otimes v_\mu)$ generates a simple $G$-module of highest weight $\nu$.
Assume conversely that ${V({\nu})} \subset {V({{\lambda}})} \otimes {V({\mu})}$ and fix $p
\in {\mathfrak U}(\mathfrak u^-) \otimes {\mathfrak U}(\mathfrak u^-)$ such that $p\,(v_{\lambda}\otimes v_\mu) \in {V({{\lambda}})} \otimes {V({\mu})}$ is a maximal vector of weight $\nu$. Since $\operatorname{Supp}_{\Delta}({\lambda}+ \mu - \nu) \subset {\Delta}'$, we may assume that the only $f_{\alpha}$’s appearing in $p$ are those with ${\alpha}\in {\Delta}'$; therefore $p\,(v_{\lambda}\otimes v_\mu) \in {V_L({{\lambda}})}
\otimes {V_L({\mu})}$ and it generates a simple $L$-module of highest weight $\nu$.
\[lem:traslazione\] Fix ${\lambda}, \mu, \nu \in {\Lambda}^+$ such that ${V({\nu})} \subset {V({{\lambda}})}
\otimes {V({\mu})}$. Then, for any $\nu' \in {\Lambda}^+$, it also holds $${V({\nu + \nu'})} \subset {V({{\lambda}+ \nu'})} \otimes {V({\mu})}.$$
Fix a maximal vector $v_{\nu'} \in {V({\nu'})}$ and consider the $U$-equivariant map $$\begin{array}{cccc}
\phi: & {V({{\lambda}})} \otimes {V({\mu})} & {\longrightarrow}& {V({{\lambda}+ \nu'})}\otimes {V({\mu})}\\
& w_1 \otimes w_2 & \longmapsto & m_{{\lambda},\nu'}(w_1,v_{\nu'}) \otimes w_2
\end{array}$$ The claim follows since, if $v_\nu \in {V({{\lambda}})}\otimes {V({\mu})}$ is a $U$-invariant vector of weight $\nu$, then $\phi(v_\nu) \in {V({{\lambda}+
\nu'})} \otimes {V({\mu})}$ is a $U$-invariant vector of weight $\nu +
\nu'$.
We now describe some more explicit results. When we deal with explicit irreducible root systems, unless otherwise stated, we always use the numbering of simple roots and fundamental weights of Bourbaki [@Bo].
In order to describe the simple subsets ${\Sigma}\subset {\Lambda}^+$ which give rise to a non-normal variety $X_{\Sigma}$, we will make use of following lemma.
\[lem:BGno\]
1. Let $G$ be of type ${\sf B}_r$. Then, for any $n$, ${V({(n-1){\omega}_1})} \not \subset {V({{\omega}_1})}^{\otimes n}$.
2. Let $G$ be of type ${\sf G}_2$. Then, for any $n$, ${V({{\omega}_1+(n-1){\omega}_2})} \not \subset {V({{\omega}_2})}^{\otimes n}$.
We consider only the first case, the second is similar. Fix a highest weight vector $v_1 \in {V({{\omega}_1})}$. If ${\alpha}$ is any simple root and if $1 {\leqslant}s {\leqslant}r$, notice that $f_{\alpha}$ acts non-trivially on $f_{{\alpha}_{s-1}}\cdots f_{{\alpha}_1}v_1$ if and only if ${\alpha}=
{\alpha}_s$. The $T$-eigenspace of weight 0 in ${V({{\omega}_1})}$ is spanned by $v_0=f_{{\alpha}_r}\cdots f_{{\alpha}_1}v_1$, and similarly the $T$-eigenspace of weight $(n-1){\omega}_1$ in ${V({{\omega}_1})}^{\otimes n}$ is spanned by $v_1^{\otimes i-1} \otimes v_0 \otimes v_1^{\otimes n-i}$, where $1 {\leqslant}i {\leqslant}n$. Since the vectors $$e_{{\alpha}_r} (v_1^{\otimes i-1} \otimes v_0 \otimes v_1^{\otimes
n-i}) = v_1^{\otimes i-1} \otimes (e_{{\alpha}_r} v_0) \otimes
v_1^{\otimes n-i}$$ are linearly independent, there exists no maximal vector of weight $(n-1){\omega}_1$ in ${V({{\omega}_1})}^{\otimes n}$.
Dual results will be needed to describe the subsets ${\Sigma}$ which give rise to a normal variety $X_{\Sigma}$, but before we need to introduce some further notation.
If $\Phi$ is an irreducible root system and ${\Delta}$ is a basis for $\Phi$ we will denote by $\eta$ the highest root if $\Phi$ is simply laced or the highest short root if $\Phi$ is not simply laced. For the convenience of the reader we list the highest short root of every irreducible root system in Table \[tab:hsr\].
type of $\Phi$ highest short root
----------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
${\mathsf A}_r$ ${\alpha}_1+\cdots+{\alpha}_r=\omega_1+\omega_r$
${\mathsf B}_r$ ${\alpha}_1+\cdots+{\alpha}_r=\omega_1$
${\mathsf C}_r$ ${\alpha}_1+2({\alpha}_2+\cdots+{\alpha}_{r-1})+{\alpha}_r=\omega_2$
${\mathsf D}_r$ ${\alpha}_1+2({\alpha}_2+\cdots+{\alpha}_{r-2})+{\alpha}_{r-1}+{\alpha}_r=\omega_2$
${\mathsf E}_6$ ${\alpha}_1+2{\alpha}_2+2{\alpha}_3+3{\alpha}_4+2{\alpha}_5+{\alpha}_6=\omega_2$
${\mathsf E}_7$ $2{\alpha}_1+2{\alpha}_2+3{\alpha}_3+4{\alpha}_4+3{\alpha}_5+2{\alpha}_6+{\alpha}_7=\omega_1$
${\mathsf E}_8$ $2{\alpha}_1+3{\alpha}_2+4{\alpha}_3+6{\alpha}_4+5{\alpha}_5+4{\alpha}_6+3{\alpha}_7+2{\alpha}_8=\omega_8$
${\mathsf F}_4$ ${\alpha}_1+2{\alpha}_2+3{\alpha}_3+2{\alpha}_4=\omega_4$
${\mathsf G}_2$ $2{\alpha}_1+{\alpha}_2=\omega_1$
: []{data-label="tab:hsr"}
Recall the condition $(\star)$ defined in the introduction: a dominant weight ${\lambda}$ satisfies $(\star)$ if, for every non-simply laced connected component ${\Delta}'\subset {\Delta}$, if $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})\cap {\Delta}'$ contains a long root then it contains also the short root which is adjacent to a long simple root.
\[twin\] If ${\Delta}' \subset {\Delta}$ is a non-simply laced connected component, order the simple roots in ${\Delta}'= \{ {\alpha}_1, \ldots,
{\alpha}_r\}$ starting from the extreme of the Dynkin diagram of ${\Delta}'$ which contains a long root and denote ${\alpha}_q$ the first short root in ${\Delta}'$. If ${\lambda}$ is a dominant weight such that ${\alpha}_q\not \in \operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ and such that $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})\cap {\Delta}'$ contains a long root, denote ${\alpha}_p$ the last long root which occurs in $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})\cap {\Delta}'$; for instance, if ${\Delta}'$ is not of type ${\mathsf G}_2$, then the numbering is as follows: $$\begin{picture}(9000,1800)(2000,-900)
\put(0,0){\multiput(0,0)(3600,0){2}{\circle*{150}}\thicklines\multiput(0,0)(2500,0){2}{\line(1,0){1100}}\multiput(1300,0)(400,0){3}{\line(1,0){200}}}
\put(3600,0){\multiput(0,0)(3600,0){2}{\circle*{150}}\thicklines\multiput(0,0)(2500,0){2}{\line(1,0){1100}}\multiput(1300,0)(400,0){3}{\line(1,0){200}}}
\put(7200,0){\multiput(0,0)(1800,0){2}{\circle*{150}}\thicklines\multiput(0,-60)(0,150){2}{\line(1,0){1800}}\multiput(1050,0)(-25,25){10}{\circle*{50}}\multiput(1050,0)(-25,-25){10}{\circle*{50}}}
\put(9000,0){\multiput(0,0)(3600,0){2}{\circle*{150}}\thicklines\multiput(0,0)(2500,0){2}{\line(1,0){1100}}\multiput(1300,0)(400,0){3}{\line(1,0){200}}}
\put(-150,-700){\tiny $\alpha_1$}
\put(3450,-700){\tiny $\alpha_p$}
\put(8850,-700){\tiny $\alpha_q$}
\put(12450,-700){\tiny $\alpha_r$}
\end{picture}$$ The *little brother* of ${\lambda}$ with respect to ${\Delta}'$ is the dominant weight $${\lambda}_{{\Delta}'}^{\mathrm{lb}}= {\lambda}- \sum_{i=p}^q {\alpha}_i =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
{\lambda}-\omega_1+\omega_2 & \textrm{ if $G$ is of type $\sf{G}_2$} \\
{\lambda}+ {\omega}_{p-1} - {\omega}_{p} + {\omega}_{q+1} & \textrm{ otherwise}
\end{array} \right.$$ where ${\omega}_i$ is the fundamental weight associated to ${\alpha}_i$ if $1{\leqslant}i {\leqslant}r$, while ${\omega}_0 = {\omega}_{r+1} = 0$. The set of the little brothers of ${\lambda}$ will be denoted by ${\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})$; notice that ${\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})$ is empty if and only if ${\lambda}$ satisfies condition $(\star)$ of Theorem A. For convenience, define $\overline {\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})={\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})\cup\{{\lambda}\}$, while if ${\Delta}$ is connected and non-simply laced set ${\lambda}^{\mathrm{lb}}= {\lambda}_{\Delta}^{\mathrm{lb}}$.
\[lem:eta\] Assume $G$ to be simple and let ${\lambda}\in {\Lambda}^+{\smallsetminus}\{0\}$. Denote $\eta$ the highest root of $\Phi$ if the latter is simply laced or the highest short root otherwise.
1. If ${\lambda}$ satisfies the condition $(\star)$ then $${V({{\lambda}})} \subset {V({\eta})} \otimes {V({{\lambda}})}.$$
2. If ${\lambda}$ does not satisfy the condition $(\star)$ and if ${\lambda}^{\mathrm{lb}}$ is the little brother of ${\lambda}$ then $${V({{\lambda}})} \subset {V({\eta})} \otimes {V({{\lambda}^{\mathrm{lb}}})}.$$
If ${\Delta}$ is simply laced, then ${V({\eta})}\simeq{\mathfrak g}$ is the adjoint representation: in this case the claim follows straightforward by considering the map ${\mathfrak g}\otimes {V({{\lambda}})} \to {V({{\lambda}})}$ induced by the ${\mathfrak g}$-module structure on ${V({{\lambda}})}$, which is non-zero since ${\lambda}$ is non-zero.
Suppose now that ${\Delta}$ is not simply laced. If ${\lambda}$ satisfies condition $(\star)$, then by Lemma \[lem:traslazione\] it is enough to study the case ${\lambda}= \omega_{\alpha}$ where ${\alpha}$ is a short simple root:
*Type ${\mathsf B}_r$*: ${V({\omega_r})}\subset{V({\omega_1})}\otimes {V({\omega_r})}$.
*Type ${\mathsf C}_r$*: ${V({\omega_i})}\subset{V({\omega_2})}\otimes {V({\omega_i})}$, with $i<r$.
*Type ${\mathsf F}_4$*: ${V({\omega_3})}\subset{V({\omega_4})}\otimes {V({\omega_3})}$ and ${V({\omega_4})}\subset{V({\omega_4})}\otimes {V({\omega_4})}$.
*Type ${\mathsf G}_2$*: ${V({\omega_1})}\subset{V({\omega_1})}\otimes {V({\omega_1})}$.
If ${\lambda}$ does not satisfy condition $(\star)$, by Lemma \[lem:traslazione\] we can assume that ${\lambda}={\omega}_{\alpha}$ with ${\alpha}$ a long root:
*Type ${\mathsf B}_r$*: ${V({\omega_i})}\subset{V({\omega_1})}\otimes {V({\omega_{i-1}})}$, if $1<i<r$, and ${V({\omega_1})}\subset{V({\omega_1})}\otimes {V({0})}$.
*Type ${\mathsf C}_r$*: ${V({\omega_r})}\subset{V({\omega_2})}\otimes {V({\omega_{r-2}})}$.
*Type ${\mathsf F}_4$*: ${V({\omega_1})}\subset{V({\omega_4})}\otimes {V({\omega_4})}$ and ${V({\omega_2})}\subset{V({\omega_4})}\otimes {V({\omega_1+\omega_4})}$.
*Type ${\mathsf G}_2$*: ${V({\omega_2})}\subset{V({\omega_1})}\otimes {V({\omega_1})}$.
The above mentioned inclusion relations for tensor products are essentially known: let us treat the case of type ${\mathsf C}_r$ with ${\lambda}=\omega_i$ and $i<r$, the other cases are easier or can be checked directly.
Let $v_0$ be a highest weight vector of ${V({\omega_2})}$ and $w_0$ be a highest weight vector of ${V({\omega_i})}$. Let $f$ be the following product (in the universal enveloping algebra $\mathfrak U(\mathfrak u^-)$) $$f=f_{{\alpha}_i}\cdots f_{{\alpha}_1}\cdot f_{{\alpha}_{i+1}}\cdots f_{{\alpha}_{r-1}}\cdot f_{{\alpha}_r}\cdots f_{{\alpha}_2},$$ and consider all the factorizations $f = p\cdot q$ such that $p,q \in\mathfrak U(\mathfrak u^-)$. If ${\beta}_1,\ldots,{\beta}_j\in{\Delta}$, set $$\,^\mathrm r(f_{{\beta}_1}\cdots f_{{\beta}_j})=(-1)^j2^\delta f_{{\beta}_j}\cdots f_{{\beta}_1},$$ where $\delta$ equals 0 (resp. 1) if $\alpha_i$ occurs an even (resp. odd) number of times in $\{{\beta}_1,\ldots,{\beta}_j\}$. Then it is easy to check that the vector $$\sum_{p\cdot q=f} p.v_0 \otimes \,^\mathrm r\!q.w_0$$ is a $U$-invariant vector in ${V({\omega_2})}\otimes{V({\omega_i})}$ of $T$-weight $\omega_i$.
If the Dynkin diagram of $G$ is not simply laced we will need some further properties of tensor products.
If ${\Delta}$ is connected but not simply laced, we will denote by $\alpha_S$ the short simple root that is adjacent to a long simple root $\alpha_L$; moreover, we will denote the associated fundamental weights by $\omega_S$ and $\omega_L$. Finally, define $\zeta$ as the sum of all simple roots and notice that $\omega_S + \zeta$ is dominant.
\[lem:zeta\] Let ${\lambda}$ be a non-zero dominant weight.
1. If $G$ is of type ${\mathsf F}_4$ or ${\mathsf C}_r$ ($r{\geqslant}3$) and if $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ contains a long root then $${V({{\lambda}+\omega_S})} \subset {V({\zeta + \omega_S})} \otimes {V({{\lambda}})}.$$
2. If $G$ is of type ${\mathsf G}_2$ and if ${\lambda}$ does not satisfy $(\star)$ then $${V({{\lambda}+\omega_1})} \subset {V({\omega_2})} \otimes {V({{\lambda}^{\mathrm{lb}}})}.$$
3. If $G$ is of type ${\mathsf G}_2$ and if ${\alpha}_S \in \operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ then $${V({{\lambda}+\omega_1})} \subset {V({\omega_2})} \otimes {V({{\lambda}})}.$$
By Lemma \[lem:traslazione\] it is enough to check the statements for ${\lambda}=\omega_{\alpha}$ with ${\alpha}$ a long root in the first two cases and ${\alpha}={\alpha}_S$ in the last case.
*Type ${\mathsf C}_r$*: by Lemma \[lem:traslazione\] it is enough to check that ${V({\omega_{r-1}})}\subset {V({\omega_1})} \otimes {V({\omega_r})}$.
*Type ${\mathsf F}_4$*: we have ${\lambda}=\omega_1$ or ${\lambda}=\omega_2$ and $\omega_S+\zeta=\omega_1+\omega_4$.
*Type ${\mathsf G}_2$*: we have ${\lambda}=\omega_2$ and ${\lambda}^{\mathrm{lb}}=\omega_1$ in point (2) and ${\lambda}=\omega_1$ in point (3).
Normality and non-normality of $X_\Sigma$ {#ssez:normalita}
-----------------------------------------
We are now able to state the main theorem.
\[teo:normalita\]Let $\Sigma$ be a simple set of dominant weights and let ${\lambda}$ be its maximal element. The variety $X_\Sigma$ is normal if and only if $\Sigma \supset {\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})$.
Theorem A stated in the introduction follows immediately by considering the case $\Sigma=\{{\lambda}\}$. The remaining part of this section will be devoted to the proof of Theorem \[teo:normalita\]. The general strategy will be based on Proposition \[prp:normalita\] and will proceed by induction on the dominance order of weights. The ingredients of this induction will be the results proved in section \[ssez:prodottitensore\] together with the description of the dominance order given by J. Stembridge in [@St]: the dominance order between dominant weights is generated by pairs which differ by the highest short root for a subsystem of the root system.
If $K$ is a subset of ${\Delta}$, denote $\Phi_K\subset \Phi$ the associated root subsystem and, in case $K$ is connected, denote by $\eta_K$ the corresponding highest short root. Moreover, if ${\beta}=
\sum_{{\alpha}\in{\Delta}}n_{\alpha}{\alpha}$, set ${\beta}|_K=\sum_{{\alpha}\in
K}n_{\alpha}{\alpha}$. The result of [@St] that we will use is the following.
\[lem:stembridge\] Let ${\lambda},\mu$ be two dominant weights with ${\lambda}>\mu$; set $I =
\operatorname{Supp}_{\Delta}({\lambda}-\mu)$. Let $\Phi_K$ be an irreducible subsystem of $\Phi_I$ (where $K\subset I$).
1. If $\langle ({\lambda}-\mu){\bigr|}_K, {\alpha}^\vee \rangle {\geqslant}0$ for all ${\alpha}\in K \cap \operatorname{Supp}(\mu)$, then $\mu+\eta_K {\leqslant}{\lambda}$.
2. If in addition $\langle \mu + \eta_K, {\alpha}^\vee
\rangle {\geqslant}0$ for all ${\alpha}\in I {\smallsetminus}K$, then $\mu +
\eta_K \in {\Lambda}^+$.
The next two lemmas are the main steps of our induction.
\[lem:costruzioneK\] Suppose that $\Phi$ is irreducible; let ${\lambda},\mu\in{\Lambda}^+$ such that ${\lambda}>\mu$ and $\operatorname{Supp}_{\Delta}({\lambda}-\mu)={\Delta}$. Assume that either $\Phi$ is simply laced, or there exists a short root ${\alpha}\in \operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ such that $\langle {\lambda}-\mu,{\alpha}^{\vee}\rangle {\geqslant}0$, or ${\alpha}_S \notin \operatorname{Supp}(\mu)$. Then there exists a connected subset $K$ of ${\Delta}$ such that
1. $\mu+\eta_K{\leqslant}{\lambda}$;
2. $\mu+\eta_K\in {\Lambda}^+$;
3. $K\cap\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})\neq {\varnothing}$.
Set $K_1= \{{\alpha}\in {\Delta}{\, : \,}\langle{\lambda}-\mu,{\alpha}^{\vee}\rangle{\geqslant}0\}$. Since ${\lambda}>\mu$ we have that $K_1\cap\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ is non-empty. Notice also that $\operatorname{Supp}(\mu)\supset {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}K_1$. Define $K$ as follows:
- If $\Phi$ is simply laced, let $K$ be a connected component of $K_1$ which intersects $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$.
- If ${\alpha}\in\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ is a short root such that $\langle {\lambda}-\mu, {\alpha}^{\vee}\rangle {\geqslant}0$ let $K$ be the connected component of $K_1$ containing ${\alpha}$.
- If $\Phi$ is not simply laced and there does not exist a short root ${\alpha}$ as in b), let $K$ be a connected component of $K_1$ which intersects $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$.
Properties $i)$ and $iii)$ are then easily verified by Lemma \[lem:stembridge\](a) and by construction.
To prove $ii)$ notice that, if $\Phi$ is not simply laced, by the construction of $K$ it follows that if ${\alpha}_L \in K$ then ${\alpha}_S \in K$ as well: indeed, $K$ is a connected component of $K_1$ and if there is no short root ${\alpha}$ as in b) then ${\alpha}_S \not \in \operatorname{Supp}(\mu)$ implies ${\alpha}_S \in K_1$. By the description of highest short roots in Table \[tab:hsr\] we deduce that, if ${\alpha}\in K {\smallsetminus}K^{\circ}$, then the respective coefficient in $\eta_K$ is $1$: hence $\langle \eta_K, {\alpha}^\vee \rangle = -1$ for all ${\alpha}\in \partial K$ and, since $\operatorname{Supp}(\mu)\supset {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}K_1 \supset \partial{K}$, we get $\mu + \eta_K \in {\Lambda}^+$.
In order to proceed with the induction, in the next lemma we will need to consider the condition $(\star)$ also for a Levi subgroup of $G$. If $K\subset {\Delta}$ let $L_K$ be the associated standard Levi subgroup; we say that ${\lambda}\in{\Lambda}^+$ satisfies condition $(\star_K)$ if, for every non-simply laced connected component $K'$ of $K$ such that $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})\cap K'$ contains a long root, $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})\cap K'$ contains also the short root adjacent to a long root. Notice that if ${\lambda}$ satisfies $(\star)$ then it also satisfies $(\star_K)$ for all $K\subset {\Delta}$.
Similarly we can also define the little brother of a dominant weight w.r.t. the Levi subgroup $L_K$: if $K'$ is a connected component of $K$ such that ${\lambda}$ does not satisfy $(\star_{K'})$, define the little brother ${\lambda}_{K'}^{\mathrm{lb}}$ w.r.t. $K'$ as in Definition \[twin\] and denote by ${\mathrm{LB}}_K({\lambda})$ the set of little brothers of ${\lambda}$ constructed in this way. Notice that if $K'$ is a connected component of $K$ such that ${\lambda}$ does not satisfy $(\star_{K'})$ and if ${\Delta}'$ is the connected component of ${\Delta}$ containing $K'$, then ${\lambda}$ does not satisfy $(\star_{{\Delta}'})$ as well and ${\lambda}_{K'}^{\mathrm{lb}}={\lambda}_{{\Delta}'}^{\mathrm{lb}}$. In particular ${\mathrm{LB}}_K({\lambda})\subset
{\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})$.
\[lem:induzione\] Assume $G$ to be simple and let ${\lambda},\mu$ be two dominant weights such that ${\lambda}>\mu$ and $\operatorname{Supp}_{\Delta}({\lambda}-\mu)={\Delta}$. Then there exist $\mu'\in{\Lambda}^+$ and ${\lambda}'\in \overline {\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})$ such that $\mu<\mu'{\leqslant}{\lambda}$ and $${V({\mu+{\lambda}})}\subset
{V({\mu'})}\otimes {V({{\lambda}'})}.$$
Suppose first that either $\Phi$ is simply laced or ${\alpha}_S \notin \operatorname{Supp}(\mu)$ or there exists a short root ${\alpha}$ in $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ such that $\langle
{\lambda}-\mu, {\alpha}^{\vee}\rangle {\geqslant}0$. Take $K$ as in Lemma \[lem:costruzioneK\] and set $\mu'=\mu+\eta_K$: then by Lemma \[lem:eta\] together with Lemma \[lem:traslazione\] we get $${V_{L_K}({\mu + {\lambda}})} \subset {V_{L_K}({\mu'})} \otimes {V_{L_K}({{\lambda}'})}$$ with ${\lambda}'\in\overline {\mathrm{LB}}_K({\lambda})$. The claim follows by Lemma \[lem:riduzionelevi\] together with the inclusion ${\mathrm{LB}}_K({\lambda})\subset {\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})$.
Suppose now that $\Phi$ is not simply laced, that ${\alpha}_S \in \operatorname{Supp}(\mu)$ and that there is no short root ${\alpha}\in \operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ such that $\langle
{\lambda}-\mu, {\alpha}^{\vee}\rangle {\geqslant}0$. Since ${\lambda}>\mu$ there exists ${\alpha}\in \operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ such that $\langle {\lambda}-\mu , {\alpha}^\vee\rangle {\geqslant}0$: therefore, $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ contains at least a long root. Set $\mu'=\mu + \zeta$; notice that $\mu'{\leqslant}{\lambda}$ and that $\mu'$ is dominant. The claim follows then by Lemma \[lem:eta\] and by Lemma \[lem:traslazione\] if $\Phi$ is of type ${\mathsf B}$, while if $\Phi$ is of type ${\mathsf C}$, ${\mathsf F}_4$ or ${\mathsf G}_2$ it follows by Lemma \[lem:zeta\] and by Lemma \[lem:traslazione\].
We prove first that the condition is necessary. Assume that there exists a little brother $\mu = {\lambda}_{{\Delta}'}^{\mathrm{lb}}$ of ${\lambda}$ which is not in $\Sigma$. We prove that for every positive $n$ and for every choice of weights ${\lambda}_1,\dots,{\lambda}_n \in \Sigma$ the module ${V({\mu+(n-1){\lambda}})}$ is not contained in ${V({{\lambda}_1})}\otimes \cdots \otimes {V({{\lambda}_n})}$.
We proceed by contradiction. Assume there exist weights ${\lambda}_1,\dots,{\lambda}_n$ as above and notice that any of them satisfies $\mu{\leqslant}{\lambda}_i{\leqslant}{\lambda}$: indeed, ${\lambda}-\mu=n{\lambda}-(\mu+(n-1){\lambda}){\geqslant}n{\lambda}-\sum{\lambda}_{i}{\geqslant}{\lambda}-{\lambda}_{i}$ for every $i$. Therefore $\operatorname{Supp}_\Delta (\sum {\lambda}_i -(\mu+(n-1){\lambda}) ) \subset \operatorname{Supp}_\Delta ({\lambda}- \mu)$. By Definition \[twin\] together with Lemma \[lem:riduzionelevi\], it is enough to analyse the case $G$ of type ${\mathsf B}_r$ and $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) = \{{\alpha}_1\}$ or $G$ of type ${\mathsf G}_2$ and $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) = \{{\alpha}_2\}$. We analyse these two cases separately.
*Type ${\mathsf B}_r$*: we have ${\lambda}= a \omega_1$, $\mu=(a-1)\omega_1$ and $\mu+(n-1){\lambda}=(na-1)\omega_1$. If $a=1$ we notice that there are no dominant weights between ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$. So the only possibility is ${\lambda}_i={\lambda}=\omega_1$ for all $i$ and this is in contradiction with Lemma \[lem:BGno\]. If $a>1$, notice that there is only one dominant weight between ${\lambda}$ and $\mu$, namely $\nu={\lambda}-{\alpha}_1=(a-2)\omega_1+\omega_2$; hence for all $i$ it must be ${\lambda}_i={\lambda}$ or ${\lambda}_i=\nu$. Since $\sum {\lambda}_i {\geqslant}\mu+(n-1){\lambda}$, at most one ${\lambda}_i$ can be equal to $\nu$; therefore ${V({\mu+(n-1){\lambda}})}\subset {V({{\lambda}})}^{\otimes n}$ or ${V({\mu+(n-1){\lambda}})}\subset {V({\nu})} \otimes {V({{\lambda}})}^{\otimes (n-1)}$. In the first case we obtain $${V({(na-1)\omega_1})}={V({\mu+(n-1){\lambda}})}\subset {V({{\lambda}})}^{\otimes
n}\subset {V({\omega_1})}^{\otimes na},$$ against Lemma \[lem:BGno\]. In the second case we notice that ${V({\omega_2})} = {\Lambda}^2 {V({\omega_1})} \subset {V({\omega_1})}^{\otimes 2}$, hence ${V({\nu})}\subset {V({(a-2)\omega_1})}\otimes {V({\omega_2})} \subset {V({\omega_1})}^{\otimes a}$ and we can conclude as in the first case.
*Type ${\mathsf G}_2$*: we have ${\lambda}= a \omega_2$, $\mu=\omega_1+(a-1)\omega_2$ and we proceed as in the previous case.
We now prove that the condition is sufficient, showing that for every dominant weight $\mu {\leqslant}{\lambda}$ there exist $n>0$ and weights ${\lambda}_1,\dots,{\lambda}_n \in \overline {\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})$ such that ${V({\mu+(n-1){\lambda}})}\subset{V({{\lambda}_1})}\otimes \cdots\otimes
{V({{\lambda}_n})}$. To do this, we proceed by decreasing induction with respect to the dominance order.
If $\mu = {\lambda}$ then the claim is clear, so we assume $\mu < {\lambda}$. Let ${\lambda}- \mu = {\beta}_1+\dots+{\beta}_m$ where $\operatorname{Supp}_{\Delta}({\beta}_i)$ are the connected components of $\operatorname{Supp}_{\Delta}({\lambda}-\mu)$. Set $K= \operatorname{Supp}_{\Delta}({\beta}_1)$ and ${\beta}'={\beta}_2+\dots+{\beta}_m$. Notice that $\mu+{\beta}_1$ is dominant: indeed if ${\alpha}\not \in {\overline}{K}$ then $\langle \mu + \beta_1 , {\alpha}^\vee \rangle = \langle \mu , {\alpha}^\vee \rangle {\geqslant}0$, while if ${\alpha}\in {\overline}{K}$ then $\langle \mu + \beta_1 , {\alpha}^\vee \rangle = \langle {\lambda}- {\beta}',
{\alpha}^\vee \rangle {\geqslant}\langle {\lambda}, {\alpha}^\vee \rangle {\geqslant}0$. Notice moreover that, if $\nu\in \overline {\mathrm{LB}}_K(\mu+{\beta}_1)$, then $\nu+{\beta}' \in \overline
{\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})$. By Lemma \[lem:induzione\] applied to the semisimple part of the Levi $L=L_K$ associated to $K$, there exists a weight $\mu'$ which is dominant with respect to $K$ such that $\mu < \mu'{\leqslant}\mu+{\beta}_1$ and there exists $\nu \in \overline {\mathrm{LB}}_K(\mu+{\beta}_1)$ which satisfy $${V_L({\mu+{\beta}_1+\mu})}\subset {V_L({\mu'})} \otimes {V_L({\nu})}.$$ By tensoring with ${V_L({{\beta}'})}$, which is a one dimensional representation, we get ${V_L({\mu+{\lambda}})}\subset {V_L({\mu'})} \otimes {V_L({{\lambda}'})}$ with ${\lambda}'=\nu+{\beta}'\in \overline {\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})$. Since $\langle \mu',{\alpha}^\vee \rangle {\geqslant}\langle \mu+{\beta}_1,{\alpha}^\vee \rangle$ for every ${\alpha}\not \in K$, $\mu'$ is a dominant weight; by Lemma \[lem:riduzionelevi\] we get then ${V({\mu+{\lambda}})}\subset {V({\mu'})} \otimes {V({{\lambda}'})}$ and we may apply the induction on $\mu'{\leqslant}{\lambda}$. Therefore there exist weights ${\lambda}_1,\dots,{\lambda}_n \in \overline {\mathrm{LB}}({\lambda})$ such that ${V({\mu'+(n-1){\lambda}})}\subset{V({{\lambda}_1})}\otimes \cdots\otimes
{V({{\lambda}_n})}$. Finally by Lemma \[lem:traslazione\] we conclude $${V({\mu+n{\lambda}})}\subset {V({\mu'+(n-1){\lambda}})}\otimes {V({{\lambda}'})} \subset
{V({{\lambda}_1})}\otimes \cdots\otimes {V({{\lambda}_n})} \otimes {V({{\lambda}'})}.$$
Smoothness
==========
In this section we will study the variety ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$; in particular we will give necessary and sufficient conditions on $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ for its $\mathbb{Q}$-factoriality and for its smoothness.
Thanks to Lemma \[lem:immersioni\], we may assume that $G$ is a simple group. Indeed suppose ${\Delta}= \cup_{i=1}^n {\Delta}_i$ is the decomposition in connected components and write ${\lambda}= {\lambda}_1 +
\ldots + {\lambda}_n$ with $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}_i)\subset {\Delta}_i$: correspondingly we get a decomposition $X_{\lambda}= X_{{\lambda}_1} \times \ldots \times
X_{{\lambda}_n}$, and every $X_{{\lambda}_i}$ is an embedding of the corresponding simple factor of $G_\mathrm{ad}$ if ${\lambda}_i \neq 0$ or a point if ${\lambda}_i = 0$. From now on, we will therefore assume that $\Phi$ is an irreducible root system.
By the Bruhat decomposition, the group $G_\mathrm{ad}$ has an open $B\times B^-$-orbit; therefore it is a spherical $G\times
G$-homogeneous space. Following the general theory of spherical embeddings (see [@Kn]), its simple normal embeddings are classified by combinatorial data called the *colored cones*. Here we will skip an overview of such theory, and we will simply recall the definition of the colored cone in the particular case of a simple normal embedding of $G_\mathrm{ad}$.
Recall that a normal variety $X$ is said ${\mathbb Q}$-*factorial* if, given any Weil divisor $D$ of $X$, there exists an integer $n\neq 0$ such that $nD$ is a Cartier divisor. In subsection \[sez smooth-notaz\], we will explicitly describe the colored cone of ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$; then in subsection \[sez Q-factoriality\] we will study $\mathbb{Q}$-factoriality of ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$ following [@Br2]. Finally, in subsection \[sezione smoothness\], we will use Theorem \[teo:normalita\] together with the description of the colored cone of ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$ to make more explicit the criterion of smoothness given in [@Ti] in the case of a linear projective compactification of a reductive group.
The colored cone of ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$ {#sez smooth-notaz}
-----------------------------------------------
Let $X$ be a simple normal compactification of $G_\mathrm{ad}$, call $Y$ its unique closed orbit. Set ${\mathcal D}(G_\mathrm{ad})$ the set of $B\times B^{-}$-stable prime divisors of $G_\mathrm{ad}$ and ${\mathcal D}(X)\subset {\mathcal D}(G_\mathrm{ad})$ the set of divisors whose closure in $X$ contains $Y$. Let ${\mathcal N}(X)$ be the set of $G\times G$-stable prime divisors of $X$, so that the set of $B\times B^{-}$-stable prime divisors of $X$ is identified with ${\mathcal D}(G_\mathrm{ad})\cup {\mathcal N}(X)$.
Let $T_\mathrm{ad}\subset G_\mathrm{ad}$ be the image of $T$; then the character group ${\mathcal X}(T_\mathrm{ad})$ coincides with the root lattice $\mathbb{Z}{\Delta}$, while the cocharacter group ${\mathcal X}^\vee(T_\mathrm{ad})$ coincides with the coweight lattice ${\Lambda}^\vee$. If $V$ is a simple $G\times G$-module denote by $V^{(B\times B^{-})}$ the subset of $B\times B^{-}$-eigenvectors. Notice that ${\Bbbk}(G_\mathrm{ad})^{(B\times B^{-})}/{\Bbbk}^{*} \simeq \mathbb{Z}{\Delta}$ and define a natural map $\rho : {\mathcal D}(G_\mathrm{ad})\cup {\mathcal N}(X) \to {\Lambda}^\vee$ by associating to a $B\times B^-$-stable prime divisor of $X$ the cocharacter associated to the rational discrete valuation induced by $D$. If $D\in {\mathcal N}(X)$, then $\rho(D)$ is the opposite of a fundamental coweight, while if $D\in {\mathcal D}(G_\mathrm{ad})$, then $\rho(D)$ is a simple coroot; moreover, $\rho$ is injective and $\rho({\mathcal D}(G_\mathrm{ad}))=\Delta^\vee$ (see [@Ti § 7]).
Let ${\mathcal C}(X)$ be the convex cone in ${\Lambda}^\vee_{\mathbb{Q}}$ generated by $\rho\big({\mathcal D}(X)\cup {\mathcal N}(X)\big)$; by the general theory of spherical embeddings we have that ${\mathcal C}(X)$ is generated by $\rho({\mathcal D}(X))$ together with the negative Weyl chamber of $\Phi$. The *colored cone* of $X$ is then the couple $\big({\mathcal C}(X),{\mathcal D}(X)\big)$: up to equivariant isomorphisms, it uniquely determines $X$ as a $G\times G$-compactification of $G_\mathrm{ad}$.
In the case of the compactification $\widetilde{X}_{{\lambda}}$, then $\rho({\mathcal D}(X)) = {\Delta}^\vee {\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}(\lambda)^\vee$ (see [@Ti Theorem 7]).
$\mathbb{Q}$-factoriality {#sez Q-factoriality}
-------------------------
In order to give a necessary and sufficient condition for the $\mathbb{Q}$-factoriality of ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$ we need to determine the set of extremal rays of the associated cone ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$.
If ${\alpha}\in {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}(\lambda)$, then ${\alpha}^\vee$ generates an extremal ray of ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$.
If a simple coroot ${\alpha}^\vee \in {\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$ does not generate an extremal ray, then we can write $${\alpha}^\vee = \sum_{{\beta}\in {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\{{\alpha}\}} a_{{\beta}}{\beta}^{\vee} - \sum_{{\beta}\in {\Delta}}
b_{{\beta}}\omega_{{\beta}}^{\vee},$$ with $a_{\beta}, b_{\beta}{\geqslant}0$ for every ${\beta}$: this yields a contradiction since then it would be $\langle {\alpha},{\alpha}^\vee \rangle {\leqslant}0$.
Recall that a convex cone is said to be *simplicial* if it is generated by linearly independent vectors; the following proposition is a particular case of a characterization of $\mathbb{Q}$-factoriality that M. Brion gave in [@Br2] in the general case of a spherical variety. We recall it in the case of our interest.
\[see [[@Br2 Proposition 4.2]]{}\] \[lem Q fattor\] The variety ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial if and only if ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$ is simplicial.
Therefore, since ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$ has maximal dimension, ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial if and only if the number of extremal rays of the associated cone equals the rank of $G$. To describe such rays we need to introduce some more notation; the description will be slightly more complicated if $\Phi$ is of type ${\mathsf D}$ or ${\mathsf E}$.
Denote ${\Delta}^e$ the set of extremal roots of ${\Delta}$ and set ${\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) = \bigcup_{i=1}^n I_i$ the decomposition in connected components. Denote $$I^e = \bigcup_{\substack{I_i \neq I_\mathsf{de} \\ I_i \cap {\Delta}^e \neq {\varnothing}}} I_i,$$ where $I_\mathsf{de}$ is defined as follows. If ${\Delta}$ is of type $\sf{D}$ or $\sf{E}$, denote ${\gamma}_\mathsf{de}$ the unique simple root which is adjacent to other three simple roots and, if it exists, denote $I_\mathsf{de} \subset {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ the unique connected component such that ${\gamma}_\mathsf{de} \in I_\mathsf{de}$ and $|I_\mathsf{de} \cap {\Delta}^e| = 1$, otherwise define $I_\mathsf{de}$ to be the empty set. Denote $I^\ast_\mathsf{de} \subset I_\mathsf{de}$ the minimal connected subset such that ${\gamma}_\mathsf{de} \in I^\ast_\mathsf{de}$ and $I^\ast_\mathsf{de} \cap {\Delta}^e \neq {\varnothing}$, or define it to be the empty set otherwise. Finally define $$J({\lambda}) = \big({\Delta}{\smallsetminus}({\overline}{I^e} \cup I^\ast_\mathsf{de})\big) \cup \big({\Delta}^e {\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})\big).$$
\[raggi estremali2\] The extremal rays of ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$ are generated by the simple coroots $\alpha^{\vee}$ with $\alpha\in {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ and by the opposite of fundamental coweights $-\omega_{\alpha}^{\vee}$ with $\alpha\in J({\lambda})$.
Recall that ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$ is generated by the simple coroots $\alpha^{\vee}$ with $\alpha\in {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ together with the fundamental coweights $-\omega_{\alpha}^{\vee}$ with $\alpha\in {\Delta}$ and that every coroot $\alpha^{\vee}$ with $\alpha\in {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ generates an extremal ray of ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$.
A coweight $-\omega_{{\alpha}}^{\vee}$ does not generate an extremal ray if and only if it can be written as follows $$-\omega_{\alpha}^{\vee}=\sum_{{\beta}\in K}
a_{{\beta}}{\beta}^{\vee} - \sum_{{\beta}\in H}
b_{{\beta}} \omega_{{\beta}}^{\vee}$$ with $a_{\beta}>0 $ for every ${\beta}\in K$ and with $b_{\beta}>0$ for every ${\beta}\in H$, for suitable non-empty subsets $K\subset {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ and $H \subset {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\{{\alpha}\}$. Since the right member of the equality is negative against every simple root in $\partial{K}$, we get $\partial{K} = \{{\alpha}\}$.
Notice that $K$ is connected. Indeed if $K' \subset K$ is a connected component then $\partial{K'} = \{{\alpha}\}$ and $\sum_{{\beta}\in K'} a_{{\beta}} \langle {\alpha}, {\beta}^{\vee} \rangle < 0$: therefore if $K$ contains two connected components it must be $$\sum_{{\beta}\in K} a_{{\beta}} \langle {\alpha}, {\beta}^{\vee} \rangle {\leqslant}-2.$$ On the other hand $\langle {\alpha}, \omega_{{\beta}}^{\vee} \rangle = 0$ for every ${\beta}\in H$, therefore if $K$ is not connected it follows $$-1 = - \langle {\alpha}, \omega_{\alpha}^{\vee} \rangle
= \sum_{{\beta}\in K} a_{{\beta}} \langle {\alpha}, {\beta}^{\vee} \rangle {\leqslant}-2.$$
Since $\partial{K}$ is one single root, $K$ contains an extreme of ${\Delta}$, thus we get $K\subset I^{e} \cup I_\mathsf{de}$. Suppose that ${\gamma}_\mathsf{de} \in K \subset I_\mathsf{de}$: then we get a contradiction since it would be $|\partial{K}|=2$. Therefore we get $K\subset I^{e} \cup (I^\ast_\mathsf{de} {\smallsetminus}\{{\gamma}_\mathsf{de}\})$ and ${\alpha}\in {\overline}{I^{e}} \cup I^\ast_\mathsf{de}$. Such a subset $K$ cannot exist if ${\alpha}\in {\Delta}^{e}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$, otherwise it would be $K = {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\{{\alpha}\}$ which intersects $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$. We get then that every $-{\omega}_{\alpha}^\vee$ with ${\alpha}\in J({\lambda})$ generates an extremal ray of ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$.
Suppose conversely that ${\alpha}\not \in J({\lambda})$. Then we can construct a connected subset $K\subset I^{e} \cup (I^\ast_\mathsf{de} {\smallsetminus}\{{\gamma}_\mathsf{de}\})$ such that $\partial{K} = \{{\alpha}\}$. If ${\gamma}\in K\cap {\Delta}^e$, consider the fundamental coweight $({\omega}_{\gamma}^K)^\vee$ associated to ${\gamma}$ in the irreducible root subsystem associated to $K$: then we get $$({\omega}_{\gamma}^K)^\vee = \sum_{{\beta}\in K}a_{\beta}{\beta}^\vee = {\omega}_{\gamma}^\vee - m {\omega}^\vee_{\alpha},$$ where $a_{\beta}>0$ are rational coefficients and where $m>0$ is an integer. Therefore $-{\omega}_{\alpha}^\vee$ does not generate an extremal ray of ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$.
\[Q-fattorialita\] The variety ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial if and only if the following conditions are fulfilled:
- $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ is connected;
- If $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ contains a unique element, then this element is an extreme of ${\Delta}$;
- If ${\Delta}$ is of type ${\mathsf D}$ or ${\mathsf E}$, then $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ contains ${\gamma}_\mathsf{de}$ and at least two simple roots adjacent to ${\gamma}_\mathsf{de}$.
By Proposition \[lem Q fattor\] together with Lemma \[raggi estremali2\] ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial if and only if $|\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})| = |J({\lambda})|$.
Suppose that ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial. Consider the dominant weight ${\lambda}' = \sum_{{\alpha}\not \in I^e \cup I^\ast_\mathsf{de}} {\omega}_{\alpha}$: then $J({\lambda}') = J({\lambda})$ and $$|{\Delta}| = |J({\lambda})| + |{\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})| {\geqslant}|J({\lambda}')| + |{\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}')| {\geqslant}|{\Delta}|,$$ which implies $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) = \operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}')$. This shows ${\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) = I^e \cup I^\ast_\mathsf{de}$, and we get the following decomposition of $J({\lambda})$: $$J({\lambda}) \cap \operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) = {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}({\overline}{I^e}\cup I^\ast_\mathsf{de}), \qquad \quad
J({\lambda}) {\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) = {\Delta}^e {\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}).$$
If $I_\mathsf{de} \neq {\varnothing}$, set $I_\mathsf{de} \cap {\Delta}^e = \{{\alpha}_\mathsf{de}\}$. Define a surjective map $F: J({\lambda}) {\smallsetminus}\{{\alpha}_\mathsf{de}\} {\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ as follows: $F$ is the identity on $J({\lambda}) \cap \operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$, while if ${\alpha}\in J({\lambda}) {\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ consider the connected component $K\subset {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ containing ${\alpha}$ and define $F({\alpha})$ by the relation $\partial{K} = \{F({\alpha})\}$: since ${\alpha}\neq {\alpha}_\mathsf{de}$, it must be $|\partial{K}|=1$. Therefore $F$ is well defined and it is surjective since $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) {\smallsetminus}J({\lambda}) = \partial{I^e}$. Therefore ${\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) = I^e$ and we get i). Being surjective, $F$ has to be injective as well; this easily implies both ii) and iii).
Suppose conversely that $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ is connected, or equivalently that ${\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) = I^e$: then ii) and iii) imply $|{\Delta}^e {\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})| = |\partial{I^e}|$. This shows that ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial, since then $|J({\lambda})| + |{\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})| = |{\Delta}|$.
\[cor:raggi estremali\] If ${\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial, the extremal rays of ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$ are generated by:
- the coroots $\alpha^{\vee}$ with $\alpha\in {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$,
- the coweights $-\omega_{\alpha}^{\vee}$ with $\alpha\in
\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})^\circ \cup \big({\Delta}^e {\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})\big)$.
Smoothness {#sezione smoothness}
----------
Suppose that ${\Sigma}=\{{\lambda},{\lambda}_1,\ldots,{\lambda}_s\}$ is a simple set of dominant weights, where ${\lambda}$ is the maximal one. In this section we will prove the following generalization of Theorem B.
\[smooth Xsigma\] The variety $X_{\Sigma}$ is smooth if and only if $X_{\lambda}$ is normal, $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial and every connected component of ${\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}(\lambda)$ has type ${\mathsf A}$.
$X_{\Sigma}$ is smooth if and only if $X_{\lambda}$ is smooth.
To prove Theorem \[smooth Xsigma\], we will make use of a characterization of smoothness for arbitrary group compactifications given by D. Timashev in [@Ti]. For convenience, we will use a generalization of it which can be found in [@Ru] in the more general context of symmetric spaces. We recall it in the case of a simple group compactification.
\[smooth-timashev\] The variety ${\widetilde}{X}_{{\lambda}}$ is smooth if and only if the following conditions are fulfilled:
- All connected components of ${\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}(\lambda)$ are of type ${\mathsf A}$ and there are no more than $|\operatorname{Supp}(\lambda)|$ of them.
- The cone ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$ is simplicial and it is generated by a basis of the coweight lattice $\Lambda^{\vee}$.
- One can enumerate the simple roots in order of their positions at Dynkin diagrams of connected components $I_k = \{\alpha_{1}^{k},\ldots,\alpha_{n_{k}}^{k}\}$ of ${\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ , $k=1,\ldots,n$, and partition the basis of the free semigroup ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})^{\vee}\cap \mathbb{Z}{\Delta}$ into subsets $\{\pi_{1}^{k},\ldots,\pi_{n_{k}+1}^{k}\}$, $k=1,\ldots,p$, $p{\geqslant}n$, in such a way that $\langle\pi_{j}^{k}, (\alpha_{i}^{h})^\vee \rangle = \delta_{i,j}\delta_{h,k}$ and $\pi_{j}^{k} - \frac{j}{n_{k}+1} \pi_{n_{k}+1}^{k}$ is the $j$-th fundamental weight of the root system generated by $\{\alpha_{1}^{k},...,\alpha_{n_{k}}^{k}\}$ for all $j,k$.
First, we prove that the conditions are necessary; since we only have to prove that $X_{\lambda}$ is normal, we may assume that ${\Delta}$ is non-simply laced. By Theorem \[smooth-timashev\] i), $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ contains at least one of the two simple roots $\alpha_S$, ${\alpha}_L$; suppose that $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ contains $\alpha_L$ but not ${\alpha}_S$. Denote $K =\{{\alpha}_1,\ldots,{\alpha}_l\} \subset {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}(\lambda)$ the connected component which contains ${\alpha}_S$ and number its simple roots starting from ${\alpha}_S$: therefore ${\alpha}_1 = {\alpha}_S$ and ${\alpha}_l \in {\Delta}^e$, moreover ${\overline}{K}$ is either of type ${\sf C}_{l+1}$ or of type $\sf{G}_2$. Set ${\omega}^\vee = (l+1)({\omega}^K_l)^\vee$, where $({\omega}^K_l)^\vee$ is the fundamental coweight associated to ${\alpha}_l$ in the root subsystem $\Phi_K$ associated to $K$; then $${\omega}^\vee = \sum_{i=1}^{l} i {\alpha}^\vee_{i} =
(l+1) {\omega}^\vee_{{\alpha}_l} -m {\omega}_{{\alpha}_L}^\vee.$$ where $m = 2$ if ${\overline}{K}$ is of type ${\sf C}_{l+1}$ (with $l{\geqslant}1$) and $m=3$ if ${\overline}{K}$ is of type ${\sf G}_2$.
If ${\overline}{K}$ is not of type ${\sf B}_2$, then ${\Delta}$ is either of type ${\sf C}_r$ (with $r>2$) or of type ${\sf F}_4$ or of type ${\sf G}_2$ and every simple coroot ${\beta}^\vee \in {\Delta}^\vee$ is a primitive element in $\Lambda^{\vee}$ (i.e. there does not exist $\pi^\vee\in {\Lambda}^\vee$ which satisfies $t\pi^\vee = {\beta}^\vee$ with $t>1$): therefore by Lemma \[raggi estremali2\] together with Theorem \[smooth-timashev\] ii) $\{{\alpha}^\vee_1, \ldots, {\alpha}^\vee_l, {\omega}^\vee_{{\alpha}_l} \}$ is part of a basis of ${\Lambda}^\vee$ and we get a contradiction since then the equality above would imply ${\omega}_{{\alpha}_L}^\vee\not \in {\Lambda}^\vee$. Otherwise ${\overline}{K}$ is of type ${\sf B}_2$, thus ${\Delta}$ is of type ${\sf B}_r$ and $\frac{1}{2}{\alpha}_S^\vee \in {\Lambda}^\vee$: then we get a contradiction since by Theorem \[smooth-timashev\] iii) there exists $\pi \in {\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})^{\vee}\cap \mathbb{Z}{\Delta}$ such that $\langle \pi, {\alpha}_S^\vee \rangle = 1$.
Let’s prove now that conditions of Theorem \[smooth-timashev\] are verified if $X_{\lambda}$ is normal, $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial and ${\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}(\lambda)$ has type ${\mathsf A}$. Set $N = {\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda}) \cap {\Lambda}^\vee$ the monoid generated by the primitive elements of the extremal rays of ${\mathcal C}({\widetilde}{X}_{\lambda})$.
To prove condition i), it is enough to notice as in Proposition \[Q-fattorialita\] that, since $\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ is connected, we have ${\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda}) = I^e$ and the number of its connected components equals $|{\Delta}^e {\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})| {\leqslant}|J({\lambda})| = |\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})|$.
To prove condition ii), let’s show that, if ${\beta}\in {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}J({\lambda}) = {\overline}{I^e}{\smallsetminus}{\Delta}^e$, then $-\omega_{{\beta}}^{\vee} \in N$. Denote $I =\{{\alpha}_1,\ldots,{\alpha}_l\} \subset {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}(\lambda)$ the connected component which contains ${\beta}$ in its closure and number its simple roots starting from the extreme of $I$ which is not an extreme of ${\Delta}$; therefore ${\alpha}_l \in {\Delta}^e$. Let $j$ be such that ${\beta}= {\alpha}_j$ or set $j = 0$ if ${\beta}\in \operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$. Set $K=\{{\alpha}_{j+1},\ldots,{\alpha}_{l}\}$ and set ${\omega}^\vee = (l-j+1)({\omega}^K_l)^\vee$, where $({\omega}^K_l)^\vee$ is the fundamental weight associated to ${\alpha}_l$ in the root subsystem $\Phi_K$ associated to $K$; then $${\omega}^\vee = \sum_{i=1}^{l-j} i {\alpha}^\vee_{j+i} =
(l-j+1){\omega}^\vee_{{\alpha}_l} + \langle {\beta},{\alpha}_{j+1}^\vee \rangle {\omega}_{{\beta}}^\vee.$$ Since $X_{\lambda}$ is normal, by Theorem A we get $\langle {\beta},{\alpha}_{j+1}^\vee \rangle = -1$; therefore by Corollary \[cor:raggi estremali\] $-{\omega}_{{\beta}}^\vee \in N$.
Finally let’s show that condition iii) holds. Suppose that $K = \{{\alpha}_1, \ldots, {\alpha}_l \} \subset {\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\operatorname{Supp}({\lambda})$ is a connected component, where the simple roots in $K$ are numbered starting from the extreme of $K$ which is not an extreme of ${\Delta}$, and define $$\pi_i^K =
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
({\alpha}_i^\vee)^\ast & \textrm{ if $i{\leqslant}l$} \\
(-{\omega}^\vee_{{\alpha}_l})^\ast & \textrm{ if $i=l+1$}
\end{array} \right.$$ where, if $\{v_1, \ldots, v_r\}$ is a basis of ${\Lambda}^\vee$, $\{v_1^\ast, \ldots, v_r^\ast\}$ denotes the dual basis of ${\Lambda}$. Therefore, if $\omega_{j}^{K}$ is the $j$-th fundamental weight of $\Phi_{K}$, we have $\omega_{j}^{K} = \pi^K_j - \frac{j}{l+1} \pi^K_{l+1}$.
Remarks and generalizations
===========================
In this section we will consider the more general situation of compactifications of symmetric varieties.
Let $G$ be as before and ${\sigma}:G\to G$ an involution of $G$. We denote by $H^\circ$ the subgroup of points fixed by ${\sigma}$ and by $H$ its normalizer. The notation is not completely coherent with those of previous sections: $G$ plays now the role that $G\times G$ played before, while $H^\circ$ has now the role that the diagonal of $G\times G$ had before.
Let $\Omega^+$ be the set of dominant weights ${\lambda}$ such that ${V({{\lambda}})}$ has a non-zero vector fixed by $H^\circ$ and $\Omega$ the sublattice of ${\Lambda}$ generated by $\Omega^+$. The monoid $\Omega^+$ (resp. the lattice $\Omega$) is in a natural way the set of dominant weights (resp. the set of weights) of a (possibly non-reduced) root system ${\widetilde \Phi}$, which is called the [*restricted root system*]{}. For ${\lambda}\in \Omega^+$ we can consider the (unique) point $x_{\lambda}\in {\mathbb P}({V({{\lambda}})})$ fixed by $H$ and define $X_{\lambda}$ as the closure of the $G$-orbit of $x_{\lambda}$ in ${\mathbb P}({V({{\lambda}})})$.
Proposition \[prp:supporto\] generalizes to this more general situation without any further comment.
Normality of $X_{\lambda}$ and the closure of a maximal torus orbit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $T\subset G$ be a maximal torus such that the dimension of $TH$ is maximal and let $Z_{\lambda}= {\overline}{T\,x_{\lambda}} \subset X_{\lambda}$. In [@Ru], it is proved that when $X_{\lambda}$ is normal then $Z_{\lambda}$ also is normal. The converse of this result does not hold in general. Indeed $Z_{\lambda}$ is always normal in the case of the $G\times G$-compactification of $G_\mathrm{ad}$.
Generalization to symmetric varieties: normality {#ssez:simmetrichenormalita}
------------------------------------------------
The wonderful compactification has been defined in the more general situation of symmetric varieties and the description of the normalization of $X_{\lambda}$ generalizes thanks to the results contained in [@CM] and [@CDM] (which generalize [@Ka] and [@DC]). In particular, Lemma \[lem:general-normality\] holds here in general. However, in the case of symmetric varieties we do not have a clear description of the multiplication of sections as in Lemma \[lem:coefficientimatriciali\]. In particular, we have no analogue of Proposition \[prp:normalita\].
One may wonder whether the normality of $X_{\lambda}$ is equivalent to the analogous combinatorial condition on the weight ${\lambda}$, that is, ${\lambda}$ satisfies condition $(\star)$ w.r.t. the root system ${\widetilde \Phi}$; here is a counterexample.
Let $G$ be of type ${\sf B}_2$ and let ${\sigma}$ be the involution of type B I: thus $G/H \simeq \mathrm{SO}(5)/\mathrm{S}\big(\mathrm{O}(3)\times \mathrm{O}(2)\big)$ and ${\widetilde\Delta}=2{\Delta}$. Consider ${\lambda}=2{\omega}_1\in{\Omega}^+$; then $X_{\lambda}$ is a normal embedding of $G/H$.
Denote by ${\leqslant}_{\sigma}$ the dominance order w.r.t. the root system ${\widetilde \Phi}$ and suppose that $X_{\lambda}$ is normal. Then ${\lambda}$ satisfies
> *for all $\mu\in{\Omega}^+$ such that $\mu{\leqslant}_{\sigma}{\lambda}$ there exists $n\in{\mathbb N}$ such that ${V({\mu+(n-1){\lambda}})}\subset
> \mathrm S^n({V({{\lambda}})})$.*
If one assumes that the multiplication map is as generic as possible, then also the converse is true.
Generalization to symmetric varieties: smoothness
-------------------------------------------------
In the setting of normal compactifications of symmetric varieties $G/H^\circ$, fix a maximal torus $T$ such that $TH^\circ$ has maximal dimension and a Borel subgroup $B\supset T$ such that $BH^\circ \subset G$ is dense. If $X$ is a simple normal compactification of $G/H$, denote ${\mathcal D}(X)$ the set of $B$-stable and not $G$-stable prime divisors of $X$ which contain the closed orbit. Denote $\rho : {\mathcal D}(X) \to {\Omega}^\vee$ the map defined by the evaluation of functions; by [@Vu Proposition 1] $\rho({\mathcal D}(X))$ is a basis of the restricted coroot system ${\widetilde}{\Phi}^\vee$. Since the map $\rho$ is not always injective, following the criterion of $\mathbb{Q}$-factoriality in [@Br2] in order to generalize Proposition \[Q-fattorialita\] we only need to assume that $\rho$ is injective on ${\mathcal D}(X)$, and the proof is the same. Such proposition is true also for compactifications of $G/H^\circ$, and not only of $G/H$, since $\mathbb Q$-factoriality concerns no integrality questions.
Theorem \[smooth Xsigma\] also can be generalized to this setting with the same proof, but we do not have anymore the equivalence between property $(\star)$ and the normality of $X_{\lambda}$. Thus the theorem has to be reformulated as follows (recall that a simple normal spherical variety is always quasi-projective).
\[smooth general\] A simple normal compactification $X$ of $G/H$ is smooth if and only if it is $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial, ${\Delta}{\smallsetminus}\rho({\mathcal D}(X))$ satisfies $(\star)$ and every connected component of $\rho({\mathcal D}(X))$ has type ${\mathsf A}$.
[KKLV]{}
N. Bourbaki, [*Éléments de mathématique. Fasc. XXXIV. Groupes et algèbres de Lie. Chapitres IV, V, VI*]{}, Actualités Scientifiques et Industrielles **1337**, Hermann Paris 1968.
M. Brion, [*Variétés sphériques et théorie de Mori*]{}, Duke Math. J. **72** (1993) no. 2, 369–404.
R. Chirivì, C. De Concini and A. Maffei, [*On normality of cones over symmetric varieties*]{}, Tohoku Math. J. (2) **58** (2006) no. 4, 599–616.
R. Chiriv[ì]{} and A. Maffei, [ *Projective normality of complete symmetric varieties*]{}, Duke Math. J. **122** (2004), 93–123.
C. De Concini, [*Normality and non normality of certain semigroups and orbit closures*]{}, Algebraic transformation groups and algebraic varieties, Encyclopaedia Math. Sci. **132**, Springer Berlin 2004, 15–35.
C. De Concini and C. Procesi, [*Complete symmetric varieties*]{}, Invariant Theory, Lecture Notes in Math. **996**, Springer, Berlin, 1983, 1–44.
S.S. Kannan, [*Projective normality of the wonderful compactification of semisimple adjoint groups*]{}, Math. Z. **239** (2002) 673–682.
F. Knop, [*The Luna-Vust theory of spherical embeddings*]{}, Proceedings of the Hyderabad Conference on Algebraic Groups (Hyderabad, 1989), 225–249, Manoj Prakashan, Madras, 1991.
F. Knop, H. Kraft, D. Luna and T. Vust, [*Local properties of algebraic group actions*]{}, Algebraische Transformationsgruppen und Invariantentheorie, DMV Sem. **13**, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1989, 63–75.
A. Ruzzi, [*Smooth projective symmetric varieties with Picard number equal to one*]{}. To appear in Internat. J. Math.
J.R. Stembridge, [*The partial order of dominant weights*]{}, Adv. Math. **136** (1998) no. 2, 340–364.
D.A. Timashev, [*Equivariant compactifications of reductive groups*]{}, Sb. Math. **194** (2003) no. 3-4, 589–616.
Th. Vust, [*Plongements d’espaces symétriques algébriques: une classification*]{}, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) **17** (1990), no. 2, 165–195.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper we derive a discretisation of the equation of quasi-static elasticity in homogenization in form of a variational formulation and the so-called Lippmann-Schwinger equation, in anisotropic spaces of translates of periodic functions. We unify and extend the truncated Fourier series approach, the constant finite element ansatz and the anisotropic lattice derivation. The resulting formulation of the Lippmann-Schwinger equation in anisotropic translation invariant spaces unifies and analyses for the first time both the Fourier methods and finite element approaches in a common mathematical framework. We further define and characterize the resulting periodised Green operator. This operator coincides in case of a Dirichlet kernel corresponding to a diagonal matrix with the operator derived for the Galerkin projection stemming from the truncated Fourier series approach and to the anisotropic lattice derivation for all other Dirichlet kernels. Additionally, we proof the boundedness of the periodised Green operator. The operator further constitutes a projection if and only if the space of translates is generated by a Dirichlet kernel. Numerical examples for both the de la Vallée Poussin means and Box splines illustrate the flexibility of this framework.'
author:
- 'Ronny Bergmann[^1]'
- Dennis Merkert
bibliography:
- '../../references.bib'
date: 'January 17, 2017'
title: 'FFT-based homogenization on periodic anisotropic translation invariant spaces'
---
*Keywords:* homogenization, anisotropic lattices, translation invariant spaces, Lippmann-Schwinger equation\
*MSC 2000:* 42B35, 42B37, 65T40, 74B05, 74E30
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
Many modern tools and products use composites, i.e. mixtures of two or more materials with distinct elastic properties to obtain certain flexible behaviour, dampening effects, or longevity. Homogenization aims to simplify simulations by replacing the microscopically composed material by a homogeneous one which behaves the same on the macroscopic scale. Mathematically one assumes is a periodic microstructure, i.e. a structure that can be represented by a certain unit cell with periodic boundary conditions.
For the simulation of such elastic composite structures Moulinec and Suquet [@MoulinecSuquet1994; @MoulinecSuquet1994] derive an algorithm based on the fast Fourier transform. This algorithm, called the Basic Scheme, inspired many similar numerical approaches based on using discretised differential operators [@Willot2015; @Schneider2015; @Schneider2016] and extensions to porous media [@Michel2000; @Schneider2016]. Information on sub-structures of the geometry is incorporated into the solution method in [@KMS:2015Homogenization]. The Basic Scheme is generalized to problems of higher order, i.e. derivatives of strain and stiffness [@Tran2012], and the solution of the arising linear system by Krylov subspace methods is analysed in [@ZVNM:2010NumHom].
Vondřejc et.al. [@Vondrejc2014] show that the method of Moulinec and Suquet can also be understood as a Galerkin projection using truncated Fourier series. This idea is generalized in [@BergmannMerkert2016] to anisotropic lattices thus allowing to take directional information on the geometrical structure or the orientation of interfaces between materials into account. Brisard and Dormieux [@BrisardDormieux2010Framework; @BrisardDormieux2012] use constant finite elements to arrive at the Basic Scheme with a modified linear operator, based on an energy based formulation.
In this paper we unify and extend the approaches of Vondřejc et.al., Brisard and Dormieux, and the anisotropic lattice ansatz obtaining a discretisation of the equations for quasi-static elasticity in homogenization in anisotropic spaces of periodic translates. Vondřejc et.al. show that a variational equation and a formulation with the strain as a fixed-point, the so-called Lippmann-Schwinger equation, are equivalent by means of a projection operator derived from the Green operator. This paper introduces a periodised Green operator on the space of translates for the Lippmann-Schwinger equation. Furthermore we classify the properties of this operator in case of spaces of translates and prove that it induces a projection operator if and only if the space of translates is generated by the Dirichlet kernel. Hence the (anisotropic) truncated Fourier series emerges as a case with special properties of the general setting introduced here. This introduces further insight into the equivalence of the variational and the Lippmann-Schwinger equation formulation of Vondřejc et.al. The mathematical framework this paper introduces unifies and analyses the approaches of Fourier methods and finite elements for the first time. Especially using translates of Box splines [@deBoorHoelligRiemenscheider1993BoxSplines] as ansatz functions incorporates the constant finite elements of Brisard and Dormieux allowing also for anisotropic finite elements of arbitrary smoothness. A different approach to solve the equation using linear finite elements with full quadrature is shown in [@Schneider2016] and is based on replacing the continuous differential operator by a discrete one.
Spaces of translates can for example be generated by de la Vallée Poussin means which provide a generalization of the Dirichlet and Fejér kernel. They combine a finite support in frequency domain with good localization in space [@GohGoodman2004]. These functions introduce a trade off between damping of the Gibbs phenomenon and reproduction of multivariate trigonometric monomials. They allow for better predictions of the elastic macroscopic properties of the composite material and result in smoother — and thus better — solutions. Further, different Box splines and their influence on the solution are demonstrated.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. After reviewing important properties of anisotropic spaces of translates in Section \[sec:Preliminaries\] the partial differential equation of quasi-static elasticity in homogenization is introduced in Section \[sec:homogenization\]. Then, the periodised Green operator on spaces of translates is introduced. This operator is subsequently analysed regarding its equivalence to a projection operator and then used to discretise the Lippmann-Schwinger equation. Numerical examples are then provided in Section \[sec:numerics\] and a conclusion is drawn in Section \[sec:summary\].
Preliminaries {#sec:Preliminaries}
=============
Throughout this paper we will employ the following notation: the symbols $a\in\mathbb C$, ${\mathbf{a}}\in\mathbb C^d$ and ${\mathbf{A}}\in\mathbb C^{d\times
d}$ denote scalars, vectors, and matrices, respectively. The only exception from this are $f,g,h$ which are reserved for functions. We denote the inner product of two vectors by ${\mathbf{a}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{b}} \coloneqq\sum_i a_ib_i$ and reserve the symbol $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ for inner products of two functions or two generalized sequences, respectively. For a complex number $a =
b+{{\mathrm{i}}}c$, $b,c\in\mathbb R$, we denote the complex conjugate by $\overline{a} \coloneqq b-{{\mathrm{i}}}c$. Constants like Euler’s number ${{\,\mathrm{e}}}$ or the imaginary unit ${{\mathrm{i}}}$, i.e. ${{\mathrm{i}}}^2 = -1$, are set upright.
Usually, we are concerned with $d$-dimensional data, where $d=2,3$, but the theory is written in arbitrary dimensions. Sets are denoted by capital case calligraphic letters, e.g. $\mathcal P$ or $\mathcal G$ and the same for the Fourier transform $\mathcal F$ which all might depend on parameters given in round brackets. We denote second-order tensors by small Greek letters as $\lambda,\varepsilon$ with entries $\lambda_{ij}$ are indexed again by scalars $i,j$ and similarly we denote fourth-order tensors by capital calligraphic letters, where $\mathcal C$ is the most prominent one.
Arbitrary patterns and the Fourier transform {#subsec:preliminariesFourier}
--------------------------------------------
The space of functions we are concerned with is the Hilbert space $L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d)$ of (equivalence classes of) square integrable functions on the $d$-dimensional torus ${\mathbb{T}}\cong [-\pi,\pi)^d$ with inner product $$ \langle f,g \rangle
=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^d}
\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d}
f({\mathbf{x}})\overline{g({\mathbf{x}})}
{\,\mathrm{d}}{\mathbf{x}},
\qquad
f,g \in L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d)
\text{.}$$ In several cases, the functions of interest are tensor-valued. For these functions, we take the tensor product of the Hilbert space, e.g. $L^2(\mathbb T^d)^{n\times n}$ for the space of functions $f\colon \mathbb T^d \to \mathbb C^{n\times n}$ that have values being $n\times n$-dimensional matrices. The following preliminaries can be generalized to these tensor product spaces by performing the operations element wise. We restrict the following of this subsection therefore to the case of $L^2(\mathbb T^d)$.
Every function $f \in L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d)$ can be written in its Fourier series representation $$\label{eq:fourier-series}
f({\mathbf{x}})
= \sum_{{\mathbf{k}} \in \mathbb Z^d} c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(f){{\,\mathrm{e}}}^{{{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{k}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{x}}},$$ introducing the multivariate Fourier coefficients $c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(f) = \langle f,{{\,\mathrm{e}}}^{{{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{k}}^{\mathrm{T}}\circ}\rangle$, ${\mathbf{k}}\in\mathbb Z^d$. The equality in is meant in $L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d)$ sense. We denote by ${\mathbf{c}}(f)
= \bigl\{c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(f)\bigr\}_{{\mathbf{k}}\in\mathbb Z^d}
\in \ell^2(\mathbb Z^d)$ generalized sequences which form a Hilbert space with the inner product $$ \langle{\mathbf{c}},{\mathbf{d}}\rangle
= \sum_{{\mathbf{k}} \in \mathbb Z^d}c_{{\mathbf{k}}}\overline{d_{{\mathbf{k}}}},
\qquad {\mathbf{c}},{\mathbf{d}}\in \ell^2(\mathbb Z^d)\text{.}$$ The Parseval equation reads $$\langle f, g \rangle
= \langle {\mathbf{c}}(f),{\mathbf{c}}(g) \rangle
= \sum_{{\mathbf{k}} \in \mathbb Z^d} c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(f) \overline{c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(g)}\text{.}
\label{eq:parseval}$$
#### The pattern and the generating set.
For any regular matrix ${\mathbf{M}} \in \mathbb Z^{d\times d}$ we define the congruence relation for ${\mathbf{h}},{\mathbf{k}} \in \mathbb Z^d$ with respect to ${\mathbf{M}}$ by $${\mathbf{h}} \equiv {\mathbf{k}} \bmod {\mathbf{M}}
\Leftrightarrow \exists\,{\mathbf{z}} \in \mathbb Z^d\colon {\mathbf{k}} = {\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}{\mathbf{z}}\text{.}$$ We define the lattice $$\Lambda({\mathbf{M}}) \coloneqq {\mathbf{M}}^{-1}\mathbb Z^d
= \{{\mathbf{y}}\in\mathbb R^d : {\mathbf{M}}{\mathbf{y}} \in \mathbb Z^d\},$$ and the pattern $\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ as any set of congruence representants of the lattice with respect to $\bmod\ {\mathbf{1}}$, e.g. $ \Lambda({\mathbf{M}})\cap[0,1)^d$ or $\Lambda({\mathbf{M}})\cap\bigl[-\tfrac{1}{2},\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^d$. For the rest of the paper we will refer to the set of congruence class representants in the symmetric unit cube $\bigl[-\tfrac{1}{2},\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^d$. The generating set $\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}})$ is defined by $\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}})
\coloneqq {\mathbf{M}}\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ for any pattern $\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$. For both, the number of elements is given by $
\abs{\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
=\abs{\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}})}
=\abs{\det{{\mathbf{M}}}}
\eqqcolon m,
$ which follows directly from [@deBoorHoelligRiemenscheider1993BoxSplines Lemma II.7].
For a regular integer matrix ${\mathbf{M}}\in\mathbb Z^{d\times d}$ and an absolutely summable generalized sequence ${\mathbf{a}} =
\{a_{{\mathbf{k}}}\}_{{\mathbf{k}}\in\mathbb Z^d}$ we further define the *bracket sum* $$\label{eq:bracketsum}
\bigl[{\mathbf{a}}\bigr]_{{\mathbf{k}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}}
\coloneqq
\sum_{{\mathbf{z}}\in\mathbb Z^d} a_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}},
\qquad {\mathbf{k}}\in\mathbb Z^d.$$ The bracket sum is periodic with respect to ${\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}$, i.e., $\bigl[{\mathbf{a}}\bigr]_{{\mathbf{k}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}} = \bigl[{\mathbf{a}}\bigr]_{{\mathbf{k}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}}$ holds for any ${\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{z}}\in\mathbb Z^d$.
#### A fast Fourier transform on patterns.
The discrete Fourier transform on the pattern $\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ is defined [@ChuiLi:1994] by $$\label{eq:Fouriermatrix}
\mathcal F({\mathbf{M}})
\coloneqq
\frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}
\Bigl(
{{\,\mathrm{e}}}^{- 2\pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}
\Bigr)_{ {\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}),\, {\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})},$$ where ${\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$ indicate the rows and ${\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ indicate the columns of the Fourier matrix $\mathcal F({\mathbf{M}})$. The discrete Fourier transform on $\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ is defined for a vector ${\mathbf{a}} = (a_{{\mathbf{y}}})_{{\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}\in\mathbb C^m$ arranged in the same ordering as the columns in by $$\label{eq:FourierTransform}
{\mathbf{\hat a}} = (\hat a_{{\mathbf{h}}})_{{\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
= \mathcal F({\mathbf{M}}){\mathbf{a}},$$ where the resulting vector ${\mathbf{\hat a}}$ is ordered as the columns of $\mathcal F({\mathbf{M}})$ in . Its implementation yields complexity of $\mathcal O(m\log m)$ similar to the classical Fourier transform, when the ordering is fixed as described in [@Bergmann2013FFT Theorem 2]. Note that for the so-called rank-1-lattices, the Fourier transform on the pattern even reduces to a one-dimensional FFT for patterns in arbitrary dimensions [@KaemmererPottsVolkmer2015b].
Translation invariant spaces of periodic functions {#subsec:preliminariesdlVP}
--------------------------------------------------
#### Spaces of translates and interpolation.
A space of functions $V\subset L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d)$ is called ${\mathbf{M}}$-invariant, if for all ${\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ and all functions $f\in V$ the translates $\operatorname{\mathcal T}({{\mathbf{y}}})f\coloneqq f(\cdot-2\pi{\mathbf{y}})\in V$. Especially the space $$V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^{f} \coloneqq \operatorname{span}\bigl\{\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}})f\,:\,
{\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})\bigr\}$$ of translates of $ f $ is $ {\mathbf{M}} $-invariant. A function $g\in V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^f $ is of the form $$ g=\displaystyle\sum_{{\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
a_{{\mathbf{y}}}\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}})f$$ For $ f\in L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d) $ an easy calculation on the Fourier coefficients using the unique decomposition of $ {\mathbf{k}}\in\mathbb Z^d $ into $ {\mathbf{k}} = {\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}} $, $ {\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}), {\mathbf{z}}\in\mathbb Z^d $, yields, that $ g\in V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^f $ holds if and only if [@LangemannPrestin2010WaveletAnalysis Theorem 3.3] $$\label{eq:inTranslates:ck}
c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(g)
= \hat a_{{\mathbf{h}}}c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)
\quad\text{for all }
{\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}), {\mathbf{z}}\in\mathbb Z^d\text{,}$$ holds, where $
{\mathbf{\hat a}}
= \bigl(\hat a_{{\mathbf{h}}}\bigr)_{{\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}(\mathbf{M}^{\mathrm{T}})}
= \sqrt{m}\mathcal F({\mathbf{M}}){\mathbf{a}}
$ denotes the discrete Fourier transform of $
{\mathbf{a}}
= \bigl( a_{{\mathbf{y}}}\bigr)_{{\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}(\mathbf{M})}
\in\mathbb C^m
$, see [@LangemannPrestin2010WaveletAnalysis]. Using the space of trigonometric polynomials on the generating set $ \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}) $, which is denoted by $$\operatorname{\mathcal T}_{{\mathbf{M}}} \coloneqq\Bigl\{f\,:\,
f=
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}a_{{\mathbf{h}}}{{\,\mathrm{e}}}^{{{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}\circ},\ a_{{\mathbf{h}}}\in\mathbb C
\Bigr\}\text{,}$$ we define for a function $ f\in L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d) $ the Fourier partial sum $ \operatorname{S}_{{\mathbf{M}}}f\in\operatorname{\mathcal T}_{{\mathbf{M}}} $ by $$\operatorname{S}_{{\mathbf{M}}}f
\coloneqq
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
c_{{\mathbf{h}}}(f){{\,\mathrm{e}}}^{{{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}\circ}.$$
The discrete Fourier coefficients $c_{{\mathbf{k}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}}(f)$ of a function $f$ that is evaluated pointwise on the pattern $\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ are defined by $$ c_{{\mathbf{h}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}}(f)
\coloneqq
\frac{1}{m}
\sum_{{\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
f(2\pi{\mathbf{y}}){{\,\mathrm{e}}}^{-2\pi{{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}
,\quad{\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})
\text{.}$$ The discrete Fourier coefficients $c_{{\mathbf{h}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}}$ are related to the Fourier coefficients for a function $ f\in A({\mathbb{T}}^d) $, where $A({\mathbb{T}}^d)$ denotes the Wiener Algebra, i.e. the space of functions with absolutely convergent Fourier series. This relation is given in the following Lemma, also known as the aliasing formula, see e.g. [@BergmannPrestin2014Interpolation Lemma 2].
\[lem:Aliasing\] Let $ f\in A({\mathbb{T}}^d) $ and the regular matrix ${\mathbf{M}}\in\mathbb Z^{d\times d}$ be given. Then the discrete Fourier coefficients $ c_{{\mathbf{h}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}}(f) $ are given by $$ c_{{\mathbf{h}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}}(f)
=
\sum_{{\mathbf{z}}\in\mathbb Z^d} c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)
= \bigl[{\mathbf{c}}(f)\bigr]_{{\mathbf{h}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}}
,\quad {\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M)^{\mathrm{T}}}}\text{.}$$
When looking at the space $V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^f$ of translates, the following definition is crucial in order to approximate a function $g$ by using these translates.
\[def:IP\] Let $ {\mathbf{M}}\in\mathbb Z^{d\times d} $ be a regular matrix. A function $ \operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}} \in V_{\mathbf{M}}^\varphi$ is called fundamental interpolant or Lagrange function of $ V_{\mathbf{M}}^\varphi $ if $$\operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}}(2\pi{\mathbf{y}})
\coloneqq \delta_{{\mathbf{0}},{\mathbf{y}}}^{{\mathbf E}_d},
\quad {\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}}),\quad\text{where }
\delta_{{\mathbf{x}},{\mathbf{y}}}^{{\mathbf M}} \coloneqq
\begin{cases}
1, &\text{ if } {\mathbf{y}}\equiv {\mathbf{x}}\bmod{\mathbf M},\\
0, &\text{ else.}
\end{cases}$$
The following lemma characterizes the existence of such a fundamental interpolant in a space $V_{\mathbf{M}}^f$ of translates and collects some properties of the translates themselves, see [@Bergmann2013Thesis Lemma 1.23] and [@BergmannPrestin2014Interpolation Lemma 2].
\[lem:FI:Props\] Given a regular matrix ${\mathbf{M}}\in\mathbb Z^{d\times d}$ and a function $f\in A({\mathbb{T}}^d)$, then the following holds.
1. \[lem:FI:Prosp:Existence\]The fundamental interpolant $\operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}}\in V_{\mathbf{M}}^f$ exists if and only if $$ \bigl[{\mathbf{c}}(f)\bigr]_{{\mathbf{h}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}}
\neq 0\quad\text{ for all }{\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}).$$ If the fundamental interpolant $ \operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}}\in V_{\mathbf{M}}^f $ exists, it is uniquely determined.
2. \[lem:FI:Props:LI\] The set of translates $\bigl\{\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}})f:\ {\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})\bigr\}$ is linear independent if and only if $$\sum_{{\mathbf{z}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\abs{c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)}^2 >0
\quad\text{holds for all }{\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}).$$
3. \[lem:FI:Props:ONB\] The set of translates $\bigl\{\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}})f:\ {\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})\bigr\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^{f}$ if and only if $$\sum_{{\mathbf{z}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\abs{c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)}^2 =
\frac{1}{m}
\quad\text{holds for all }{\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}).$$
4. \[lem:FI:Props:IP\] Given a function $\tilde g\in A({\mathbb{T}}^d)$ we can obtain a function $ g\in V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^{f}$ fulfilling $$\tilde g(2\pi{\mathbf{y}}) = g(2\pi{\mathbf{y}}),\quad {\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}}),$$ provided that the fundamental interpolant exists (which also implies linear independence of the translates on $f$) as $$ \hat a_{{\mathbf{h}}}
= \frac{ \bigl[{\mathbf{c}}(\tilde g)\bigr]_{{\mathbf{h}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}} }{ \bigl[{\mathbf{c}}(f)\bigr]_{{\mathbf{h}}}^{{\mathbf{M}}} },\qquad {\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}),$$ where the coefficients $\hat a_{{\mathbf{h}}}$ yield $g$ in Fourier coefficients by .
By using Lemma \[lem:FI:Props\] changing from sampling values, i.e. the coefficients on the pattern $\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ of the fundamental interpolant, to coefficients with respect to $f$ in the corresponding space $V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^f$ of translates can be done by using the Fourier transform and the Fourier coefficients $c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(f)$ of $f$.
For the remainder of this paper, two special spaces of translates are of interest, the periodised Box splines and the de la Vallée Poussin means.
#### Periodised Box splines. {#par:periodized_box_spline}
Let ${\mathbf{\Xi}} = ({\mathbf{\xi}}_1,\ldots,{\mathbf{\xi}}_s)\in\mathbb R^{d\times s}$ denote a set of column vectors ${\mathbf{\xi}}_i$, $i=1,\ldots,s$, where we assume that these vectors span the $\mathbb R^d$, i.e. especially we have $s\geq d$. Then the *centred Box spline $B^c_{{\mathbf{\Xi}}}$* can be defined via its Fourier transform as $$\widehat B^c_{{\mathbf{\Xi}}}({\mathbf{y}}) = \prod_{{\mathbf{\xi}}\in{\mathbf{\Xi}}} \operatorname{sinc}\bigl(\frac{1}{2}{\mathbf{\xi}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}\bigr),
\qquad
\operatorname{sinc}(t) \coloneqq \frac{\sin(t)}{t},$$ cf. [@deBoorHoelligRiemenscheider1993BoxSplines p. 11]. A Box spline has compact support. For a function $g\colon\mathbb R^d\to\mathbb C$ we can introduce its periodisation $$g_{\mathrm{p}}({\mathbf{x}}) \coloneqq \sum_{{\mathbf{z}}\in\mathbb Z^d} g\bigl(\frac{{\mathbf{x}}}{2\pi} - {\mathbf{z}}\bigr).$$ Its Fourier coefficients can be directly computed from the continuous Fourier transform $\hat g$ of $g$, cf. e.g. [@BergmannPrestin2014Interpolation p. 41], as $$c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(g_{\mathrm{p}}) = \hat g(2\pi{\mathbf{k}}),\quad {\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$$ We combine these two to introduce the *periodised Box Spline* $B_{{\mathbf{\Xi}}}\colon\mathbb T^d\to\mathbb R$ via its Fourier coefficients as $$c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(B_{{\mathbf{\Xi}}}) \coloneqq
\widehat B^c_{{\mathbf{\Xi}}}(2\pi{\mathbf{k}}) = \prod_{\xi\in\Xi} \operatorname{sinc}\bigl(\pi\xi^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{k}}\bigr),\qquad {\mathbf{k}}\in\mathbb Z^d.$$ Finally, we obtain by scaling the *periodised pattern Box Spline* $f_{{\mathbf{M}},{\mathbf{\Xi}}}$ $$f_{{\mathbf{M}},{\mathbf{\Xi}}}({\mathbf{x}}) \coloneqq B_{{\mathbf{\Xi}}}({\mathbf{M}}^{-1}{\mathbf{x}}).$$ Note that its translates might not be linearly independent for an arbitrary set of vectors in ${\mathbf{\Xi}}$, see also [@Poeplau1995]. However, by [@BergmannPrestin2014Interpolation], see also [@deBoorHoelligRiemenschneider1985Interpolation Sect. 4], the matrices ${\mathbf{\Xi}}\in\mathbb R^{d\times (p+q+r)}$ of the form $\xi_1=\ldots,\xi_p=(1,0)^{\mathrm{T}}$, $\xi_{p+1}=\ldots=\xi_{p+q}=(0,1)^{\mathrm{T}}$, and $\xi_{p+q+1}=\ldots=\xi_{p+q+r}=(1,1)^{\mathrm{T}}$, where at least two of the values $p,q,r$ are larger than $0$, induce a periodised pattern Box spline $f_{{\mathbf{M}},\Xi}$ with linear independent translates.
#### De la Vallée Poussin means.
A special case of ${\mathbf{M}}$-invariant spaces are the ones defined via de la Vallée Poussin means, following the construction of [@BergmannPrestin2014dlVP]. We call a function $g\colon\mathbb R^d\to\mathbb R$ *admissible* if the function fulfils
1. $g({\mathbf{x}}) \geq 0$ for all ${\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$,
2. $g({\mathbf{x}}) > 0$ for ${\mathbf{x}}\in\bigl[-\tfrac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})^d$,
3. $\displaystyle\sum_{{\mathbf{z}}\in{\mathbb{Z}}^d} g({\mathbf{x}}+{\mathbf{z}}) = 1$ for all ${\mathbf{x}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$.
This can be for example the Box splines of the form $$ g_{{\mathbf{\alpha}}}({\mathbf{x}})
\coloneqq B_{{\mathbf{\Xi}}}({\mathbf{x}})
,\quad{\mathbf{\Xi}} = \begin{pmatrix}
\operatorname{diag}({\mathbf{\alpha}}) {\mathbf{I}}_d
\end{pmatrix}\in\mathbb R^{d\times 2d},\ {\mathbf{\alpha}}\in[0,1]^d$$ where ${\mathbf{I}}_d$ is the $d$-dimensional unit matrix. In the following we define the de la Vallée Poussin means as follows, which is a special case of [@BergmannPrestin2014dlVP Definition 4.2] setting $l=0$ therein.
\[def:dlVP\] Let ${\mathbf{M}}\in\mathbb Z^{d\times d}$ be a regular matrix and $g$ be an admissible function. The function $f_{{\mathbf{M}},g}$, which is defined by their Fourier coefficients as $$c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(f_{{\mathbf{M}},g}) \coloneqq \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}}g({\mathbf{M}}^{-{\mathrm{T}}}{\mathbf{k}}),
\qquad {\mathbf{k}}\in\mathbb Z^d$$ is called *de la Vallée Poussin mean*.
In case of Box splines $g_{{\mathbf{\alpha}}}$ this generalizes the one-dimensional de la Vallée Poussin means from [@Selig:1998; @PrestinSelig:1998] to arbitrary patterns including the tensor product case for diagonal matrices ${\mathbf{M}}$, which where for example used in [@Sprengel1997]. We will use the short hand notation $f_{{\mathbf{M}},{\mathbf{\alpha}}}\coloneqq f_{{\mathbf{M}},g_{{\mathbf{\alpha}}}}$ and omit $\alpha$ whenever its clear from the context. It is easy to see, that by admissibility of $g$ the fundamental interpolant exists for any de la Vallée Poussin mean $f_{{\mathbf{M}},g}$. The functions $f_{{\mathbf{M}},\alpha}$ generalize the classical de la Vallée Poussin means to higher dimensions and anisotropic patterns, for which examples are shown in Figure \[fig:dlVP\] and explained in the following.
Finally, the [*Dirichlet kernel*]{} $D_{{\mathbf{M}}}$ is defined by using the function $g({\mathbf{x}})$ with $$g({\mathbf{x}}) \coloneqq
\begin{cases}
1, &{\mathbf{x}} \in \bigl[ -\frac12, \frac12 \bigr)^d\\
0, &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}$$ This kernel is comprised in the definition of the generalized de la Vallée Poussin mean as well. Furthermore we obtain the *modified Dirichlet Kernel* $f_{{\mathbf{M}},{\mathbf{0}}}$ as a limiting case of the de la Vallée Poussin case.
As an example we choose ${\mathbf{M}}_1 = \bigl( \begin{smallmatrix}8&0\\0&8\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$ and ${\mathbf{M}}_2= \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 4&-2\\4&14\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. For ${\mathbf{M}}_1$ we obtain the usual rectangular (pixel grid) pattern $\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}}_1)$ while $\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}}_2)$ models a certain anisotropy, cf. [@BergmannMerkert2016 Fig. 2.1]. By further setting $\alpha = \frac{1}{10}\begin{pmatrix}
1&1
\end{pmatrix}^{\mathrm{T}}$ we obtain the de la Vallée Poussin means $f_{{\mathbf{M}}_1,\alpha}$ and $f_{{\mathbf{M}}_2,\alpha}$. Their Fourier coefficients $c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(f_{{\mathbf{M}}_1,\alpha})$ and $c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(f_{{\mathbf{M}}_2,\alpha})$ after orthonormalising the translates, cf. Lemma \[lem:FI:Props\] \[lem:FI:Props:ONB\], are shown in Figs. \[fig:dlVP\] and , respectively. Note that the first results in $64$ translates, while the second determinant is smaller and results in $58$ translates. The functions in time domain are plotted in Figs. \[fig:dlVP\] and , respectively. While the first can also be obtained by a tensor product of one-dimensional de la Vallée Poussin means, cf., e.g. [@Selig:1998], the second one prefers in time domain certain directions due to its anisotropic form.
[.5]{} ![Two different de la Vallée Poussin-means $f_{{\mathbf{M}}_j,\alpha}$, $j=1,2$: their Fourier coefficients (top row) and their plots in time domain (bottom row).[]{data-label="fig:dlVP"}](dlVP1ck "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}
[.5]{} ![Two different de la Vallée Poussin-means $f_{{\mathbf{M}}_j,\alpha}$, $j=1,2$: their Fourier coefficients (top row) and their plots in time domain (bottom row).[]{data-label="fig:dlVP"}](dlVP2ck "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}
[.5]{} ![Two different de la Vallée Poussin-means $f_{{\mathbf{M}}_j,\alpha}$, $j=1,2$: their Fourier coefficients (top row) and their plots in time domain (bottom row).[]{data-label="fig:dlVP"}](dlVP1 "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}
[.5]{} ![Two different de la Vallée Poussin-means $f_{{\mathbf{M}}_j,\alpha}$, $j=1,2$: their Fourier coefficients (top row) and their plots in time domain (bottom row).[]{data-label="fig:dlVP"}](dlVP2 "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}
Homogenization on spaces of translates {#sec:homogenization}
======================================
In the following steps we use anisotropic spaces of translates to discretise the quasi-static equation of linear elasticity in homogenization. First we introduce the necessary spaces and differential operators. With these we can state the partial differential equation we are interested in and two equivalent formulations, a variational equation and the so-called Lippmann-Schwinger equation. These formulations make use of the Green operator $\Gamma^0$. Based on this operator we introduce the periodised Green operator $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}$ and subsequently analyse its properties and special cases. Next we use this operator to discretise the partial differential equation while splitting the derivation into two steps.
The elasticity problem in periodic homogenization
-------------------------------------------------
FFT-based methods for the equations of linear elasticity in homogenization based on the Lippmann-Schwinger equation are first introduced by Moulinec and Suquet [@MoulinecSuquet1994; @MoulinecSuquet1998]. Based on their method, Vondřejc et. al. [@Vondrejc2014] interpret the resulting discretisation as a Galerkin projection using trigonometric sums.
In the following we generalize the interpretation using trigonometric sums to spaces of translates of a periodic function. Therein the trigonometric sums will appear as a special case, namely when choosing the Dirichlet kernel’s translates and a diagonal matrix ${\mathbf{M}}$.
Let $S$ be an arbitrary set, then we introduce the notations $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl( S \bigr) &\coloneqq
\bigl\lbrace
s \in S^{d \times d}: s_{ij} = s_{ji} \in S \text{ for all } i,j=1,\dots,d
\bigr\rbrace
\label{eq:Symd},\\
\operatorname{SSym}_d\bigl( S \bigr) &\coloneqq
\bigl\lbrace
s \in \operatorname{Sym}_d(S) \times \operatorname{Sym}_d(S): s_{ijkl} = s_{klij} \in S\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\text{ for all }i,j,k,l=1,\dots,d\bigr\rbrace.
$$ The space $\operatorname{Sym}_d(S)$ corresponds to symmetric matrices built of elements of $S$ and $\operatorname{SSym}_d(S)$ corresponds to fourth-order tensors ${\mathcal{C}}= \bigl(
{\mathcal{C}}_{ijkl} \bigr)_{ijkl} \in S^{d \times d \times d \times d}$ with minor and major symmetries, i.e. ${\mathcal{C}}_{ijkl} = {\mathcal{C}}_{jikl} =
{\mathcal{C}}_{ijlk} = {\mathcal{C}}_{klij}$.
We endow the space of symmetric matrices $\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl({\mathbb{R}}\bigr)$ with the Frobenius inner product $$ \langle A, B \rangle \coloneqq \sum_{i,j=1}^d
A_{ij}B_{ij},\quad A,B \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl({\mathbb{R}}\bigr).$$
We call a function $\mathcal{A} \in \operatorname{SSym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$ [*uniformly elliptic*]{} if there exist constants $0 < l_{\mathcal{A}^0} \leq
u_{\mathcal{A}^0} < \infty$ such that for almost all functions $\gamma \in
\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$ it holds true that $$ l_{\mathcal{A}^0} \norm{\gamma}^2 \leq
\bigl\langle
\mathcal{A} \gamma, \gamma
\bigr\rangle
\leq u_{\mathcal{A}^0} \norm{\gamma}^2.$$ A uniformly elliptic and constant function $\mathcal{A}^0 \in
\operatorname{SSym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$ can be identified with an element from $\operatorname{SSym}_d\bigl({\mathbb{R}}\bigr)$ and is called [*elliptic*]{} in the following.
The Sobolev space $H^1({\mathbb{T}}^d)$ is defined via Fourier series, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
H^1\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr) &\coloneqq
\bigl\lbrace
f \in L^1({\mathbb{T}}^d): \norm{f}[H^1] < \infty
\bigr\rbrace
\intertext{with the norm}
\norm{f}[H^1] &\coloneqq
\biggl\lVert
\sum_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\bigl(
1 + \norm{k}[2]^2
\bigr)^{\frac12}
c_{\mathbf{k}}(f) e^{{{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{k}}^{\mathrm{T}}\cdot}
\biggr\rVert_{L^2}.\end{aligned}$$
To simplify the equations of linear elasticity and the differential operators occurring therein we additionally introduce for ${\mathbf{u}} \in H^1({\mathbb{T}}^d)^d$ the [*symmetrized gradient operator*]{} $$\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}({\mathbf{u}}) \coloneqq \frac12 \Bigl( \nabla {\mathbf{u}} + \bigl( \nabla
{\mathbf{u}} \bigr)^{\mathrm{T}}\Bigr) \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr),
\label{eq:GradSym}$$ and the [*divergence operator*]{} $\operatorname{div}({\mathbf{u}})$ as the formal $L^2$-adjoint of $\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}({\mathbf{u}})$. The action of the symmetrized gradient operator in Fourier space is for ${\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ given by $$ c_{\mathbf{k}}\bigl(\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}({\mathbf{u}})\bigr) =
\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{\mathbf{k}} c_{\mathbf{k}}({\mathbf{u}}) \coloneqq
\frac{{{\mathrm{i}}}}{2} \bigl({\mathbf{k}} c_{\mathbf{k}}({\mathbf{u}})^{\mathrm{T}}+
c_{\mathbf{k}}({\mathbf{u}}) {\mathbf{k}}^{\mathrm{T}}\bigr).$$
The basic solution space for the PDE we want to analyse is given by [*symmetric gradient fields with zero mean*]{} $$ {\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr) \coloneqq
\Bigl\lbrace
\varepsilon \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr):
\exists {\mathbf{u}} \in H^1\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)^d, \varepsilon = \operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}{\mathbf{u}}
\Bigr\rbrace.$$
With these preparations we can now state the partial differential equation describing [*quasi-static linear elasticity in homogenization*]{}.
\[def:weak\_pde\] Let ${\mathcal{C}}\in
\operatorname{SSym}_d\bigl(L^{\infty}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$ be uniformly elliptic and let $\varepsilon^0 \in
\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl({\mathbb{R}}\bigr)$ be given. We want to find the strain $\varepsilon \in {\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$ such that $$\label{eq:weak_pde}
\bigl\langle
{\mathcal{C}}{:}\varepsilon,\tilde{\gamma}
\bigr\rangle =
-\bigl\langle
{\mathcal{C}}{:}\varepsilon^0,\tilde{\gamma}
\bigr\rangle$$ holds for all $\tilde{\gamma} \in {\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$. With ${\mathcal{C}}{:}\varepsilon$ we hereby denote the product of the fourth-order stiffness tensor ${\mathcal{C}}$ and the second-order strain $\varepsilon$, the symmetry making the order of multiplication irrelevant.
The stiffness distribution ${\mathcal{C}}$ describes the material behaviour and is in practical applications usually a piece-wise constant function. The role of the macroscopic strain $\varepsilon^0$ is that of an overall strain that is applied to the composed material and corresponds to pulling (or compressing) the composite in a certain direction.
For applications one is interested either in the strain field $\varepsilon$ —or derivates like stress or displacements, respectively— or in the so-called [*effective stiffness*]{} of the medium. The overall stiffness behaviour of the composite given by the action of ${\mathcal{C}}^{\mathrm{eff}}\in
\operatorname{SSym}_d\bigl({\mathbb{R}}\bigr)$ on $\varepsilon^0 \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl({\mathbb{R}}\bigr)$ is defined by $${\mathcal{C}}^{\mathrm{eff}}{:}\varepsilon^0 \coloneqq \frac{1}{(2 \pi)^d}
\int_{{\mathbb{T}}^d} {\mathcal{C}}(x) {:}\varepsilon(x) {\,\mathrm{d}}x$$ where $\varepsilon$ is the solution of corresponding to $\varepsilon^0$.
The space of suitable ansatz functions ${\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$ is in practice difficult to work with, especially regarding the discretisation steps that follow. A method to deal with that is introduced by Vondřejc et. al. [@Vondrejc2014]. They derive a projection operator $\Gamma^0 {\mathcal{C}}^0$ with $L^2$-adjoint ${\mathcal{C}}^0 \Gamma^0$ that maps $\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$ onto ${\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$ and thus replaces the structurally complicated space by a simpler one necessitating a more involved PDE. The operator $\Gamma^0$ acts as a second order derivative of a preconditioner that solves the constant coefficient PDE $\operatorname{div}{\mathcal{C}}^0
\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}{\mathbf{u}} = {\mathbf{f}}$. For a derivation of the formula see for example [@MoulinecSuquet1994; @MoulinecSuquet1998; @Schneider2016].
\[def:projection\] For a constant elliptic reference stiffness ${\mathcal{C}}^0 \in
\operatorname{SSym}_d\bigl({\mathbb{R}}\bigr)$ define the [*Green operator*]{} $\Gamma^0 \colon
\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr) \rightarrow {\mathcal{E}}({\mathbb{T}}^d)$ which acts as a Fourier multiplier. Its action on a field $\varepsilon \in
\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$ is given by the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma}
\Gamma^0 {:}\varepsilon &\coloneqq
\sum_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} {:}c_{\mathbf{k}}(\varepsilon)
e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{k}}^{\mathrm{T}}\cdot}
\intertext{with equality in $L^2$-sense and Fourier coefficients}
\nonumber
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} {:}c_{\mathbf{k}}(\varepsilon)
&\coloneqq
\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{\mathbf{k}}
\Bigl(
\overline{\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{\mathbf{k}}}^{\mathrm{T}}{:}{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{\mathbf{k}}
\Bigr)^{-1}
\overline{\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{\mathbf{k}}}^{\mathrm{T}}c_{\mathbf{k}}(\varepsilon),\quad
{\mathbf{k}} \in{\mathbb{Z}}^d.
\end{aligned}$$
This operator allows to reformulate with test functions in $\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$ by projecting them onto the required function space. Further, this additional operator is easy do apply as it acts as a convolution operator, i.e. a Fourier multiplier.
\[def:weak\_pde\_projected\] Let $\varepsilon^0 \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl({\mathbb{R}}\bigr)$, then $\varepsilon \in
{\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$ fulfils $$\bigl\langle
{\mathcal{C}}{:}\varepsilon,\tilde\gamma
\bigr\rangle =
-\bigl\langle
{\mathcal{C}}{:}\varepsilon^0,\tilde\gamma
\bigr\rangle$$ for all $\tilde{\gamma} \in {\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$ if and only if $$\label{eq:weak_pde_projected}
\bigl\langle
{\mathcal{C}}^0 \Gamma^0 {\mathcal{C}}{:}\varepsilon,\gamma
\bigr\rangle =
-\bigl\langle
{\mathcal{C}}^0 \Gamma^0 {\mathcal{C}}{:}\varepsilon^0,\gamma
\bigr\rangle$$ holds true for all $\gamma \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$.
For a proof see [@Vondrejc2014 Proposition 3].
By the properties of the operator $\Gamma^0 {\mathcal{C}}^0$ this equation is equivalent to the so-called [*Lippmann-Schwinger equation*]{} with fixed point $\varepsilon$, cf.[@Vondrejc2014 Lemma 2]:
\[cor:weak\_pde\_projected\_2\] Let $\varepsilon^0 \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl({\mathbb{R}}\bigr)$, then $\varepsilon \in
{\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$ fulfils $$\bigl\langle
{\mathcal{C}}{:}\varepsilon,\tilde\gamma
\bigr\rangle =
-\bigl\langle
{\mathcal{C}}{:}\varepsilon^0,\tilde\gamma
\bigr\rangle$$ for all $\tilde{\gamma} \in {\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$ if and only if $$\label{eq:lippmann-schwinger}
\bigl\langle
\varepsilon +
\Gamma^0 \bigl(
{\mathcal{C}}- {\mathcal{C}}^0
\bigr) {:}\bigl(
\varepsilon + \varepsilon^0
\bigr),
\gamma
\bigr\rangle = 0$$ is fulfilled for all $\gamma \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$.
\[rem:Gamma\_identity\] The proof makes use of the adjoint operator ${\mathcal{C}}^0 \Gamma^0$ and the identity $$\varepsilon - \Gamma^0 {\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\varepsilon = \varepsilon^0
\label{eq:projection_identity}$$ which holds in weak sense. The above identity is equivalent to $\Gamma^0
{\mathcal{C}}^0$ being a projection operator that maps constants to zero. These properties are proven in [@Vondrejc2014 Lemma 2].
With this at hand we can now proceed to discretising the Lippmann-Schwinger equation in a space of translates $V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^f$, $f\in A(\mathbb T^d)$.
The periodised Green operator
-----------------------------
The Lippmann-Schwinger equation is first discretised by Moulinec and Suquet [@MoulinecSuquet1994; @MoulinecSuquet1998] using a Fourier collocation scheme, cf. [@ZVNM:2010NumHom]. The resulting fixed point algorithm inspired many publications, for an overview see for example [@Mishra2016].
In contrast, Vondřejc et. al. [@Vondrejc2014] employ a Galerkin projection of using trigonometric polynomials as ansatz functions and obtain the same discretisation. In the following we want to generalize this approach to spaces of translates on anisotropic lattices.
Throughout this section ${\mathbf{M}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^{d \times d}$ denotes a regular pattern matrix that defines a translation invariant space $V_{\mathbf{M}}^f$ spanned by the translates $\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) f$, ${\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$, such that a fundamental interpolant exists, see Lemma \[lem:FI:Props\] \[lem:FI:Prosp:Existence\]. Especially, this implies that the translates $\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) f$ of $f$ are linearly independent.
This fundamental interpolant is denoted by $\operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}} \in V_{\mathbf{M}}^f$, i.e. there exist coefficients $\hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}}$, ${\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$ such that $$\label{eq:fundamental_coeff}
c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(\operatorname{I}_{{\mathbf{M}}}) =
\hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)$$ holds true for all ${\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$ and ${\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$.
From now on we assume for functions $\gamma
\in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(V^f_{\mathbf{M}} \bigr)$ that $$\gamma = \sum_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
G_{\mathbf{y}} \operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) f$$ holds true. We further denote the discrete Fourier transform of ${\mathbf{G}}
= (G_{{\mathbf{y}}})_{{\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}$ by ${\mathbf{\hat G}} = (\hat G_{{\mathbf{h}}})_{{\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})} = \operatorname{\mathcal F}({\mathbf{M}}){\mathbf{G}}$
A Galerkin projection of onto the space of translates requires the definition of a Green operator similar to Definition \[def:projection\]. To account for the finite dimensional space $V_{\mathbf{M}}^f$ the operator $\Gamma^0$ has to be periodised in frequency domain.
\[def:gamma\_tilde\_fourier\] We call the Fourier multiplier $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}$ the [*periodised Green operator on $V^f_{\mathbf{M}}$*]{} and define its action onto a field $\gamma \in
\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(V^f_{\mathbf{M}}\bigr)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gamma_tilde_fourier}
\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{:}\gamma
&\coloneqq
\sum_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{y}} {:}G_{\mathbf{y}} \operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) f.
\intertext{In terms of Fourier sums this is the same as}
\nonumber
\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{:}\gamma
&\coloneqq
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\hat{\Gamma}^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{h}} {:}\hat{G}_{\mathbf{h}}
c_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}(f) e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}\cdot}
\intertext{with Fourier coefficients}
\nonumber
\hat{\Gamma}^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{h}} {:}\hat{G}_{\mathbf{h}}
&\coloneqq
m \Bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} \abs{c_{\mathbf{k}}(f)}^2
\bigr\rbrace_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\Bigr]^{\mathbf{M}}_{\mathbf{h}} {:}\hat{G}_{\mathbf{h}},\ {\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}).
\end{aligned}$$
#### Properties of the periodised Green operator.
In the trigonometric collocation case of Vondřejc et.al. [@Vondrejc2014] the Green operator keeps the same form after discretisation, i.e. a restriction of the Fourier series to a bounded cube. This also holds true for the generalization to anisotropic patterns [@BergmannMerkert2016] where the cube is replaced by a parallelotope, i.e. to the set $\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$. The properties of the Green operator and the projection operator $\Gamma^0
{\mathcal{C}}^0$ are shown via properties of its Fourier coefficients. Hence, the proofs in the continuous and the discretised case can be done analogously. This is no longer the case for the approach using translation invariant spaces.
The operator $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0$ has the $L^2$-adjoint ${\mathcal{C}}^0
\Gamma^p$.
The proof for $\Gamma^0 {\mathcal{C}}^0$ in [@Vondrejc2014 Lemma 2 (ii)] relies purely on the symmetry of the operator. This symmetry is preserved by the periodised Green operator $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0$ and therefore the proof is analogous.
Vondřejc et. al. introduce the operator $\Gamma^0 {\mathcal{C}}^0$ to project functions in $\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$ onto ${\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$. The operator $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0$ has similar properties and maps onto the respective discretised versions of these spaces.
For all $\gamma \in \operatorname{Sym}_d \bigl(V_{\mathbf{M}}^f \bigr)$ is holds true that $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\gamma \in {\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr) \cap
\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(V_{\mathbf{M}}^f\bigr)$.
For ${\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ we have that $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl(\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\gamma\bigr)({\mathbf{y}}) &=
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\hat{\Gamma}^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{h}}{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}(f)
e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}\\
&= \sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
m\bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} \abs{c_{\mathbf{k}}(f)}^2
\bigr\rbrace_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\bigr]_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}
{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}(f)
e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ First, observe this can be rewritten with $$\tilde{G}_{\mathbf{h}} \coloneqq
m\bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} \abs{c_{\mathbf{k}}(f)}^2
\bigr\rbrace_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\bigr]_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}
{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\hat G_{\mathbf{h}}$$ for ${\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$ as $$\bigl(\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\gamma\bigr)({\mathbf{y}})
= \sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\tilde{G}_{\mathbf{h}} c_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}(f)
e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}.$$ Using the result is a function in $\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl( V_{\mathbf{M}}^f \bigr)$.
Expanding the bracket sum and the Green operator $\Gamma^0$ and yields $$\begin{aligned}
\bigl(\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\gamma\bigr)({\mathbf{y}})
&= \sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
m \sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\abs{c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)}^2
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}
{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}(f)
e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}\\
&= \sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
m \sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\abs{c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)}^2
\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}\\
&\qquad \times \bigl(
\overline{\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}}^{\mathrm{T}}{:}{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}
\bigr)^{-1}
\overline{\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}}^{\mathrm{T}}\\
&\qquad \times {\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}(f)
e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ We define new Fourier coefficients $$\begin{aligned}
c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}({\mathbf{\tilde{u}}})
\coloneqq
&\,m
\abs{c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)}^2
\bigl(
\overline{\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}}^{\mathrm{T}}{:}{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}
\bigr)^{-1}
\overline{\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}}^{\mathrm{T}}\\
&\quad \times{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}(f).
\end{aligned}$$ With the decomposition ${\mathbf{k}} = {\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}$ for ${\mathbf{h}}\in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$ and ${\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ the Fourier coefficients from the formula above can be collected with respect to congruence classes of the generating set $\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}$ and this yields $$\bigl(\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\gamma\bigr)({\mathbf{y}})
= \sum_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{k} c_{\mathbf{k}}({\mathbf{\tilde{u}}})
e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{k}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}$$ for ${\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$.
We finally take a closer look at the Fourier series $$\label{eq:GradSym_series}
\sum_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
c_{\mathbf{k}}({\mathbf{\tilde{u}}})
e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{k}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}$$ and analyse its convergence. With $f \in A({\mathbb{T}}^d) \subset L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d)$ and because the Fourier coefficients $c_{\mathbf{h}}(\gamma)$ and $c_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}(f)$ depend only on ${\mathbf{h}} \in
\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$ and not on ${\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ the Fourier series $$\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})} \sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
m \abs{ c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f) }^2
{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}(f)
e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}({\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}})^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}$$ converges and the result is at least in $\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(L^2\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$. When we apply the differential operators $\overline{\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{\mathbf{k}}}^{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\bigl(\overline{\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{\mathbf{k}}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathcal{C}}^0 \operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}_{\mathbf{k}}
\bigr)^{-1}$ we differentiate the $L^2$ function once and integrate twice. The resulting function of interest is at least once weakly differentiable, i.e. in $H^1({\mathbb{T}}^d)^d$. Thus, another application of $\operatorname{\operatorname{\nabla}_{\mathrm{Sym}}}$ is admissible and the Fourier series converges. Further is a gradient field with mean zero, cf. , and the proof is concluded.
A special choice for the space $V^f_{\mathbf{M}}$ comes from using the Dirichlet kernel $D_{{\mathbf{M}}}$, where $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}$ coincides with $\Gamma^0$, which also occurs in the derivation in [@MoulinecSuquet1998].
\[thm:CoincidenceGamma0GammaP\] For the Dirichlet kernel $D_{{\mathbf{M}}}$ the periodised Green operator $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}$ of on $V^{D_{{\mathbf{M}}}}_{\mathbf{M}}$ coincides with the Green operator $\Gamma^0$.
When we insert the formula for the Dirichlet kernel $D_{{\mathbf{M}}}$ into , the sum reduces to one single term which is exactly $\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}}$ and thus the proof is completed.
In contrast to the operator $\Gamma^0 {\mathcal{C}}^0$, the periodised Green operator $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0$ corresponding to $V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^f$ is in general no longer a projection.
The periodised Green operator $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0$ corresponding to $V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^f$ is a projection operator if and only if $V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^f=V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^{D_{{\mathbf{M}}}}$, i.e. iff either $f$ or (one of) its orthonormalised translates is the Dirichlet kernel $D_{{\mathbf{M}}}$.
Consider for a field $\gamma \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(V_{\mathbf{M}}^f\bigr)$ the Fourier series $$\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\hat{\Gamma}^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{h}} {\mathcal{C}}^0
\hat{\Gamma}^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{h}} {\mathcal{C}}^0
\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}(f)
e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}$$ for ${\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ and insert the definition of the periodised Green operator to get $$\label{eq:Gamma_projection}
\begin{split}
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\sum_{{\mathbf{z}},{\mathbf{z}}' \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
m^2&
\abs{c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)}^2
\abs{c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}'}(f)}^2
\\
&\times\
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}
{\mathcal{C}}^0
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}'}
{\mathcal{C}}^0
\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}}(f)
e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}.
\end{split}$$ From [@Vondrejc2014 Lemma 2 (iii)] we know that for ${\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ we have that $\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} {\mathcal{C}}^0 \hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}}
{\mathcal{C}}^0 = \hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} {\mathcal{C}}^0$, i.e. that ${\mathcal{C}}^0 \Gamma^0$ is a projection. This does not hold true for the mixed terms in , i.e. summands with ${\mathbf{z}} \neq
{\mathbf{z}}'$. These only vanish if $c_{{\mathbf{k}}}(f) = 0$ for ${\mathbf{k}} \not\in
\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$, i.e. $f\in V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^{D_{{\mathbf{M}}}}$, cf. Theorem \[thm:CoincidenceGamma0GammaP\]
Hence $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}$ is a projection if and only if $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}= \Gamma^0$ with respect to the corresponding generating set $\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$. In addition the periodised Green operator $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0$ is bounded with the same bound as $\Gamma^0{\mathcal{C}}^0$.
Let the translates of $f$ be orthonormal and let ${\mathcal{C}}^0 \in
\operatorname{SSym}_d\bigl({\mathbb{R}}\bigr)$ be elliptic with constants $0 < l_{{\mathcal{C}}^0} \leq
u_{{\mathcal{C}}^0} < \infty$. Then the periodised Green operator $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0$ corresponding to $V^f_{\mathbf{M}}$, is bounded by $$\norm[\bigl]{\Gamma^p {\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\gamma}[\operatorname{Sym}_d(L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d))]^2 \leq
\frac{u_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}{l_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}
\norm{\gamma}[\operatorname{Sym}_d(L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d))]$$ for all $\gamma \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl( V^f_{\mathbf{M}} \bigr)$.
The Parseval equation together with the splitting ${\mathbf{k}} = {\mathbf{h}} +
{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}$ with ${\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$ and ${\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\norm[\bigl]{
\Gamma^p {\mathcal{C}}^0 &{:}\gamma
}[\operatorname{Sym}_d(L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d))]^2
\\
&=
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\norm[\bigl]{
\hat{\Gamma}^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{h}} {\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)
}^2\\
&=
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\norm[\biggl]{
m
\Bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} \abs{c_{\mathbf{k}}(f)}^2
\bigr\rbrace_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\Bigr]^{\mathbf{M}}_{\mathbf{h}}
{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)
}^2.
\end{aligned}$$ The Cauchy-Schwarz theorem together with inserting the formula for the bracket sums bounds this expression from above by $$\begin{split}
\norm[\bigl]{\Gamma^p {\mathcal{C}}^0 &{:}\gamma}[\operatorname{Sym}_d(L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d))]^2
\\&\leq
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
m^2
\sum_{{\mathbf{z'}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\norm[\bigl]{\hat{\Gamma}^0_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z'}}} {\mathcal{C}}^0
{:}\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)
}
\abs{c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z'}}}(f)}^4
\end{split}$$ A standard estimate for $\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}}$ with ${\mathbf{k}} \in
{\mathbb{Z}}^d$ is $\norm{\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}}}^2 \leq
\frac{1}{l_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}$, see e.g. [@Vondrejc2014]. This leads to $$\begin{split}
\norm[\bigl]{\Gamma^p {\mathcal{C}}^0 &{:}\gamma}[\operatorname{Sym}_d(L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d))]^2
\\&\leq
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
m^2
\frac{u_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}{l_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}
\norm{\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)}^2
\sum_{{\mathbf{z'}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\abs{c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z'}}}(f)}^4
\end{split}$$ and Jensen’s inequality together with Lemma \[lem:FI:Props\] \[lem:FI:Props:ONB\] results in $$\begin{aligned}
\norm[\bigl]{\Gamma^p {\mathcal{C}}^0 &{:}\gamma}[\operatorname{Sym}_d(L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d))]^2
\\&\leq
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
m^2
\frac{u_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}{l_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}
\norm{\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)}^2
\bigl(
\sum_{{\mathbf{z'}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\abs{c_{{\mathbf{h}}+{\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z'}}}(f)}^2
\bigr)^2\\
&=
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
m^2
\frac{u_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}{l_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}
\norm{\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)}^2
m^{-2}.
\end{aligned}$$ With another application of the Parseval equation the desired estimate $$\begin{split}
\norm[\bigl]{\Gamma^p {\mathcal{C}}^0 &{:}\gamma}[\operatorname{Sym}_d(L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d))]^2
\\&\leq
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\frac{u_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}{l_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}
\norm{\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)}^2
=
\frac{u_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}{l_{{\mathcal{C}}^0}}
\norm{\gamma}[\operatorname{Sym}_d(L^2({\mathbb{T}}^d))]^2.
\end{split}$$ is obtained.
The computation of the Green operator $\Gamma^p$ on $V^f_{\mathbf{M}}$ involves computing the value of the series $$m\sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}
\abs{c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)}^2$$ for all ${\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$. This evaluation simplifies for functions $f$ having compact support in the frequency domain and where the series reduces to a sum over finitely many terms. In this case the operator can be evaluated exactly, i.e. without introducing any additional numerical error. This is the case for example for de la Vallée Poussin means, where each sum only consists of up to $4$ terms.
Functions that have compact support in space no longer allow for an exact evaluation of $\Gamma^p$. An example are Box splines in space domain which can be interpreted as finite elements integrated by only one quadrature point. In addition, the Box splines allow for finite elements which have different degrees of differentiability in directions other than the grid.
Brisard and Dormieux [@BrisardDormieux2010Framework] derive a Green operator from an energy based formulation using a discretisation with element-wise constant finite elements. Their Green operator corresponds to using a Box spline of order zero in the approach here and is thus contained in the framework.
Discretisation of the Lippmann-Schwinger equation
-------------------------------------------------
With the definition of the periodised Green operator $\Gamma^p$ we can now proceed to derive a corresponding discretisation of the Lippmann-Schwinger equation. This derivation is split into two theorems. The discretised version of the space ${\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$ is given by $${\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{M}}^f\bigl( {\mathbb{T}}^d \bigr) \coloneqq
\bigl\lbrace
\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(V_{\mathbf{M}}^f \bigr): \varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} \text{
interpolates } \varepsilon \in {\mathcal{E}}\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr) \text{ on }
\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})
\bigr\rbrace.$$ This space allows to state the discretised version of the PDE correctly. For the following theorems we assume that $\bigl({\mathcal{C}}-
{\mathcal{C}}^0 \bigr) {:}(\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} + \varepsilon^0) \in
\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl({A}({\mathbb{T}}^d)\bigr)$ for $\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} \in
{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{M}}^f\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$ so an interpolation on $\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(
V_{\mathbf{M}}^f \bigr)$ is possible with $$ \Bigl(
\bigl({\mathcal{C}}- {\mathcal{C}}^0
\bigr){:}\bigl(\varepsilon + \varepsilon^0\bigr)
\Bigr)({\mathbf{x}}) =
\sum_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
B_{\mathbf{y}} \operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) \operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}}({\mathbf{x}})$$ for all ${\mathbf{x}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$.
Additionally, a test functions $\gamma$ can be written as $$\label{eq:testfunction_factors}
\gamma = \sum_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
G_{\mathbf{y}} \operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) f$$ with ${\mathbf{G}}
= (G_{{\mathbf{y}}})_{{\mathbf{y}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}\in\mathbb C^m$ and its discrete Fourier transform by ${\mathbf{\hat G}} = (\hat G_{{\mathbf{h}}})_{{\mathbf{h}}\in\operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})} = \operatorname{\mathcal F}({\mathbf{M}}){\mathbf{G}}$.
Let the strain $\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} \in {\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{M}}^f\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$ be written in terms of translates of the fundamental interpolant as $$ \varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} =
\sum_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
E_{\mathbf{y}}
\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) \operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}}$$ and again the discrete Fourier transform of the coefficient vector as ${\mathbf{\hat E}} = \operatorname{\mathcal F}({\mathbf{M}}){\mathbf{E}}$.
\[thm:pde\_interpolation\] Let the translates of $f$ be orthonormal, let $\bigl({\mathcal{C}}-
{\mathcal{C}}^0 \bigr) {:}(\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} + \varepsilon^0) \in
\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl({A}({\mathbb{T}}^d)\bigr)$, let $\gamma \in
\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(V^f_{\mathbf{M}} \bigr)$, and $\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} \in
{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{M}}^f\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$. Then it holds $$\label{eq:pde_interpolation}
\begin{split}
\bigl\langle
\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} &+
\Gamma^0 \bigl(
{\mathcal{C}}- {\mathcal{C}}^0
\bigr) {:}\bigl(
\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} + \varepsilon^0
\bigr),
\gamma
\bigr\rangle
\\&=
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\frac{1}{m}
\bigl\langle
\hat E_{\mathbf{h}} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}},
\hat G_{\mathbf{h}}
\bigr\rangle +
\Biggl\langle
\hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}}
\Bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} \abs{c_{\mathbf{k}}(f)}^2
\bigr\rbrace_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\Bigr]^{\mathbf{M}}_{\mathbf{h}}
\hat B_{\mathbf{h}},
\hat G_{\mathbf{h}}
\Biggr\rangle.
\end{split}$$
Starting with the left-hand side of applying the Parseval equation to transform it to Fourier space yields the equal form $$\sum_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\bigl\langle
c_{\mathbf{k}}(\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}}) +
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}}
c_{\mathbf{k}} \Bigl(
\bigl({\mathcal{C}}- {\mathcal{C}}^0 \bigr) {:}\bigl( \varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} + \varepsilon^0 \bigr)
\Bigr),
c_{\mathbf{k}}(\gamma)
\bigr\rangle,$$ where we make use of . Equation together with the formula for the translate coefficients of the fundamental interpolant and the splitting ${\mathbf{k}} =
{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}$ with ${\mathbf{k}},{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d$ and ${\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$ results in the expressions $$\begin{aligned}
c_{\mathbf{k}}
\Bigl(
\bigl({\mathcal{C}}- {\mathcal{C}}^0 \bigr) {:}\bigl(\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} + \varepsilon^0\bigr)
\Bigr) &=
\hat B_{\mathbf{h}} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}}
c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f),\\
c_{\mathbf{k}}(\gamma) &=
\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f),\\
c_{\mathbf{k}}(\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}}) &=
\hat E_{\mathbf{h}} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f).
\end{aligned}$$ Inserting these equations into the expression above yields $$\begin{split}
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\sum_{{\mathbf{z}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\bigl\langle&
\hat E_{\mathbf{h}} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f),
\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)
\bigr\rangle
\\&\quad+
\bigl\langle
\Gamma^0_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}
\hat B_{\mathbf{h}} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}}
c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f),
\hat G_{\mathbf{h}} c_{{\mathbf{h}} + {\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{z}}}(f)
\bigr\rangle.
\end{split}$$ Collecting the terms depending on ${\mathbf{z}}$ and employing the bracket sums to simplify the expression, one obtains $$\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\Bigl\langle
\hat E_{\mathbf{h}} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}}
\bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\abs{ c_{\mathbf{k}}(f) }^2
\bigr\rbrace
\bigr]_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}},
\hat G_{\mathbf{h}}
\Bigr\rangle +
\Biggl\langle
\hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}}
\Bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} \abs{c_{\mathbf{k}}(f)}^2
\bigr\rbrace_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\Bigr]^{\mathbf{M}}_{\mathbf{h}}
\hat B_{\mathbf{h}},
\hat G_{\mathbf{h}}
\Biggr\rangle.$$ Since by assumption translates of $f$ are orthonormal they fulfil $
\bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\abs{ c_{\mathbf{k}}(f) }^2
\bigr\rbrace
\bigr]_{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathbf{M}} = \frac{1}{m}
$ by Lemma \[lem:FI:Props\] \[lem:FI:Props:ONB\] and we get the desired result.
The following theorem states the result of a Galerkin projection of onto the space of translates.
\[thm:pde\_discretization\] Let the translates of $f$ be orthonormal, let ${\mathcal{C}}\in
\operatorname{SSym}_d\bigl(A\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$, and let $ \varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} \in
{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{M}}^f\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$. Then $\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}}$ fulfils the weak form $$\label{eq:weak_pde_projected_1}
\bigl\langle
\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} +
\Gamma^0 \bigl(
{\mathcal{C}}- {\mathcal{C}}^0
\bigr) {:}\bigl(
\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} + \varepsilon^0
\bigr),
\gamma
\bigr\rangle = 0$$ for all $\gamma \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl( V_{\mathbf{M}}^f \bigr)$ if and only if $$\label{eq:pde_coefficients}
\sum_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
\Bigl(
E_{\mathbf{y}} +
\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{y}}
\bigl({\mathcal{C}}({\mathbf{y}}) - {\mathcal{C}}^0 \bigr) {:}\bigl( E_{\mathbf{y}} + \varepsilon^0 \bigr)
\Bigr)
\bigl(\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) \operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}} \bigr)({\mathbf{x}}) = {\mathbf{0}}$$ for all ${\mathbf{x}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$, where $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{y}}$ is defined in Definition \[def:gamma\_tilde\_fourier\].
With $\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} \in {\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{M}}^f\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr) \subset
\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl( V_{\mathbf{M}}^f \bigr) \subset \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(A({\mathbb{T}}^d)\bigr)$ and ${\mathcal{C}}\in \operatorname{SSym}_d\bigl(A\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$ it follows that $\bigl( {\mathcal{C}}- {\mathcal{C}}^0 \bigr) {:}(\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} +
\varepsilon^0) \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(A({\mathbb{T}}^d)\bigr)$ and hence the assumptions of Theorem \[thm:pde\_interpolation\] are fulfilled. Therefore is equivalent to $$\label{eq:pde_interpolation_eq}
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\frac{1}{m}
\bigl\langle
\hat E_{\mathbf{h}} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}},
\hat G_{\mathbf{h}}
\bigr\rangle +
\Biggl\langle
\hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}}
\Bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} \abs{c_{\mathbf{k}}(f)}^2
\bigr\rbrace_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\Bigr]^{\mathbf{M}}_{\mathbf{h}}
\hat B_{\mathbf{h}},
\hat G_{\mathbf{h}}
\Biggr\rangle = 0,$$ with the notation from . A necessary and sufficient condition for to hold true is that it is fulfilled for all $$\hat G_{{\mathbf{h}},{\mathbf{y}},p,q} \coloneqq \beta_{pq} \bigl(
\alpha_p \alpha_q^{\mathrm{T}}+
\alpha_q \alpha_p^{\mathrm{T}}\bigr) {{\,\mathrm{e}}}^{-2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}$$ for all ${\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})$ and ${\mathbf{y}} \in
\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ and $p,q \in \lbrace 1,\dots,d \rbrace$. The vector $\alpha_p \in {\mathbb{R}}^d$ denotes the $p$-th unit vector and $\beta_{pq} \coloneqq 1-\frac12 \delta_{pq}$ normalizes the resulting matrix. This parametrization is the trigonometric basis of $\operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl(V_{\mathbf{M}}^f\bigr)$ on the pattern $\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$.
Hence an equivalent condition stems from looking at component-wise, i.e. $$\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\frac{1}{m} \hat E_{\mathbf{h}} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}} e^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}} +
\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}}
\Bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} \abs{c_{\mathbf{k}}(f)}^2
\bigr\rbrace_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\Bigr]^{\mathbf{M}}_{\mathbf{h}}
\hat B_{\mathbf{h}}
{{\,\mathrm{e}}}^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}} = {\mathbf{0}},$$ bearing in mind the necessary complex conjugate, for all ${\mathbf{y}} \in
\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$. This, however, is an inverse discrete Fourier transform on the pattern $\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ and together with Definition \[def:gamma\_tilde\_fourier\] and setting $$\hat{\tilde B}_{\mathbf{h}} \coloneqq
m
\Bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} \abs{c_{\mathbf{k}}(f)}^2
\bigr\rbrace_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\Bigr]^{\mathbf{M}}_{\mathbf{h}}
\hat B_{\mathbf{h}}
= \hat{\Gamma}^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{h}} \hat B_{\mathbf{h}}$$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{m}&\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\bigl(
\hat E_{\mathbf{h}} +
\hat{\tilde B}_{\mathbf{h}}
\bigr)
\hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}} {{\,\mathrm{e}}}^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}
\\&=
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\biggl(
\hat E_{\mathbf{h}} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}}+
\hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}} {\mathcal{C}}^0 m
\Bigl[
\bigl\lbrace
\hat{\Gamma}^0_{\mathbf{k}} \abs{c_{\mathbf{k}}(f)}^2
\bigr\rbrace_{{\mathbf{k}} \in {\mathbb{Z}}^d}
\Bigr]^{\mathbf{M}}_{\mathbf{h}} {:}\hat B_{\mathbf{h}}
\biggr)
{{\,\mathrm{e}}}^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}\\
&=
\frac{1}{m}\sum_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}
\Bigl(
\hat E_{\mathbf{h}} \hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}} +
\hat{a}_{\mathbf{h}}
\hat{\Gamma}^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{h}}
\hat B_{\mathbf{h}}
\Bigr)
{{\,\mathrm{e}}}^{2 \pi {{\mathrm{i}}}{\mathbf{h}}^{\mathrm{T}}{\mathbf{y}}}.
\end{aligned}$$ The coefficients $\bigl(
\tilde B_{\mathbf{y}}
\bigr)_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
\coloneqq \frac{1}{\sqrt{m}} \overline{\operatorname{\mathcal F}}({\mathbf{M}})^{\mathrm{T}}\bigl(
\hat{\tilde B}_{\mathbf{h}}
\bigr)_{{\mathbf{h}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal G}({\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}})}$ can now be interpreted as coefficients of translates of the fundamental interpolant, i.e. it holds $$\sum_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
\bigl(
E_{\mathbf{y}} +
\tilde B_{\mathbf{y}}
\bigr)
\bigl(\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) \operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}}\bigr)({\mathbf{x}}) =
{\mathbf{0}}$$ for all ${\mathbf{x}} \in {\mathbb{T}}^d$. By Definition \[def:gamma\_tilde\_fourier\] the operator $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}$ acts as a Fourier multiplier with Fourier coefficients . This transforms the above equation to $$\sum_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
\Bigl(
E_{\mathbf{y}} +
\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{y}} B_{\mathbf{y}}
\Bigr)
\bigl(\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) \operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}}\bigr)({\mathbf{x}}) = {\mathbf{0}}.$$ The coefficients $B_{\mathbf{y}}$ were chosen such that they coincide with the function values of $
\bigl(
{\mathcal{C}}({\mathbf{y}}) - {\mathcal{C}}^0
\bigr)
{:}\bigl(
\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}}({\mathbf{y}}) + \varepsilon^0
\bigr)$ at points ${\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$. Likewise, $\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}}$ coincides in the points ${\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$ with the coefficients $E_{\mathbf{y}}$. Inserting these relations one obtains $$\sum_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
\Bigl(
E_{\mathbf{y}} +
\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{y}}
\bigl({\mathcal{C}}({\mathbf{y}}) - {\mathcal{C}}^0 \bigr) {:}\bigl( E_{\mathbf{y}} + \varepsilon^0 \bigr)
\Bigr)
\bigl(\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) \operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}} \bigr)({\mathbf{x}}) = {\mathbf{0}}$$ which yields the desired result.
When discretising the PDE in a similar way, one arrives at the following discretised form.
\[thm:ls\_discretization\] Let the translates of $f$ be orthonormal and let ${\mathcal{C}}\in
\operatorname{SSym}_d\bigl(A\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)\bigr)$ and let $ \varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}}
\in {\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{M}}^f\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$. Then $\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}}$ fulfils the weak form $$ \bigl\langle
{\mathcal{C}}^0
\Gamma^0
{\mathcal{C}}{:}\bigl(
\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} + \varepsilon^0
\bigr),
\gamma
\bigr\rangle = 0$$ for all $\gamma \in \operatorname{Sym}_d\bigl( V_{\mathbf{M}}^f \bigr)$ if and only if $$\label{eq:pde_coefficients_variational}
\sum_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
{\mathcal{C}}^0 \Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}_{\mathbf{y}}
{\mathcal{C}}({\mathbf{y}}) {:}\bigl( E_{\mathbf{y}} + \varepsilon^0 \bigr)
\bigl(\operatorname{\mathcal T}({\mathbf{y}}) \operatorname{I}_{\mathbf{M}} \bigr)({\mathbf{x}}) = {\mathbf{0}}$$ for all ${\mathbf{x}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$.
The proof follows the same steps as for the Theorems \[thm:pde\_interpolation\] and \[thm:pde\_discretization\] and we omit it therefore.
In Remark \[rem:Gamma\_identity\] we already mentioned that in the continuous case the Lippmann-Schwinger equation and the variational equation coincide. This is, as shown in [@Vondrejc2014], also the case when using trigonometric collocation for the discretisation. With the equations and using spaces of translates this is in general no longer the case. When looking at the identity one can see this rather quickly.
\[rem:constants\] For $\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} \in {\mathcal{E}}_{\mathbf{M}}^f\bigl({\mathbb{T}}^d\bigr)$ it holds true that $$\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} - \Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0 {:}\varepsilon_{\mathbf{M}} =
\varepsilon^0$$ almost everywhere if and only if $V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^f=V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^{D_{{\mathbf{M}}}}$, i.e. if $f$ can be written as a sum of translates of the Dirichlet kernel $D_{{\mathbf{M}}}$.
The proof in [@Vondrejc2014 Proposition 3] uses that $\Gamma^0
{\mathcal{C}}^0$ projects a constant function $g$ onto the function that is $0$ almost everywhere, i.e. it is only characterized by the Fourier coefficient $c_{\mathbf{0}}(g)$. When interpolating in $V^f_{\mathbf{M}}$ this is in general no longer the case and an application of $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0$ does not result in the zero function.
![A diagram of connections between the Lippmann-Schwinger equation (LS) in and the variational equation (VE) in for different discretisations. The term $\operatorname{diag}({\mathbf{m}})$ with ${\mathbf{m}} \in \mathbb N^d$ denotes a diagonal matrix and thus $D_{\operatorname{diag}({\mathbf{m}})}$ is the Dirichlet kernel on a tensor product grid.[]{data-label="fig:diagram"}](diagram)
The connections between the variational formulation and the Lippmann-Schwinger equation and their discretisations on spaces of translates are summarized in Figure \[fig:diagram\]. The continuous equations are shown to be equivalent in [@Vondrejc2014 Proposition 3]. The same holds also true for the equations discretised on $V_{\mathbf{M}}^f$ if and only if $V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^f=V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^{D_{{\mathbf{M}}}}$ For the special case $f = D_{\mathbf{M}}$ and ${\mathbf{M}}$ a diagonal matrix, i.e. for a tensor product grid, this equivalence is already proven in [@Vondrejc2014 Proposition 12]. Box splines allow to solve the equations in terms of (simplified) finite elements, which generalizes the constant finite element approach of [@BrisardDormieux2010Framework]. This emerges when discretising the Lippmann-Schwinger equation with $f=B_{\operatorname{Id}}$.
Numerics {#sec:numerics}
========
In this section we study the effect of choosing different functions for the translation invariant spaces to illustrate the capabilities of the generalization presented in this paper. In the publication [@BergmannMerkert2016] the authors study the influence of different patterns on the solution quality and their numerical effects.
A prototypical structure that is introduced in [@BergmannMerkert2016] is the generalized Hashin structure, a geometry that is based on publications of Milton, see [@Milton2002]. It consists of two confocal ellipses embedded in a surrounding material, see Figure \[fig:hashin\]. The centre ($\Omega_c$) and coating ($\Omega_e$) ellipses have isotropic behaviour and the matrix material ($\Omega_m$) is built in such a way that it is unaffected by the inclusion for a chosen macroscopic strain $\varepsilon^0$. For this special kind of structure analytic expressions for the strain field $\varepsilon$ and the action of the effective matrix ${\mathcal{C}}^{\mathrm{eff}}{:}\varepsilon^0$ are known.
In the following we take exactly the same parameters as in [@BergmannMerkert2016], i.e. for the ellipses with parametrization $$\frac{x_1^2}{c_1^2+\rho}
+ \frac{x_2^2}{c_2^2+\rho} = 1$$ and $(x_1, x_2)^{\mathrm{T}}\in {\mathbb{T}}^2$ we choose $c_1 = 0.05$, $c_2 = 0.35$ and for the inner and outer ellipsis $\rho = 0$ and $\rho = 0.09$, respectively. The structure is then rotated by $60^\circ$. For the inner and outer ellipsis we choose isotropic material laws with Poisson’s ratio $\nu = 0.3$ in both ellipses and the matrix material and Young’s moduli $E = 1$ and $E = 10$ for the inner and outer ellipsis, respectively. The material law for the surrounding matrix material can then be determined by the formulae in [@BergmannMerkert2016 Section 4.2].
A solution for the first component of the strain field $\varepsilon_{11}$ is depicted in Figure \[fig:hashin\] and taken for instructional purposes directly from [@BergmannMerkert2016].
All numerical results in this section were obtained by solving with a fixed-point iteration on $E_{\mathbf{y}}$ as described in [@MoulinecSuquet1998] up to an relative error of $10^{-10}$ using a Cauchy criterion.
[.49]{} ![A schematic of the generalized Hashin structure (left) and the analytic solution for the first component of the strain $\varepsilon_{11}$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:hashin"}](translates-figure0 "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}
[.49]{} ![A schematic of the generalized Hashin structure (left) and the analytic solution for the first component of the strain $\varepsilon_{11}$ (right).[]{data-label="fig:hashin"}](translates-figure1 "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}
De la Vallée Poussin means
--------------------------
In [@BergmannMerkert2016] the authors study the influence of the pattern matrix ${\mathbf{M}}$ on the solution field and the quality of the effective matrix ${\mathcal{C}}^{\mathrm{eff}}$. We take the following pattern matrices: $${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\begin{pmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{pmatrix},\quad
{\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\begin{pmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{pmatrix},\quad
{\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\begin{pmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{pmatrix}.$$ They correspond to a tensor product grid (${\mathbf{M}}_1$), a tensor product grid rotated by $45^\circ$ (${\mathbf{M}}_2$) and the minimal $\ell^2$-error (${\mathbf{M}}_3$) achieved. The matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ have a determinant of $2^{14}$ whereas the so-called quincux pattern $\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}}_2)$ has $2^{13}$ sampling points.
First we study how using de la Vallée Poussin means changes the quality of the effective stiffness matrix and the strain field. The Box splines used in frequency domain to define the means allow to use different slopes in each direction of the de la Vallée Poussin mean and thus one can expect to reduce the Gibbs phenomenon in different directions. For the following study the functions $f_{{\mathbf{M}}_i,\alpha}$ are parametrized with $\alpha = (\alpha_1,
\alpha_2)^{\mathrm{T}}$ and $\alpha_1, \alpha_2 \in [0,0.5]$ for $i = 1,\dots,3$.
The parameters $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ correspond to damping the Fourier coefficients of the de la Vallée Poussin mean along the directions ${\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}( 1, 0)^{\mathrm{T}}$ and ${\mathbf{M}}^{\mathrm{T}}( 0,1)^{\mathrm{T}}$, respectively. In the space domain they introduce a better localization [@GohGoodman2004] along ${\mathbf{M}}^{-1} (0, 1)^{\mathrm{T}}$ and ${\mathbf{M}}^{-1} ( 1,0)^{\mathrm{T}}$, respectively.
The result of these experiments regarding the effective stiffness matrix is shown in Figure \[fig:dlvp\_effective\]. The relative effective error $$e_{\mathrm{eff}}\coloneqq
\Biggl\lVert
{\mathcal{C}}^{\mathrm{eff}}{:}\varepsilon^0 -
\sum_{{\mathbf{y}} \in \operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})}
{\mathcal{C}}({\mathbf{y}}) {:}E_{\mathbf{y}}
\Biggr\rVert
\bigl\lVert
{\mathcal{C}}^{\mathrm{eff}}{:}\varepsilon^0
\bigr\rVert^{-1}$$ is depicted with $E_{\mathbf{y}}$ from . Parameters $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2 = 0$ correspond to the modified Dirichlet kernel $f_{{\mathbf{M}},{\mathbf{0}}}$ and $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2 = 0.5$ correspond to the Fejér kernel $f_{{\mathbf{M}},\frac12 {\mathbf{1}}}$.
For ${\mathbf{M}}_1$, the error in the effective stiffness matrix changes from $0.0037$ for the modified Dirichlet kernel to the optimum at $\alpha_1 = 0.45$ and $\alpha_2 = 0$ with $e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0017$. For ${\mathbf{M}}_2$ it changes from $0.0034$ to $e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0013$ for $\alpha_1 = 0.25$ and $\alpha_2 = 0$. The solution for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ can be improved upon by de la Vallée Poussin means with $\alpha_1 = 0.4$ and $\alpha_2 = 0$ which results in $e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0036$ of the Fourier approach on patterns being reduced to $e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0024$. When approaching either $\alpha_1 = 0.5$ or $\alpha_2 = 0.5$ the value of $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$ drastically increases. The errors for the solution using the Dirichlet kernel and the modified Dirichlet kernel, i.e. for $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2 = 0$, are almost the same and thus not marked in the plots above.
The study in [@BergmannMerkert2016] suggests that by changing the pattern one can improve the quality of the solution and the effective stiffness matrix. The experiments from above show that one can improve these results even further by extending the theory to translation invariant spaces. Especially for the tensor product grid, i.e. for data given on a regular voxel grid like for example from a computer tomography image, a suitable choice of the space of translates could here reduce the error in the effective stiffness by $55\%$.
Figure \[fig:Hashin:Ex\] shows the logarithmic error of the analytic solution $\tilde{\varepsilon}$ to solution $\varepsilon$, i.e. $e_\text{log} \coloneqq
\log(1+\abs{\tilde{\varepsilon}_{11} - \varepsilon_{11}})$. The top row shows the error corresponding to the de la Vallée Poussin means with parameters $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ which give the smallest $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$. The middle row shows the error using the Dirichlet kernel. For illustration purposes each pixel has the form of the corresponding unit cell ${\mathbf{M}}^{-1}
[-\frac12,\frac12]^2$ centred at each pattern point ${\mathbf{y}} \in
\operatorname{\mathcal P}({\mathbf{M}})$.
The value of the relative $\ell_2$-error is given by the formula $$e_{\ell^2} \coloneqq
\norm{\varepsilon - \tilde{\varepsilon}} \norm{\tilde{\varepsilon}}^{-1}.$$
While the error in the effective stiffness matrix can be drastically improved using de la Vallée Poussin means, the $\ell^2$-error gets larger, however, only be a few percent. The strain field stemming from the numerical computation using de la Vallée Poussin means shows less Gibbs phenomena as can be seen most prominently in the solution for pattern matrix ${\mathbf{M}}_2$.
The decrease of $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$ is caused by the smoothing of the Gibbs phenomena around discontinuities of the solution with higher $\alpha_1$. With smaller de la Vallée Poussin parameters $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ the polynomial reproduction is better and thus interfaces (edges) are sharper. In total they introduce a trade off between damping Gibbs phenomena and sharpness of the interfaces.
[.48]{} ![ Relative error $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$ depending on the slopes of the De la Vallée Poussin means with parameters $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ in the directions of the unit cell. The matrices inducing the pattern are from left to right, top to bottom: ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. []{data-label="fig:dlvp_effective"}](translates-figure2 "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}
[.48]{} ![ Relative error $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$ depending on the slopes of the De la Vallée Poussin means with parameters $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ in the directions of the unit cell. The matrices inducing the pattern are from left to right, top to bottom: ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. []{data-label="fig:dlvp_effective"}](translates-figure3 "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}
\
[.48]{} ![ Relative error $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$ depending on the slopes of the De la Vallée Poussin means with parameters $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ in the directions of the unit cell. The matrices inducing the pattern are from left to right, top to bottom: ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. []{data-label="fig:dlvp_effective"}](translates-figure4 "fig:"){width=".98\textwidth"}
![ The $e_\text{log}$-error of the strain field $\varepsilon_{11}$ given by $e_\text{log} = \text{log}(1+|\varepsilon + \tilde{\varepsilon}|)$ using the colour bar at the top. In the first row the solution using the de la Vallée Poussin Kernel with optimal slopes (regarding the $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$-error), in the second row using the Dirichlet kernel, and in the third row using the Box spline $\Xi = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. From left to right for the pattern matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. The Box spline plot for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ is an outlier and the scale is adjusted by a factor of $1.5$ to account for the large error. []{data-label="fig:Hashin:Ex"}](Hashin-Error-Colormap)
\
[.32]{} ![ The $e_\text{log}$-error of the strain field $\varepsilon_{11}$ given by $e_\text{log} = \text{log}(1+|\varepsilon + \tilde{\varepsilon}|)$ using the colour bar at the top. In the first row the solution using the de la Vallée Poussin Kernel with optimal slopes (regarding the $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$-error), in the second row using the Dirichlet kernel, and in the third row using the Box spline $\Xi = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. From left to right for the pattern matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. The Box spline plot for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ is an outlier and the scale is adjusted by a factor of $1.5$ to account for the large error. []{data-label="fig:Hashin:Ex"}](Experiment1logErrorT "fig:"){width="95.00000%"}\
-- ------------------------------------
$\alpha = (0.45, 0)^{\mathrm{T}}$,
$e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0017$,
$e_{\ell^2} = 0.044$.
-- ------------------------------------
[.32]{} ![ The $e_\text{log}$-error of the strain field $\varepsilon_{11}$ given by $e_\text{log} = \text{log}(1+|\varepsilon + \tilde{\varepsilon}|)$ using the colour bar at the top. In the first row the solution using the de la Vallée Poussin Kernel with optimal slopes (regarding the $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$-error), in the second row using the Dirichlet kernel, and in the third row using the Box spline $\Xi = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. From left to right for the pattern matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. The Box spline plot for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ is an outlier and the scale is adjusted by a factor of $1.5$ to account for the large error. []{data-label="fig:Hashin:Ex"}](Experiment2logErrorT "fig:"){width="95.00000%"}\
-- ------------------------------------
$\alpha = (0.25, 0)^{\mathrm{T}}$,
$e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0013$,
$e_{\ell^2} = 0.050$.
-- ------------------------------------
[.32]{} ![ The $e_\text{log}$-error of the strain field $\varepsilon_{11}$ given by $e_\text{log} = \text{log}(1+|\varepsilon + \tilde{\varepsilon}|)$ using the colour bar at the top. In the first row the solution using the de la Vallée Poussin Kernel with optimal slopes (regarding the $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$-error), in the second row using the Dirichlet kernel, and in the third row using the Box spline $\Xi = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. From left to right for the pattern matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. The Box spline plot for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ is an outlier and the scale is adjusted by a factor of $1.5$ to account for the large error. []{data-label="fig:Hashin:Ex"}](Experiment3logErrorT "fig:"){width="95.00000%"}\
-- -----------------------------------
$\alpha = (0.4, 0)^{\mathrm{T}}$,
$e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0024$,
$e_{\ell^2} = 0.025$.
-- -----------------------------------
\
[.32]{} ![ The $e_\text{log}$-error of the strain field $\varepsilon_{11}$ given by $e_\text{log} = \text{log}(1+|\varepsilon + \tilde{\varepsilon}|)$ using the colour bar at the top. In the first row the solution using the de la Vallée Poussin Kernel with optimal slopes (regarding the $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$-error), in the second row using the Dirichlet kernel, and in the third row using the Box spline $\Xi = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. From left to right for the pattern matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. The Box spline plot for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ is an outlier and the scale is adjusted by a factor of $1.5$ to account for the large error. []{data-label="fig:Hashin:Ex"}](Experiment5logErrorT "fig:"){width="95.00000%"}\
-- -----------------------------
$e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0038$,
$e_{\ell^2} = 0.043$.
-- -----------------------------
[.32]{} ![ The $e_\text{log}$-error of the strain field $\varepsilon_{11}$ given by $e_\text{log} = \text{log}(1+|\varepsilon + \tilde{\varepsilon}|)$ using the colour bar at the top. In the first row the solution using the de la Vallée Poussin Kernel with optimal slopes (regarding the $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$-error), in the second row using the Dirichlet kernel, and in the third row using the Box spline $\Xi = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. From left to right for the pattern matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. The Box spline plot for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ is an outlier and the scale is adjusted by a factor of $1.5$ to account for the large error. []{data-label="fig:Hashin:Ex"}](Experiment6logErrorT "fig:"){width="95.00000%"}\
-- -----------------------------
$e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0034$,
$e_{\ell^2} = 0.047$.
-- -----------------------------
[.32]{} ![ The $e_\text{log}$-error of the strain field $\varepsilon_{11}$ given by $e_\text{log} = \text{log}(1+|\varepsilon + \tilde{\varepsilon}|)$ using the colour bar at the top. In the first row the solution using the de la Vallée Poussin Kernel with optimal slopes (regarding the $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$-error), in the second row using the Dirichlet kernel, and in the third row using the Box spline $\Xi = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. From left to right for the pattern matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. The Box spline plot for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ is an outlier and the scale is adjusted by a factor of $1.5$ to account for the large error. []{data-label="fig:Hashin:Ex"}](Experiment7logErrorT "fig:"){width="95.00000%"}\
-- -----------------------------
$e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0036$,
$e_{\ell^2} = 0.022$.
-- -----------------------------
\
[.32]{} ![ The $e_\text{log}$-error of the strain field $\varepsilon_{11}$ given by $e_\text{log} = \text{log}(1+|\varepsilon + \tilde{\varepsilon}|)$ using the colour bar at the top. In the first row the solution using the de la Vallée Poussin Kernel with optimal slopes (regarding the $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$-error), in the second row using the Dirichlet kernel, and in the third row using the Box spline $\Xi = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. From left to right for the pattern matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. The Box spline plot for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ is an outlier and the scale is adjusted by a factor of $1.5$ to account for the large error. []{data-label="fig:Hashin:Ex"}](BS-Experiment1logErrorT "fig:"){width="95.00000%"}\
-- -----------------------------
$e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0026$,
$e_{\ell^2} = 0.052$.
-- -----------------------------
[.32]{} ![ The $e_\text{log}$-error of the strain field $\varepsilon_{11}$ given by $e_\text{log} = \text{log}(1+|\varepsilon + \tilde{\varepsilon}|)$ using the colour bar at the top. In the first row the solution using the de la Vallée Poussin Kernel with optimal slopes (regarding the $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$-error), in the second row using the Dirichlet kernel, and in the third row using the Box spline $\Xi = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. From left to right for the pattern matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. The Box spline plot for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ is an outlier and the scale is adjusted by a factor of $1.5$ to account for the large error. []{data-label="fig:Hashin:Ex"}](BS-Experiment2logErrorT "fig:"){width="95.00000%"}\
-- -----------------------------
$e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.0028$,
$e_{\ell^2} = 0.059$.
-- -----------------------------
[.32]{} ![ The $e_\text{log}$-error of the strain field $\varepsilon_{11}$ given by $e_\text{log} = \text{log}(1+|\varepsilon + \tilde{\varepsilon}|)$ using the colour bar at the top. In the first row the solution using the de la Vallée Poussin Kernel with optimal slopes (regarding the $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$-error), in the second row using the Dirichlet kernel, and in the third row using the Box spline $\Xi = \bigl(\begin{smallmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{smallmatrix}\bigr)$. From left to right for the pattern matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 0\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 64 & 64\\-64 & 64 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3 =
\bigl(\begin{smallmatrix} 128 & 272\\0 & 128 \end{smallmatrix}\bigl)$. The Box spline plot for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ is an outlier and the scale is adjusted by a factor of $1.5$ to account for the large error. []{data-label="fig:Hashin:Ex"}](BS-Experiment3logErrorT "fig:"){width="95.00000%"}\
-- ----------------------------
$e_{\mathrm{eff}}= 0.016$,
$e_{\ell^2} = 0.074$.
-- ----------------------------
Periodised Box Splines
----------------------
Finite elements with one quadrature point are directly included in this framework. They are obtained by choosing a suitable Box spline $f=B_{{\mathbf{M}},\Xi}$ as ansatz function for the space of translates $V_{{\mathbf{M}}}^f$. In the bottom row of Figure \[fig:Hashin:Ex\] the logarithmic error between the numerical solution and the analytical solution is depicted, using the matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1$, ${\mathbf{M}}_2$, ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ from above. For all computations the Box spline $B_{{\mathbf{M}},\Xi}$ with $$\Xi = \begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}$$ is used. This ansatz function corresponds to a finite element of third order with reduced integration. The bracket sums in are precomputed with $33^2$ terms each.
A comparison of the relative error in the effective matrix $e_{\mathrm{eff}}$ between the Box splines (bottom row) and the Dirichlet kernel (middle row) shows that for matrices ${\mathbf{M}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{M}}_2$ the error in the effective matrix can be reduced by about $25\%$, whereas the error is approximately tripled for ${\mathbf{M}}_3$. The $\ell^2$-error $e_{\ell^2}$ is increased in all three cases. The pattern matrix ${\mathbf{M}}_3$ was optimized for the Dirichlet kernel with respect to the $\ell^2$-norm. For Box splines this pattern leads to an aliasing effect reducing the quality of the solution.
The choice of the Box spline was not optimized and the quality of the effective matrix might be further increased by a different choice of $\Xi$. This corresponds to a fine tuning with respect to dominant directions in the pattern unit cell ${\mathbf{M}}^{-1} \bigl[-\frac12,\frac12\bigr)^d$.
Conclusion {#sec:summary}
==========
The introduced framework unifies and analyses for the first time the truncated Fourier series approach and finite element ansatz functions. In this framework the periodised Green operator possesses the same properties as the Green operator of the Galerkin method of Vondřejc et.al [@Vondrejc2014]. The projection operator $\Gamma^0 {\mathcal{C}}^0$ emerges as a special case of Dirichlet kernel translates. The periodised Green operator $\Gamma^{{\mathrm{p}}}{\mathcal{C}}^0$ can further be characterised to be a projection if and only if the space $V_{\mathbf{M}}^f$ is the one derived from a Dirichlet kernel. The finite element method emerges for certain Box splines and thus the constant finite elements of Brisard and Dormieux [@BrisardDormieux2010Framework] are included. For these Box splines the infinite Bracket sums have to be precomputed up to a given precision, but the algorithm has the same complexity as the Fourier framework.
Finite elements with more sophisticated quadrature rules can also be viewed in terms of this framework. However, their performance is an open question for future work. How to choose a certain Box spline especially with respect to anisotropies present in the data is a point for further analysis. Convergence of the numerical discretisation towards the continuous case and the convergence of the algorithm will be dealt with in a paper on our road map. Both seem to be strongly suggested by the numerical results. Finally the periodic multiresolution analysis can be used to extend this framework in order to exploit sparsity properties of given data. This is also a point for future work.
#### Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Bernd Simeon and Gabriele Steidl for their valuable comments on preliminary versions of this manuscript and fruitful discussions.
[^1]: Department of Mathematics, University of Kaiserslautern, Postfach 3049, D-67653 Kaiserslautern, Germany$\{$bergmann, dmerkert$\}[email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We study the loop corrections to the scalar propagator and the fermionic self-energy for the mass dimension one fermionic dark matter with the Yukawa interaction. We find, in the former case, there is a non-vanishing Lorentz-violating term while the later is Lorentz-invariant. Our study of the fermionic loop correction shows that unitarity demands the fermionic mass must be at least half of the bosonic mass and that the Lorentz-violating term makes a non-trivial correction to the bosonic propagator. We discuss what these results mean in the context of the Standard Model and the possibility of bypassing the unitarity constraint. In the simplest scenario, within the framework of standard quantum field theory, by identifying the scalar boson to be the Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV, the mass of the fermion must be at least 62.5 GeV.
PACS numbers
: 11.30.Cp, 12.60.Fr
author:
- Marco Dias
- 'Cheng-Yang Lee'
bibliography:
- 'Bibliography.bib'
title: |
Constraints on mass dimension one fermionic\
dark matter from the Yukawa interaction
---
Introduction
============
The mass dimension one fermionic field has many intriguing features [@Ahluwalia:2004ab; @Ahluwalia:2004sz; @Ahluwalia:2008xi; @Ahluwalia:2009rh]. Among them, the important features that characterize the theory are that the field satisfies the Klein-Gordon but not the Dirac equation and is of mass dimension one instead of three-half. Therefore, whatever these particles are, they must be physically distinct from the Dirac fermion and provide a promising direction of research for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). Since its conception, the theory has been studied in various disciplines ranging from black hole [@daRocha:2014dla; @Cavalcanti:2015nna], cosmology [@Boehmer:2006qq; @Boehmer:2007ut; @Boehmer:2007dh; @Boehmer:2008rz; @Boehmer:2008ah; @Gredat:2008qf; @Boehmer:2009aw; @Shankaranarayanan:2009sz; @Boehmer:2010ma; @Boehmer:2010tv; @Chee:2010ju; @Wei:2010ad; @Shankaranarayanan:2010st; @S.:2014dja; @Pereira:2014wta; @Basak:2014qea], mathematical physics [@HoffdaSilva:2009is; @daRocha:2008we; @daRocha:2007pz; @daRocha:2005ti; @daRocha:2011yr; @daRocha:2011xb; @daRocha:2013qhu; @Cavalcanti:2014wia; @Cavalcanti:2014uta; @Bonora:2014dfa; @Ablamowicz:2014rpa] and quantum field theory [@Fabbri:2009aj; @Fabbri:2009ka; @Dias:2010aa; @Fabbri:2010va; @Ahluwalia:2010zn; @Lee:2012td; @Alves:2014kta; @Alves:2014qua; @Agarwal:2014oaa; @Lee:2015jpa]. For a comprehensive review on the subject, please see [@Ahluwalia:2013uxa].
Initial investigation revealed that the mass dimension one fermions have an intrinsic darkness with respect to the SM thus making them natural dark matter candidates [@Ahluwalia:2004ab; @Ahluwalia:2004sz]. What made the construction possible, bypassing the uniqueness of the Dirac field is that the theory does not satisfy Lorentz symmetry. Instead, it satisfies the symmetry of boost and rotation along a preferred direction. One may argue that Lorentz violation invalidates the theory but this is not necessarily true. While there are stringent constraints on Lorentz-violating theories [@Mattingly:2005re; @Ackermann:2009aa], they are all confined to the SM sector. Currently, there is no direct evidence suggesting that dark matter satisfies Lorentz symmetry. Additionally, the fermionic field has a positive-definite free Hamiltonian, local interactions and furnishes fermionic statistics [@Lee:2012td]. These properties are highly non-trivial and require careful choices of expansion coefficients and a field adjoint.
In this paper, we study the effects of Lorentz violation by computing the fermionic loop correction to the scalar propagator and the fermionic self-energy associated with the Yukawa interaction. The effects of loop-induced Lorentz-violation to the scalar propagator is non-zero whereas the fermionic self-energy is Lorentz-invariant. At one-loop, we find that unitarity, namely the optical theorem is violated unless the fermionic mass is at least half of the bosonic mass thus forbidding the decay of the scalar boson into a fermion anti-fermion pair. The Lorentz-violating term also makes a non-trivial correction to the bosonic propagator. We discuss what these results mean in the context of the SM and the possibility of bypassing the unitarity constraint.
Loop corrections
================
The theory under consideration here is the theory of mass dimension one fermion and a real scalar boson with the Yukawa interaction whose Lagrangian is $$\mathscr{L}=\partial^{\mu}{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}\partial_{\mu}\Lambda-m^{2}_{\Lambda}{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}\Lambda-
g_{\phi}{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}\Lambda\phi.$$ In principle, one could also introduce interactions of the form $g'_{\phi}{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}\Lambda\phi^{2}$ and $g_{\Phi}{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}\Lambda\Phi^{\dag}\Phi$ where $\Phi(x)$ is a complex scalar field and $g'_{\phi}$ and $g_{\Phi}$ are dimensionless couplings. The reason why they are not considered here is that in this paper, our focus is on the loop corrections to the scalar propagator. Additionally, the fermionic loop for these interactions take the same form. The only differences are that $g_{\phi}$ has the dimension of mass and that for the Yukawa interaction, the loop correction modifies the scalar propagator whereas the four-point interactions modify the vertices.
The fermionic loop of fig. \[fig1\] can be formally expressed as $S_{\phi}(p)[-i(2\pi)^{4}\Pi^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(p^{2})]S_{\phi}(p)$ where $S_{\phi}(p)$ is the free scalar propagator. We adopt the normalization where the free fermionic and scalar propagators are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&& S_{\Lambda}(p)=\frac{i}{(2\pi)^{4}}\frac{I+\mathcal{G}_{p}}{p^{2}-m^{2}_{\Lambda}+i\epsilon},\\
&& S_{\phi}(p)=\frac{i}{(2\pi)^{4}}\frac{1}{p^{2}-m^{2}_{\phi}+i\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$ The matrix $\mathcal{G}_{p}$ is defined as $$\mathcal{G}_{p}=i\left(\begin{matrix}
0 & 0 & 0 & -e^{-i\phi} \\
0 & 0 & e^{i\phi} & 0 \\
0 &-e^{-i\phi} & 0 & 0\\
e^{i\phi} & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{matrix}\right)$$ with $\phi$ being the azimuthal angle defined by the momentum in the spherical coordinate $$\p=|\p| (\cos\phi\sin\theta,\sin\phi\sin\theta,\cos\theta).$$ The non-covariant fermionic propagator which contains information about the preferred direction is obtained by computing the time-ordered product $\langle\,\,|T[\Lambda(x){\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}(y)]|\,\,\rangle$. The definition for $\Lambda(x)$ and ${\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}(y)$ are given in app. \[A\] and a detailed derivation of the propagator can be found in [@Ahluwalia:2009rh].
Comparing the mass dimension one fermion to complex scalar bosons, apart from the spin-statistics, another important difference is that the fermionic propagator contains a non-covariant $\mathcal{G}_{p}$ matrix which is absent for its scalar counterpart. Unless one modifies the field adjoint ${\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}(x)$ as in ref. [@Ahluwalia:2016rwl], it is not possible to obtain a Klein-Gordon propagator. Therefore, the fermionic fields cannot be replaced by complex scalar fields.
Evaluating fig. \[fig1\] using the propagators, $\Pi^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(p^{2})$ is given by $$\Pi^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(p^{2})=-2g^{2}_{\phi}\left[\frac{i}{(2\pi)^{4}}\right]
\int d^{4}k\frac{1}{(k^{2}-m^{2}_{\Lambda}+i\epsilon)[(k+p)^{2}-m^{2}_{\Lambda}+i\epsilon]}
+F(p)\label{eq:loop2}$$ where $F(p)$ is defined as $$F(p)\equiv -2g^{2}_{\phi}\left[\frac{i}{(2\pi)^{4}}\right]
\int d^{4}k\frac{\cos(\phi_{k}-\phi_{k+p})}{(k^{2}-m^{2}_{\Lambda}+i\epsilon)[(k+p)^{2}-m^{2}_{\Lambda}+i\epsilon]}.\label{eq:f}$$
![Loop correction to the scalar propagator[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.png)
Equation (\[eq:loop2\]) is a sum of a Lorentz-invariant and Lorentz-violating integral. The former can be evaluated by the standard formalism of renormalization $$\Pi^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(p^{2})=-2g^{2}_{\phi}\left[\frac{i}{(2\pi)^{4}}\right]\int^{1}_{0}dx
(i\pi^{d/2})[m^{2}_{\Lambda}-p^{2}x(1-x)]^{d/2-2}\Gamma\left(2-\frac{2}{d}\right)+F(p).$$ In the limit $d\rightarrow4$, we obtain $$\Pi^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(p^{2})=-\frac{g^{2}_{\phi}}{8\pi^{2}}\int^{1}_{0}dx
\left(\ln[m^{2}_{\Lambda}-p^{2}(1-x)x]+\frac{2}{d-4}+\gamma\right)+F(p). \label{eq:Pi}$$ where $\gamma$ is the Euler constant. The trigonometric function in eq. (\[eq:f\]) can be expanded in terms of momenta to give us $$\begin{aligned}
\cos(\phi_{k}-\phi_{k+p})&=&\cos\phi_{k}\cos\phi_{k+p}+\sin\phi_{k}\sin\phi_{k+p}\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{k_{x}(k_{x}+p_{x})+k_{y}(k_{y}+p_{y})}{\sqrt{(k_{x}^{2}+k_{y}^{2})[(k_{x}+p_{x})^{2}+(k_{y}+p_{y})^{2}]}}.\label{eq:cos}\end{aligned}$$ From eq. (\[eq:cos\]), we see that $\Pi^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(p^{2})$ is a function of $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ so it is not Lorentz-invariant. But when $p_{x}=p_{y}=0$, the function $F(p)$ becomes identical to the first term so it can contribute as much as 50% to $\Pi^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(p^{2})$. However, aligning the momentum along the $z$-axis does not necessarily define a preferred frame or direction. For example, in the $\phi_{1}\phi_{2}\rightarrow\phi_{3}\phi_{4}$ scattering of the $\phi^{3}$ theory, there are non-zero contributions from the $s$, $t$ and $u$-channels. At one-loop (fig. \[fig1\]), the momenta associated with these channels are respectively given by $\p_{1}+\p_{2}$, $\p_{1}-\p_{3}$ and $\p_{1}-\p_{4}$ and it is impossible to choose a frame where all three momenta are vanishing. It follows that there exists no preferred frame or direction such that $\cos(\phi_{p}-\phi_{p+k})=1$ for all three channels.
The optical theorem and correction to the bosonic propagator
------------------------------------------------------------
 \[Fp\]
In standard quantum field theory, two of the most important concepts are Lorentz symmetry and unitarity. Since the theory under consideration only satisfies the symmetry of boost and rotation along a preferred direction instead of the full Lorentz group, it is instructive to check the unitarity of the theory. Towards this end, we make use of the optical theorem: $$\mbox{Im}[\Pi_{\alpha\alpha}(m^{2}_{\alpha})]=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{X}\Gamma(\alpha\rightarrow X)$$ where $\alpha$ is a one-particle state, $\Pi_{\alpha\alpha}(m^{2}_{\alpha})$ is the two-point function and $\Gamma(\alpha\rightarrow X)$ being the total decay rate to some final multi-particle state $X$. In our case, $\Pi_{\alpha\alpha}(m^{2}_{\alpha})$ is the fermionic-loop correction to the scalar propagator given by eq. (\[eq:loop2\]) evaluated at $p^{2}=m^{2}_{\phi}$ and the decay rate is $\phi\rightarrow{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}\Lambda$ is evaluated at tree-level. The later evaluates to (see app. \[A\]) $$\Gamma(\phi\rightarrow{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}\Lambda)=\frac{g^{2}_{\phi}}{2\pi m_{\phi}}
\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^{2}_{\Lambda}}{m^{2}_{\phi}}}\left(\frac{m^{2}_{\phi}}{2m^{2}_{\Lambda}}-1\right).\label{eq:decay}$$ For the decay to occur, one requires $m_{\phi}>2m_{\Lambda}$. When this condition is satisfied, the Lorentz-invariant integral of $\Pi^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(m^{2}_{\phi})$ has an imaginary part. Here, to simplify the problem, we can avoid in having to evaluate $F(p)$ by taking the external momentum to be $p_{x}=p_{y}=0$. The argument of the natural logarithm in eq. (\[eq:Pi\]) is negative in the range $x\in[x_{-},x_{+}]$ where $$x_{\pm}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^{2}_{\Lambda}}{m^{2}_{\phi}}}\right]$$ so the imaginary part of $\Pi^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(m^{2}_{\phi})$ is given by $$\mbox{Im}[\Pi^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(m^{2}_{\phi})]=
-\frac{g^{2}_{\phi}}{4\pi m_{\phi}}\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^{2}_{\Lambda}}{m^{2}_{\phi}}}.\label{eq:imaginary}$$
Comparing eqs. (\[eq:decay\]) and (\[eq:imaginary\]), we find that for $m_{\phi}>2m_{\Lambda}$ the optical theorem and hence unitarity is violated. If we wish to preserve unitarity, we must have $m_{\Lambda}\geq \frac{1}{2}m_{\phi}$ so that the decay channel $\phi\rightarrow{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}\Lambda$ is forbidden. However, this seems unnatural since we should expect the optical theorem to hold for all ranges of masses. But in our opinion, within the standard framework of quantum field theory, this is an inevitable consequence the theory has to confront. Lorentz violation does not provide an exception to the optical theorem as its derivation only assume unitarity of the $S$-matrix and not the underlying space-time symmetry. A proposal to bypass this problem has recently been proposed in [@Ahluwalia:2016rwl], the details will be discussed in the conclusion.
In this paper, we work within the standard framework of quantum field theory so we must impose the inequality $m_{\phi}>2m_{\Lambda}$. Apart from this, another important issue that deserves our attention is the corrections to the scalar propagator which we now consider. For this purpose, it is instructive to introduce an effective cut-off $\mu_{\mbox{\tiny{eff}}}$. After performing the Feynman parametrization, Wick rotation, we get $$\Pi^{*}_{\tiny{\mbox{1-loop}}}(p^{2})=\frac{g^{2}_{\phi}}{8\pi^{2}}\int^{1}_{0}dx
\ln\left[\frac{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny{eff}}}^{2}}{m^{2}_{\Lambda}-m^{2}_{\phi}(1-x)x}\right]
+F(p)+O(g^{4}_{\phi})
\label{eq:delta_m}$$ where the same cut-off is also applied to $F(p)$. To evaluate $F(p)$, the Feynman parametrization and Wick rotation become inconvenient. Instead, we perform the $k^{0}$ integral analytically, and then evaluate the rest using Monte Carlo integration. The integral for $F(p)$ can be expressed as $$F(p)=\frac{g^{2}_{\phi}}{8\pi^{3}}\int d^{3}k \cos(\phi_{k}-\phi_{k+p})
\left\{\frac{1}{E_{k}[(E_{k}-E_{p})^{2}-E^{2}_{p+k}]}+\frac{1}{E_{p+k}[(E_{p+k}+E_{p})^{2}-E^{2}_{k}]}
\right\}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&& E_{k}=\sqrt{|\textbf{k}|^{2}+m^{2}_{\Lambda}},\\
&& E_{p}=\sqrt{|\p|^{2}+m^{2}_{\Lambda}},\\
&& E_{p+k}=\sqrt{|\p+\textbf{k}|^{2}+m^{2}_{\Lambda}}.\end{aligned}$$ The integration is performed with $\p=(p_{x},p_{y},p_{z})$ and $m_{\Lambda}$ being the free parameters. Figure \[Fp\] provides a graphical representation of $F(p)/g^{2}_{\phi}$ with $m_{\Lambda}=62.5$ GeV, $m_{\Lambda}=500$ GeV and an effective cut-off at the Planck scale.
There are two important consequences that need to be noted. Firstly, the magnitude of $F(p)$ within the considered domain is finite and smooth, showing no divergent behaviour even when the effective cut-off is taken to be the Planck scale. This suggests that both $F(p)$ and $F(p,m_{\phi})$ where the later is defined to be on-shell, are finite. Therefore, we can be confident that at one-loop, the function $\Pi^{*}(p^{2})$, which is a sum of $\Pi^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(p^{2})$ and the counter-terms is also finite. Specifically, the renormalization condition $\Pi^{*}(m^{2}_{\phi})=0$ cancels the momentum-independent divergent terms so that $\Pi^{*}(p^{2})$ is a sum of Lorentz-invariant functions and $F(p)-F(m^{2}_{\phi},p)$ [^1]. Secondly, from the form of the integral of $F(p)$, it is clear that this function does not provide a dominant contribution to $\Pi_{\tiny{\mbox{1-loop}}}(p)$. Nevertheless, the plot shows that the contribution has certain angular dependence. In the context of the SM, where the scalar boson is identified to be the Higgs boson, this means that the Higgs propagator is not Lorentz-invariant but it instead has non-zero fluctuations when measured in different directions. Therefore, any such fluctuation detected in physical processes involving the Higgs propagator could be an indirect evidence of the mass dimension one fermions.
The finiteness of $F(p)$ with an effective cut-off taken at the Planck scale suggest that although the theory violates Lorentz symmetry, it is power-counting renormalizable. In particular, the matrix elements of $\mathcal{G}_{p}$ which is responsible for the violation, do not increase with momentum. The theory does however, exhibits a non-local behaviour. A direct computation shows that the equal-time field-conjugate momentum anti-commutator is [@Ahluwalia:2008xi; @Ahluwalia:2009rh] $$\{\Lambda(t,\x),\Pi(t,\y)\}=i\int\frac{d^{3}p}{(2\pi)^{3}}
e^{-i\mathbf{p\cdot(x-y)}}[I+\mathcal{G}_{p}]$$ where it reduces to $i\delta^{3}(\x-\y)$ only when $\x-\y$ is aligned to the $z$-axis. The non-locality of the anti-commutator may be undesirable, but it captures the peculiar features of the theory. Although it prevents us from formulating the theory in the path-integral formalism, it does not stop us from constructing local interactions in the operator formalism since a direct evaluation shows that $\{\Lambda(t,\x),{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}(t,\y)\}=O$. Therefore, as long as the interactions are functions of $g{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}\mathcal{O}\Lambda$ where $\mathcal{O}$ is some local operator, causality will be preserved.
![Fermionic self-energy[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.png)
Fermionic self-energy
---------------------
Now we consider fig. \[fig3\] whose expression in terms of the free fermionic propagator can be formally written as $S_{\Lambda}(p)[-i(2\pi)^{4}\Sigma^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(p^{2})]S_{\Lambda}(p)$. Evaluating the diagram, we obtain $$\Sigma^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(p^{2})=\frac{ig^{2}_{\phi}}{(2\pi)^{4}}\int d^{4}k
\left(\frac{1}{k^{2}-m^{2}_{\phi}+i\epsilon}\right)
\left[\frac{I+\mathcal{G}_{p-k}}{(p-k)^{2}-m^{2}_{\Lambda}+i\epsilon}\right].$$ Shift the variable by $k\rightarrow k+p$ and take $d^{4}k=dk^{0} d^{3}k$ with $d^{3}k$ defined in the spherical coordinate, the integration over $\mathcal{G}_{k}$ identically vanishes leaving us with a Lorentz-invariant integral $$\Sigma^{*}_{\mbox{\tiny{1-loop}}}(p^{2})=\frac{ig^{2}_{\phi}}{(2\pi)^{4}}\int d^{4}k
\left[\frac{1}{(k+p)^{2}-m^{2}_{\phi}+i\epsilon}\right]\left(\frac{I}{k^{2}-m^{2}_{\Lambda}+i\epsilon}\right).$$ In the on-shell subtraction scheme where $m^{2}_{\Lambda}\equiv m^{2}_{\tiny{\mbox{bare}},\Lambda}-\delta m^{2}_{\Lambda}$ and $\Lambda_{\tiny{\mbox{bare}}}(x)\equiv Z^{1/2}\Lambda(x)$, the complete self-energy function $\Sigma^{*}(p^{2})$ is $$\Sigma^{*}(p^{2})=-(Z-1)(p^{2}-m^{2}_{\Lambda})+Z\delta m^{2}_{\Lambda}+\Sigma^{*}_{\tiny{\mbox{1-loop}}}(p^{2}).$$ Applying the renormalization condition $\Sigma^{*}(m^{2}_{\Lambda})=0$ and introducing an effective cut-off, to the order $Z=1+O(g^{4}_{\phi})$, we get $$\delta m^{2}_{\Lambda}=\frac{g^{2}_{\phi}}{16\pi^{2}}\int^{1}_{0}dx
\ln\left[\frac{\mu_{\mbox{\tiny{eff}}}^{2}}{m^{2}_{\Lambda}-(2m^{2}_{\Lambda}-m^{2}_{\phi})x+m^{2}_{\Lambda}x^{2}}
\right]+O(g^{4}_{\phi}).\label{eq:delta_ml}$$ For $\delta m^{2}_{\Lambda}$ to be a real number, the denominator of the natural logarithm must be positive so we require the following inequality to hold $$m^{2}_{\Lambda}-(2m^{2}_{\Lambda}-m^{2}_{\phi})x+m^{2}_{\Lambda}x^{2}\geq0$$ for $x\in[0,1]$. Let $m^{2}_{\Lambda}=\alpha m^{2}_{\phi}$, the inequality becomes $f(x)\geq0$ where $$f(x)=\alpha-(2\alpha-1)x+\alpha x^{2}.$$ Since $\alpha>0$, the function has a minimum at $x_{0}=\frac{1}{2\alpha}(2\alpha-1)$. Therefore, the inequality is satisfied if $f(x_{0})\geq0$. This gives us the condition $\alpha\geq\frac{1}{4}$ which is in agreement with our earlier result.
Conclusions {#conc}
===========
In this paper, we have studied the simplest loop corrections for the mass dimension one fermionic dark matter with the Yukawa interaction. The Lorentz violation generated by the fermionic loop correction to the scalar propagator is non-zero and the fermionic self-energy is Lorentz-invariant. At one-loop, we find that the optical theorem is violated unless $m_{\Lambda}\geq\frac{1}{2}m_{\phi}$.
Identifying the scalar boson to be the Higgs boson, the mass dimension one fermion must then be at least 62.5 GeV. The constraint on the bosonic and fermionic masses seems unnatural. Nevertheless, working within the standard framework of quantum field theory, this is an inevitable consequence that the theory has to confront. Unitarity violation may be a reason why the theory is inconsistent. But in our opinion, we should keep an open mind and exhaust all possibilities. At the same time, it is important to remind ourselves that there are no reasons why the masses cannot satisfy the required inequality.
One the most important results we have found is that if such fermions existed and interact with the Higgs boson via the Yukawa interaction, the Higgs propagator cannot be Lorentz-invariant. Instead, it is dependent on the frame of reference in which it is being computed. Therefore, any variations to the physical processes involving the Higgs propagator could indicate indirect evidence for the existence of mass dimension one fermions.
Furthermore, the asymmetry in the Higgs mass in relation to the angles $\eta-\phi$ is a striking signature given by the current model for search in the nowadays accelerators. This is closely linked to the precision of the detectors to measure the transverse energy $ E_t $ in the angular plan. Future studies in this line can constrain the coupling constant in this model.
Finally, we should mention that a possible resolution to the unitarity problem has been proposed [@Ahluwalia:2016rwl]. The resolution is based on the observation that the dual space of the spinors and the field adjoint of the theory are different from their Dirac counterpart. Their introduction ensured the locality of the fermionic fields and positivity of the free Hamiltonian. Given that they play such an important role, it was proposed that instead of using the Hermitian conjugation to compute the transition probability, one should use a new conjugation for processes involving mass dimension one fermions. Upon adopting the new conjugation, the fermionic propagator becomes the Klein-Gordon propagator. As a result, the fermionic loop correction is Lorentz-invariant and the optical theorem is satisfied. While this result is desirable, it should be noted that it is a departure from the standard quantum field theory and further investigation is needed to determine its mathematical consistency.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
MD is grateful for the resources provided by the Center for Scientific Computing (NCC/GridUNESP) of the São Paulo State University (UNESP). CYL is grateful to D. V. Ahluwalia and Giorgio Torrieri for useful discussions and would like to thank the generous hospitality offered by IUCAA where part of this work was completed. CYL is supported by the CNPq grant 313285/2013-6.
Useful identities {#A}
=================
The mass dimension one fermionic field operator and its adjoint are given by $$\begin{aligned}
&&\Lambda(x)=(2\pi)^{-3/2}\int\frac{d^{3}p}{\sqrt{2mE_{\mathbf{p}}}}\sum_{\alpha}
[e^{-ip\cdot x}\xi(\p,\alpha)+e^{ip\cdot x}\zeta(\p,\alpha)b^{\dag}(\p,\alpha)],\\
&&{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}(x)=(2\pi)^{-3/2}\int\frac{d^{3}p}{\sqrt{2mE_{\mathbf{p}}}}\sum_{\alpha}
[e^{ip\cdot x}{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\xi}}}(\p,\alpha)a(\p,\alpha)+e^{-ip\cdot x}{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\zeta}}}(\p,\alpha)b(\p,\alpha)].\end{aligned}$$ The spinors $\xi(\p,\alpha)$ and $\zeta(\p,\alpha)$ are eigenspinors of the charge conjugation operator $$\mathcal{C}\xi(\p,\alpha)=\xi(\p,\alpha),\hspace{0.5cm}
\mathcal{C}\zeta(\p,\alpha)=-\zeta(\p,\alpha)$$ where $$\mathcal{C}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
O & -i\Theta \\
i\Theta & O
\end{matrix}\right)K,\hspace{0.5cm}
\Theta=\left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & -1 \\
1 & 0
\end{matrix}\right)$$ with $K$ being the complex-conjugation operator. The dual spinors is defined as $${\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\xi}}}(\p,\alpha)=\overline{\xi}(\p,\alpha)\Xi(\p),\hspace{0.5cm}
{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\zeta}}}(\p,\alpha)=\overline{\zeta}(\p,\alpha)\Xi(\p).$$ where $$\Xi(\p)=\frac{1}{m}\sum_{\alpha}[\xi(\p,\alpha)\overline{\xi}(\p,\alpha)-\zeta(\p,\alpha)
\overline{\zeta}(\p,\alpha)].$$ The spin-sums needed to compute the $\phi\rightarrow{\overset{{}^{{}^{\boldsymbol{\neg}}}}{\smash[t]{\Lambda}}}\Lambda$ decay rate are $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{\alpha}\xi(\p,\alpha)\overline{\xi}(\p,\alpha)=\slashed{p}[I+\mathcal{G}(\phi)],\\
&&\sum_{\alpha}\zeta(\p,\alpha)\overline{\zeta}(\p,\alpha)=\slashed{p}[I-\mathcal{G}(\phi)].\end{aligned}$$
[^1]: In this paper, we have adopted the on-shell subtraction scheme where the renormalized mass and the pole mass of the propagator are equal. The renormalization conditions are $\Pi^{*}(m^{2}_{\phi})=0$ and $d/dp^{2}\Pi^{*}(m^{2}_{\phi})=0$. Similarly, for the mass dimension one fermion, we have $\Sigma^{*}(m^{2}_{\Lambda})=0$ and $d/dp^{2}\Sigma^{*}(m^{2}_{\phi})=0$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Define $S(n,\beta)$ to be the set of complex polynomials of degree $n\ge2$ with all roots in the unit disk and at least one root at $\beta$. For a polynomial $P$, define $|P|_\beta$ to be the distance between $\beta$ and the closest root of the derivative $P'$. Finally, define $r_n(\beta)=\sup \{ |P|_\beta : P \in S(n,\beta) \}$. In this notation, a conjecture of Bl. Sendov claims that $r_n(\beta)\le1$.
In this paper we investigate Sendov’s conjecture near the unit circle, by computing constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ (depending only on $n$) such that $r_n(\beta)\sim1+C_1(1-|\beta|)+C_2(1-|\beta|)^2$ for $|\beta|$ near $1$. We also consider some consequences of this approximation.
address: |
Department of Mathematics\
Le Moyne College\
Syracuse, New York 13214
author:
- 'Michael J. Miller'
title: A quadratic approximation to the Sendov radius near the unit circle
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In 1962, Sendov conjectured that if a polynomial (with complex coefficients) has all its roots in the unit disk, then within one unit of each of its roots lies a root of its derivative. More than 50 papers have been published on this conjecture, but it has been verified in general only for polynomials of degree at most 8 [@Bro].
Let $n\ge 2$ be an integer and let $\beta$ be a complex number of modulus at most $1$. Define $S(n,\beta)$ to be the set of polynomials of degree $n$ with complex coefficients, all roots in the unit disk and at least one root at $\beta$. For a polynomial $P$, define $|P|_\beta$ to be the distance between $\beta$ and the closest root of the derivative $P'$. Finally, define $r_n(\beta)=\sup \{ |P|_\beta
: P \in S(n,\beta) \}$, and note that $r_n(\beta)\le2$ (since by the Gauss-Lucas Theorem [@Mar Theorem 6.1] all roots of each $P'$ are also in the unit disk, and so each $|P|_\beta\le2$). In this notation, Sendov’s conjecture claims simply that $r_n(\beta)\le1$.
In estimating $r_n(\beta)$, we will assume without loss of generality (by rotation) that $0\le\beta\le1$. It is already known that $r_2(\beta)=(1+\beta)/2$ and that $$r_3(\beta)=[3\beta+(12-3\beta^2)^{1/2}]/6$$ [@Rah Theorem 2], that $r_n(0)=(1/n)^{1/(n-1)}$ [@BRS-2 Lemma 4 and $p(z)=z^n-z$], that $r_n(1)=1$ [@Rub Theorem 1], and that $r_n(\beta)\le\min(1.08332, 1+0.72054/n)$ [@BRS-1 Corollary 1 and equations (3)].
Since $r_n(1)=1$, an obvious place to look for counterexamples to Sendov’s conjecture is in a neighborhood of $\beta=1$. This has already been done in [@Mil-2 Theorem 3] and [@VZ], where a linear upper bound on $r_n(\beta)$ suffices to verify the Sendov conjecture if $\beta$ is sufficiently close to $1$. Unfortunately, having only an upper bound leaves many interesting questions about the conjecture unanswered. In this paper we investigate Sendov’s conjecture much more thoroughly near $\beta=1$, by providing a quadratic approximation to $r_n(\beta)$ with
\[1\] Let $n\ge3$, let $k$ be the largest integer such that $k \le (n+1)/3$ and let
$$\begin{aligned}
u_1 &= \cos{\dfrac{2\pi k}{n+1}},\qquad
u_2 = \cos{\dfrac{2\pi (k+1)}{n+1}},\\
D_1 &= {\dfrac{-2 u_1 u_2-1}{2(1-u_1)(1-u_2)}},\qquad
D_2 = {\dfrac{-1}{2(1-u_1)(1-u_2)}},\\
D_3 &= (-1-4D_1-3D_1^2+2D_2^2)/2,\\
D_4 &= (3D_1-4D_2+3D_1^2-2D_1D_2-6D_2^2)/2,\\
D_5 &= (2+4D_1+5D_2+2D_1^2+4D_1D_2+3D_2^2)/2, \\
D_6 &= (2D_2+2D_1D_2+3D_2^2)/2 \quad{\rm and}\\
D &= D_3 n+D_4+D_5/n+D_6/n^2.\end{aligned}$$
If $n=3$ or $n=5$ then let $\alpha=3/2$; otherwise let $\alpha=2$. If $n=5$ then let $\Delta=7/225$; otherwise let $\Delta=0$. Then for $\beta$ sufficiently close to $1$, we have $$r_{n+1}(\beta) = 1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta) +(D+\Delta)(1-\beta)^2+
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.$$
Before proving this theorem, we will examine some of its consequences. Our first consequence improves on estimates in [@Mil-2] and [@VZ] (by providing a value for the coefficient of the linear term) with
\[2\] For all $n\ge2$ we have $r_n(\beta)\le 1-(3/10)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$
Recall that for $2\le n\le3$ we have formulas for $r_n(\beta)$, and so the result for those values of $n$ follows from the Taylor series of these formulas at $\beta=1$. As we will show in part 6 of Lemma \[8\], the quantity $D_1+D_2/n\le-3/10$ for all $n\ge 3$, and so the rest of Corollary \[2\] follows from Theorem \[1\].
As we will show in part 6 of Lemma \[8\], at $n=4$ we have $D_1+D_2/n=-3/10$, so Corollary \[2\] provides the smallest possible linear upper bound for $r_n(\beta)$ that is independent of $n$.
A second consequence of Theorem \[1\] shows that the result of [@Mil-2 Theorem 3] is the best possible (in the sense that $1/3$ cannot be replaced by a larger number), with
\[3\] There exist constants $K_n>0$ with $\lim_{n \to \infty}K_n=1/3$ such that $$r_{n+1}(\beta)= 1-K_n(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$
Choose $K_n=-(D_1+D_2/n)$ and note that by Theorem \[1\] we have $r_{n+1}(\beta)=1-K_n(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$. As we shall see in parts 5 and 6 of Lemma \[8\], the quantity $D_1+D_2/n$ is negative and tends to $-1/3$.
Recall that $r_n(0)=(1/n)^{1/(n-1)}$. This quantity is increasing in $n$, so it is tempting to conjecture that for all fixed $\beta$ the quantity $r_n(\beta)$ is increasing in $n$. Indeed, the graphs in [@Mil-1 figure 4.8] provide some evidence of this for $n=4$, $6$, $8$, $10$, and $12$. Unfortunately, this conjecture is false, as is shown by
\[4\] For $\beta$ sufficiently close to $1$ we have $r_6(\beta)<r_4(\beta)$.
By Theorem \[1\] and the constants we will compute at the beginning of section 2, we know that $r_4(\beta)=1-(1/3)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$ and that $r_6(\beta)=1-(11/30)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$, and the conclusion follows.
We will verify Theorem \[1\] by proving the following three propositions:
\[5\] Assume the notation of Theorem \[1\]. Then for all polynomials $P \in
S(n+1, \beta)$, we have $$|P|_\beta\le 1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+ (D+\Delta)(1-\beta)^2+
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.$$
\[6\] There are polynomials $P \in S(6,\beta)$ with $$|P|_\beta= 1-(11/30)(1-\beta)+(29/450)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}.$$
\[7\] Assume the notation of Theorem \[1\]. Then there are real polynomials $P \in S(n+1,\beta)$ with $$|P|_\beta= 1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta) +D(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.$$
From the definition of $D$ in Theorem \[1\] and the constants we will compute at the beginning of section 2, for $n=5$ we have $D_1+D_2/n=-11/30$ and $D+\Delta=29/450$, so Propositions \[5\] and \[6\] together imply that Theorem \[1\] is true for $n=5$. Note that for $n\ne5$ we have $\Delta=0$, so Propositions \[5\] and \[7\] taken together imply that Theorem \[1\] is true for $n \ne
5$.
In [@Mil-3] it was proved that if $n=5$ and if $\beta$ is sufficiently close to $1$ then maximal polynomials in $S(n+1,\beta)$ (those for which $|P|_\beta=r_{n+1}(\beta)$) must be nonreal. Taken together, Theorem \[1\] and Proposition \[7\] provide strong evidence that this is true only for $n=5$ (although it is conceivable that this could fail for higher-order approximations).
Preliminaries
=============
We begin by computing some values (that we will subsequently need) for the constants that appear in Theorem \[1\], obtaining:
$\begin{array}{cccccc}
n & u_1 & u_2 & D_1 & D_2 & D_1+D_2/n \\
3 & 0 & -1 & -1/4 & -1/4 & -1/3 \\
4 & {\dfrac{-1+\sqrt5}{4}} & {\dfrac{-1-\sqrt5}{4}} & -1/5 & -2/5 & -3/10 \\
5 & -1/2 & -1 & -1/3 & -1/6 & -11/30 \\
6 & -0.2225 & -0.9010 & -0.3014 \\
7 & 0 & -0.7071 & -0.2929 & -0.2929 & -0.3347 \\
9 & -0.3090 & -0.8090 \\
10 & -0.1423 & -0.6549 & -0.3138
\end{array}$
We next establish some relationships between these constants with
\[8\] Assume the notation of Theorem \[1\]. Then
1. $u_2< -1/2\le u_1$, and $u_1\le 0$ for $n \ne 4$, and $u_2>-1$ for $n\ne3,5$,
2. $u_1+u_2<0$ and $u_1u_2>-1$,
3. $2n u_1+n+1\ge1$ and $2n u_2+n+1<0$,
4. $D_1<0$ and $D_2<0$,
5. $\lim_{n \to\infty} D_1+D_2/n=-1/3$,
6. $-1<D_1+D_2/n\le-3/10$, with equality only at $n=4$, and
7. $1+(1+D_1+D_2)(u_i-1)-D_2(2u_i^2-2)=0$ for $i=1$ and $i=2$.
From the definition of $k$ in Theorem \[1\], the relationship between $k$ and $n$ depends on the residue of $n$ modulo 3. For increasing values of $n$ in each of the three residue classes, the sequence $k/(n+1)$ increases to (or is equal to) $1/3$ and the sequence $(k+1)/(n+1)$ strictly decreases to $1/3$, so the values of $u_1$ decrease to (or are equal to) $-1/2$ and the values of $u_2$ strictly increase to $-1/2$. Since the values of $u_1$ decrease (or remain constant) in each residue class, and since $u_1\le0$ for $n=3$, 5 and 7 then $u_1\le0$ for all $n\ne4$. Since the values of $u_2$ strictly increase in each residue class, and since $u_2>-1$ for $n=4$ and $u_2=-1$ for $n=3$ and $n=5$, then $u_2>-1$ for $n\ne3,5$. This completes the proof of part 1 of the lemma.
For $n=4$, we have $u_1+u_2=-1/2$ and $u_1u_2=-1/4$. For $n\ne4$ we have from part 1 that $u_2<u_1\le0$, and part 2 of the lemma follows trivially.
Since $u_1\ge-1/2$, then $2nu_1+n+1\ge1$. For $n=3$, $4$ and $5$ we have $\hbox{(k+1)/(n+1)}\le1/2$. Since in each residue class this quotient strictly decreases to $1/3$ then for all $n\ge3$ we have $2\pi(k+1)/(n+1)\in (2\pi/3,\pi]$. Now $\cos x \le
1/2-3x/(2\pi)$ on this interval, and from the definition of $k$ in Theorem \[1\] we know that $k\ge(n-1)/3$, so $$u_2=\cos\frac{2\pi(k+1)}{n+1}\le \frac{1}{2}-\frac{3(k+1)}{n+1} \le
\frac{1}{2}-\frac{n+2}{n+1}< -\frac{n+1}{2n}$$ which completes the proof of part 3 of the lemma.
At $n=4$, we have $D_1=-1/5$ and $D_2=-2/5$. For $n\ne4$ we know from part 1 of Lemma \[8\] that $u_2<u_1\le0$ so from the definitions of $D_1$ and $D_2$ in Theorem \[1\] we see that $D_1<0$ and $D_2<0$. This completes the proof of part 4 of the lemma.
As $n$ tends to infinity, $u_1$ and $u_2$ tend to $-1/2$, so $D_1$ tends to $-1/3$ and $D_2$ is bounded. This completes the proof of part 5 of the lemma.
By part 2 of Lemma \[8\] we have $u_1+u_2<0$ and $u_1u_2>-1$. Since by part 4 of Lemma \[8\] we know that $D_2<0$ then $$D_1+D_2/n > D_1+D_2=-\frac{1+u_1u_2}{1+u_1u_2-(u_1+u_2)} > -1.$$ From part 1 of Lemma \[8\] we know that $u_2<-1/2\le u_1$, so by computing the partial derivatives of $D_1$ we see that $\partial D_1/\partial
u_1>0$ and $\partial D_1/\partial u_2\le0$. Since in each residue class $u_1$ decreases to $-1/2$ and $u_2$ increases to $-1/2$, then in each residue class $D_1$ decreases to $-1/3$. At $n=5$, $6$ and $10$ we have $D_1<-3/10$, and hence $D_1+D_2/n<D_1<-3/10$ for all $n\ge3$ except possibly $n=3$, $4$ and $7$. Checking the values of $D_1+D_2/n$ (computed at the beginning of section 2) for these exceptional values completes the proof of part 6 of the lemma.
Expressing $D_1$ and $D_2$ in terms of $u_1$ and $u_2$ and simplifying the result verifies part 7, and thus completes the proof of Lemma \[8\].
We now estimate the size of the coefficients of $P'$ with
\[9\] Suppose that $P \in S(n+1, \beta)$ with $P'$ monic and $|P|_\beta
\ge \beta$. Let $P'(z)=\prod_{j=1}^n (z-\zeta_j)=z^n+a_{n-1}z^{n-1}+\dots+a_0$. Then
1. each $\Re[\zeta_j]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$ and each $\Im[\zeta_j]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{1/2}}$,
2. each $a_{n-k}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{k/2}}$,
3. for $k$ odd, each $\Re[a_{n-k}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{(k+1)/2}}$, and
4. for $k$ even, each $\Im[a_{n-k}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{(k+1)/2}}$.
Parts 1–3 were proved in [@Mil-3 Proposition 4]. Part 4 is proved similarly to part 3, by noting that each term of $\Im[a_{n-k}]$ is a product of $k$ of the $\Re[\zeta_j]$’s and $\Im[\zeta_j]$’s, and that for $k$ even, each term has at least one $\Re[\zeta_j]$, so from part 1 of Proposition \[9\] we have that $\Im[a_{n-k}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{(k+1)/2}}$.
To have $P\in S(n+1,\beta)$ requires that the moduli of the roots of $P$ are all at most $1$. We estimate these moduli with
\[10\] Assume the notation of Theorem \[1\]. Let $P$ be a polynomial with $P'(z)=z^n+a_{n-1}z^{n-1}+\dots+a_0$ and $P(\beta)=0$. Let $z\ne\beta$ be a root of $P$, let $\omega$ be the $(n+1)$th root of $1$ that is closest to $z$ and let $R=(1-\beta)+a_{n-1}(\omega^n-1)/n+\dots+a_0(\omega-1)$.
1. For $0<r\le1$, if each $a_k={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$ then $|z|^2=1-2\Re[R]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2r}}$.
2. Suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
a_{n-1}&=n(1+D_1+D_2)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}},\\
a_{n-2}&=-(n-1)D_2(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}, and\\
a_{n-k}&={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}} \text{\quad for $k\ge3$}\\\end{aligned}$$ and define $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_2 &= 2(1+D_1+D_2)(D_1-2D_2+nD_2)\text{ and}\\
\Gamma_1 &= -\Gamma_2+(-2-4D_1)n+(1+4D_1-4D_2).\end{aligned}$$ If $\Re[\omega]=u_i$ for $i=1$ or $i=2$ then $$|z|^{2n+2}=1-2(n+1)\Re[R]+(n+1)(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_i)(1-\beta)^2+
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.$$
Since $\beta=1-(1-\beta)$ then by the binomial theorem $\beta^k=1-k(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$. Since $z$ is a root of $P$ we have $$0=P(z)=\int_\beta^z P'(t)\,dt = \frac{z^{n+1}-\beta^{n+1}}{n+1} +
a_{n-1} \frac{z^n-\beta^n}{n} +\dots +a_0(z-\beta),$$ and solving for $z^{n+1}$ gives us $$\label{e-2.1}
z^{n+1}=\beta^{n+1}-(n+1)\left[a_{n-1} \frac{z^n-\beta^n}{n}
+\dots +a_0(z-\beta)\right].$$ By hypothesis, as $\beta$ goes to $1$ the $a_k$ all tend to 0 so the roots of $P$ tend to the roots of $z^{n+1}-1$, and so the $\omega$ appearing in the hypotheses is well-defined.
Now each $\beta^k=1+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$, and by the hypothesis of part 1 each $a_k={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$. Putting these estimates into equation , we see that $z^{n+1}=1+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$. Then $z=\omega+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$ and so $(z^k-\beta^k)/k=(\omega^k-1)/k+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$. Now note that each $a_{n-k}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$ and that each $\beta^k=1-k(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$. Substituting these estimates into equation gives $$\begin{split}
z^{n+1}&=1-(n+1)(1-\beta)-(n+1)\left[a_{n-1} \frac{\omega^n-1}{n} +\dots
+a_0(\omega-1) \right]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2r}} \\
&=1-(n+1)R+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2r}}.
\end{split}$$ Note that $R={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$ so $$(1-R)^{n+1}=1-(n+1)R+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2r}}=z^{n+1}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2r}}$$ so $z=\omega(1-R)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2r}}$ and hence $|z|^2=z\overline z=
1-2\Re[R]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2r}}$. This finishes the proof of part 1.
From the hypotheses of part 2, we know that $\Re[\omega]=u_i$ for $i=1$ or $i=2$. Suppose for the moment that $\Re[\omega]=u_1$ and write $\omega=u_1+iv_1$. Since $\omega^{n+1}=1$ then $|\omega|=1$, so $\omega^n={\overline\omega}$ and $\Re[\omega^2]=2u_1^2-1$. Let $A=\big[-(1+D_1+D_2)+2D_2u_1\big]v_1$. From part 7 of Lemma \[8\] we see that $$\Re[1+(1+D_1+D_2)({\overline\omega}-1)-D_2({\overline\omega}^2-1)]=0$$ and so using the estimates of the $a_{n-k}$’s given in the hypotheses of part 2, we get $$\begin{split}
R &= (1-\beta)+ a_{n-1}\frac{{\overline\omega}-1}{n}+ a_{n-2}\frac{{\overline\omega}^2-1}{
n-1}+ \dots + a_0(\omega-1) \\
&=\big[1+(1+D_1+D_2)({\overline\omega}-1)-D_2({\overline\omega}^2-1)\big](1-\beta)+
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}} \\
&=iA(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}.
\end{split}$$
The hypotheses of part 2 imply that each $a_k={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$, so from the proof of part 1 with $r=1$ we have $z=\omega(1-R)+
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}=\omega\big[1-i A(1-\beta)\big]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}$ and so $$(z^k-\beta^k)/k=(\omega^k-1)/k+(1-i A\omega^k)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}.$$
Let $G=n/2-n(1+D_1+D_2)(1-i A{\overline\omega})+(n-1)D_2(1-i A{\overline\omega}^2)$. Then from equation and the estimates of the $a_k$’s given in the hypotheses of part 2 we get $$\begin{split}
z^{n+1}&=1-(n+1)(1-\beta)+\frac{(n+1)n}{2}(1-\beta)^2 \\
&\qquad-(n+1)\bigg[a_{n-1}\left(\frac{\omega^n-1}{
n} +(1-i A\omega^n)(1-\beta)\right) \\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+a_{n-2}\left(\frac{\omega^{n-1}-1}{
n-1} +(1-i A\omega^{n-1})(1-\beta)\right) \\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+a_{n-3}\frac{\omega^{n-2}-1}{n-2}+
\dots+ a_0(\omega-1)\bigg]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}} \\
&=1-(n+1)R+(n+1)G(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.
\end{split}$$ Then since $R=iA(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}$ we have $$\begin{split}
|z|^{2n+2}&=z^{n+1}\overline z^{n+1} \\
&=1-2(n+1)\Re[R]+
(n+1)\big[2\Re[G]+(n+1)A^2\big](1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.
\end{split}$$
Thus to complete the proof of part 2 of Proposition \[10\] for the case $\Re[\omega]=u_1$ we need only verify that $2\Re[G]+(n+1)A^2=\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_1$.
Let $D_0=1+D_1+D_2$, so from the definition of $A$ we see that $A=\break(-D_0+2D_2u_1)v_1$. Note that $\Re[i\,{\overline\omega}]=\Im[\omega]$. Then from the definition of $G$ we have $$\begin{split}
\Re[G] &= n/2-nD_0(1-Av_1)+(n-1)D_2(1-2Au_1v_1) \\
&= n/2-nD_0+(n-1)D_2
-A\big[n(-D_0v_1+2D_2u_1v_1)-2D_2u_1v_1\big] \\
&= (-n/2-nD_1-D_2)-nA^2+2AD_2u_1v_1
\end{split}$$ so $$\label{e-2.2}
2\Re[G]+(n+1)A^2=(-n-2nD_1-2D_2)+(-n+1)A^2+4AD_2u_1v_1.$$
Now $$2D_2u_1^2=\frac{-u_1^2}{(1-u_1)(1-u_2)}=D_0u_1+(D_2-D_1)$$ so $$\begin{split}
Av_1 &= (-D_0+2D_2u_1)(1-u_1^2) \\
&= -D_0+2D_2u_1-u_1(-D_0u_1+2D_2u_1^2) \\
&= -D_0+(D_1+D_2)u_1.
\end{split}$$
Using these two equalities, we see that $$\begin{split}
A^2 &= (-D_0+2D_2u_1) \big[-D_0+(D_1+D_2)u_1\big] \\
&= D_0^2+(-D_0D_1-3D_0D_2)u_1+(D_1+D_2)(2D_2u_1^2) \\
&= D_0^2-D_1^2+D_2^2-2D_0D_2u_1
\end{split}$$ and $$\begin{split}
2AD_2u_1v_1 &= 2D_2u_1[-D_0+(D_1+D_2)u_1] \\
&=-2D_0D_2u_1+(D_1+D_2)[D_0u_1+(D_2-D_1)] \\
&= D_0(D_1-D_2)u_1+(D_2^2-D_1^2).
\end{split}$$ Thus from equation we have $$\begin{split}
2\Re[G]+(n+1)A^2 &= (-n-2nD_1-2D_2)
+(-n+1)(D_0^2-D_1^2+D_2^2-2D_0D_2u_1) \\
&\qquad+ 2\big[D_0(D_1-D_2)u_1+(D_2^2-D_1^2)\big] \\
&= (-1-2D_1-D_0^2+D_1^2-D_2^2)n +(-2D_2+D_0^2-3D_1^2+3D_2^2) \\
&\qquad+ 2D_0u_1(D_1-2D_2+nD_2) \\
&=\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_1.
\end{split}$$
This finishes the proof of part 2 of Proposition \[10\] for the case $\Re[\omega]=u_1$. Since $D_1$ and $D_2$ are symmetric in $u_1$ and $u_2$, swapping $u_1$ and $u_2$ in this proof verifies part 2 of Proposition \[10\] for the remaining case $\Re[\omega]=u_2$, and thus completes the proof of Proposition \[10\].
Finally, consider the linear transformation ${\mathcal T}$ which takes functions to real numbers via $$\label{e-2.3}
{\mathcal T}(f)=\frac{(2nu_1+n+1)f(u_2)-(2nu_2+n+1)f(u_1)}{2(u_1-u_2)}.$$ Recall that by Lemma \[8\] we have $u_1-u_2>0$, $2nu_1+n+1>0$ and $2nu_2+n+1<0$, so ${\mathcal T}/n$ is a weighted average. This implies that ${\mathcal T}$ preserves inequalities, in the sense that if $f(u_1)\le
g(u_1)$ and $f(u_2)\le g(u_2)$ then ${\mathcal T}(f)\le{\mathcal T}(g)$.
In the process of analyzing several inequalities, we will need the following values of the transformation ${\mathcal T}$: $$\label{e-2.4}
\begin{split}
{\mathcal T}(1) &= n \\
{\mathcal T}(2+2u)&=n-1 \\
{\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)&=-[n+2+2(n+1)(u_1+u_2)+4nu_1u_2] \\
&=-\frac{n+1+D_1+3nD_1+3D_2}{D_2} \\
{\mathcal T}\left(\frac{1}{1-u}\right) &= n+nD_1+D_2 \\
{\mathcal T}\left(\frac{u}{1-u}\right) &= nD_1+D_2
\end{split}$$
We will also use the results of
\[11\] For the linear transformation ${\mathcal T}$ defined in equation we have
1. ${\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)/(n-2)<1/2$ for $n\ne3$, $4$ and $6$, and
2. ${\mathcal T}(8u^2+8u^3)\ge0$ for all $n$.
From the formula for ${\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)$ in and from part 3 of Lemma \[8\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\partial {\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)/\partial u_1 &= -2(2nu_2+n+1)>0 \text{
and} \\
\partial {\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)/\partial u_2 &= -2(2nu_1+n+1)<0.\end{aligned}$$ Recall from the proof of Lemma \[8\] that for each residue class of $n$ modulo $3$ the values of $u_1$ decrease and the values of $u_2$ increase, so the signs of the partial derivatives above imply that in each residue class the values of ${\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)$ decrease. Since $1+4u+4u^2= (1+2u)^2\ge0$ and since ${\mathcal T}$ preserves inequalities, then ${\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)\ge0$, so the values of ${\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)/(n-2)$ also decrease in each residue class. Using the formula for ${\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)$ in and the values of the $u_i$ computed at the beginning of section 2, we calculate the values of ${\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)/(n-2)$ at $n=5$, $7$ and $9$, getting respectively $1/3$, $0.4627$ and $0.3372$. Since they are all less than $1/2$, this proves part 1 of Lemma \[11\].
Since by definition $u_i\ge-1$ then $8u_i^2+8u_i^3=8u_i^2(1+u_i)\ge0$ for both $i=1$ and $i=2$, and so part 2 of Lemma \[11\] follows from our observation that ${\mathcal T}$ preserves inequalities.
Finally, we will deal with polynomials that are “almost” in $S(n,\beta)$ using
\[12\] Suppose that $P$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ with all roots in $\{z:
|z|\le1+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}\}$, one root at $\beta$, and all other roots bounded away from $\beta$. Then there is a polynomial $Q \in S(n,\beta)$ such that $|Q|_\beta = |P|_\beta +{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$.
If $P \in S(n,\beta)$ then we may take $Q=P$. If not, then at least one root of $P$ has modulus greater than $1$. In this case, let $$c=\max\left\{\frac{|z|^2-1}{|z-\beta|^2}: \text{$z$ is a root of $P$ and
$|z|>1$}\right\}$$ Since by hypothesis $|z-\beta|$ is bounded away from $0$ and $|z|\le1+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$, then $0<c\le{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$. In particular, for $\beta$ sufficiently close to $1$ we have $0<c<1$.
Let $Q$ be the polynomial with roots $\{z-c(z-\beta): \text{$z$ is
a root of $P$}\}$. Since the mapping $z \mapsto z-c(z-\beta)$ is a contraction of the plane that leaves $\beta$ fixed and moves all roots of $P$ (and hence $P'$) toward $\beta$ by at most ${\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$, then $Q(\beta)=0$ and $|Q|_\beta=|P|_\beta+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{r}}$. Thus we need only show that all roots of $Q$ are in the unit disk.
Note that for $t$ real the image of the mapping $t \mapsto
z-t(z-\beta)$ is a line, with $t=0$ mapping to $z$, and $t=1$ mapping to $\beta$, and $t=(|z|^2-1)/|z-\beta|^2$ mapping to $$z-\frac{|z|^2-1}{|z-\beta|^2}(z-\beta) =
z-\frac{z\overline z-1}{\overline z-\beta} =
\frac{1-\beta z}{\overline z-\beta}.$$ If $z$ is in the unit disk, then the images of every $t$ between $0$ and $1$ lie on the line between $z$ and $\beta$, hence in the unit disk. If $z$ is not in the unit disk, then $|(1-\beta
z)/(z-\beta)|<1$ and so the images of every $t$ between $(|z|^2-1)/|z-\beta|^2$ and $1$ lie on the line between $(1-\beta
z)/(\overline z-\beta)$ and $\beta$, hence in the unit disk. Thus for every root $z$ of $P$, the image of $c$ lies in the unit disk, so all roots of $Q$ are in the unit disk and so $Q \in S(n,\beta)$. This completes the proof of Lemma \[12\].
Proof of Proposition \[5\]
==========================
Take any $P \in S(n+1,\beta)$, assume without loss of generality that $P'$ is monic, and write $P'(z)=\prod_{j=1}^n(z-\zeta_j)=
z^n+a_{n-1}z^{n-1}+\dots+a_0$.
If $|P|_\beta\le 1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+ (D+\Delta)(1-\beta)^2$, then Proposition \[5\] is trivially true. Thus we may assume without loss of generality that $$\label{e-3.1}
|P|_\beta\ge 1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+(D+\Delta)(1-\beta)^2.$$ From part 6 of Lemma \[8\] we have that $D_1+D_2/n>-1$, and so inequality implies that $|P|_\beta\ge\beta$ as long as $\beta$ is sufficiently close to $1$. Note that $P$ thus satisfies all the hypotheses of Proposition \[9\].
We begin by estimating some relationships between the coefficients of $P'$ with
\[13\] Suppose that $\Im[a_{n-1}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}$ and that each $$|\zeta_j-\beta|=1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$ Then
1. $\Im[a_{n-2}]= (-3/2)\Im[a_{n-3}]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}$ and
2. $\Re[a_{n-3}]+2\Re[a_{n-4}]=
(n-2)(1+D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)\Re[a_{n-2}]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}$.
Let each $\zeta_j=x_j+i y_j$ and note that by Proposition \[9\] we have $x_j={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$ and $y_j={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{1/2}}$. Note that by hypothesis, $\sum_i y_i=
-\Im[a_{n-1}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}$ and that each $$(\beta-x_j)^2+y_j^2 = |\beta-\zeta_j|^2= 1+2(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$$ so solving for $x_j$ gives us $$\label{e-3.2}
x_j=y_j^2/2-(1+D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$
Note that $\Im[a_{n-3}]=-\sum_{i<j<k} \Im[\zeta_i \zeta_j \zeta_k]
=\sum_{i<j<k} y_i y_j y_k+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}$, so $$\begin{split}
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} &= \sum_i y_i \sum_{i<j} y_i y_j= \sum_{i\ne j}y_i^2 y_j
+3\sum_{i<j<k} y_i y_j y_k \\
&= \sum_{i\ne j} y_i^2y_j+3\Im[a_{n-3}]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}
\end{split}$$ and so $\sum_{i\ne j} y_i^2y_j=-3\Im[a_{n-3}]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}$. Then using equation we have $$\begin{split}
\Im[a_{n-2}] &= \sum_{i<j}\Im[\zeta_i \zeta_j] = \sum_{i \ne j}x_i
y_j \\
& = (1/2)\sum_{i\ne j} y_i^2 y_j- (1+D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)\sum_{i\ne
j} y_j+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} \\
&= (-3/2)\Im[a_{n-3}]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}},
\end{split}$$ which completes the proof of part 1 of Lemma \[13\].
Let $S$ be the set of triples $(i,j,k)$ of distinct integers from $1$ to $n$ with $j<\nobreak k$. Note that $\Re[a_{n-2}] = \sum_{i<j}
\Re[\zeta_i\zeta_j]= -\sum_{i<j}y_iy_j+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$ and $\Re[a_{n-3}]=-\sum_{i<j<k} \Re[\zeta_i\zeta_j\zeta_k]=\sum_S
x_iy_jy_k+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}$. Furthermore, $${\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}=\sum_i y_i \sum_{j<k<l} y_jy_ky_l= \sum_Sy_i^2y_jy_k+
4\sum_{i<j<k<l} y_iy_jy_ky_l,$$ so $$\begin{split}
\Re[a_{n-4}]&=\sum_{i<j<k<l}\Re[\zeta_i\zeta_j\zeta_k\zeta_l]=
\sum_{i<j<k<l} y_iy_jy_ky_l+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}} \\
&= (-1/4)\sum_Sy_i^2y_jy_k+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}.
\end{split}$$ Then using equation we have $$\begin{split}
\Re[a_{n-3}]+2\Re[a_{n-4}]
&=\sum_S \big( x_i-y_i^2/2 \big) y_jy_k+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}} \\
&=-(1+D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)(n-2)\sum_{j<k} y_jy_k +{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}} \\
&=(n-2)(1+D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)\Re[a_{n-2}]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}},
\end{split}$$ which completes the proof of Lemma \[13\].
We now establish a lower bound on $\Re[a_{n-4}]$ with
\[14\] Suppose that $$\begin{aligned}
\Im[a_{n-1}] &= {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}, \\
\Re[a_{n-2}] &= -(n-1)D_2(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}},\text{ and} \\
\Im[a_{n-3}] &= {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}.\end{aligned}$$ If $n=5$ then define $\delta=-1/15$; otherwise define $\delta=0$. Then $$\Re[a_{n-4}]\ge\delta(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.$$
Let each $\zeta_j=x_j+iy_j$ and recall by Proposition \[9\] that $x_j={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$ and $y_j={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{1/2}}$. Let $F(y)= \prod_{i=1}^n (y+y_i)=
y^n+b_{n-1}y^{n-1}+\dots+b_0$. Note that $$\begin{split}
\Re[a_{n-4}] &=
\sum_{i<j<k<l}\Re[\zeta_i\zeta_j\zeta_k\zeta_l]=
\sum_{i<j<k<l} y_iy_jy_ky_l+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}} \\
&=b_{n-4}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}
\end{split}$$ and that by hypothesis $$\begin{aligned}
b_{n-1} &= \sum_i y_i = \sum_i\Im[\zeta_i]= -\Im[a_{n-1}] \\
&= {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}, \\
b_{n-2} &= \sum_{i<j} y_i y_j = -\sum_{i<j}\Re[\zeta_i \zeta_j]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}
=-\Re[a_{n-2}]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}} \\
&= (n-1)D_2(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}, \text{ and} \\
b_{n-3} &= \sum_{i<j<k} y_iy_jy_k = -\sum_{i<j<k} \Im[\zeta_i \zeta_j
\zeta_k]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} =\Im[a_{n-3}]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} \\
&= {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}.\end{aligned}$$ Let $$\begin{split}
f(y) &=F^{(n-4)}(y)\\
&=\frac{n!}{24}y^4+\frac{(n-1)!}{6}b_{n-1}y^3+
\frac{(n-2)!}{2}b_{n-2}y^2
+(n-3)!\,b_{n-3}y+ (n-4)!\,b_{n-4}.
\end{split}$$
Now by definition $F$ has all real roots, hence by Rolle’s Theorem (from elementary calculus) so does $f$. Then the “reverse” of f defined by $y^4f(1/y)= (n-4)!b_{n-4}y^4+\dots+n!/24$ has all real roots, so by Rolle’s theorem so does the reverse’s second derivative $$12(n-4)!b_{n-4}y^2+6(n-3)!b_{n-3}y+(n-2)!~b_{n-2}.$$ Since this quadratic has all real roots then its discriminant is nonnegative, so $$[6(n-3)!b_{n-3}]^2-48(n-2)!(n-4)!b_{n-2}b_{n-4}\ge0.$$ Using our estimates of the $b_{n-k}$’s (including $b_{n-4}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$), this implies that $-D_2(1-\beta)b_{n-4}\ge{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2\alpha}}$ and so $b_{n-4}\ge{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2\alpha-1}}$. Now for $n\ne3,5$ we have $\alpha=2$ and so $\Re[a_{n-4}]=b_{n-4}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}\ge{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}$, which finishes the proof of Lemma \[14\] for these values of $n$.
Lemma \[14\] is trivially true for $n=3$, since then $\Re[a_{n-4}]\equiv0\ge{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}$.
Finally, for $n=5$ we have that $$f(y)=5y^4+4b_{n-1}y^3+3b_{n-2}y^2+2b_{n-3}y+b_{n-4}$$ has all real roots, hence by Rolle’s theorem so does its derivative $$f'(y)=20y^3+12b_{n-1}y^2+6b_{n-2}y+2b_{n-3}.$$ A classical result (see e.g. [@Usp p.289]) states that if a cubic polynomial $ax^3+bx^2+cx+d$ has all real roots then its discriminant is nonnegative, so $$18abcd-4b^3d+b^2c^2-4ac^3-27a^2d^2\ge0.$$ Applying this to $f'(y)$, we have $$-4[20][6b_{n-2}]^3-27[20]^2[2b_{n-3}]^2\ge{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{4}},$$ which implies that $2b_{n-2}^3+5b_{n-3}^2\le{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{4}}$. Since for $n=5$ we have $D_2~=~-1/6$, then by hypothesis $b_{n-2}=(-2/3)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}$, and so $$\begin{split}
b_{n-3}^2 &\le (-2/5)b_{n-2}^3+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{4}} \\
&= (16/135)(1-\beta)^3+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{7/2}}.
\end{split}$$
We also have that the first derivative of the reverse of $f$ $$4b_{n-4}y^3+6b_{n-3}y^2+6b_{n-2}y+4b_{n-1}$$ has all real roots, so applying our classical result gives $$[6b_{n-3}]^2[6b_{n-2}]^2-4[4b_{n-4}][6b_{n-2}]^3\ge{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{6}}.$$ Dividing this by $144b_{n-2}^2$ and recalling that $b_{n-2}=
(-2/3)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}$ yields $$9b_{n-3}^2+16(1-\beta)b_{n-4}\ge{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{7/2}}.$$ Combining these two inequalities implies that for $n=5$ we have $$\begin{split}
\Re[a_{n-4}] &= b_{n-4}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}} \\
&\ge \frac{-9b_{n-3}^2}{16(1-\beta)}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} \\
&\ge (-1/15)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}.
\end{split}$$ This completes the proof of Lemma \[14\].
We now begin the proof of Proposition \[5\]. Our first step will be to show that $|P|_\beta\le 1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$. Recall that $P$ satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition \[9\], so each $a_{n-k}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{k/2}}$. Let $\omega\ne 1$ be any $(n+1)$st root of $1$ and let $z$ be the root of $P$ (so $|z|\le1$) closest to $\omega$. Then in Proposition \[10\] we have $$\begin{split}
R &= (1-\beta)+a_{n-1}(\omega^n-1)/n+\dots+a_0(\omega-1) \\
&= a_{n-1}(\omega^n-1)/n+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}
\end{split}$$ and so by part 1 of Proposition \[10\] with $r=1/2$, we have $$|z|^2=1-2\Re[a_{n-1}(\omega^n-1)/n]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}.$$
Since $|z|\le1$ and $\omega^n=\overline\omega$, this implies that $\Re[a_{n-1}(\overline\omega-1)] \ge {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$. Expanding the product and noting that by Proposition \[9\] we have $\Re[a_{n-1}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$, we get that $\Im[a_{n-1}]\Im[\omega]\ge{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$. Choosing $\omega$ nonreal and repeating this argument with ${\overline\omega}$ substituted for $\omega$ provides that $\Im[a_{n-1}]\Im[{\overline\omega}]\ge{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$ and so $\Im[a_{n-1}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$. Thus we have $a_{n-1}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$.
Recall that each $a_{n-k}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{k/2}}$, so we know now that each $a_{n-k}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$. Since $\omega^{n-k}=\overline\omega^{k+1}$, by part 1 of Proposition \[10\] with $r=1$ we have $$|z|^2=1-2\Re\left[(1-\beta)+a_{n-1}\frac{\overline\omega-1}{
n}+a_{n-2}\frac{\overline\omega^2-1}{
n-1}+ a_{n-3}\frac{\overline\omega^3-1}{n-2}\right]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$
Since $|z|\le1$ this implies that $$\label{e-3.3}
-\Re\left[a_{n-1}\frac{\overline\omega-1}{
n}+a_{n-2}\frac{\overline\omega^2-1}{
n-1}+ a_{n-3}\frac{\overline\omega^3-1}{n-2}\right]\le(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$
Averaging the expressions obtained by substituting $\omega$ and $\overline\omega$ into inequality and noting that by Proposition \[9\] we have $\Re[a_{n-3}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$ we get $$\label{e-3.4}
\Re[a_{n-1}]\Re\left[\frac{1-\omega}{n}\right]+
\Re[a_{n-2}]\Re\left[\frac{1-\omega^2}{n-1}\right] \le(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$ Let $u=\Re[\omega]$. Note that since $|\omega|=1$, then $\Re[\omega^2]=2u^2-1$, so dividing inequality by $1-u$, we get $$\label{e-3.5}
\frac{\Re[a_{n-1}]}{n}+\frac{\Re[a_{n-2}]}{n-1}(2+2u)\le\frac{1-\beta
}{1-u}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$$ for each $\omega\ne1$. In particular, inequality holds for $u=u_1$ and $u=u_2$ as defined in Theorem \[1\].
Applying the linear transformation ${\mathcal T}$ defined in equation to inequality , and using the values computed in , we see that $$\label{e-3.6}
\Re[a_{n-1}]+\Re[a_{n-2}] \le(n+n D_1+D_2) (1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$
Recall that $P'(z)=\prod_{j=1}^n (z-\zeta_j)=z^n+a_{n-1}z^{n-1}+\dots+a_0$, that each $a_{n-k}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$ and that $\Re[a_{n-3}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$. Then $$\label{e-3.7}
\begin{split}
|P|_\beta^{2n}&=(\min_j|\beta-\zeta_j|)^{2n} \le
\prod_{j=1}^n |\beta-\zeta_j|^2= |P'(\beta)|^2 \\
&=P'(\beta)\overline P'(\beta)=\beta^{2n}+
2\Re[a_{n-1}]\beta^{2n-1}+ 2\Re[a_{n-2}]\beta^{2n-2}+ {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}} \\
&=1-2n(1-\beta)+2\Re[a_{n-1}]+2\Re[a_{n-2}]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}} \\
&=\big[1-(1-\beta)+
(\Re[a_{n-1}]+\Re[a_{n-2}])/n\big]^{2n}+ {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}
\end{split}$$ and so using inequalities and then we have $$\label{e-3.8}
\begin{split}
|P|_\beta &\le 1-(1-\beta)+(\Re[a_{n-1}]+\Re[a_{n-2}])/n+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}} \\
&\le 1+ (D_1+D_2/n) (1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.
\end{split}$$ This completes our first step.
Our second step will be to verify the hypotheses of part 2 of Proposition \[10\], by showing that $$\begin{aligned}
a_{n-1} &= n(1+D_1+D_2)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}, \\
a_{n-2} &= -(n-1)D_2(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}, \text{ and} \\
a_{n-k} &= {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}} \text{ for $k\ge3$} .\end{aligned}$$
Combining inequalities and , we see that $$\label{e-3.9}
|P|_\beta=1+(D_1+D_2/n) (1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$
Since equation is thus an equality, then so are equations and , and thus equation for $u=u_i$ and equations and for $\Re[\omega]=u_i$.
Since equation is an equality for $u=u_i$, we can solve the resulting linear system in the variables $\Re[a_{n-1}]$ and $\Re[a_{n-2}]$ and get $$\begin{aligned}
\Re[a_{n-1}]&= \frac{-n(u_1+u_2)}{(1-u_1)(1-u_2)}(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}} \\
&= n(1+D_1+D_2)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}} \quad\text{and} \\
\Re[a_{n-2}]&= \frac{n-1}{2(1-u_1)(1-u_2)}(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}} \\
&= -(n-1)D_2(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}. \end{aligned}$$ Note that from Proposition \[9\] we have that $\Re[a_{n-k}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$ for $k\ge3$, so we now have the correct real parts for our second step. Thus we need only show that each $\Im[a_{n-k}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}$.
Recalling the definitions of $u_1$ and $u_2$ in Theorem \[1\], we can choose $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$ to be $(n+1)$st roots of $1$ so that $\Re[\omega_i]=u_i$. For $\omega=\omega_i$, expanding the products in equality and cancelling those terms of equality gives us $$\label{e-3.10}
\frac{\Im[a_{n-1}]}{n} \Im[\omega_i]+
\frac{\Im[a_{n-2}]}{n-1} \Im[\omega_i^2]+
\frac{\Im[a_{n-3}]}{n-2} \Im[\omega_i^3]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$
Consider the case $i=1$. Since $|\omega_1|=1$ and since by part 1 of Lemma \[8\] we have $-1/2\le u_1<1$ then $\Im[\omega_1]\ne0$. Now by Proposition \[9\], $\Im[a_{n-k}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}$ for $k\ge2$, so equation implies that $\Im[a_{n-1}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}$. If $n=3$ or $n=5$ then by definition $\alpha=3/2$ so this completes our second step for those two values of $n$.
Assume then without loss of generality that $n\ne3, 5$. Again by part 1 of Lemma \[8\] we have $-1<u_2<u_1<1$ so $\Im[\omega_i]\ne0$. Thus we may divide equation by $\Im[\omega_i]$ to obtain $$\label{e-3.11}
\frac{\Im[a_{n-1}]}{n}+
\frac{\Im[a_{n-2}]}{n-1} (2 u_i)+
\frac{\Im[a_{n-3}]}{n-2} (4 u_i^2-1)={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$
Now subtracting equality with $i=2$ from equality with $i=1$ and dividing by $2(u_1-u_2)$ produces $$\label{e-3.12}
\frac{\Im[a_{n-2}]}{n-1}+ \frac{\Im[a_{n-3}]}{n-2}2(u_1+ u_2) =
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$
Since equation is an equality, we have each $|\beta-\zeta_j|=|P|_\beta+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$. Recall that $\Im[a_{n-1}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}$ and that $|P|_\beta=1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$. Then by part 1 of Lemma \[13\] we have $\Im[a_{n-2}]=(-3/2)\Im[a_{n-3}]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}$, so substituting into we have $$\Im[a_{n-3}]\left[\frac{-3/2\ }{n-1} + \frac{2(u_1+u_2)}{n-2}\right]=
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$ Now by part 2 of Lemma \[8\], we have $u_1+u_2<0$ so the quantity in brackets is non-zero. Then $\Im[a_{n-3}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$, and so solving back in equations and we find that $\Im[a_{n-k}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$ for all $k\le 3$. Note that by Proposition \[9\], we have $a_{n-k}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$ for all $k \ge 4$, and so $\Im[a_{n-k}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$ for all $k$. Since $n\ne3, 5$ then by definition $\alpha=2$ and so this finishes the proof of our second step.
We will now finish the proof of Proposition \[5\]. Consider only those roots $z$ of $P$ such that the nearest $\omega$ has $\Re[\omega]=u_i$. In our second step, we verified the hypotheses of part 2 of Proposition \[10\], so we have $$|z|^{2n+2}=1-2(n+1)\Re[R]+(n+1)(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_i)(1-\beta)^2+
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.$$
Since $|z|\le1$, this implies that $$-\Re[R]\le -\frac{\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_i}{2}(1-\beta)^2+ {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}$$ and so from the definition of $R$ in Proposition \[10\] we have $$\begin{gathered}
-\Re\left[ a_{n-1}\frac{\overline\omega-1}{n}
+ a_{n-2}\frac{\overline\omega^2-1}{n-1} +\dots+a_0(\omega-1)
\right] \\
\le (1-\beta)-\frac{\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_i}{2}(1-\beta)^2+
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.\end{gathered}$$ Since $\Re({\overline\omega})=u_i$, this inequality is also valid when $\omega$ is replaced by ${\overline\omega}$. Note that by Proposition \[9\] we have $\Re[a_{n-k}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}$ for $k\ge5$, so averaging these two inequalities gives us $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e-3.13}
\frac{\Re[a_{n-1}]}{n}\Re[1-\omega]+\dots+
\frac{\Re[a_{n-4}]}{n-3}\Re[1-\omega^4] \\
\le(1-\beta)-\frac{\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_i}{2}(1-\beta)^2+ {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.\end{gathered}$$
Note that since $|\omega|=1$, then $\Re[\omega^2]=2u_i^2-1$, $\Re[\omega^3]=4u_i^3-3u_i$ and $\Re[\omega^4]=8u_i^4-8u_i^2+1$. Dividing inequality by $1-u_i$, we get $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{\Re[a_{n-1}]}{n}
+\frac{\Re[a_{n-2}]}{n-1} (2+2u_i)
+\frac{\Re[a_{n-3}]}{n-2}(1+4u_i+4u_i^2)
+\frac{\Re[a_{n-4}]}{n-3}(8u_i^2+8u_i^3) \\
\le \frac{1-\beta}{1-u_i}- \frac{(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_i)(1-\beta)^2}{
2(1-u_i)}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}. \end{gathered}$$ Applying to this the linear transformation ${\mathcal T}$ defined in and using the values computed in , we get an inequality of the form $$\label{e-3.14}
\begin{split}
\Re[a_{n-1}] &+ \Re[a_{n-2}]+c_3\Re[a_{n-3}]+c_4\Re[a_{n-4}] \\
&\le (n+nD_1+D_2)(1-\beta) \\
&\qquad-\big[(\Gamma_1/2)(n+nD_1+D_2)+
(\Gamma_2/2)(nD_1+D_2)\big](1-\beta)^2 \\
&\qquad+ {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}},
\end{split}$$ where $c_3={\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)/(n-2)$ and $c_4={\mathcal T}(8u^2+8u^3)/(n-3)$.
Define $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e-3.15}
Q = (-\Gamma_1/2)(n+nD_1+D_2)- (\Gamma_2/2)(nD_1+D_2) \\
-(n-1)(n-2)(1-c_3)D_2(1+D_1+D_2/ n).\end{gathered}$$
Recall from our second step that for all $n$ we have that $\Im[a_{n-1}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}$, and that $\Re[a_{n-2}]=-(n-\nobreak1)D_2(1-\nobreak\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$, and that each $|\zeta_j-\beta|=1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$. Then by part 2 of Lemma \[13\], we have $$\Re[a_{n-3}]+2\Re[a_{n-4}]=-(n-1)(n-2)D_2(1+D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)^2+
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}.$$
Adding $1-c_3$ times this to inequality gives us $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e-3.16}
\Re[a_{n-1}]+\Re[a_{n-2}]+\Re[a_{n-3}]+(2-2c_3+c_4)\Re[a_{n-4}] \\
\le (n+nD_1+D_2)(1-\beta)+Q(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}. \end{gathered}$$
Note that Lemma \[11\] implies that $c_3<1/2$ for $n\ne3$, 4, and 6 and that $c_4\ge0$ for all $n$. Using the definition of ${\mathcal T}$ in , we calculate that for $n=4$ we have $c_3=3/2$ and $c_4=4$, and for $n=6$ we have $c_3=0.729$ and $c_4=0.972$. Thus for all $n\ge4$ we have $1-2c_3+c_4>0$. Note also that by our second step and Lemma \[14\] we have $\Re[a_{n-4}]\ge\delta(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}$. Since $\delta=0$ except when $n=5$, and for $n=5$ we calculate $c_3=1/3$ and $c_4=2$, then $$\begin{split}
-(1-2c_3+c_4)\Re[a_{n-4}] &\le
-(1-2c_3+c_4)\delta(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}} \\
&=(-7\delta/3)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.
\end{split}$$ Adding this to equation gives us $$\begin{gathered}
\label{e-3.17}
\Re[a_{n-1}+a_{n-2}+a_{n-3}+a_{n-4}] \\
\le (n+nD_1+D_2)(1-\beta)+
(Q-7\delta/3)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.\end{gathered}$$
Let $$\begin{aligned}
Q_1&=-n(1-\beta)+a_{n-1}+a_{n-2}+a_{n-3}+a_{n-4}+a_{n-5}
\quad\text{and} \\
Q_2&=n(n-1)(1-\beta)^2/2-\big[(n-1)a_{n-1}+(n-2)a_{n-2}\big](1-\beta).\end{aligned}$$
Recall from our first step that each $a_{n-k}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$ so $Q_1={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$ and $Q_2={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$.
Now from our second step we know that $a_{n-k}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}$ for $k\ge3$, and from Proposition \[9\] we know that $a_{n-k}={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}$ for $k\ge6$, so $$\begin{split}
P'(\beta)&=\beta^n+a_{n-1}\beta^{n-1}+\dots+a_0 \\
&=1-n(1-\beta)+\frac{n(n-1)}{2}(1-\beta)^2
+a_{n-1}\big[1-(n-1)(1-\beta)\big] \\
&\qquad +a_{n-2}\big[1-(n-2)(1-\beta)\big]
+a_{n-3}+a_{n-4}+a_{n-5}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}} \\
&=1+Q_1+Q_2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.
\end{split}$$
Then $|P'(\beta)|^2=P'(\beta)\overline{P'(\beta)}=
1+2\Re[Q_1]+2\Re[Q_2] +|Q_1|^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}$. Note from our second step that each $\Im[a_{n-k}]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}$ so $\Im[Q_1]={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha}}$. Then $(1+\Re[Q_1]+\Re[Q_2])^2= |P'(\beta)|^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}$ and so $|P'(\beta)|=1+\Re[Q_1]+\Re[Q_2]+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}$. Substituting the values of $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ and using the results of our second step gives us $$\label{e-3.18}
\begin{split}
|P'(\beta)| &=1-n(1-\beta)+\Re[a_{n-1}+a_{n-2}+a_{n-3}+a_{n-4}] \\
&\qquad +(n-1)\big[n/2-n(1+D_1+D_2)+
(n-2)D_2\big](1-\beta)^2 \\
&\qquad+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.
\end{split}$$
Using the first line of inequality , then inequalities and , we have $$\label{e-3.19}
\begin{split}
|P|_\beta^n &\le |P'(\beta)| \\
&\le 1+(nD_1+D_2)(1-\beta) \\
&\qquad +\big[Q-7\delta/3
-(n-1)(n/2+nD_1+2D_2)\big](1-\beta)^2 \\
&\qquad+ {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.
\end{split}$$
We seek now to compute the coefficient of $(1-\beta)^2$ in this inequality. Note first that from the definitions of $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ in Proposition \[10\] we have $$\begin{split}
-\frac{\Gamma_1}{2}(n+nD_1+D_2)&-\frac{\Gamma_2}{2}(nD_1+D_2) \\
& = -\frac{\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2}{2}(n+nD_1+D_2)+\frac{n\Gamma_2}{2} \\
& =\left[ (1+2D_1)n-\left(\frac{1}{2}+2D_1-2D_2\right) \right]
\big[(1+D_1)n+D_2
\big] \\
&\qquad+ n(1+D_1+D_2) \big[nD_2+(D_1-2D_2)\big].
\end{split}$$
Now from the definition of $c_3$ (after inequality ) combined with equalities we have $(n-2)c_3D_2=-(n+1+D_1+3nD_1+3D_2)$ and so $$(n-2)(1-c_3)D_2=(1+3D_1+D_2)n+(1+D_1+D_2).$$ Substituting these values into equation and collecting like powers of $n$, we conclude that $$\begin{gathered}
Q=\big[-D_1-D_1^2+D_2^2\big]n^2+
\left[-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}D_1+D_1^2-3D_2^2\right]n \\
+ \left[1+2D_1+\frac{1}{2}D_2+D_1^2+D_1D_2+2D_2^2\right]
+\big[D_2+D_1D_2+D_2^2\big]/n\end{gathered}$$ and so comparing this with the definition of $D$ in Theorem \[1\], we see that $$\label{e-3.20}
Q-(n-1)(n/2+nD_1+2D_2)=nD+\frac{n(n-1)}{2}(D_1+D_2/n)^2.$$ Substituting this into inequality , we have $$\begin{split}
|P|_\beta^n &\le 1+(nD_1+D_2)(1-\beta) \\
&\qquad+ \left[nD+\frac{n(n-1)}{2}(D_1+D_2/n)^2
-7\delta/3\right](1-\beta)^2
+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}} \\
&=\left[1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+
\left(D-\frac{7\delta}{3n}\right)(1-\beta)^2\right]^n+
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.
\end{split}$$ Note that (from the definitions of $\delta$ in Lemma \[14\] and $\Delta$ in Theorem \[1\]) for all $n$ we have $\Delta=-7\delta/(3n)$, and so $$|P|_\beta \le 1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+
(D+\Delta)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.$$ This completes the proof of Proposition \[5\].
Proof of Proposition \[6\]
==========================
This proof parallels the proof of [@Mil-3 Theorem 2]. We begin by letting $$\begin{aligned}
u &= \frac{-i\sqrt{15}}{15}(1-\beta)^{1/2}-\frac{6}{10}(1-\beta)+
\frac{i\sqrt{15}}{300}(1-\beta)^{3/2}- \frac{33}{600}(1-\beta)^2 \\
\noalign{\text{\noindent and}}
v &=
\frac{4i\sqrt{15}}{15}(1-\beta)^{1/2}-\frac{1}{10}(1-\beta)+
\frac{46i\sqrt{15}}{300}(1-\beta)^{3/2}+ \frac{532}{600}(1-\beta)^2.\end{aligned}$$ Let $P'(z)=(z-u)^4(z-v)$ and let $P(z)=\int_\beta^zP'(t)\,dt$. Note that $u-\beta=-1+u+(1-\beta)$ so $$\begin{split}
|u-\beta|^2 &= \big[-1+(4/10)(1-\beta)-(33/600)(1-\beta)^2\big]^2 \\
&\qquad+ \big[(-\sqrt{15}/15)(1-\beta)^{1/2}+
(\sqrt{15}/300)(1-\beta)^{3/2}\big]^2 \\
&= 1-(11/15)(1-\beta)+ (79/300)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}
\end{split}$$ and $v-\beta=-1+v+(1-\beta)$ so $$\begin{split}
|v-\beta|^2&=\big[-1+(9/10)(1-\beta)+(532/600)(1-\beta)^2\big]^2 \\
&\qquad + \big[(4\sqrt{15}/15)(1-\beta)^{1/2}+
(46\sqrt{15}/300)(1-\beta)^{3/2}\big]^2 \\
&=1-(11/15)(1-\beta)+(79/300)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}.
\end{split}$$ Now $$\begin{gathered}
\big[1-(11/30)(1-\beta)+(29/450)(1-\beta)^2\big]^2 \\
=1-(11/15)(1-\beta)+(79/300)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}},\end{gathered}$$ and so we have $$\begin{split}
|P|_\beta &= \min\{|u-\beta|,|v-\beta|\} \\
&= 1-(11/30)(1-\beta)+ (29/450)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}.
\end{split}$$
By definition $P$ is of degree 6 and $P(\beta)=0$. Thus to verify that $P \in S(6,\beta)$ we need only show that all the roots of $P$ remain in the closed unit disk when $\beta$ is sufficiently close to 1. Now $$\begin{aligned}
u^2 &= (-1/15)(1-\beta)+ (2i\sqrt{15}/25)(1-\beta)^{3/2}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}, \\
u^3 &= (i\sqrt{15}/225)(1-\beta)^{3/2}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}},\quad\text{and} \\
u^4 &= {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}},\end{aligned}$$ so writing $P'(z)=z^5+a_4z^4+\dots+a_0$, we calculate that $$\begin{aligned}
a_4 &= -(4u+v)=(5/2)(1-\beta)-(i\sqrt{15}/6)(1-\beta)^{3/2}-
(2/3)(1-\beta)^2 \\
a_3 &= u(6u+4v) \\
&= (2/3)(1-\beta)- (2i\sqrt{15}/15)(1-\beta)^{3/2}+
3(1-\beta)^2+ {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} \\
a_2 &= -u^2(4u+6v)=(4i\sqrt{15}/45)(1-\beta)^{3/2}+
(7/5)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} \\
a_1 &= u^3(u+4v) = (-1/15)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} \\
a_0 &= -u^4v = {\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}.\end{aligned}$$
Recall from the values computed at the beginning of section 2 that for $n=5$ we have $\alpha=3/2$, $u_1=-1/2$, $u_2=-1$, $D_1=-1/3$ and $D_2=-1/6$. Note that in part 2 of Proposition \[10\] the values of the $a_k$’s computed above satisfy the hypotheses, and that $\Gamma_2=-5/6$ and $\Gamma_1=-13/6$.
Let us apply part 2 of Proposition \[10\] to the case $\omega=-1$. Note that $\Re[\omega]=u_2$ and $\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_2=-4/3$. Since $\omega=-1$ we have $$R = (1-\beta)-(2/5)a_4-(2/3)a_2-2a_0,$$ and so $$\begin{split}
\Re[R] &= (1-\beta)- (2/5)\big[(5/2)(1-\beta)-
(2/3)(1-\beta)^2\big] \\
&\qquad- (2/3)(7/5)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} \\
&=(-2/3)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}.
\end{split}$$ Thus by part 2 of Proposition \[10\] we have $$\begin{split}
|z|^{12} &= 1-12(-2/3)(1-\beta)^2+6(-4/3)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} \\
&= 1+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}},
\end{split}$$ and so $|z|=1+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}$.
Let us now apply part 2 of Proposition \[10\] to the case $\omega=(1/2)(-1\pm i\sqrt3)$. Note that $\Re[\omega]=u_1$ and $\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_1=-7/4$. Now $$\begin{gathered}
R=(1-\beta)+(a_4/10)(-3\mp i\sqrt3)+ (a_3/8)(-3\pm i\sqrt3) \\
+(a_1/4)(-3\mp i\sqrt3)+ (a_0/2)(-3\pm i\sqrt3)\end{gathered}$$ so $$\begin{split}
\Re[R] &= (1-\beta)-
(3/10)\big[(5/2)(1-\beta)-(2/3)(1-\beta)^2\big] \\
&\qquad\pm (\sqrt3/10)(-\sqrt{15}/6)(1-\beta)^{3/2}-
(3/8)\big[(2/3)(1-\beta)+3(1-\beta)^2\big] \\
&\qquad \mp (\sqrt3/8)(-2\sqrt{15}/15)(1-\beta)^{3/2}-
(3/4)(-1/15)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} \\
&=(-7/8)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}.
\end{split}$$ Thus by part 2 of Proposition \[10\] we have $$\begin{split}
|z|^{12} &= 1-12(-7/8)(1-\beta)^2+6(-7/4)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}} \\
&=1+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}},
\end{split}$$ so $|z|=1+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}$.
Finally, let us apply part 1 of Proposition \[10\] with $r=1$ to the case $\omega=(1/2)(1\pm\nobreak i\sqrt3)$. Note that $$R = (1-\beta)+(a_4/10)(-1\mp i\sqrt3)+ (a_3/8)(-3\mp
i\sqrt3)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}$$ so $$\begin{split}
\Re[R]&=(1-\beta)+(-1/10)(5/2)(1-\beta)+
(-3/8)(2/3)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}} \\
&=(1/2)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}.
\end{split}$$ Thus by part 1 of Proposition \[10\] we have $|z|^2=1-(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}$ and so $|z|=1-(1/2)(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3/2}}$.
At this stage, we know that $|P|_\beta= 1-(11/30)(1-\beta)+
(29/450)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}$ and that if $\beta$ is sufficiently close to $1$ then all roots $z$ of $P$ have $|z|\le1+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}$. Since the roots of $P$ approach the roots of $z^6-1$, then the non-$\beta$ roots of $P$ are bounded away from $\beta$. Thus by Lemma \[12\], there is a polynomial $Q \in S(6,\beta)$ with $|Q|_\beta=
1-(11/30)(1-\beta)+ (29/450)(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{5/2}}$. This completes the proof of Proposition \[6\].
Proof of Proposition \[7\]
==========================
Let $b_1=1+D_1+D_2/n$, let $b_2=(n-1)D_2$, and let $z_0=-b_1(1-\beta)-D(1-\beta)^2$. Then $z_0-\beta=-1+(1-b_1)(1-\beta) -D(1-\beta)^2$, and (for $\beta$ near $1$) this is real and negative so $|z_0-\beta|=1+
(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+D(1-\beta)^2$.
Now let $x$ be a real constant, depending only on $n$ (and to be determined later), and let $$\begin{gathered}
q(z)=z^2+ \big[(b_2+2b_1)(1-\beta)-2x(1-\beta)^2 \big] z \\
+\big[-b_2(1-\beta)+ (b_1^2+b_2+2D+2x)(1-\beta)^2\big].\end{gathered}$$ Now by part 4 of Lemma \[8\] we have $D_2<0$ and so $b_2<0$. Since the discriminant of $q(z)$ is $4b_2(1-\beta)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}$, then (for $\beta$ near $1$) the roots of $q$ are complex conjugates. If we denote these roots by $z_1$ and $\overline z_1$ then by writing $\beta=1-(1-\beta)$ we have $$\begin{split}
|z_1-\beta|^2 &= (z_1-\beta)(\overline z_1-\beta)=q(\beta) \\
&= 1+(2b_1-2)(1-\beta)+(1-2b_1+b_1^2+2D)(1-\beta)^2
+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}} \\
&=\big[1+(b_1-1)(1-\beta)+D(1-\beta)^2\big]^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}
\end{split}$$ so $|z_1-\beta|=1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+D(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}$.
Let $P'(z)=(z-z_0)^{n-2}q(z)$ and $P(z)=\int_\beta^z P'(t)\,dt$, so $$|P|_\beta=1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+D(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}.$$
Now $z_0={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{}}$ so $$\begin{split}
(z-z_0)^{n-2} &= z^{n-2}-(n-2)z_0z^{n-3}+\binom{n-2}2
z_0^2z^{n-4}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}} \\
&= z^{n-2}+(n-2)\big[b_1(1-\beta)
+D(1-\beta)^2\big]z^{n-3} \\
&\qquad+ \binom{n-2}2 b_1^2(1-\beta)^2z^{n-4}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}.
\end{split}$$ Then letting $t_1=(n^2-n)b_1^2/2+(n-2)b_1b_2+b_2$ we have $$\label{e-5.1}
\begin{split}
P'(z) &= (z-z_0)^{n-2}q(z) \\
&= z^n+ \big[(nb_1+b_2)(1-\beta)+
(nD-2D-2x)(1-\beta)^2\big]z^{n-1} \\
&\qquad+ \big[-b_2(1-\beta)+
(t_1+2D+2x)(1-\beta)^2\big]z^{n-2} \\
&\qquad-(n-2)b_1b_2(1-\beta)^2z^{n-3}+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}.
\end{split}$$
Note that by its definition, $P$ is a polynomial of degree $n+1$ and $P(\beta)=0$. Thus to show that $P\in S(n+1,\beta)$ it will suffice to show that all roots of $P$ remain in the unit disk when $\beta$ is sufficiently close to $1$.
Let $\omega\ne1$ be an $(n+1)$th root of $1$, let $u=\Re[\omega]$ and note that since $|\omega|=1$ then $\Re[\omega^2]=2u^2-1$, $\Re[\omega^3]=4u^3-3u$, and $\omega^{n-k}={\overline\omega}^{k+1}$. Substituting the coefficients of equation into the formula for $R$ in Proposition \[10\], we have $$\begin{gathered}
R=(1-\beta)+(nb_1+b_2)(1-\beta)({\overline\omega}-1)/n \\
-b_2(1-\beta)({\overline\omega}^2-1)/(n-1)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}. \end{gathered}$$ Substituting the values of $b_1$ and $b_2$ into this formula, we see by part 1 of Proposition \[10\] with $r=1$ that $$|z|^2=1-2(1-\beta)\big[1+(1+D_1+D_2)(u-1)-D_2(2u^2-2)\big] +{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{2}}.$$
Recall from part 4 of Lemma \[8\] that $D_2<0$, so the quantity in square brackets is quadratic in $u$ with positive leading coefficient. By elementary calculus, its minimum (over all real numbers) occurs when $1+D_1+D_2-4D_2u=0$, which happens when $u=(1+D_1+D_2)/(4D_2)=
(u_1+u_2)/2$, which is between $u_1$ and $u_2$. Now $u_1$ and $u_2$ are (by definition) the real parts of adjacent $(n+1)$th roots of $1$, so there are no possible values of $u$ between $u_1$ and $u_2$, so the minimum (over all possible values of $u$) must occur at either $u_1$ or $u_2$. From part 7 of Lemma \[8\] we see that at these values the quantity in square brackets is $0$, and so the minimum value of the quantity in square brackets is 0. Thus for $\Re[\omega]\ne u_i$ the quantity in square brackets is positive, so for these values of $\omega$ and for $\beta$ sufficiently close to $1$ we have $|z|<1$, and so these roots remain in the unit disk.
Thus we need only concern ourselves with the case $\Re[\omega]=u_i$. In this case, by part 2 of Proposition \[10\] we have $$|z|^{2n+2}=1-2(n+1)\Re[R]+(n+1)(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_i)(1-\beta)^2+
{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.$$ To get $P \in S(n+1,\beta)$ we will seek a value of $x$ so that $|z|=1+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}$, so we will need $$\label{e-5.2}
\Re[R]-(1/2)(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_i)(1-\beta)^2={\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}$$ for both $i=1$ and $i=2$.
Substituting the coefficients of equation into the formula for $R$ in Proposition \[10\], we have $$\label{e-5.3}
\begin{split}
R &= (1-\beta)+\big[(nb_1+b_2)(1-\beta)+ (nD-2D-2x)(1-\beta)^2\big]
({\overline\omega}-1)/n \\
&\qquad+\big[-b_2(1-\beta)+ (t_1+2D+2x)(1-\beta)^2 \big]
({\overline\omega}^2-1)/(n-1) \\
&\qquad-(n-2)b_1b_2(1-\beta)^2({\overline\omega}^3-1)/(n-2)+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}.
\end{split}$$ Taking the real parts of equation and collecting like powers of $(1-\beta)$ gives us $$\begin{split}
\Re[R] &= \big[1+(nb_1+b_2)(u_i-1)/n-
b_2(2u_i^2-2)/(n-1)\big](1-\beta) \\
&\qquad+ \bigg[(nD-2D-2x)(u_i-1)/n+
(t_1+2D+2x)(2u_i^2-2)/(n-1) \\
&\qquad\qquad -b_1b_2(4u_i^3-3u_i-1)\bigg](1-\beta)^2 +{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}.
\end{split}$$
Substituting the values of $b_1$ and $b_2$ into this formula, we see from part 7 of Lemma \[8\] that the coefficient of $(1-\beta)$ in $\Re[R]$ is zero, so to satisfy equation we need only find a value of $x$ such that the coefficient of $(1-\beta)^2$ in equation is 0. We divide this coefficient by $u_i-1$ and denote the result by $Z_i$, so $$\begin{gathered}
Z_i=(nD-2D-2x)/n+(t_1+2D+2x)(2u_i+2)/(n-1) \\
-(n-1)D_2(1+D_1+D_2/n)(4u_ i^2+4u_i+1)+
(1/2)(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2u_i)/(1-u_i).\end{gathered}$$
Note that the coefficient of $x$ in $Z_i$ is $-2/n+(4u_i+4)/(n-1)$, which is nonzero by part 3 of Lemma \[8\], so each equation $Z_i=0$ has a solution for $x$. To show that these solutions are identical, we will show that $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ (considered as linear expressions in the variable $x$) are scalar multiples of each other.
To see this, we eliminate $x$ by applying the transformation ${\mathcal T}$ defined in equation . Since in equation we defined $c_3={\mathcal T}(1+4u+4u^2)/(n-2)$, then from equations we see that $$\begin{gathered}
{\mathcal T}(Z_i)=nD+t_1-(n-1)(n-2)c_3D_2(1+D_1+D_2/n) \\
+(\Gamma_1/2)(n+nD_1 + D _2)+(\Gamma_2/2)(nD_1+D_2).\end{gathered}$$ Comparing this to the value of $Q$ defined in equation , we see that $$\label{e-5.4}
{\mathcal T}(Z_i)=nD+t_1-Q-(n-1)(n-2)D_2(1+D_1+D_2/n).$$
Note that by equation we have $$Q=nD+\frac{n(n-1)}{2}(D_1+D_2/n)^2+(n-1)(n/2+nD_1+2D_2).$$ Substituting the values of $b_1$ and $b_2$ into our definition of $t_1$ gives us $$t_1=(n-1)\big[(n/2)(1+D_1+D_2/n)^2+(n-2)D_2(1+D_1+D_2/n)+D_2\big]$$ and so $Q-t_1=nD-(n-1)(n-2)D_2(1+D_1+D_2/n)$. Substituting this into equation gives us ${\mathcal T}(Z_i)=0$. Since ${\mathcal T}(Z_i)$ is a linear combination of $Z_1$ and $Z_2$, this implies that $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ (considered as polynomials in $x$) are scalar multiples of one another, and so there is a single value of $x$ that satisfies equation for both $i=1$ and $i=2$.
Using this value of $x$, we have now constructed a real polynomial $P$ with $$|P|_\beta=1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+ D(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{3}}$$ and such that all roots $z$ of $P$ have $|z|\le1+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}$. Since the roots of $P$ approach the roots of $z^{n+1}-1$, then the non-$\beta$ roots of $P$ are bounded away from $\beta$. Thus by Lemma \[12\], there is a real polynomial $Q \in S(n+1,\beta)$ with $$|Q|_\beta=1+(D_1+D_2/n)(1-\beta)+ D(1-\beta)^2+{\mathcal O({1-\beta})^{\alpha+1}}.$$ This finishes the proof of Proposition \[7\].
[99]{}
B. D. Bojanov, Q. I. Rahman and J. Szynal, *On a conjecture of Sendov about the critical points of a polynomial*, Math. Z. **190** (1985), 281–285.
*On a conjecture about the critical points of a polynomial*, Delay Equations, Approximation and Application, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1985, 83–93.
J. Borcea, *The Sendov conjecture for polynomials with at most seven distinct zeros*, Analysis **16** (1996), 137–159.
J. E. Brown and G. Xiang, *Proof of the Sendov conjecture for polynomials of degree at most eight*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. **232** (1999), 272–292.
M. Marden, *Geometry of Polynomials*, 3rd Ed., American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1989.
M. J. Miller, *Maximal polynomials and the Ilieff-Sendov conjecture*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. **321** (1990), 285–303.
*On Sendov’s conjecture for roots near the unit circle*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. **175** (1993), 632–639.
*Some maximal polynomials must be nonreal*, J. Math. Anal. Appl. **214** (1997), 283–291.
Q. I. Rahman, *On the zeros of a polynomial and its derivative*, Pacific J. Math. **41** (1972), 525–528.
Z. Rubinstein, *On a problem of Ilyeff*, Pacific J. Math. **26** (1968), 159–161.
J. V. Uspensky, *Theory of Equations*, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1948.
V. Vâjâitu and A. Zaharescu, *Ilyeff’s conjecture on a corona*, Bull. London Math. Soc. **25** (1993), 49-54.
[^1]: 30-Sep-2003
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
- 'standard.bib'
- 'LHCb-PAPER.bib'
- 'LHCb-CONF.bib'
- 'LHCb-DP.bib'
- 'LHCb-TDR.bib'
---
=1
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.